Infrastructure

Design Studio
Infrastructure Design Studio Ltd
The Stables
Thomas Street
Cirencester
Gloucestershire
GL7 2AX
Tel: 01285 655008

No. 52 The Avenue,

Minehead

Flood Risk Assessment

22 May 2010

Project Number 1099

Author M.Jones I Eng. AMICE
No. 52 The Avenue, Minehead - Flood Risk Assessment

Contents Page

1. Introduction 3

2. Development Description & Location 3

3. Flood Hazard 3

4. Flood Probability & Run-off 4

5. Climate Change 5

6. Detailed Development Proposals 6

7. Flood Risk Management Measures 9

8. Off Site Impacts 10

9. Residual Risk 10

Appendices

Appendix A: Wessex Water correspondence 11

Appendix B: Pre- development run-off rates 12

Appendix C: Pre & post development run-off volumes 15

for 100yr 6hr storm

Appendix D: Soakaway Test Porosity Rates 17

Appendix E: Existing and Proposed Catchment Areas 18

Page 2 of 18
No. 52 The Avenue, Minehead - Flood Risk Assessment

1 Introduction

1.1 This assessment is based on the requirements and pro forma described in Development and Flood
Risk: A Practice Guide June 2008 published by the Department for Communities and Local
Government. It has been prepared in order to meet the requirements of the Code for Sustainable
Homes (Sur 1 - Category 4 Surface Water Run-Off) whereby the provision of a Flood Risk
Assessment can gain 2 credits (Sur 2 - Flood Risk) if it can be demonstrated that the site is in Flood
Zone 1 and there is a low probability of flooding from all sources or can gain 1 credit if the
development is in zone 2 but all habitable parts of dwellings and access routes are placed at least
600mm above the design flood level of the flood zone.

2 Development Description & Location

2.1 The proposed development occupies the curtilage of No. 52 The Avenue, Minehead post code TA24
5BB and essentially comprises construction of 2 mews blocks with an associated parking area to
replace existing informal parking area and garages. Some demolition and reconstruction of
extensions to No.52 itself are also proposed.

2.2 Based on Table D.2. of PPS25, the vulnerability classification of the development is More
Vulnerable, falling under the description of; Buildings used for: dwelling houses; student halls of
residence; drinking establishments; nightclubs and hotels.

3 Flood Hazard

3.1 Exmoor National Park Authority and West Somerset Council have jointly carried out a Level 1
Strategic Flood Risk Assessment which includes the Minehead area. An extract from the SFRA
mapping is shown in Figure 1.

The Site

Figure 1.
Level 1 SFRA
Map Extract

Page 3 of 18
No. 52 The Avenue, Minehead - Flood Risk Assessment

3.2 Fluvial and Tidal Flooding - From the flood mapping, the area of the site is in Flood Zone 2. The
definition of Zone 2 in PPS25 is as follows; This zone comprises land assessed as having between
a 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 annual probability of river flooding (1% - 0.1%) or between a 1 in 200 and 1
in 1000 annual probability of sea flooding (0.5% - 0.1%) in any year. The flooding indicated on the
SFRA mapping has been derived from tidal flood models and the wording of the SFRA suggests that
it does not take any account of defences that may be in place. The mapping reflects only tidal
flooding and does not currently incorporate the effects of the river outfall into the sea being restricted
in order to prevents high tides surcharging back up the Bratton Stream culvert. A written statement
from the Environment Agency about the levels of fluvial and tidal floodwater is currently awaited and
at the time of writing only a verbal quotation given on 26.05.10 is available. This says that the tidal
flood level is considered to be 7.18m AOD and that there are no levels assigned to fluvial flooding.
The site ground levels range from 8.15m to 9.25m AOD. Whereas the SFRA suggests that fluvial
flooding may worsen due to the effects of tidal flooding at the outfall of the Bratton Stream, we
consider that the annual risk of recurrence of a 1:200 yr tidal flood coinciding with a high flow in the
Bratton Stream is, by definition, greater than 1:200 (0.5%). Following our enquiries into actual flood
levels at the development site, The Environment Agency have verbally confirmed that they are
currently reviewing the flood levels and patterns through Minehead and should be able to provide a
more accurate flood level in the near future. Until this better data is available we consider that the
risk of direct fluvial flooding on the site is between 1:100yrs and 1:200 years (1% to 0.5% annual risk
of recurrence).

3.3 Flooding from Drains, Sewers and Burst Water Mains - The flood map extract indicates recorded
flooding events from a number of sources as indicated in the key. The map shows no recorded flood
incidents that would suggest a risk to the site. There are existing public sewers near to the site and
these will inevitably have a limited capacity so in extreme conditions there would be surcharges,
probably giving rise to overland flows, which may in turn cause flooding. Potential overland flows will
need to be considered in the detailed planning of the site levels to ensure that surface water flow in
the adjacent streets is not encouraged into the site where it could damage the building fabric and
contents. Overland flows could also be generated by burst water mains but these would tend to be of
a restricted and much lower volume than weather generated events and so can be discounted for
the purposes of this assessment.

3.4 Groundwater Flooding Groundwater levels are unlikely to represent a flood risk in this location
particularly as no basements are proposed. However the underlying soils have been proven to be
quite porous so sustained periods of rainfall may potentially give rise to high (perched) groundwater
levels locally. This needs to be considered in the design of ground floors and foundations to avoid
future problems of upward water penetration.

3.5 Flooding from land Flooding from land refers to direct run-off from adjacent higher ground that in
flash flood conditions could generate significant flood flows onto the site, separate from any effects
of fluvial flooding from a watercourse. The site surroundings are relatively flat and there are no large
catchments that would tend to generate concentrated run-off towards the site. Provided the buildings
are set above their adjacent ground levels by a reasonable amount, the risk of flooding from land is
considered negligible.

3.6 Flooding from Other Artificial Sources there are no nearby artificial water bodies or water channels
not associated with the fluvial flooding described previously that could be considered a flood risk to
the property.

4 Flood Probability & Run-off

4.1 Probabilities can be determined where there is a volume of historic information that can be analysed
or where there is a design process into which probability factors can be used as part of the design
variables. Therefore whereas the probabilities of fluvial flooding and flooding from the proposed
drainage systems can be ascertained with reasonable confidence, there is currently no reliable or
sufficiently accurate data regarding flooding incidents due to burst water mains, direct surface run-off
from higher ground etc. for this site. Therefore for the purposes of this assessment they are treated
as entirely random events and are considered to be dealt with by providing adequate level difference

Page 4 of 18
No. 52 The Avenue, Minehead - Flood Risk Assessment

between the floor levels and the adjacent street/ground levels.

4.2 Fluvial flooding - From the flood mapping shown in Section 3, the probability of fluvial flooding on the
site is considered to be between 1:100yrs and 1:200 years (1% to 0.5% annual risk of recurrence).

4.3 Overland Flows - Overland flows could be generated by surcharged drainage systems and direct
surface run-off from the adjacent road systems. Such flows would tend to be confined to the streets
around the development. Given the design parameters normally used for drainage design in recent
times and allowing for some deterioration in the performance of the installed systems, which are
likely to have been in place for may years, an appropriate flood risk probability from this source could
be assumed to have a return period in the order of 1:10 to 1:20 years or an annual probability of
between 10% and 5%. The provision of adequate level difference between the ground floors and
adjacent ground level would reduce the annual probability of damage to property from this source to
1% or less. For economy of design, and as stipulated in current Building Regulations, the on-site
drainage systems for the new development will only be required to contain the proposed run-off from
up to and including 30 year return period (3.33% annual probability) storm events. Beyond this the
new drains would start to overflow and this could add to the potential surface flows already
discussed. However, the Code for Sustainable Homes requirement for 100 year return period design
will demand that these surface flows are contained within the drainage reticulation or alternatively
forced to re-enter the system prior to any attenuation storage if required. This will be addressed in
the detailed drainage design to ensure that a 1% annual probability of flooding is achieved.

4.4 Site Run-off - The probability of flooding in the downstream catchment due to run-off from the site is
an important part of the PPS25 process and receives particular focus in the Code for Sustainable
Homes as it applies to this site. Post development there will be a slight increase in the proportion of
hard cover and this, together with the allowances for climate change driven by the Code for
Sustainable Homes, would generate higher surface water run-off post-development. If uncontrolled,
this could in turn increase the risk of flooding in the downstream catchment. Agreement has been
sought with Wessex Water (WW) to discharge stormwater into their adjacent sewer system on the
basis that at least part of the site currently discharges in this way (See WW correspondence
Appendix. A). However, to comply with the Code, the site drainage needs to be developed with a
discharge rate no greater than the pre-development run-off rate (including allowances for climate
change) and the volume of run-off also needs to be restricted to pre development rates where
possible. Thus the Code constraints will drive the drainage design, which should minimise the
discharge (if any) to the WW system. Provided the appropriate infiltration systems and attenuation
storage (further discussed in Section 6) are installed to meet these requirements, the risk of
downstream flooding would not be increased above the pre development risk for all storms up to and
including the 1:100 year (1% annual probability) climate change adjusted storm event.

5 Climate Change

5.1 The drainage design for the development must include allowances for climate change, which for
residential development should include a 30% increase in rainfall intensity. Provided such a system
is installed, the risk of downstream flooding would not be increased above the pre development risk
for all storms up to and including the 1:100 year event. The parameters to be used in designing the
run-of control measures and associated storage are described in Section 6.

Page 5 of 18
No. 52 The Avenue, Minehead - Flood Risk Assessment

6 Detailed Development Proposals

6.1 The proposed site layout is shown in figure 2, which also highlights the various roofs and
hardstandings on the site that will need to be taken into account of in the post development run-off
calculations.

Figure 2. Proposed Ground Floor Layout

6.2 At the time of preparing this report, the detailed drainage design is yet to be developed so this
section of the report is limited to setting the strategy and recommended parameters for the drainage
system. It will be the responsibility of the drainage designer to confirm compliance with these
parameters when the design is submitted for assessment by the Code for Sustainable Homes
assessor.

6.3 In line with SUDS principles, investigations have been carried out to establish whether the
stormwater system could utilise available percolation into the underlying soil strata and thus reduce
the rate and volume of discharge generated by the development. Porosity of the site soils has been
-5
tested in line with BRE 365 recommendations and a porosity of 4.5 x10 (see appendix D for
calculation) has been established. Adequate safety factors will need to be applied to this rate in any
soakaway design calculations to account for possible inconsistencies in the ground conditions. The
space available for a soakaway in keeping with Building Regulations limitations with regard to
proximity to buildings is, on this site, 7m x 1.5m in plan. In order to comply with the Code for
Sustainable Homes the soakaway volume should be designed to hold the runoff from a 100 year
storm event. Scheme calculations have identified that a soakaway in the space available on this site
will be sufficient to accommodate the water from the roofs of the new buildings in the 100 year event.
The new paved areas will not be connected to drains as they will infiltrate to the ground below via
porous paving or to adjacent soft areas.

6.4 As the drainage design is to be carried out in accordance with the Code for Sustainable Homes, we
have included below the summary of mandatory and non mandatory measures from the Code, which
are intended for developers to improve management of rainfall run-off.

Page 6 of 18
No. 52 The Avenue, Minehead - Flood Risk Assessment

Mandatory measures:

1) Ensure the peak rate of run-off into the watercourse is no greater for the
developed site than it was for the pre-development site. This should comply with
the Interim Code of Practice for Sustainable Drainage systems (SUDS) (CIRIA,
2004) or for at least the 1 year and 100 year return period events.

An allowance for climate change should be made in accordance with current

best practice. (PPS25, 2006)

2) Volume of Runoff

Ensure that the additional predicted volume of rainwater discharge caused by the
new development, for a 1 in 100 year event of 6 hour duration including an
allowance for climate change (PPS25, 2006), is entirely reduced using:

infiltration

AND / OR

is made available for use in the dwelling as a replacement for potable water use
in non-potable applications such as WC flushing or washing machine operation.

Any residual additional rainwater volume that cannot be prevented from being
discharged (reasons must be provided with supporting evidence), for all events
up to the 100-year return period, the peak discharge rate from the site should be
reduced to (in order of priority):

A: the pre-development sites estimated mean annual flood flow rate (Qbar); or

B: 2l/s/ha; or

C: a minimum flow rate (litres per second), based on good practice guidelines to
prevent easy blockage, by ensuring the outlet throttle is not too small;

Unless rainwater is being discharged to a public sewer or adopted surface water

sewer, and there is a specific minimum requirement defined by the Sewerage
Undertaker.

Note; reasons for discounting any of the options above must be provided with
supporting evidence.

Non-mandatory measures - additional 2 credits available:

1 Ensuring no discharge to the watercourse (indirectly via the STW drain system in
this case) for rainfall depths up to 5mm.**

OR

2 Establish agreements to the ownership, long term operation and maintenance of

all sustainable drainage elements used.

Page 7 of 18
No. 52 The Avenue, Minehead - Flood Risk Assessment

6.5 The infiltration and storage measures should achieve 2 credits for use of SUDS provided that an
agreement is established for the ownership, long term operation and maintenance of all sustainable
drainage elements.

6.6 As described in 4.5, the soakaways will need to be designed with due allowance for climate change.
It is important to note that climate change allowances should be applied to both the predevelopment
and post development run-off figures in accordance with BRE recommendations.

6.7 On this site, for mandatory measure 1) the Code requirement may be achieved by limiting the peak
storm run-off draining directly to the off-site drainage system. This has involved the partial
introduction of infiltration of roof drainage in addition to the provision of porous paving to driveways
and parking zones. Appendix B shows the calculations for pre- and post-development 1 year, 30
year and 100 year peak run-off rates used in the design. These were calculated using a combination
of the ICP SUDS greenfield run-off method embedded in Microdrainage software (based on the
IH124 procedure) for the soft grass and gravel areas of the site and the Rational Formula in the
Wallingford Procedure for the hard areas. The calculations take into account 30% higher rainfall
applicable to climate change.

Return Period Code for Sustainable

(Annual Probability) 1 Year (100%) 30 Year (3.3%) 100 Year (1%) Homes Compliance
Achieved
Pre-Development
11.4 l/s 27.29 l/s 34.26 l/s
Discharge Rate Yes
Post-Development
6.2 l/s 14.89 l/s 18.56 l/s
Discharge Rate
Table 1 Pre & Post development run-off rates

Storm Return Period Code for Sustainable

100 Year 6hr Homes Compliance
& Duration Achieved
Pre-Development
29.49m3
Discharge Volume Yes
Post-Development
12.29m3
Discharge Volume

Table 2 Pre & Post development run-off volumes

6.8 Including for appropriate climate change allowances, soakaways will need to be designed so that the
rate of run-off (i.e. any overflow from the soakaway system or outfall to a drainage system or
watercourse) in up to a 100 year storm is no greater than the existing run-off rate. Also, that in a 100
year 6 hour storm, the volume of water flowing off site is no greater than the existing run-off volume.
This will ensure compliance with Code for Sustainable Homes and will impose more onerous
constraints on the soakaway system design (i.e. greater storage capacity) than BSEN 752-4, BRE
365, CIRIA 156 or Building Regulations. It is essential that this is addressed in the drainage design
rather than applying standard soakaway design methods otherwise the Code criteria for restricting
site run-off will not be met.

6.9 We would recommend that any soakaways are designed to avoid direct connection of drains into
cellular storage systems if these are being considered. This will avoid long term siltation issues. If
cellular systems are used we recommend that if practicable the flow is filtered into the cells via a fully
accessible porous drain passing below the storage. This will prevent siltation and enable inspection
and jetting of the carrier drains.

6.10 For item 2) of the mandatory requirements, the use of infiltration to dispose of surface water should

Page 8 of 18
No. 52 The Avenue, Minehead - Flood Risk Assessment

be maximised provided there is sufficient space on site to locate the soakaways and to store the
water whilst infiltration is taking place. This will be determined in the detailed drainage design. If
there is insufficient space for the infiltration system to be constructed within the parameters defined
in the building Regulations, suitable roofwater recycling will need to be introduced. Appendix C
shows that the theoretical volume of run-off will be reduced and therefore recycling is not required.

6.11 The additional credits available for non mandatory measures may be achievable by installing
infiltration capacity sufficient to absorb the first 5mm rainfall before any discharge is made to the
local drainage system. As this is not possible on this site the establishment of a comprehensive
operation and maintenance regime by the site developers may be sufficient for the assessor to grant
the additional points.

6.12 As the existing surface water drainage system at least partially connects to the public drainage, run-
off rates have been discussed with Wessex Water (WW) who are prepared to accept a like for like
discharge, preferably with some betterment. Therefore if it is necessary to maintain a surface water
discharge to the public sewer, e.g. to restrict the size of soakaway system in order to fit the space
available, the detailed drainage design should ensure the existing flow rate is not exceeded,
including due allowance for climate change.

6.13 The effects of overland flow in extreme storm conditions have been assessed as follows:

Sources: Overland flows from outside the site curtilage would be generated by:

Fluvial or tidal flooding from the Bratton Stream culvert system, (probably in the form of
surcharge flows from manholes on connecting drain systems generating flows along
highway routes towards lower ground).
Direct run-off from Impervious ground surfaces higher than the site itself (the flows generated
are unlikely to be serious due to the local topography and lack of a sizeable catchment to
produce high volumes of water.
Surcharging drain systems in the immediate vicinity of the site e.g. due to blocked or
undersized drains etc.
Surcharging of the on-site drainage system during extreme rainfall events in excess of the 100
year design event.

Flow routeing: Surface flood flows would tend to be restricted to the adjacent streets and provided
the proposed floor levels are kept a reasonable distance above the general ground level there should
be no need to provide specific flood routes through the site. To deal with surcharges within the site
itself, the proposed site levels should be designed to prevent surcharging water entering the ground
floors and causing damage. The house ground floor levels should therefore be set 150mm above
external ground levels with paving at access points into the properties raised locally as required for
DDA compliance. Any venting of sub floor voids should also be set at 150mm above external ground
level.

Assessment of overland flow risk: Provided the recommended relationship between ground floor
levels and external level are installed, the annual risk of flooding due to flows from the immediate
area of the site and any locally surcharged drainage systems is considered to be no greater than 1%.
As far as on site flooding due to the installed drainage systems is concerned; during storm events
up to and including the 1% annual probability storm, all run-off will be contained by the new drainage
system.

7 Flood Risk Management Measures

7.1 As described above, various measures will need to be included in the design to control and manage
the residual flood risks to within acceptable limits. As far as possible, the systems provided should
be designed to operate passively without the need for excessive maintenance or intervention.

7.2 Operation & Maintenance instructions will need to be produced, which will define the drainage
maintenance strategy and where appropriate, how the issue of overland flows has been addressed
in the design. These measures will help to ensure that the level of flood risk does not increase over

Page 9 of 18
No. 52 The Avenue, Minehead - Flood Risk Assessment

the life of the development. Potential issues that will need to be addressed in terms of regular
drainage maintenance on this site will be:

Regular checking and clearing of silt traps.

Removal of silt from drainage gullies.
Periodical inspection and jetting of the drain runs and any storage/infiltration systems as
appropriate.
Clearing of gutters to prevent carry-over of debris (it may be advisable to fit leaf guards to gutters
and downpipe outlets to prevent the ingress of leaves and moss from roofs as the development
becomes more mature).

Where regular checks are suggested we would recommend these are carried out at no more than 6
monthly intervals initially and that the need for checking is reviewed from time to time depending on
how the various elements are performing.

8 Off Site Impacts

Potential off site impacts are outlined in section 4.3 and addressed in detail in Section 6. With the
various mean of stormwater control in place together with the management procedures described,
it is considered that there will be negligible increase in flood risk to off site receptors.

9 Residual Risks

Taking into account the flood prevention and management measures described, the residual flood
risks are:
Between 1% and 0.5% annual probability of direct fluvial flooding.
Less than 1% annual probability of flood damage due to surcharged drain systems
including allowance for climate change.
Risk of downstream flooding due to run-off from the development controlled in accordance
with the Code for Sustainable Homes.

Page 10 of 18
No. 52 The Avenue, Minehead - Flood Risk Assessment

Appendix A Copy of email Correspondence with Wessex Water

From: James Feghali

Sent: 27 April 2010 11:58
To: Simon Lipscombe

FAO Simon Lipscombe (Wessex Water)

Simon,

This e mail is to clarify our telephone discussion on Wednesday of last week:

You clarified that we would be able to tap new soil pipes into the existing sewer without any problem.
We discussed the potential for tapping surface water drainage from any potential development in the car park site at
No. 52 The Avenue in Minehead.
You confirmed that if there is current rainwater draining into the combined sewer running across the site then a like for
like scenario is acceptable. Ie. If we remove an existing area of roof and replace with new then as long as the areas
are the same then there is no problem.
As identified in PPS 25, Soak Away type drainage is preferable to you.
If this is not possible you would be keen for us to tap into the existing culvert close to the site. (This could now prove to
be difficult as our client has had the culvert CCTV surveyed and it no longer crosses his land.)
The client has a right to connect to the existing sewer but not to freely discharge into it. Therefore if soakaway and
culvert connections are not possible then a flow control storage tank arrangement would be acceptable.
Often a combined solution is implemented, ie. part soakaway, part flow control.
Our client will be appointing a Flood Risk Engineer who will be putting together a Flood Risk Assessment for our
upcoming planning application.
Please confirm you are in agreement with these notes.
Regards,

James Feghali

Response

James,

I confirm your understanding is correct.

Surface water can be discharged into the public sewerage system but only as a last resort and only from 'domestic'
areas (i.e. not adopted highway)
If you can prove that the existing site currently positively drains SW to the sewer then I can accept a 'like for like'
solution for the proposed site. Ideally I would like to see some betterment.
If the site does not drain to the sewer then any new SW flows will be restricted to 2l/s with storm attenuation on site for
excess flows.
Hope this helps.
Regards

Simon Lipscombe
Wessex Water Developer Services
Riverside
Chilton Trinity
TA6 3JS
01823 225219

Page 11 of 18
No. 52 The Avenue, Minehead - Flood Risk Assessment

Appendix B

Pre development run-off rates hard surfaced areas

Project: 52 The Avenue, Minehead Total Catchment: 0.052ha Date: May 2010

The Rational Formula: Qp=CiA (formula 7.18 Wallingford Procedure Vol. 1)

Where Qp = discharge rate

C = Coefficient where C = Cv x Cr (Cv=volumetric run-off coefficient & Cr=routing coefficient) (formula
7.19)
i = rainfall intensity mm/hr
i = mean rainfall intensity mm/hr
A = Area (ha) = 520 m2 = 0.052 ha (drained hard surfaces)
(Total site area 1093 m2)
(Soft site area 573 m2)

For Qp in litres per second the formula becomes Qp=CiA 0.36

Determination of C:

From Wallingford Procedure Vol.1 Cv = 0.9 for urbanised catchment and Cr = 1.3.
C= 1.17

Determination of i (1 year return period storm):

M5-60min 19.47mm (from FSR Maps)
r 0.33 (from FSR Maps)
D 5 min (rainfall duration appropriate to time of concentration)
T 1 year (return period)

Determination of M5-D: (formula 6.4)

Z1 0.36 (from Fig. 6.3b Wallingford Procedure Vol.1)
M5-5 = 0.36 x 19.47 = 7.009mm

Determination of MT-D: (formula 6.5)

Z2 0.61 for M1 (from Table 6.2 for M5 (Wallingford Procedure Vol.1))
M1-5 = 0.61 x 7.009 = 4.275mm

Determination of mean rainfall intensity for drainage design: (formula 6.7)

i = MT-D = 4.275 = 51.30 mm/hr
D(hrs) 5 60

Determination of i (30 year return period storm):

M5-D as before =7.009mm

Determination of MT-D: (formula 6.5)

Z2 1.472 for M30 (interpolated from Table 6.2 for M5 (Wallingford Procedure Vol.1))
M30-5 = 1.472 x 7.009 = 10.31mm

Determination of mean rainfall intensity for drainage design: (formula 6.7)

Page 12 of 18
No. 52 The Avenue, Minehead - Flood Risk Assessment

i = MT-D = 10.3 = 123.6 mm/hr

D(hrs) 5 60

Determination of i (100 year return period storm):

M5-D as before = 7.009mm

Determination of MT-D: (formula 6.5)

Z2 1.84 for M100 (interpolated from Table 6.2 for M5 (Wallingford Procedure Vol.1))
M100-5 = 1.84 x 7.009 = 12.897mm

Determination of mean rainfall intensity for drainage design: (formula 6.7)

i = MT-D = 12.897 = 154.76mm/hr

D(hrs) 5 60

Application of Aerial Reduction Factor not required due to small catchment.

Qp for 1 year storm =CiA 0.36= 1.17 x 51.3 x 0.052 0.36 = 8.67 l/s

Qp for 30 year storm =CiA 0.36= 1.17 x 123.6 x 0.052 0.36 = 20.89 l/s

Qp for 100 year storm =CiA 0.36 = 1.17 x 154.76 x 0.052 0.36 = 26.15 l/s

Pre development run-off rates greenfield areas

Using Microdrainage ICP Suds Software, Run off rates from unsurfaced area of the site are as
follows:

1 year 0.1 l/s

30 year 0.1 l/s

100 year 0.2 l/s

Parameters used: Area = 0.057 hectares

SAAR = 925 From FEH CD
Soil = 0.16

Pre development run-off rates combined

Combining the run off from hard surfaced and greenfield areas gives the following total pre-
development run-off rates:

Add 30% climate change adjustment

1 year 0.1 l/s + 8.67 l/s = 8.77 l/s 1 year = 11.4 l/s

30 year 0.1 l/s + 20.89 l/s = 20.99 l/s 30 year = 27.29 l/s

100 year 0.2 l/s + 26.15 l/s = 26.35 l/s 100 year = 34.26 l/s

Page 13 of 18
No. 52 The Avenue, Minehead - Flood Risk Assessment

Post development run-off rates hard surfaced areas

Project: 52 The Avenue Minehead Total Catchment to sewer: 0.028ha Date: May 2010

The Rational Formula: Qp=CiA (formula 7.18 Wallingford Procedure Vol. 1)

Where Qp = discharge rate

C = Coefficient where C = Cv x Cr (Cv=volumetric run-off coefficient & Cr=routing coefficient) (formula
7.19)
i = rainfall intensity mm/hr
i = mean rainfall intensity mm/hr
A = Area (ha) = 282m2 = 0.028ha (drained hard paved area)
(Total site area 1093 m2)
(Soft site area 811m2 of which 289m2 is soft areas and paths draining to soft areas )
(Areas draining to soakaway and porous paving 522m2)

For Qp in litres per second the formula becomes Qp=CiA 0.36

Determination of C:

From Wallingford Procedure Vol.1 Cv = 0.9 for urbanised catchment and Cr = 1.3.
C= 1.17

Rainfall rates are the same as previously calculated for pre-development runoff rates

Application of Aerial Reduction Factor not required due to small catchment.

Qp for 1 year storm =CiA 0.36= 1.17 x 51.3 x 0.028 0.36 = 4.67 l/s

Qp for 30 year storm =CiA 0.36= 1.17 x 123.6 x 0.028 0.36 = 11.25 l/s

Qp for 100 year storm =CiA 0.36 = 1.17 x 154.76 x 0.028 0.36 = 14.08 l/s

Post development run-off rates greenfield areas

Using Microdrainage ICP Suds Software, Run off rates from unsurfaced area of the site are as
follows:

1 year 0.1 l/s

30 year 0.2 l/s

100 year 0.2 l/s

Parameters used: Area = 0.081 hectares (including area draining to soakaway)

SAAR = 925 From FEH CD
Soil = 0.16

Page 14 of 18
No. 52 The Avenue, Minehead - Flood Risk Assessment

Post development run-off rates combined

Combining the run off from hard surfaced and greenfield areas gives the following total post-
development run-off rates:

Add 30% climate change adjustment

1 year 0.1 l/s + 4.67 l/s = 4.77 l/s 1 year = 6.2 l/s

30 year 0.2 l/s + 11.25 l/s = 11.45 l/s 30 year = 14.89 l/s

100 year 0.2 l/s + 14.08 l/s = 14.28 l/s 100 year = 18.56 l/s

Appendix C

Pre & post development run-off volumes for 100yr 6hr storm

From Wallingford Procedure: PR=0.829PIMP + 25.0 SOIL + 0.078 UCWI 20.7 (formula 7.3)

Where
PR = percentage run-off
PIMP = percentage of catchment area covered by impervious surfacing.
In this case:
48% (520m2) of the site area connects to the drainage system pre development,
74% (804m2) of the site area would connect to the drainage sytem post development,without
any mitigation measures to reduce run-off volume,
26% (282m2) of the site area connects to the drainage system post development following the
introduction of mitigation measures,
SOIL = soil type from FSR (0.16 in this case)
UCWI = urban catchment wetness index (106 from figure 9.7 for SAAR = 925 in this case)
NB if formula 7.3 indicates PR = less than 40% of PIMP, PR must be made equal to 40% of PIMP.

Pre development PR = (0.829 x 48) + (25.0 x 0.16) + (0.078 x 106) 20.7 = 31.4%

Post developent, pre-mitigation PR = (0.829 x 74) + (25.0 x 0.16) + (0.078 x 106) 20.7 = 52.91%

& Post development, mitigated PR = (0.829 x 26) + (25.0 x 0.16) + (0.078 x 106) 20.7 = 13.1%

For 100 year return period 6 hour storm:

M5-60min 19.47mm (from FSR Maps)
r 0.33 (from FSR Maps)
D 360 min (rainfall duration)
T 100 year (return period)

Determination of M5-D: (formula 6.4)

Z1 1.75 (from Fig. 6.3b Wallingford Procedure Vol.1)

M5-360 = 1.75 x 19.47 = 34.07mm

Determination of MT-D: (formula 6.5)

Page 15 of 18
No. 52 The Avenue, Minehead - Flood Risk Assessment

Z2 1.94 for M100 (interpolated from Table 6.2 for M5 (Wallingford Procedure Vol.1))
M100-360 =1.94 x 34.07 = 66.1mm

Allowing for climate change:

M100-360 +30% = 66.1 x 1.3 = 85.93mm

Pre development run-off volume for site area with 31.4% run-off;
Total volume of rainfall 85.93/1000 x 1093 x 0.314 = 29.49m3

Post development run-off volume for site area with 52.91% run-off pre-mitigation;
Total volume of rainfall 85.93/1000 x 1093 x 0.529 = 49.67 m3

Post development run-off volume for site area with 13.1% run-off after mitigation;
Total volume of rainfall 85.93/1000 x 1093 x 0.131 =12.29m3

Reduction in run-off volume due to climate change and change in catchment area

= 29.49m3 12.29m3 = 17.2m3

Page 16 of 18
No. 52 The Avenue, Minehead - Flood Risk Assessment

Appendix D

Page 17 of 18
No. 52 The Avenue, Minehead - Flood Risk Assessment

Appendix E

Page 18 of 18