Here you will learn about the adaptation approaches that can be used to reduce the impacts expected from climate change by the 2050s on flooding from streams, rivers and the sea, flooding from drainage systems and impacts on flood defence structures.

Flooding from the rivers, streams and sea is generally pro-actively managed by the appropriate authorities as part of well-established flood risk management programmes.  These include flood warning systems, long-term and strategic planning, and the development and maintenance of appropriate flood risk management solutions.  Typically, these activities inherently consider the likely effects of future climate changes and are planned to continue into the future as part of central government’s approach to flood risk management.

The Regional Flood Defence Committee has various flood risk management projects scheduled in their current programme for implementation, funded through their Local Levy programme.  There are several projects at a region-wide level for the North-East to be undertaken during 2008-2010, including:

• Critical infrastructure flood risk review;
• Climate change business adaptation: appointing an individual based at BITC (Business in the Community) to assist businesses to adapt;
• City Flood, region-wide mapping of areas at risk of surface water flooding.

There are other Local Levy schemes at a more local level within the region which are to be completed over the next two years.  These projects include:

• Culvert repair works at Rothbury;
• Beck improvements in Middlesbrough;
• New flood wall at Chester-Le-Street.
• Integrated urban drainage study for the Ouseburn.
• Flood defence scheme at Haydon Bridge;
• Flood protection works to vulnerable properties in Stockton (Lustrum Beck);
• Managed realignment around Beal (4shores).
• Tees tidal resilience, review of flood risks to industry.

In addition to this programme of works, there are other major flood risk management schemes identified by the Environment Agency on their medium term programme, for implementation beyond 2011.  These include potential schemes for Blyth (£1.2M), Newcastle Quayside (£2.5M), Morpeth (£10M), Ponteland (£10M), Durham (£2.5M), Billingham Wharf (£6.4M), Greatham North (£5.7M), and Darlington (£2.4M); (costs included are indicative only based on current initial estimates).

There are many adaptation measures that should continue to be incorporated in this approach.  These include measures at a strategic planning level down to flood defence provision and forecasting significant events.

More detailed assessments incorporating detailed hydrological and hydraulic modelling could be used to identify the numbers of properties at risk under future climate scenarios.  This could also involve identifying the criticality and vulnerability of key public infrastructure (electricity, gas, water supply, sewage works, telecommunications, transport, schools) and producing improved regulations for their ongoing protection from flooding.  The risks need to be considered cross-organisationally to identify key interdependencies. 

Improved regulation and guidance should be provided across all sectors for consideration of the impacts of flooding due to climate change.  Many regulators are not currently engaged in the debate on climate change and its inclusion in their requirements and recommended guidance, i.e.  OFWAT, Rail Regulator, Housing Corporation. 

Developments allowed within the flood plain corridor should continue to be tightly controlled and it may be necessary to relocate key industries and critical/vulnerable properties away from areas of potential flood risk, particularly in situations where it is inappropriate or unsustainable to provide defences.  The protection of properties and assets in the event of flooding should be determined, with top priority given to the protection of critical infrastructure and key access routes; followed by vulnerable populations; followed by flooding to residential housing.

Existing flood defences should be maintained and, where necessary and economical, improved to raise standards of protection.  More innovative and sustainable flood management approaches in some situations may provide a more effective solution.  This might include upstream storage of flood water and the use of managed retreat areas.  Partnership approaches and cross-sectoral responses to reduce potential flooding should be established, and these might provide multiple adaptation benefits.  Water stored in upland areas could be used to fight potential fires caused by higher summer temperatures. 

Changes in local land management in rural areas could be used to reduce rates of surface runoff, such as the provision of hedgerows and ditches and the lateral ploughing of fields along contours to reduce field runoff and the wash off of sediments and retain nutrients on the fields.  The encouraged use of managed retreat areas also has benefits with flood waters bringing nutrients onto the fields.

The future planning and management of caravan and camping sites should be improved as tourism increases.  Low volume sites are not currently subject to planning permission due to their temporary nature and sites are often placed near watercourses and the sea and are highly vulnerable to flooding impacts.

New developments should move away from lowest cost to more adaptable and sustainable developments, with the inclusion of sufficient resilience as necessary for the location.  Flood proofing and resilience for properties and homes such as raised electrics and raised sub-floors (for post-event draining) could be incorporated into designs.  Retrofitting older properties could be carried out during any refurbishment work. 

Also, new roads and railway sections could be constructed at raised levels (on stilts or viaducts) in flood prone areas.  Existing main routes already affected could be bypassed and then improved in a similar fashion.

Multi-agency response plans should be produced in order to co-ordinate responses during extreme events.  The availability of response units and equipment such as high volume pumps and boats could be improved.  Temporary or demountable flood defences could be made available to low impact areas frequently affected by flooding, with clear access routes permanently available for their installation. 

The maintenance of watercourse channels should be increased in order to retain flow capacity.  Public campaigns could be used to reduce fly tipping and clear rubbish from watercourses, reducing flood impacts during flash summer events and increased winter rainfall.

Monitoring and flood warning particularly in upstream areas should continue to be improved upon to provide emergency warnings as much in advance as possible of flooding events.

New drainage schemes and improvements typically incorporate some consideration for climate changes based on current best practice guidance.  Existing systems, however, are generally managed in a more reactive sense, although drainage area plans produced by the water companies should highlight areas most likely to be at risk.  The key action that could be taken would be to assess all systems likely to affect large numbers of people based on local climate changes, rather than general guidance values, to determine future areas at risk. 

With respect to drainage systems, a clear co-ordinating framework between local government, water companies, the Highways Agency and the Environment Agency is required for managing the flood risk from surface water drainage.

Current design standards should be appropriate, and locally relevant, to accommodate future increases in rainfall and runoff.  The current planning requirements for new sewer designs are outdated.  Designs often use old rainfall data and are required to a 1 in 30-year standard.  Northumbrian Water currently designs its new sewers to a 1 in 40-year standard to accommodate for future climate changes.  Improvements across the drainage network should be strategically planned and implemented, although increasing pipe sizes across the entire network would clearly be impractical and investment would be better focussed on areas at greatest risk.  Drainage for new build developments should include additional capacity and the capacity of existing systems should be improved where necessary to accommodate for predicted increases in rainfall.   

Downstream impacts from new drainage systems should be limited by designing the systems with over-sized pipe diameters and manholes to deliver a maximum appropriate outfall discharge, such as equivalent to normal greenfield runoff, as currently generally applied in the design of highways improvements.

Investment into the wider application of source control techniques should be encouraged to attenuate flow volumes earlier in the system and reduce downstream impacts on existing ageing sewer networks.  This would also have the added benefit of reducing the impacts of peak flood flows in problem watercourses.  There are ongoing questions over the practicability of implementing such methods which need to be resolved, due to ownership issues and planning policy guidance requiring increasing numbers of houses with less available space between.

Investigation of opportunities for the management of combined flooding from different sources, such as the recent Defra Integrated Urban Drainage pilot schemes, should be considered.  The retrofitting of SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) should be incorporated for an overall reduction of urban runoff, again reducing peak flow impacts to downstream watercourses.  Opportunities to retro-fit existing infrastructure may be a costly solution, but could include the retrofitting of balancing tanks into historic drainage systems in known flood areas in order to accommodate excess flows when sewers reach capacity.

To counteract the effects of development creep, i.e. gardens being paved over, households across residential areas could be provided with water butts for collecting rainwater.  The public could be educated on the importance of SUDS, source control of flooding and the wider impacts of paving over garden areas.

Sufficient flood-proofing of infrastructure and equipment at Sewage Treatment Works and Pumping Stations should be provided to accommodate greater flows.  CSOs should be improved in key environmentally sensitive locations where increased spills are likely to have detrimental effects.  Outfall capacity should be improved, storage provision increased or pumping included at CSOs likely to be affected by climate changes due to sea level rise or raised flood depths.  The design of fluvial flood defences should consider the impacts of raised water levels on adjacent CSOs.

Remote vulnerable properties should be flood-proofed where improvements to drainage systems would be uneconomic. 

Improvements could be made to the current flood warning systems, particularly in fast reacting catchments, to introduce new early warning systems specifically to deliver warnings in surface water flooding risk areas.

top

 

| Northumberland | Tyne & Wear | County Durham | Tees Valley |

 

Flooding from the rivers, streams and sea is generally pro-actively managed by the appropriate authorities as part of well-established flood risk management programmes.  These include flood warning systems, long-term and strategic planning, and the development and maintenance of appropriate flood risk management solutions.  Typically, these activities inherently consider the likely effects of future climate changes and are planned to continue into the future as part of central government’s approach to flood risk management.

The Regional Flood Defence Committee has various flood risk management projects scheduled in their current programme for implementation, funded through their Local Levy programme.  There are several projects at a region-wide level for the North-East to be undertaken during 2008-2010, including:

• Critical infrastructure flood risk review;
• Climate change business adaptation: appointing an individual based at BITC (Business in the Community) to assist businesses to adapt;
• City Flood, region-wide mapping of areas at risk of surface water flooding.

There are other Local Levy schemes at a more local level within the region which are to be completed over the next two years.  These include:

• Culvert repair works at Rothbury;
• Channel works in Belford;
• Flood exercise and scheme feasibility for Morpeth;
• Flood defence scheme at Haydon Bridge;
• Managed realignment around Beal (4shores).

In addition to this programme of works, there are other major flood risk management schemes identified by the Environment Agency on their medium term programme, for implementation beyond 2011.  These include potential schemes for Blyth (£1.2M), Morpeth (£10M), Ponteland (£10M), and Tynemills (£0.75M); (costs included are indicative only based on current initial estimates).

New drainage schemes and improvements typically incorporate some consideration for climate changes based on current best practice guidance.  Existing systems, however, are generally managed in a more reactive sense, although drainage area plans produced by the water companies should highlight areas most likely to be at risk.  The key action that could be taken would be to assess all systems likely to affect large numbers of people based on local climate changes, rather than general guidance values, to determine future areas at risk. 

In particular, the following adaptation measures should continue to be incorporated in this approach:

• Establish partnership approaches and cross-sectoral responses to reduce potential flooding, for example the storage of water in uplands areas to fight potential fires caused by higher summer temperatures.
• Look for more innovative sustainable flood management approaches rather then traditional flood defences, such as allowing managed retreat areas and the upstream storage of flood water.
• Use changes in local land management in rural areas to reduce rates of surface runoff, such as the provision of hedgerows and ditches, and the lateral ploughing of fields along contours to reduce field runoff and the wash off of sediments, and retain nutrients on the fields.
• Provide temporary or demountable flood defences available to low impact areas frequently affected by flooding, and ensure access routes are always available for their installation. (In summer 2007, it was not possible to install temporary defences to one area due to severe flooding of the surrounding roads blocking access).
• Continue monitoring and flood warning, particularly in upstream areas due to specific issues and nature of flooding.
• Improvements to flood warning systems, specifically in fast reacting catchments and for surface water flooding.
• Improve response units and equipment, and ensure clear access routes available.  (In Northumberland, the fire service at Ashington has three high volume pumps [three times faster than conventional fire service pumps].  These were recently used in response to major regional flood events such as around Hull in summer 2007, and Carlisle in 2005.   Northumberland Fire and Rescue is procuring new pumps and boats for use in times of extreme flooding).
• Increase maintenance of watercourse channels to retain flow capacity. 
• Improve the future planning management of caravan and camping parks with increased tourism.  Low volume sites are not currently subject to planning permission due to their temporary nature.  Sites are often placed near watercourses/sea and are highly vulnerable to flooding impacts.
• Incorporate more detailed assessments of the numbers of properties at risk under future climate scenarios based on detailed hydrological and hydraulic modelling.
• Identify the criticality and vulnerability of key public infrastructure (electricity, gas, water supply, sewage works, telecommunications, transport, schools) and produce regulations for their protection from flooding.  (Summer 2007 floods indicated how poorly protected some of vital key infrastructure is).Many organisations rely critically on constant power supply.  The risks need to be considered cross-organisationally to identify key interdependencies.  Systems are only as strong as the weakest link and this may lie with another organisation or operator.
• Relocate key industries/businesses and critical/vulnerable properties away from potential flood risk, particularly where it is inappropriate or unsustainable to provide defences.
• Provide improved regulation and guidance across all sectors for consideration of the impacts of flooding due to climate change.  Many regulators are not currently engaged in the debate on climate change, and its inclusion in their requirements and guidance, i.e. OFWAT, Rail Regulator, Housing Corporation. 
• Continue the tight control of developments allowable within the flood plain corridor.
• Production of multi-agency response plans, to co-ordinate responses during extreme events.
• Determine priorities for the protection of properties and assets in the event of flooding: priority to the protection of critical infrastructure and key access routes; followed by vulnerable populations; followed by flooding to residential housing.
• Maintain and, where necessary, improve flood defences to raise the standard and condition of existing defences.
• Use public campaigns to reduce fly tipping and clear rubbish from becks to reduce flood impacts during flash summer events and increased winter rainfall.
• Provide flood proofing/resilience for properties and homes, such as raised electrics, raised sub-floor (for post-event draining).  Make the most of opportunities for retrofitting during refurbishments of old housing stock.  [see Three Regions “Your home in a changing climate” report, on methods for retrofitting existing homes for climate change impacts].
• For new developments move away from lowest cost to most adaptable and sustainable developments, with the inclusion of sufficient resilience as necessary for the location.
• Develop new roads and railway sections at raised levels (on stilts/viaducts) in flood prone areas.  Consider such improvements and new bypasses for main routes already affected.

For drainage systems:

• Determine a clear co-ordinating framework between local government, water companies, Highways Agency and Environment Agency for managing the flood risk from surface water drainage.
• Implement flood warning systems specifically for surface water flooding.
• Ensure current design standards are appropriate, and locally relevant, to accommodate future increases in rainfall/runoff.  (Current planning requirements for new sewer design are outdated.  Designs often use old rainfall data and are required to a 1 in 30-year standard.  Northumbrian Water design new sewers to a 1 in 40-year standard, to accommodate for future climate changes).
• Strategically plan and implement system improvements across the network, although increased pipe sizes across the entire would clearly be impractical and investment would be better focussed on areas at greatest risk. 
• Include additional capacity for new build developments and into the existing system through network improvements to accommodate for projected increases in rainfall.   
• Limit downstream impacts from new drainage systems by designing with over-sized pipe diameters and manholes to deliver a maximum appropriate outfall discharge, such as equivalent to normal greenfield runoff.  (This is currently applied with the design of highways improvements).
• Promote and increase investment into the wider application of source control techniques to attenuate flow volumes earlier in the system and reduce downstream impacts on existing ageing sewer networks.  This would also have the added benefit of reducing peak flood flows in problem watercourses.  (There are ongoing questions over the practicability of these methods, due to ownership issues and planning policy guidance requiring increasing numbers of houses with less available space between, which need to be resolved).
• Investigate opportunities for the management of combined flooding from different sources, such as the recent Defra Integrated Urban Drainage pilot schemes taking place within the region in Newcastle (North Gosforth and Ouseburn, see Case Study) and Hartlepool.
• Incorporate the retrofitting of SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) for an overall reduction of urban runoff.  Although, opportunities to retro-fit existing infrastructure may be limited and difficult, i.e. costly, to achieve. 
• Consider the retrofitting of balancing tanks into historic drainage systems in known flood areas to accommodate excess flows when sewers reach capacity.
• Provide households across residential areas with water butts for rainwater harvesting to counteract the effects of development creep, i.e. gardens being paved over. 
• Undertake public education for the importance of SUDS, source control of flooding, the community benefits of water butts, and the wider impacts of paving over garden areas.
• Ensure sufficient flood-proofing of infrastructure and equipment at Sewage Treatment Works and Pumping Stations to accommodate greater flows.
• Flood-proof remote properties which are vulnerable to sewer flooding (or localised surface water or river flooding) where drainage improvements would be costly. 
• Undertake improvements to overflows from combined sewer networks (combined sewer overflows, CSOs) in key environmentally sensitive locations where increased spills will have detrimental effects.
• Improve outfall capacity, storage provision or include pumping at CSOs most likely to be affected by climate changes (sea level rise or raised flood depths).  The design of fluvial flood defences should ensure the consideration of the impacts of raised water levels on adjacent CSOs.

 

top

Flooding from the main rivers is generally pro-actively managed by the appropriate authorities as part of well-established flood risk management programmes.  These include flood warning systems, long-term and strategic planning, and the development and maintenance of appropriate flood risk management solutions.  Typically, these activities inherently consider the likely effects of future climate changes and are planned to continue into the future as part of central government’s approach to flood risk management.

The Regional Flood Defence Committee has various flood risk management projects scheduled in their current programme for implementation, funded through their Local Levy programme.  There are several projects at a region-wide level for the North-East to be undertaken during 2008-2010, including:

• Critical infrastructure flood risk review;
• Climate change business adaptation: appointing an individual based at BITC (Business in the Community) to assist businesses to adapt;
• City Flood, region-wide mapping of areas at risk of surface water flooding.

There are other Local Levy schemes at a more local level within the region which are to be completed over the next two years.  These include:

• Culvert replacement at Blackhall Mill;
• Integrated urban drainage study for the Ouseburn.

In addition to this programme of works, there are other major flood risk management schemes identified by the Environment Agency on their medium term programme, for implementation beyond 2011.  These include schemes for Newcastle Quayside (£2.5M), Fatfield (£2.5M), Team Tidal (£1.8M), and Blackhall Mill (£0.6M); (costs included are indicative only based on current initial estimates).

New drainage schemes and improvements typically incorporate some consideration for climate changes based on current best practice guidance.  Existing systems, however, are generally managed in a more reactive sense, although drainage area plans produced by the water companies should highlight areas most likely to be at risk.  The key action that could be taken would be to assess all systems likely to affect large numbers of people based on local climate changes, rather than general guidance values, to determine future areas at risk. 

In particular, the following adaptation measures should continue to be incorporated in this approach:

• Look for more innovative sustainable flood management approaches rather then traditional flood defences, such as allowing managed retreat areas and the upstream storage of flood water.  (An example of this is on the River Team where flood storage areas are being proposed for flood control, although the project is presently still in a planning phase).
• Increase maintenance of watercourse channels to retain flow capacity. 
• Use public campaigns to reduce fly tipping and clear rubbish from streams and culverts to reduce flood impacts during flash summer events and increased winter rainfall.
• Identify the criticality and vulnerability of key public infrastructure (electricity, gas, water supply, sewage works, telecommunications, transport, schools) and produce regulations for their protection from flooding.  (Summer 2007 floods indicated how poorly protected some of vital key infrastructure is).  Many organisations rely critically on constant power supply.  The risks need to be considered cross-organisationally to identify key interdependencies.  Systems are only as strong as the weakest link and this may lie with another organisation or operator.
• Relocate key industries/businesses and critical/vulnerable properties away from potential flood risk, particularly where it is inappropriate or unsustainable to provide defences.
• Continue the tight control of developments allowable within the flood plain corridor.
• For new developments move away from lowest cost to most adaptable and sustainable developments, with the inclusion of sufficient resilience as necessary for the location.
• Continue monitoring and flood warning, particularly in upstream areas due to specific issues and nature of flooding.
• Incorporate more detailed assessments of the numbers of properties at risk under future climate scenarios based on detailed hydrological and hydraulic modelling.
• Provide improved regulation and guidance across all sectors for consideration of the impacts of flooding due to climate change.  Many regulators are not currently engaged in the debate on climate change, and its inclusion in their requirements and guidance, i.e. OFWAT, Rail Regulator, Housing Corporation. 
• Improvements to flood warning systems, specifically in fast reacting catchments and for surface water flooding.
• Production of multi-agency response plans, to co-ordinate responses during extreme events.
• Improve response units and equipment, and ensure clear access routes are available.  (In the North East, the fire service at Ashington has three high volume pumps [three times faster than conventional fire service pumps].  These were recently used in response to major regional flood events such as around Hull in summer 2007, and Carlisle in 2005.   Northumberland Fire and Rescue is procuring new pumps and boats for use in times of extreme flooding).
• Determine priorities for the protection of properties and assets in the event of flooding: priority to the protection of critical infrastructure and key access routes; followed by vulnerable populations; followed by flooding to residential housing.
• Establish partnership approaches and cross-sectoral responses to reduce potential flooding, for example the storage of water in uplands areas to fight potential fires caused by higher summer temperatures.
• Maintain and, where necessary, improve flood defences to raise the standard and condition of existing defences.
• Provide temporary or demountable flood defences available to low impact areas frequently affected by flooding, and ensure access routes are always available for their installation. (In summer 2007, it was not possible to install temporary defences to one area due to severe flooding of the surrounding roads blocking access).
• Provide flood proofing/resilience for properties and homes, such as raised electrics, raised sub-floor (for post-event draining).  Make the most of opportunities for retrofitting during refurbishments of old housing stock.
• Develop new roads and railway sections at raised levels (on stilts/viaducts) in flood prone areas.  Consider such improvements and new bypasses for main routes already affected.

For drainage systems:

• Determine a clear co-ordinating framework between local government, water companies, Highways Agency and Environment Agency for managing the flood risk from surface water drainage.
• Investigate opportunities for the management of combined flooding from different sources, such as the recent Defra Integrated Urban Drainage pilot schemes taking place within the region in Newcastle (North Gosforth and Ouseburn, see Case Study) and Hartlepool.  At North Gosforth, Newcastle Great Park, the project is focussing on future maintenance, operation and serviceability. The strategy is to be in place by 2013.
• Promote and increase investment into the wider application of source control techniques to attenuate flow volumes earlier in the system and reduce downstream impacts on existing ageing sewer networks.  This would also have the added benefit of reducing peak flood flows in problem watercourses.  (There are ongoing questions over the practicability of these methods, due to ownership issues and planning policy guidance requiring increasing numbers of houses with less available space between, which need to be resolved).
• Incorporate the retrofitting of SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) for an overall reduction of urban runoff.  Although, opportunities to retro-fit existing infrastructure may be limited and difficult, i.e. costly, to achieve. 
• Provide households across residential areas with water butts for rainwater harvesting to counteract the effects of development creep, i.e. gardens being paved over. 
• Undertake public education for the importance of SUDS, source control of flooding, the community benefits of water butts, and the wider impacts of paving over garden areas.
• Undertake improvements to overflows from combined sewer networks (combined sewer overflows, CSOs) in key environmentally sensitive locations where increased spills will have detrimental effects.
• Improve outfall capacity, storage provision or include pumping at CSOs most likely to be affected by climate changes (sea level rise or raised flood depths).  The design of fluvial flood defences should ensure the consideration of the impacts of raised water levels on adjacent CSOs.
• Include additional capacity for new build developments and into the existing system through network improvements to accommodate for projected increases in rainfall.   
• Limit downstream impacts from new drainage systems by designing with over-sized pipe diameters and manholes to deliver a maximum appropriate outfall discharge, such as equivalent to normal greenfield runoff.  (This is currently done with the design of highways improvements in Gateshead).
• Implement flood warning systems specifically for surface water flooding.
• Ensure current design standards are appropriate, and locally relevant, to accommodate future increases in rainfall/runoff.  (Current planning requirements for new sewer design are outdated.  Designs often use old rainfall data and are required to a 1 in 30-year standard.  Northumbrian Water design new sewers to a 1 in 40-year standard, to accommodate for future climate changes).
• Strategically plan and implement system improvements across the network, although increased pipe sizes across the entire would clearly be impractical and investment would be better focussed on areas at greatest risk. 
• Consider the retrofitting of balancing tanks into historic drainage systems in known flood areas to accommodate excess flows when sewers reach capacity.
• Ensure sufficient flood-proofing of infrastructure and equipment at sewage treatment works and pumping stations to accommodate greater flows.

Flood-proof remote properties which are vulnerable to sewer flooding (or localised surface water or river flooding) where drainage improvements would be costly. 

 

top

Flooding from the rivers, streams and sea is generally pro-actively managed by the appropriate authorities as part of well-established flood risk management programmes.  These include flood warning systems, long-term and strategic planning, and the development and maintenance of appropriate flood risk management solutions.  Typically, these activities inherently consider the likely effects of future climate changes and are planned to continue into the future as part of central government’s approach to flood risk management.

The Regional Flood Defence Committee has various flood risk management projects scheduled in their current programme for implementation, funded through their Local Levy programme.  There are several projects at a region-wide level for the North-East to be undertaken during 2008-2010, including:

• Critical infrastructure flood risk review;
• Climate change business adaptation: appointing an individual based at BITC (Business in the Community) to assist businesses to adapt;
• City Flood, region-wide mapping of areas at risk of surface water flooding.

There are other Local Levy schemes at a more local level within the region which are to be completed over the next two years.  These include:

• New flood wall at Chester-Le-Street.

In addition to this programme of works, there are other major flood risk management schemes identified by the Environment Agency on their medium term programme, for implementation beyond 2011.  These include a scheme in Durham, currently estimated at an initial indicative cost of £2.5M.

New drainage schemes and improvements typically incorporate some consideration for climate changes based on current best practice guidance.  Existing systems, however, are generally managed in a more reactive sense, although drainage area plans produced by the water companies should highlight areas most likely to be at risk.  The key action that could be taken would be to assess all systems likely to affect large numbers of people based on local climate changes, rather than general guidance values, to determine future areas at risk. 

In particular, the following adaptation measures should continue to be incorporated in this approach:

• Continue monitoring and flood warning, particularly in upstream areas due to specific issues and nature of flooding.
• Incorporate more detailed assessments of the numbers of properties at risk under future climate scenarios based on detailed hydrological and hydraulic modelling.
• Identify the criticality and vulnerability of key public infrastructure (electricity, gas, water supply, sewage works, telecommunications, transport, schools) and produce regulations for their protection from flooding.  (Summer 2007 floods indicated how poorly protected some of vital key infrastructure is). Many organisations rely critically on constant power supply.  The risks need to be considered cross-organisationally to identify key interdependencies.  Systems are only as strong as the weakest link and this may lie with another organisation or operator.
• Relocate key industries/businesses and critical/vulnerable properties away from potential flood risk, particularly where it is inappropriate or unsustainable to provide defences.
• Provide improved regulation and guidance across all sectors for consideration of the impacts of flooding due to climate change.  Many regulators are not currently engaged in the debate on climate change, and its inclusion in their requirements and guidance, i.e. OFWAT, Rail Regulator, Housing Corporation. 
• Continue the tight control of developments allowable within the flood plain corridor.
• Improvements to flood warning systems, specifically in fast reacting catchments and for surface water flooding.
• Production of multi-agency response plans, to co-ordinate responses during extreme events.
• Improve response units and equipment, and ensure clear access routes available. 
• Determine priorities for the protection of properties and assets in the event of flooding: priority to the protection of critical infrastructure and key access routes; followed by vulnerable populations; followed by flooding to residential housing.
• Establish partnership approaches and cross-sectoral responses to reduce potential flooding, for example the storage of water in uplands areas to fight potential fires caused by higher summer temperatures.
• Maintain and, where necessary, improve flood defences to raise the standard and condition of existing defences.
• Look for more innovative sustainable flood management approaches rather then traditional flood defences, such as allowing managed retreat areas and the upstream storage of flood water.
• Provide temporary or demountable flood defences available to low impact areas frequently affected by flooding, and ensure access routes are always available for their installation. (In summer 2007, it was not possible to install temporary defences to one area due to severe flooding of the surrounding roads blocking access).
• Increase maintenance of watercourse channels to retain flow capacity. 
• Use public campaigns to reduce fly tipping and clear rubbish from becks to reduce flood impacts during flash summer events and increased winter rainfall.
• Provide flood proofing/resilience for properties and homes, such as raised electrics, raised sub-floor (for post-event draining).  Make the most of opportunities for retrofitting during refurbishments of old housing stock.
• For new developments move away from lowest cost to most adaptable and sustainable developments, with the inclusion of sufficient resilience as necessary for the location.
• Develop new roads and railway sections at raised levels (on stilts/viaducts) in flood prone areas.  Consider such improvements and new bypasses for main routes already affected.
• Improve the future planning management of caravan and camping parks with increased tourism.  Low volume sites are not currently subject to planning permission due to their temporary nature.  Sites are often placed near watercourses/sea and are highly vulnerable to flooding impacts.
• Use changes in local land management in rural areas to reduce rates of surface runoff, such as the provision of hedgerows and ditches, and the lateral ploughing of fields along contours to reduce field runoff and the wash off of sediments, and retain nutrients on the fields.

For drainage systems:

• Determine a clear co-ordinating framework between local government, water companies, Highways Agency and Environment Agency for managing the flood risk from surface water drainage.
• Implement flood warning systems specifically for surface water flooding.
• Ensure current design standards are appropriate, and locally relevant, to accommodate future increases in rainfall/runoff.  (Current planning requirements for new sewer design are outdated.  Designs often use old rainfall data and are required to a 1 in 30-year standard.  Northumbrian Water design new sewers to a 1 in 40-year standard, to accommodate for future climate changes).
• Strategically plan and implement system improvements across the network, although increased pipe sizes across the entire would clearly be impractical and investment would be better focussed on areas at greatest risk. 
• Include additional capacity for new build developments and into the existing system through network improvements to accommodate for projected increases in rainfall.   
• Limit downstream impacts from new drainage systems by designing with over-sized pipe diameters and manholes to deliver a maximum appropriate outfall discharge, such as equivalent to normal greenfield runoff.  (This is currently applied with the design of highways improvements).
• Promote and increase investment into the wider application of source control techniques to attenuate flow volumes earlier in the system and reduce downstream impacts on existing ageing sewer networks.  This would also have the added benefit of reducing peak flood flows in problem watercourses.  (There are ongoing questions over the practicability of these methods, due to ownership issues and planning policy guidance requiring increasing numbers of houses with less available space between, which need to be resolved).
• Investigate opportunities for the management of combined flooding from different sources, such as the recent Defra Integrated Urban Drainage pilot schemes taking place within the region in Newcastle (North Gosforth and Ouseburn, see Case Study) and Hartlepool. 
• Incorporate the retrofitting of SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) for an overall reduction of urban runoff.  Although, opportunities to retro-fit existing infrastructure may be limited and difficult, i.e. costly, to achieve. 
• Consider the retrofitting of balancing tanks into historic drainage systems in known flood areas to accommodate excess flows when sewers reach capacity.
• Provide households across residential areas with water butts for rainwater harvesting to counteract the effects of development creep, i.e. gardens being paved over. 
• Undertake public education for the importance of SUDS, source control of flooding, the community benefits of water butts, and the wider impacts of paving over garden areas.
• Ensure sufficient flood-proofing of infrastructure and equipment at Sewage Treatment Works and Pumping Stations to accommodate greater flows.
• Flood-proof remote properties which are vulnerable to sewer flooding (or localised surface water or river flooding) where drainage improvements would be costly. 
• Undertake improvements to overflows from combined sewer networks (combined sewer overflows, CSOs) in key environmentally sensitive locations where increased spills will have detrimental effects.
• Improve outfall capacity, storage provision or include pumping at CSOs most likely to be affected by climate changes (sea level rise or raised flood depths).  The design of fluvial flood defences should ensure the consideration of the impacts of raised water levels on adjacent CSOs.

 

top

Flooding from the rivers, streams and sea is generally pro-actively managed by the appropriate authorities as part of well-established flood risk management programmes.  These include flood warning systems, long-term and strategic planning, and the development and maintenance of appropriate flood risk management solutions.  Typically, these activities inherently consider the likely effects of future climate changes and are planned to continue into the future as part of central government’s approach to flood risk management.

The Regional Flood Defence Committee has various flood risk management projects scheduled in their current programme for implementation, funded through their Local Levy programme.  There are several projects at a region-wide level for the North-East to be undertaken during 2008-2010, including:

• Critical infrastructure flood risk review;
• Climate change business adaptation: appointing an individual based at BITC (Business in the Community) to assist businesses to adapt;
• City Flood, region-wide mapping of areas at risk of surface water flooding.

There are other Local Levy schemes at a more local level within the region which are to be completed over the next two years.  These include:

• Flood protection works to vulnerable properties in Stockton (Lustrum Beck);
• Beck improvements in Middlesbrough;
• Tees tidal resilience, review of flood risks to industry.

In addition to this programme of works, there are other major flood risk management schemes identified by the Environment Agency on their medium term programme, for implementation beyond 2011.  These include schemes for Billingham Wharf (£6.4M), Greatham North (£5.7M), Darlington (£2.4M), and Kent Beck near Neasham at the River Tees (£1.1M); (costs included are indicative only based on current initial estimates).

New drainage schemes and improvements typically incorporate some consideration for climate changes based on current best practice guidance.  Existing systems, however, are generally managed in a more reactive sense, although drainage area plans produced by the water companies should highlight areas most likely to be at risk.  The key action that could be taken would be to assess all systems likely to affect large numbers of people based on local climate changes, rather than general guidance values, to determine future areas at risk. 

In particular, the following adaptation measures should continue to be incorporated in this approach:

• Identify the criticality and vulnerability of key public infrastructure (electricity, gas, water supply, sewage works, telecommunications, transport, schools) and produce regulations for their protection from flooding.  (Summer 2007 floods indicated how poorly protected some of vital key infrastructure is). Many organisations rely critically on constant power supply.  The risks need to be considered cross-organisationally to identify key interdependencies.  Systems are only as strong as the weakest link and this may lie with another organisation or operator.
• Ensure the continuing protection of important industries with specific defences and bunding to reduce the local flood risk.
• Relocate key industries/businesses and critical/vulnerable properties away from potential flood risk, particularly where it is inappropriate or unsustainable to provide defences.
• Continue the tight control of developments allowable within the flood plain corridor.
• Use ongoing public campaigns, as previously adopted in Middlesbrough, to reduce fly tipping and clear rubbish from becks to reduce flood impacts during flash summer events and increased winter rainfall.
• Continue monitoring and flood warning, particularly in upstream areas due to specific issues and nature of flooding.
• Incorporate more detailed assessments of the numbers of properties at risk under future climate scenarios based on detailed hydrological and hydraulic modelling.
• Provide improved regulation and guidance across all sectors for consideration of the impacts of flooding due to climate change.  Many regulators are not currently engaged in the debate on climate change, and its inclusion in their requirements and guidance, i.e. OFWAT, Rail Regulator, Housing Corporation. 
• Improvements to flood warning systems, specifically in fast reacting catchments and for surface water flooding.
• Production of multi-agency response plans, to co-ordinate responses during extreme events.
• Improve response units and equipment, and ensure clear access routes available. 
• Determine priorities for the protection of properties and assets in the event of flooding: priority to the protection of critical infrastructure and key access routes; followed by vulnerable populations; followed by flooding to residential housing.
• Establish partnership approaches and cross-sectoral responses to reduce potential flooding, for example the storage of water in uplands areas to fight potential fires caused by higher summer temperatures.
• Maintain and, where necessary, improve flood defences to raise the standard and condition of existing defences.
• Look for more innovative sustainable flood management approaches rather then traditional flood defences, such as allowing managed retreat areas and the upstream storage of flood water.
• Provide temporary or demountable flood defences available to low impact areas frequently affected by flooding, and ensure access routes are always available for their installation. (In summer 2007, it was not possible to install temporary defences to one area due to severe flooding of the surrounding roads blocking access).
• Increase maintenance of watercourse channels to retain flow capacity. 
• Provide flood proofing/resilience for properties and homes, such as raised electrics, raised sub-floor (for post-event draining).  Make the most of opportunities for retrofitting during refurbishments of old housing stock.
• For new developments move away from lowest cost to most adaptable and sustainable developments, with the inclusion of sufficient resilience as necessary for the location.
• Develop new roads and railway sections at raised levels (on stilts/viaducts) in flood prone areas.  Consider such improvements and new bypasses for main routes already affected.
• Improve the future planning management of caravan and camping parks with increased tourism.  Low volume sites are not currently subject to planning permission due to their temporary nature.  Sites are often placed near watercourses/sea and are highly vulnerable to flooding impacts.
• Use changes in local land management in rural areas to reduce rates of surface runoff, such as the provision of hedgerows and ditches, and the lateral ploughing of fields along contours to reduce field runoff and the wash off of sediments, and retain nutrients on the fields.

For drainage systems:

• Determine a clear co-ordinating framework between local government, water companies, Highways Agency and Environment Agency for managing the flood risk from surface water drainage.
• Investigate opportunities for the management of combined flooding from different sources, such as the recent Defra Integrated Urban Drainage pilot schemes taking place within the region in Newcastle (North Gosforth and Ouseburn, see Case Study) and also in Hartlepool.  In Hartlepool the project focuses on the interactions of the local watercourses and sewers to improve future maintenance, operation and serviceability.
• Implement flood warning systems specifically for surface water flooding.
• Review the connection of becks into public sewers to reduce the increasing flows being passed to treatment.  Disconnect from the system to discharge directly into watercourses or the sea, or investigate opportunities for stormwater storage.
• Ensure current design standards are appropriate, and locally relevant, to accommodate future increases in rainfall/runoff.  (Current planning requirements for new sewer design are outdated.  Designs often use old rainfall data and are required to a 1 in 30-year standard.  Northumbrian Water design new sewers to a 1 in 40-year standard, to accommodate for future climate changes).
• Strategically plan and implement system improvements across the network, although increased pipe sizes across the entire would clearly be impractical and investment would be better focussed on areas at greatest risk. 
• Include additional capacity for new build developments and into the existing system through network improvements to accommodate for projected increases in rainfall.   
• Limit downstream impacts from new drainage systems by designing with over-sized pipe diameters and manholes to deliver a maximum appropriate outfall discharge, such as equivalent to normal greenfield runoff.  (This is currently applied with the design of highways improvements).
• Promote and increase investment into the wider application of source control techniques to attenuate flow volumes earlier in the system and reduce downstream impacts on existing ageing sewer networks.  This would also have the added benefit of reducing peak flood flows in problem watercourses.  (There are ongoing questions over the practicability of these methods, due to ownership issues and planning policy guidance requiring increasing numbers of houses with less available space between, which need to be resolved).
• Incorporate the retrofitting of SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) for an overall reduction of urban runoff.  Although, opportunities to retro-fit existing infrastructure may be limited and difficult, i.e. costly, to achieve. 
• Consider the retrofitting of balancing tanks into historic drainage systems in known flood areas to accommodate excess flows when sewers reach capacity.
• Provide households across residential areas with water butts for rainwater harvesting to counteract the effects of development creep, i.e. gardens being paved over. 
• Undertake public education for the importance of SUDS, source control of flooding, the community benefits of water butts, and the wider impacts of paving over garden areas.
• Ensure sufficient flood-proofing of infrastructure and equipment at Sewage Treatment Works and Pumping Stations to accommodate greater flows.
• Flood-proof remote properties which are vulnerable to sewer flooding (or localised surface water or river flooding) where drainage improvements would be costly. 
• Undertake improvements to overflows from combined sewer networks (combined sewer overflows, CSOs) in key environmentally sensitive locations where increased spills will have detrimental effects.
• Improve outfall capacity, storage provision or include pumping at CSOs most likely to be affected by climate changes (sea level rise or raised flood depths).  The design of fluvial flood defences should ensure the consideration of the impacts of raised water levels on adjacent CSOs.

top

 

 

For an overview of the adaptation for your local area please click on the list/map below.

Alnwick District Council Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council Blyth Valley Borough Council Castle Morpeth Council Chester-le-Street District Council Darlington Borough Council Derwentside District Council Durham City Council Easington District Gateshead Council Hartlepool Borough Council Middlesbrough Council Newcastle upon Tyne City Council North Tyneside Council Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council Sedgefield Borough Council South Tyneside Council Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council Sunderland City Council Teesdale District Council Tynedale Council Wansbeck District Council Wear Valley District Council

 

 

Alnwick District Council

top

Flooding from the rivers, streams and sea is generally pro-actively managed by the appropriate authorities as part of well-established flood risk management programmes.  These include flood warning systems, long-term and strategic planning, and the development and maintenance of appropriate flood risk management solutions.  Typically, these activities inherently consider the likely effects of future climate changes and are planned to continue into the future as part of central government’s approach to flood risk management.

The Regional Flood Defence Committee has various flood risk management projects scheduled in their current programme for implementation, funded through their Local Levy programme.  Within the Alnwick district these include culvert repair works on the Coplish Burn at Rothbury, to be undertaken during 2008/09.

In addition to this programme of works, there are other major flood risk management schemes identified across the region by the Environment Agency on their medium term programme, for implementation beyond 2011.  Currently none of those identified are within the Alnwick district, however the programme is reviewed on an ongoing basis as priorities for schemes change.

There is currently no coordinated centralised action to address localised surface water flooding problems, despite the present projections indicating that the risks of occurrence are likely to increase with climate changes.  New drainage schemes and improvements typically incorporate some consideration for climate changes based on current best practice guidance.  Existing systems, however, are generally managed in a more reactive sense, although drainage area plans produced by the water companies should highlight areas most likely to be at risk.  The key action that could be taken would be to assess all systems likely to affect large numbers of people based on local climate changes, rather than general guidance values, to determine future areas at risk. 

In particular, the following adaptation measures should continue to be incorporated in this approach:

• Look for more innovative sustainable flood management approaches rather then traditional flood defences, such as allowing managed retreat areas and the upstream storage of flood water.
• Establish partnership approaches and cross-sectoral responses to reduce potential flooding, for example the storage of water in uplands areas to fight potential fires caused by higher summer temperatures.
• Use changes in local land management in rural areas to reduce rates of surface runoff, such as the provision of hedgerows and ditches, and the lateral ploughing of fields along contours to reduce field runoff and the wash off of sediments, and retain nutrients on the fields.
• Continue monitoring and flood warning, particularly in upstream areas due to specific issues and nature of flooding.
• Improvements to flood warning systems, specifically in fast reacting catchments and for surface water flooding.
• Improve the future planning management of caravan and camping parks with increased tourism.  Low volume sites are not currently subject to planning permission due to their temporary nature.  Sites are often placed near watercourses/sea and are highly vulnerable to flooding impacts.
• Improve response units and equipment, and ensure clear access routes available.  (In Northumberland, the fire service at Ashington has three high volume pumps [three times faster than conventional fire service pumps].  These were recently used in response to major regional flood events such as around Hull in summer 2007, and Carlisle in 2005.   Northumberland Fire and Rescue is procuring new pumps and boats for use in times of extreme flooding).
• Incorporate more detailed assessments of the numbers of properties at risk under future climate scenarios based on detailed hydrological and hydraulic modelling.
• Identify the criticality and vulnerability of key public infrastructure (electricity, gas, water supply, sewage works, telecommunications, transport, schools) and produce regulations for their protection from flooding.  (Summer 2007 floods indicated how poorly protected some of vital key infrastructure is).  Many organisations rely critically on constant power supply.  The risks need to be considered cross-organisationally to identify key interdependencies.  Systems are only as strong as the weakest link and this may lie with another organisation or operator.
• Relocate key industries/businesses and critical/vulnerable properties away from potential flood risk, particularly where it is inappropriate or unsustainable to provide defences.
• Provide improved regulation and guidance across all sectors for consideration of the impacts of flooding due to climate change.  Many regulators are not currently engaged in the debate on climate change, and its inclusion in their requirements and guidance, i.e. OFWAT, Rail Regulator, Housing Corporation. 
• Continue the tight control of developments allowable within the flood plain corridor.
• Production of multi-agency response plans, to co-ordinate responses during extreme events.
• Determine priorities for the protection of properties and assets in the event of flooding: priority to the protection of critical infrastructure and key access routes; followed by vulnerable populations; followed by flooding to residential housing.
• Maintain and, where necessary, improve flood defences to raise the standard and condition of existing defences.
• Provide temporary or demountable flood defences available to low impact areas frequently affected by flooding, and ensure access routes are always available for their installation. (In summer 2007, it was not possible to install temporary defences to one area due to severe flooding of the surrounding roads blocking access).
• Increase maintenance of watercourse channels to retain flow capacity. 
• Use public campaigns to reduce fly tipping and clear rubbish from becks to reduce flood impacts during flash summer events and increased winter rainfall.
• Provide flood proofing/resilience for properties and homes, such as raised electrics, raised sub-floor (for post-event draining).  Make the most of opportunities for retrofitting during refurbishments of old housing stock.  [see Three Regions “Your home in a changing climate" report, on methods for retrofitting existing homes for climate change impacts].
• For new developments move away from lowest cost to most adaptable and sustainable developments, with the inclusion of sufficient resilience as necessary for the location.
• Develop new roads and railway sections at raised levels (on stilts/viaducts) in flood prone areas.  Consider such improvements and new bypasses for main routes already affected.

For drainage systems:

• Determine a clear co-ordinating framework between local government, water companies, Highways Agency and Environment Agency for managing the flood risk from surface water drainage.
• Ensure current design standards are appropriate, and locally relevant, to accommodate future increases in rainfall/runoff.  (Current planning requirements for new sewer design are outdated.  Designs often use old rainfall data and are required to a 1 in 30-year standard.  Northumbrian Water design new sewers to a 1 in 40-year standard, to accommodate for future climate changes).
• Strategically plan and implement system improvements across the network, although increased pipe sizes across the entire would clearly be impractical and investment would be better focussed on areas at greatest risk. 
• Include additional capacity for new build developments and into the existing system through network improvements to accommodate for projected increases in rainfall.   
• Limit downstream impacts from new drainage systems by designing with over-sized pipe diameters and manholes to deliver a maximum appropriate outfall discharge, such as equivalent to normal greenfield runoff.  (This is currently applied with the design of highways improvements).
• Promote and increase investment into the wider application of source control techniques to attenuate flow volumes earlier in the system and reduce downstream impacts on existing ageing sewer networks.  This would also have the added benefit of reducing peak flood flows in problem watercourses.  (There are ongoing questions over the practicability of these methods, due to ownership issues and planning policy guidance requiring increasing numbers of houses with less available space between, which need to be resolved).
• Investigate opportunities for the management of combined flooding from different sources, such as the recent Defra Integrated Urban Drainage pilot schemes taking place within the region in Newcastle (North Gosforth and Ouseburn, see Case Study) and Hartlepool.
• Incorporate the retrofitting of SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) for an overall reduction of urban runoff.  Although, opportunities to retro-fit existing infrastructure may be limited and difficult, i.e. costly, to achieve. 
• Consider the retrofitting of balancing tanks into historic drainage systems in known flood areas to accommodate excess flows when sewers reach capacity.
• Provide households across residential areas with water butts for rainwater harvesting to counteract the effects of development creep, i.e. gardens being paved over. 
• Undertake public education for the importance of SUDS, source control of flooding, the community benefits of water butts, and the wider impacts of paving over garden areas.
• Ensure sufficient flood-proofing of infrastructure and equipment at Sewage Treatment Works and Pumping Stations to accommodate greater flows.
• Flood-proof remote properties which are vulnerable to sewer flooding (or localised surface water or river flooding) where drainage improvements would be costly. 
• Undertake improvements to overflows from combined sewer networks (combined sewer overflows, CSOs) in key environmentally sensitive locations where increased spills will have detrimental effects.
• Improve outfall capacity, storage provision or include pumping at CSOs most likely to be affected by climate changes (sea level rise or raised flood depths).  The design of fluvial flood defences should ensure the consideration of the impacts of raised water levels on adjacent CSOs.

 

Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council

top

Flooding from the rivers, streams and sea is generally pro-actively managed by the appropriate authorities as part of well-established flood risk management programmes.  These include flood warning systems, long-term and strategic planning, and the development and maintenance of appropriate flood risk management solutions.  Typically, these activities inherently consider the likely effects of future climate changes and are planned to continue into the future as part of central government’s approach to flood risk management.

The Regional Flood Defence Committee has various flood risk management projects scheduled in their current programme for implementation, funded through their Local Levy programme.  Within the Berwick-Upon-Tweed borough these include a managed coastal realignment scheme around Beal (4shores) and the delivery of catchment approaches and channel works for Belford, to be undertaken during 2008-2010.

In addition to this programme of works, there are other major flood risk management schemes identified across the region by the Environment Agency on their medium term programme, for implementation beyond 2011.  Currently none of those identified are within the Berwick-Upon-Tweed borough, however the programme is reviewed on an ongoing basis as priorities for schemes change.

There is currently no coordinated centralised action to address localised surface water flooding problems, despite the present projections indicating that the risks of occurrence are likely to increase with climate changes.  New drainage schemes and improvements typically incorporate some consideration for climate changes based on current best practice guidance.  Existing systems, however, are generally managed in a more reactive sense, although drainage area plans produced by the water companies should highlight areas most likely to be at risk.  The key action that could be taken would be to assess all systems likely to affect large numbers of people based on local climate changes, rather than general guidance values, to determine future areas at risk. 

In particular, the following adaptation measures should continue to be incorporated in this approach:

• Look for more innovative sustainable flood management approaches rather then traditional flood defences, such as allowing managed retreat areas and the upstream storage of flood water.
• Establish partnership approaches and cross-sectoral responses to reduce potential flooding, for example the storage of water in uplands areas to fight potential fires caused by higher summer temperatures.
• Use changes in local land management in rural areas to reduce rates of surface runoff, such as the provision of hedgerows and ditches, and the lateral ploughing of fields along contours to reduce field runoff and the wash off of sediments, and retain nutrients on the fields.
• Continue monitoring and flood warning, particularly in upstream areas due to specific issues and nature of flooding.
• Improvements to flood warning systems, specifically in fast reacting catchments and for surface water flooding.
• Increase maintenance of watercourse channels to retain flow capacity. 
• Improve the future planning management of caravan and camping parks with increased tourism.  Low volume sites are not currently subject to planning permission due to their temporary nature.  Sites are often placed near watercourses/sea and are highly vulnerable to flooding impacts.
• Improve response units and equipment, and ensure clear access routes available.  (In Northumberland, the fire service at Ashington has three high volume pumps [three times faster than conventional fire service pumps].  These were recently used in response to major regional flood events such as around Hull in summer 2007, and Carlisle in 2005.   Northumberland Fire and Rescue is procuring new pumps and boats for use in times of extreme flooding).
• Incorporate more detailed assessments of the numbers of properties at risk under future climate scenarios based on detailed hydrological and hydraulic modelling.
• Identify the criticality and vulnerability of key public infrastructure (electricity, gas, water supply, sewage works, telecommunications, transport, schools) and produce regulations for their protection from flooding.  (Summer 2007 floods indicated how poorly protected some of vital key infrastructure is).  Many organisations rely critically on constant power supply.  The risks need to be considered cross-organisationally to identify key interdependencies.  Systems are only as strong as the weakest link and this may lie with another organisation or operator.
• Relocate key industries/businesses and critical/vulnerable properties away from potential flood risk, particularly where it is inappropriate or unsustainable to provide defences.
• Provide improved regulation and guidance across all sectors for consideration of the impacts of flooding due to climate change.  Many regulators are not currently engaged in the debate on climate change, and its inclusion in their requirements and guidance, i.e. OFWAT, Rail Regulator, Housing Corporation. 
• Continue the tight control of developments allowable within the flood plain corridor.
• Production of multi-agency response plans, to co-ordinate responses during extreme events.
• Determine priorities for the protection of properties and assets in the event of flooding: priority to the protection of critical infrastructure and key access routes; followed by vulnerable populations; followed by flooding to residential housing.
• Maintain and, where necessary, improve flood defences to raise the standard and condition of existing defences.
• Provide temporary or demountable flood defences available to low impact areas frequently affected by flooding, and ensure access routes are always available for their installation. (In summer 2007, it was not possible to install temporary defences to one area due to severe flooding of the surrounding roads blocking access).
• Use public campaigns to reduce fly tipping and clear rubbish from becks to reduce flood impacts during flash summer events and increased winter rainfall.
• Provide flood proofing/resilience for properties and homes, such as raised electrics, raised sub-floor (for post-event draining).  Make the most of opportunities for retrofitting during refurbishments of old housing stock.  [see Three Regions “Your home in a changing climate" report, on methods for retrofitting existing homes for climate change impacts].
• For new developments move away from lowest cost to most adaptable and sustainable developments, with the inclusion of sufficient resilience as necessary for the location.
• Develop new roads and railway sections at raised levels (on stilts/viaducts) in flood prone areas.  Consider such improvements and new bypasses for main routes already affected.

For drainage systems:

• Determine a clear co-ordinating framework between local government, water companies, Highways Agency and Environment Agency for managing the flood risk from surface water drainage.
• Ensure current design standards are appropriate, and locally relevant, to accommodate future increases in rainfall/runoff.  (Current planning requirements for new sewer design are outdated.  Designs often use old rainfall data and are required to a 1 in 30-year standard.  Northumbrian Water design new sewers to a 1 in 40-year standard, to accommodate for future climate changes).
• Strategically plan and implement system improvements across the network, although increased pipe sizes across the entire would clearly be impractical and investment would be better focussed on areas at greatest risk. 
• Include additional capacity for new build developments and into the existing system through network improvements to accommodate for projected increases in rainfall.   
• Limit downstream impacts from new drainage systems by designing with over-sized pipe diameters and manholes to deliver a maximum appropriate outfall discharge, such as equivalent to normal greenfield runoff.  (This is currently applied with the design of highways improvements).
• Promote and increase investment into the wider application of source control techniques to attenuate flow volumes earlier in the system and reduce downstream impacts on existing ageing sewer networks.  This would also have the added benefit of reducing peak flood flows in problem watercourses.  (There are ongoing questions over the practicability of these methods, due to ownership issues and planning policy guidance requiring increasing numbers of houses with less available space between, which need to be resolved).
• Investigate opportunities for the management of combined flooding from different sources, such as the recent Defra Integrated Urban Drainage pilot schemes taking place within the region in Newcastle (North Gosforth and Ouseburn, see Case Study) and Hartlepool.
• Incorporate the retrofitting of SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) for an overall reduction of urban runoff.  Although, opportunities to retro-fit existing infrastructure may be limited and difficult, i.e. costly, to achieve.  
• Consider the retrofitting of balancing tanks into historic drainage systems in known flood areas to accommodate excess flows when sewers reach capacity.
• Provide households across residential areas with water butts for rainwater harvesting to counteract the effects of development creep, i.e. gardens being paved over. 
• Undertake public education for the importance of SUDS, source control of flooding, the community benefits of water butts, and the wider impacts of paving over garden areas.
• Ensure sufficient flood-proofing of infrastructure and equipment at Sewage Treatment Works and Pumping Stations to accommodate greater flows.
• Flood-proof remote properties which are vulnerable to sewer flooding (or localised surface water or river flooding) where drainage improvements would be costly. 
• Undertake improvements to overflows from combined sewer networks (combined sewer overflows, CSOs) in key environmentally sensitive locations where increased spills will have detrimental effects.
• Improve outfall capacity, storage provision or include pumping at CSOs most likely to be affected by climate changes (sea level rise or raised flood depths).  The design of fluvial flood defences should ensure the consideration of the impacts of raised water levels on adjacent CSOs.

 

Blyth Valley Borough Council

top

Flooding from the rivers, streams and sea is generally pro-actively managed by the appropriate authorities as part of well-established flood risk management programmes.  These include flood warning systems, long-term and strategic planning, and the development and maintenance of appropriate flood risk management solutions.  Typically, these activities inherently consider the likely effects of future climate changes and are planned to continue into the future as part of central government’s approach to flood risk management.

The Regional Flood Defence Committee has various flood risk management projects scheduled in their current programme for implementation, funded through their Local Levy programme.  At a region-wide level these include a review of critical infrastructure at risk of flooding, climate change business adaptation project, and the mapping of areas at risk of surface water flooding.

In addition to this programme of works, there are other major flood risk management schemes identified by the Environment Agency on their medium term programme, for implementation beyond 2011.  These include an indicative £1.2M tidal protection improvements scheme for Blyth.

New drainage schemes and improvements typically incorporate some consideration for climate changes based on current best practice guidance.  Existing systems, however, are generally managed in a more reactive sense, although drainage area plans produced by the water companies should highlight areas most likely to be at risk.  The key action that could be taken would be to assess all systems likely to affect large numbers of people based on local climate changes, rather than general guidance values, to determine future areas at risk. 

In particular, the following adaptation measures should continue to be incorporated in this approach:

• Continue provision of flood warning to areas at risk in advance of high tidal surge events, and improvements to warnings for surface water flooding.
• Maintain and, where necessary, improve flood defences to raise the standard and condition of existing defences.
• Look for more innovative sustainable flood management approaches rather then traditional flood defences, such as allowing managed coastal retreat areas.
• Pro-actively manage the tidal risks and ensure that these are not escalated by erosion of the local dunes systems.
• Identify the criticality and vulnerability of key public infrastructure (electricity, gas, water supply, sewage works, telecommunications, transport, schools) and produce regulations for their protection from flooding.  (Summer 2007 floods indicated how poorly protected some of vital key infrastructure is).  Many organisations rely critically on constant power supply.  The risks need to be considered cross-organisationally to identify key interdependencies.  Systems are only as strong as the weakest link and this may lie with another organisation or operator.
• Relocate key industries/businesses and critical/vulnerable properties away from potential flood risk, particularly where it is inappropriate or unsustainable to provide defences.
• Continue the tight control of developments allowable within the flood plain.
• Provide improved regulation and guidance across all sectors for consideration of the impacts of flooding due to climate change.  Many regulators are not currently engaged in the debate on climate change, and its inclusion in their requirements and guidance, i.e. OFWAT, Rail Regulator, Housing Corporation. 
• Production of multi-agency response plans, to co-ordinate responses during extreme events.
• Improve response units and equipment, and ensure clear access routes available.  (In Northumberland, the fire service at Ashington has three high volume pumps [three times faster than conventional fire service pumps].  These were recently used in response to major regional flood events such as around Hull in summer 2007, and Carlisle in 2005.   Northumberland Fire and Rescue is procuring new pumps and boats for use in times of extreme flooding).
• Determine priorities for the protection of properties and assets in the event of flooding: priority to the protection of critical infrastructure and key access routes; followed by vulnerable populations; followed by flooding to residential housing.
• Establish partnership approaches and cross-sectoral responses to reduce potential flooding.
• Provide temporary or demountable flood defences available to low impact areas frequently affected by flooding, and ensure access routes are always available for their installation. (In summer 2007, it was not possible to install temporary defences to one area due to severe flooding of the surrounding roads blocking access).
• Increase maintenance of watercourse channels to retain flow capacity. 
• Use public campaigns to reduce fly tipping and clear rubbish from becks to reduce flood impacts during flash summer events and increased winter rainfall.
• Provide flood proofing/resilience for properties and homes, such as raised electrics, raised sub-floor (for post-event draining).  Make the most of opportunities for retrofitting during refurbishments of old housing stock.  [see Three Regions “Your home in a changing climate" report, on methods for retrofitting existing homes for climate change impacts].
• For new developments move away from lowest cost to most adaptable and sustainable developments, with the inclusion of sufficient resilience as necessary for the location.
• Develop new roads and railway sections at raised levels (on stilts/viaducts) in flood prone areas.  Consider such improvements and new bypasses for main routes already affected.

For drainage systems:

• Ensure that back-up generators provided to the surface water pumps in Blyth are sufficient to cope with any events that might occur during power cuts.
• Determine a clear co-ordinating framework between local government, water companies, Highways Agency and Environment Agency for managing the flood risk from surface water drainage.
• Ensure current design standards are appropriate, and locally relevant, to accommodate future increases in rainfall/runoff.  (Current planning requirements for new sewer design are outdated.  Designs often use old rainfall data and are required to a 1 in 30-year standard.  Northumbrian Water design new sewers to a 1 in 40-year standard, to accommodate for future climate changes).
• Strategically plan and implement system improvements across the network, although increased pipe sizes across the entire would clearly be impractical and investment would be better focussed on areas at greatest risk. 
• Include additional capacity for new build developments and into the existing system through network improvements to accommodate for projected increases in rainfall.   
• Limit downstream impacts from new drainage systems by designing with over-sized pipe diameters and manholes to deliver a maximum appropriate outfall discharge, such as equivalent to normal greenfield runoff.  (This is currently applied with the design of highways improvements).
• Promote and increase investment into the wider application of source control techniques to attenuate flow volumes earlier in the system and reduce downstream impacts on existing ageing sewer networks.  This would also have the added benefit of reducing peak flood flows in problem watercourses.  (There are ongoing questions over the practicability of these methods, due to ownership issues and planning policy guidance requiring increasing numbers of houses with less available space between, which need to be resolved).
• Investigate opportunities for the management of combined flooding from different sources, such as the recent Defra Integrated Urban Drainage pilot schemes taking place within the region in Newcastle (North Gosforth and Ouseburn, see Case Study) and Hartlepool.
• Incorporate the retrofitting of SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) for an overall reduction of urban runoff.  Although, opportunities to retro-fit existing infrastructure may be limited and difficult, i.e. costly, to achieve.  
• Consider the retrofitting of balancing tanks into historic drainage systems in known flood areas to accommodate excess flows when sewers reach capacity.
• Provide households across residential areas with water butts for rainwater harvesting to counteract the effects of development creep, i.e. gardens being paved over. 
• Undertake public education for the importance of SUDS, source control of flooding, the community benefits of water butts, and the wider impacts of paving over garden areas.
• Ensure sufficient flood-proofing of infrastructure and equipment at sewage treatment works and pumping stations to accommodate greater flows.
• Undertake improvements to overflows from combined sewer networks (combined sewer overflows, CSOs) in key environmentally sensitive locations where increased spills will have detrimental effects.
• Improve outfall capacity, storage provision or include pumping at CSOs most likely to be affected by climate changes (sea level rise or raised flood depths).  The design of fluvial flood defences should ensure the consideration of the impacts of raised water levels on adjacent CSOs.

 

Castle Morpeth Council

top

Flooding from the rivers, streams and sea is generally pro-actively managed by the appropriate authorities as part of well-established flood risk management programmes.  These include flood warning systems, long-term and strategic planning, and the development and maintenance of appropriate flood risk management solutions.  Typically, these activities inherently consider the likely effects of future climate changes and are planned to continue into the future as part of central government’s approach to flood risk management.

The Regional Flood Defence Committee has various flood risk management projects scheduled in their current programme for implementation, funded through their Local Levy programme.  Within the Castle Morpeth district these include an on-site flood exercise with the local authority and emergency services during 2008/09, followed by the development of a feasibility study for a major flood improvements scheme in 2011/12.

In addition to this programme of works, there are other major flood risk management schemes identified by the Environment Agency on their medium term programme, for implementation beyond 2011.  These include an indicative £10M flood improvements scheme for Morpeth, and a further scheme for Ponteland with an initial estimated cost of £10M.

New drainage schemes and improvements typically incorporate some consideration for climate changes based on current best practice guidance.  Existing systems, however, are generally managed in a more reactive sense, although drainage area plans produced by the water companies should highlight areas most likely to be at risk.  The key action that could be taken would be to assess all systems likely to affect large numbers of people based on local climate changes, rather than general guidance values, to determine future areas at risk. 

In particular, the following adaptation measures should continue to be incorporated in this approach:

• Improvements to flood warning systems, specifically in fast reacting catchments and for surface water flooding.
• Production of multi-agency response plans, to co-ordinate responses during extreme events.  A specific flood response plan for Morpeth is to be developed during the current Local Levy works programme.  Following this a flood risk management scheme is to be produced.
• Improve response units and equipment, and ensure clear access routes available.  (In Northumberland, the fire service at Ashington has three high volume pumps [three times faster than conventional fire service pumps].  These were recently used in response to major regional flood events such as around Hull in summer 2007, and Carlisle in 2005.   Northumberland Fire and Rescue is procuring new pumps and boats for use in times of extreme flooding).
• Investigate opportunities for the provision of permanent flood alleviation measures to reduce extreme flood levels, such as the new Callerton Burn pumping station which helps to reduce the risk of flooding in Ponteland.  The station includes 1.2m³/s pumps which are automatically triggered by the rising water level.
• Provide temporary or demountable flood defences available to low impact areas frequently affected by flooding, and ensure access routes are always available for their installation. (In summer 2007, it was not possible to install temporary defences to one area due to severe flooding of the surrounding roads blocking access).
• Use changes in local land management in rural areas to reduce rates of surface runoff, such as the provision of hedgerows and ditches, and the lateral ploughing of fields along contours to reduce field runoff and the wash off of sediments, and retain nutrients on the fields.
• Improve the future planning management of caravan and camping parks with increased tourism.  Low volume sites are not currently subject to planning permission due to their temporary nature.  Sites are often placed near watercourses/sea and are highly vulnerable to flooding impacts.
• Continue monitoring and flood warning, particularly in upstream areas due to specific issues and nature of flooding.
• Incorporate more detailed assessments of the numbers of properties at risk under future climate scenarios based on detailed hydrological and hydraulic modelling.
• Identify the criticality and vulnerability of key public infrastructure (electricity, gas, water supply, sewage works, telecommunications, transport, schools) and produce regulations for their protection from flooding.  (Summer 2007 floods indicated how poorly protected some of vital key infrastructure is). Many organisations rely critically on constant power supply.  The risks need to be considered cross-organisationally to identify key interdependencies.  Systems are only as strong as the weakest link and this may lie with another organisation or operator.
• Relocate key industries/businesses and critical/vulnerable properties away from potential flood risk, particularly where it is inappropriate or unsustainable to provide defences.
• Provide improved regulation and guidance across all sectors for consideration of the impacts of flooding due to climate change.  Many regulators are not currently engaged in the debate on climate change, and its inclusion in their requirements and guidance, i.e. OFWAT, Rail Regulator, Housing Corporation. 
• Continue the tight control of developments allowable within the flood plain corridor.
• Determine priorities for the protection of properties and assets in the event of flooding: priority to the protection of critical infrastructure and key access routes; followed by vulnerable populations; followed by flooding to residential housing.
• Establish partnership approaches and cross-sectoral responses to reduce potential flooding, for example the storage of water in uplands areas to fight potential fires caused by higher summer temperatures.
• Maintain and, where necessary, improve flood defences to raise the standard and condition of existing defences.
• Look for more innovative sustainable flood management approaches rather then traditional flood defences, such as allowing managed retreat areas and the upstream storage of flood water.
• Increase maintenance of watercourse channels to retain flow capacity. 
• Use public campaigns to reduce fly tipping and clear rubbish from local watercourses to reduce flood impacts during flash summer events and increased winter rainfall.
• Provide flood proofing/resilience for properties and homes, such as raised electrics, raised sub-floor (for post-event draining).  Make the most of opportunities for retrofitting during refurbishments of old housing stock.  [see Three Regions “Your home in a changing climate" report, on methods for retrofitting existing homes for climate change impacts].
• For new developments move away from lowest cost to most adaptable and sustainable developments, with the inclusion of sufficient resilience as necessary for the location.
• Develop new roads and railway sections at raised levels (on stilts/viaducts) in flood prone areas.  Consider such improvements and new bypasses for main routes already affected.

For drainage systems:

• Determine a clear co-ordinating framework between local government, water companies, Highways Agency and Environment Agency for managing the flood risk from surface water drainage, particularly in the key problem locations of Morpeth and Ponteland.
• Ensure current design standards are appropriate, and locally relevant, to accommodate future increases in rainfall/runoff.  (Current planning requirements for new sewer design are outdated.  Designs often use old rainfall data and are required to a 1 in 30-year standard.  Northumbrian Water design new sewers to a 1 in 40-year standard, to accommodate for future climate changes).
• Strategically plan and implement system improvements across the network, although increased pipe sizes across the entire would clearly be impractical and investment would be better focussed on areas at greatest risk. 
• Include additional capacity for new build developments and into the existing system through network improvements to accommodate for projected increases in rainfall.   
• Limit downstream impacts from new drainage systems by designing with over-sized pipe diameters and manholes to deliver a maximum appropriate outfall discharge, such as equivalent to normal greenfield runoff.  (This is currently applied with the design of highways improvements).
• Promote and increase investment into the wider application of source control techniques to attenuate flow volumes earlier in the system and reduce downstream impacts on existing ageing sewer networks.  This would also have the added benefit of reducing peak flood flows in problem watercourses.  (There are ongoing questions over the practicability of these methods, due to ownership issues and planning policy guidance requiring increasing numbers of houses with less available space between, which need to be resolved).
• Investigate opportunities for the management of combined flooding from different sources, such as the recent Defra Integrated Urban Drainage pilot schemes taking place within the region in Newcastle (North Gosforth and Ouseburn, see Case Study) and Hartlepool.
• Incorporate the retrofitting of SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) for an overall reduction of urban runoff.  Although, opportunities to retro-fit existing infrastructure may be limited and difficult, i.e. costly, to achieve.  
• Consider the retrofitting of balancing tanks into historic drainage systems in known flood areas to accommodate excess flows when sewers reach capacity.
• Provide households across residential areas with water butts for rainwater harvesting to counteract the effects of development creep, i.e. gardens being paved over. 
• Undertake public education for the importance of SUDS, source control of flooding, the community benefits of water butts, and the wider impacts of paving over garden areas.
• Ensure sufficient flood-proofing of infrastructure and equipment at sewage treatment works and pumping stations to accommodate greater flows.
• Flood-proof remote properties which are vulnerable to sewer flooding (or localised surface water or river flooding) where drainage improvements would be costly. 
• Undertake improvements to overflows from combined sewer networks (combined sewer overflows, CSOs) in key environmentally sensitive locations where increased spills will have detrimental effects.
• Improve outfall capacity, storage provision or include pumping at CSOs most likely to be affected by climate changes (sea level rise or raised flood depths).  The design of fluvial flood defences should ensure the consideration of the impacts of raised water levels on adjacent CSOs.

 

Chester-le-Street District Council

top

Flooding from the main rivers is generally pro-actively managed by the appropriate authorities as part of well-established flood risk management programmes.  These include flood warning systems, long-term and strategic planning, and the development and maintenance of appropriate flood risk management solutions.  Typically, these activities inherently consider the likely effects of future climate changes and are planned to continue into the future as part of central government’s approach to flood risk management.

The Regional Flood Defence Committee has various flood risk management projects scheduled in their current programme for implementation, funded through their Local Levy programme.  Within the Chester le Street district these include a scheme for a proposed flood wall to the north of Chester le Street, to be completed during 2008/09.  This scheme is to be undertaken as a joint venture with the local council.

In addition to this programme of works, there are other major flood risk management schemes identified across the region by the Environment Agency on their medium term programme, for implementation beyond 2011.  Currently none of those identified are within the Chester-Le-Street district, however the programme is reviewed on an ongoing basis as priorities for schemes change.

New drainage schemes and improvements typically incorporate some consideration for climate changes based on current best practice guidance.  Existing systems, however, are generally managed in a more reactive sense, although drainage area plans produced by the water companies should highlight areas most likely to be at risk.  The key action that could be taken would be to assess all systems likely to affect large numbers of people based on local climate changes, rather than general guidance values, to determine future areas at risk. 

In particular, the following adaptation measures should continue to be incorporated in this approach:

• Continue the tight control of developments allowable within the flood plain corridor.
• Increase maintenance of watercourse channels to retain flow capacity. 
• Use public campaigns to reduce fly tipping and clear rubbish from local watercourses to reduce flood impacts during flash summer events and increased winter rainfall.
• Continue monitoring and flood warning, particularly in upstream areas due to specific issues and nature of flooding.
• Incorporate more detailed assessments of the numbers of properties at risk under future climate scenarios based on detailed hydrological and hydraulic modelling.
• Identify the criticality and vulnerability of key public infrastructure (electricity, gas, water supply, sewage works, telecommunications, transport, schools) and produce regulations for their protection from flooding.  (Summer 2007 floods indicated how poorly protected some of vital key infrastructure is).  Many organisations rely critically on constant power supply.  The risks need to be considered cross-organisationally to identify key interdependencies.  Systems are only as strong as the weakest link and this may lie with another organisation or operator.
• Relocate key industries/businesses and critical/vulnerable properties away from potential flood risk, particularly where it is inappropriate or unsustainable to provide defences.
• Provide improved regulation and guidance across all sectors for consideration of the impacts of flooding due to climate change.  Many regulators are not currently engaged in the debate on climate change, and its inclusion in their requirements and guidance, i.e. OFWAT, Rail Regulator, Housing Corporation. 
• Improvements to flood warning systems, specifically in fast reacting catchments.
• Production of multi-agency response plans, to co-ordinate responses during extreme events.
• Improve response units and equipment, and ensure clear access routes are available.
• Determine priorities for the protection of properties and assets in the event of flooding: priority to the protection of critical infrastructure and key access routes; followed by vulnerable populations; followed by flooding to residential housing.
• Establish partnership approaches and cross-sectoral responses to reduce potential flooding, for example the storage of water in uplands areas to fight potential fires caused by higher summer temperatures.
• Maintain and, where necessary, improve flood defences to raise the standard and condition of existing defences.
• Look for more innovative sustainable flood management approaches rather then traditional flood defences, such as allowing managed retreat areas and the upstream storage of flood water.
• Provide temporary or demountable flood defences available to low impact areas frequently affected by flooding, and ensure access routes are always available for their installation. (In summer 2007, it was not possible to install temporary defences to one area due to severe flooding of the surrounding roads blocking access).
• Provide flood proofing/resilience for properties and homes, such as raised electrics, raised sub-floor (for post-event draining).  Make the most of opportunities for retrofitting during refurbishments of old housing stock.  [see Three Regions “Your home in a changing climate" report, on methods for retrofitting existing homes for climate change impacts].
• For new developments move away from lowest cost to most adaptable and sustainable developments, with the inclusion of sufficient resilience as necessary for the location.
• Develop new roads and railway sections at raised levels (on stilts/viaducts) in flood prone areas.  Consider such improvements and new bypasses for main routes already affected.
• Use changes in local land management in rural areas to reduce rates of surface runoff, such as the provision of hedgerows and ditches, and the lateral ploughing of fields along contours to reduce field runoff and the wash off of sediments, and retain nutrients on the fields.

For drainage systems:

• Determine a clear co-ordinating framework between local government, water companies, Highways Agency and Environment Agency for managing the flood risk from surface water drainage.
• Implement flood warning systems specifically for surface water flooding.
• Ensure current design standards are appropriate, and locally relevant, to accommodate future increases in rainfall/runoff.  (Current planning requirements for new sewer design are outdated.  Designs often use old rainfall data and are required to a 1 in 30-year standard.  Northumbrian Water design new sewers to a 1 in 40-year standard, to accommodate for future climate changes).
• Strategically plan and implement system improvements across the network, although increased pipe sizes across the entire would clearly be impractical and investment would be better focussed on areas at greatest risk. 
• Include additional capacity for new build developments and into the existing system through network improvements to accommodate for projected increases in rainfall.   
• Limit downstream impacts from new drainage systems by designing with over-sized pipe diameters and manholes to deliver a maximum appropriate outfall discharge, such as equivalent to normal greenfield runoff.  (This is currently applied with the design of highways improvements).
• Promote and increase investment into the wider application of source control techniques to attenuate flow volumes earlier in the system and reduce downstream impacts on existing ageing sewer networks.  This would also have the added benefit of reducing peak flood flows in problem watercourses.  (There are ongoing questions over the practicability of these methods, due to ownership issues and planning policy guidance requiring increasing numbers of houses with less available space between, which need to be resolved).
• Investigate opportunities for the management of combined flooding from different sources, such as the recent Defra Integrated Urban Drainage pilot schemes taking place within the region in Newcastle (North Gosforth and Ouseburn, see Case Study) and Hartlepool.
• Incorporate the retrofitting of SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) for an overall reduction of urban runoff.  Although, opportunities to retro-fit existing infrastructure may be limited and difficult, i.e. costly, to achieve.  
• Consider the retrofitting of balancing tanks into historic drainage systems in known flood areas to accommodate excess flows when sewers reach capacity.
• Provide households across residential areas with water butts for rainwater harvesting to counteract the effects of development creep, i.e. gardens being paved over. 
• Undertake public education for the importance of SUDS, source control of flooding, the community benefits of water butts, and the wider impacts of paving over garden areas.
• Ensure sufficient flood-proofing of infrastructure and equipment at sewage treatment works and pumping stations to accommodate greater flows.
• Flood-proof remote properties which are vulnerable to sewer flooding (or localised surface water or river flooding) where drainage improvements would be costly. 
• Undertake improvements to overflows from combined sewer networks (combined sewer overflows, CSOs) in key environmentally sensitive locations where increased spills will have detrimental effects.
• Improve outfall capacity, storage provision or include pumping at CSOs most likely to be affected by climate changes (sea level rise or raised flood depths).  The design of fluvial flood defences should ensure the consideration of the impacts of raised water levels on adjacent CSOs.

 

Darlington Borough Council

top

Flooding from main rivers is generally pro-actively managed by the appropriate authorities as part of well-established flood risk management programmes.  These include flood warning systems, long-term and strategic planning, and the development and maintenance of appropriate flood risk management solutions.  Typically, these activities inherently consider the likely effects of future climate changes and are planned to continue into the future as part of central government’s approach to flood risk management.

The Regional Flood Defence Committee has various flood risk management projects scheduled in their current programme for implementation, funded through their Local Levy programme.  At a region-wide level these include a review of critical infrastructure at risk of flooding, climate change business adaptation project, and the mapping of areas at risk of surface water flooding.

In addition to this programme of works, there are other major flood risk management schemes identified by the Environment Agency on their medium term programme, for implementation beyond 2011.  Within Darlington Borough these include an indicative £2.4M flood improvements scheme on West Beck through Darlington and a further scheme on Kent Beck, near Neasham at the River Tees, with an initial estimated cost of £1.1M.

New drainage schemes and improvements typically incorporate some consideration for climate changes based on current best practice guidance.  Existing systems, however, are generally managed in a more reactive sense, although drainage area plans produced by the water companies should highlight areas most likely to be at risk.  The key action that could be taken would be to assess all systems likely to affect large numbers of people based on local climate changes, rather than general guidance values, to determine future areas at risk. 

In particular, the following adaptation measures should continue to be incorporated in this approach:

• Maintain and, where necessary, improve flood defences to raise the standard and condition of existing defences.
• Look for more innovative sustainable flood management approaches rather then traditional flood defences, such as allowing managed retreat areas and the upstream storage of flood water.
• Use changes in local land management in rural areas to reduce rates of surface runoff, such as the provision of hedgerows and ditches, and the lateral ploughing of fields along contours to reduce field runoff and the wash off of sediments, and retain nutrients on the fields.
• Increase maintenance of watercourse channels to retain flow capacity. 
• Use public campaigns to reduce fly tipping and clear rubbish from becks and local watercourses to reduce flood impacts during flash summer events and increased winter rainfall.
• Provide temporary or demountable flood defences available to low impact areas frequently affected by flooding, and ensure access routes are always available for their installation. (In summer 2007, it was not possible to install temporary defences to one area due to severe flooding of the surrounding roads blocking access).
• Continue the tight control of developments allowable within the flood plain corridor.
• Improve the future planning management of caravan and camping parks with increased tourism.  Low volume sites are not currently subject to planning permission due to their temporary nature.  Sites are often placed near watercourses/sea and are highly vulnerable to flooding impacts.
• Continue monitoring and flood warning, and improvements to systems, specifically in fast reacting catchments.
• Incorporate more detailed assessments of the numbers of properties at risk under future climate scenarios based on detailed hydrological and hydraulic modelling.
• Identify the criticality and vulnerability of key public infrastructure (electricity, gas, water supply, sewage works, telecommunications, transport, schools) and produce regulations for their protection from flooding.  (Summer 2007 floods indicated how poorly protected some of vital key infrastructure is).  Many organisations rely critically on constant power supply.  The risks need to be considered cross-organisationally to identify key interdependencies.  Systems are only as strong as the weakest link and this may lie with another organisation or operator.
• Relocate key industries/businesses and critical/vulnerable properties away from potential flood risk, particularly where it is inappropriate or unsustainable to provide defences.
• Provide improved regulation and guidance across all sectors for consideration of the impacts of flooding due to climate change.  Many regulators are not currently engaged in the debate on climate change, and its inclusion in their requirements and guidance, i.e. OFWAT, Rail Regulator, Housing Corporation. 
• Production of multi-agency response plans, to co-ordinate responses during extreme events.
• Improve response units and equipment, and ensure clear access routes are available. 
• Determine priorities for the protection of properties and assets in the event of flooding: priority to the protection of critical infrastructure and key access routes; followed by vulnerable populations; followed by flooding to residential housing.
• Establish partnership approaches and cross-sectoral responses to reduce potential flooding, for example the storage of water in uplands areas to fight potential fires caused by higher summer temperatures.
• Provide flood proofing/resilience for properties and homes, such as raised electrics, raised sub-floor (for post-event draining).  Make the most of opportunities for retrofitting during refurbishments of old housing stock.  [see Three Regions “Your home in a changing climate" report, on methods for retrofitting existing homes for climate change impacts].
• For new developments move away from lowest cost to most adaptable and sustainable developments, with the inclusion of sufficient resilience as necessary for the location.
• Develop new roads and railway sections at raised levels (on stilts/viaducts) in flood prone areas.  Consider such improvements and new bypasses for main routes already affected.

For drainage systems:

• Determine a clear co-ordinating framework between local government, water companies, Highways Agency and Environment Agency for managing the flood risk from surface water drainage.
• Implement flood warning systems specifically for surface water flooding.
• Ensure current design standards are appropriate, and locally relevant, to accommodate future increases in rainfall/runoff.  (Current planning requirements for new sewer design are outdated.  Designs often use old rainfall data and are required to a 1 in 30-year standard.  Northumbrian Water design new sewers to a 1 in 40-year standard, to accommodate for future climate changes).
• Strategically plan and implement system improvements across the network, although increased pipe sizes across the entire would clearly be impractical and investment would be better focussed on areas at greatest risk. 
• Include additional capacity for new build developments and into the existing system through network improvements to accommodate for projected increases in rainfall.   
• Limit downstream impacts from new drainage systems by designing with over-sized pipe diameters and manholes to deliver a maximum appropriate outfall discharge, such as equivalent to normal greenfield runoff.  (This is currently applied with the design of highways improvements).
• Promote and increase investment into the wider application of source control techniques to attenuate flow volumes earlier in the system and reduce downstream impacts on existing ageing sewer networks.  This would also have the added benefit of reducing peak flood flows in problem watercourses.  (There are ongoing questions over the practicability of these methods, due to ownership issues and planning policy guidance requiring increasing numbers of houses with less available space between, which need to be resolved).
• Investigate opportunities for the management of combined flooding from different sources, such as the recent Defra Integrated Urban Drainage pilot schemes taking place within the region in in Newcastle (North Gosforth and Ouseburn, see Case Study) and Hartlepool. 
• Incorporate the retrofitting of SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) for an overall reduction of urban runoff.  Although, opportunities to retro-fit existing infrastructure may be limited and difficult, i.e. costly, to achieve.  
• Consider the retrofitting of balancing tanks into historic drainage systems in known flood areas to accommodate excess flows when sewers reach capacity.
• Provide households across residential areas with water butts for rainwater harvesting to counteract the effects of development creep, i.e. gardens being paved over. 
• Undertake public education for the importance of SUDS, source control of flooding, the community benefits of water butts, and the wider impacts of paving over garden areas.
• Ensure sufficient flood-proofing of infrastructure and equipment at sewage treatment works and pumping stations to accommodate greater flows.
• Flood-proof remote properties which are vulnerable to sewer flooding (or localised surface water or river flooding) where drainage improvements would be costly. 
• Undertake improvements to overflows from combined sewer networks (combined sewer overflows, CSOs) in key environmentally sensitive locations where increased spills will have detrimental effects.
• Improve outfall capacity, storage provision or include pumping at CSOs most likely to be affected by climate changes (sea level rise or raised flood depths).  The design of fluvial flood defences should ensure the consideration of the impacts of raised water levels on adjacent CSOs.

 

Derwentside District Council

top

Flooding from the main rivers is generally pro-actively managed by the appropriate authorities as part of well-established flood risk management programmes.  These include flood warning systems, long-term and strategic planning, and the development and maintenance of appropriate flood risk management solutions.  Typically, these activities inherently consider the likely effects of future climate changes and are planned to continue into the future as part of central government’s approach to flood risk management.

The Regional Flood Defence Committee has various flood risk management projects scheduled in their current programme for implementation, funded through their Local Levy programme.  At a region-wide level these include a review of critical infrastructure at risk of flooding, climate change business adaptation project, and the mapping of areas at risk of surface water flooding.

In addition to this programme of works, there are other major flood risk management schemes identified across the region by the Environment Agency on their medium term programme, for implementation beyond 2011.  Currently none of those identified are within the Derwentside district, however the programme is reviewed on an ongoing basis as priorities for schemes change.

New drainage schemes and improvements typically incorporate some consideration for climate changes based on current best practice guidance.  Existing systems, however, are generally managed in a more reactive sense, although drainage area plans produced by the water companies should highlight areas most likely to be at risk.  The key action that could be taken would be to assess all systems likely to affect large numbers of people based on local climate changes, rather than general guidance values, to determine future areas at risk. 

In particular, the following adaptation measures should continue to be incorporated in this approach:

• Determine priorities for the protection of properties and assets in the event of flooding: priority to the protection of critical infrastructure and key access routes; followed by vulnerable populations; followed by flooding to residential housing.
• Continue monitoring and flood warning, particularly in upstream areas due to specific issues and nature of flooding.
• Improvements to flood warning systems, specifically in fast reacting catchments.
• Establish partnership approaches and cross-sectoral responses to reduce potential flooding, for example the storage of water in uplands areas to fight potential fires caused by higher summer temperatures.
• Increase maintenance of watercourse channels to retain flow capacity. 
• Look for more innovative sustainable flood management approaches rather then traditional flood defences, such as allowing managed retreat areas and the upstream storage of flood water.
• Use changes in local land management in rural areas to reduce rates of surface runoff, such as the provision of hedgerows and ditches, and the lateral ploughing of fields along contours to reduce field runoff and the wash off of sediments, and retain nutrients on the fields.
• Incorporate more detailed assessments of the numbers of properties at risk under future climate scenarios based on detailed hydrological and hydraulic modelling.
• Identify the criticality and vulnerability of key public infrastructure (electricity, gas, water supply, sewage works, telecommunications, transport, schools) and produce regulations for their protection from flooding.  (Summer 2007 floods indicated how poorly protected some of vital key infrastructure is).  Many organisations rely critically on constant power supply.  The risks need to be considered cross-organisationally to identify key interdependencies.  Systems are only as strong as the weakest link and this may lie with another organisation or operator.
• Relocate key industries/businesses and critical/vulnerable properties away from potential flood risk, particularly where it is inappropriate or unsustainable to provide defences.
• Provide improved regulation and guidance across all sectors for consideration of the impacts of flooding due to climate change.  Many regulators are not currently engaged in the debate on climate change, and its inclusion in their requirements and guidance, i.e. OFWAT, Rail Regulator, Housing Corporation. 
• Continue the tight control of developments allowable within the flood plain corridors.
• Production of multi-agency response plans, to co-ordinate responses during extreme events.
• Improve response units and equipment, and ensure clear access routes are available. 
• Maintain and, where necessary, improve flood defences to raise the standard and condition of existing defences.
• Provide temporary or demountable flood defences available to low impact areas frequently affected by flooding, and ensure access routes are always available for their installation. (In summer 2007, it was not possible to install temporary defences to one area due to severe flooding of the surrounding roads blocking access).
• Use public campaigns to reduce fly tipping and clear rubbish from local watercourses to reduce flood impacts during flash summer events and increased winter rainfall.
• Provide flood proofing/resilience for properties and homes, such as raised electrics, raised sub-floor (for post-event draining).  Make the most of opportunities for retrofitting during refurbishments of old housing stock.  [see Three Regions “Your home in a changing climate" report, on methods for retrofitting existing homes for climate change impacts].
• For new developments move away from lowest cost to most adaptable and sustainable developments, with the inclusion of sufficient resilience as necessary for the location.
• Develop new roads and railway sections at raised levels (on stilts/viaducts) in flood prone areas.  Consider such improvements and new bypasses for main routes already affected.

For drainage systems:

• Determine a clear co-ordinating framework between local government, water companies, Highways Agency and Environment Agency for managing the flood risk from surface water drainage.
• Implement flood warning systems specifically for surface water flooding.
• Flood-proof remote properties which are vulnerable to sewer flooding (or localised surface water or river flooding) where drainage improvements would be costly. 
• Ensure current design standards are appropriate, and locally relevant, to accommodate future increases in rainfall/runoff.  (Current planning requirements for new sewer design are outdated.  Designs often use old rainfall data and are required to a 1 in 30-year standard.  Northumbrian Water design new sewers to a 1 in 40-year standard, to accommodate for future climate changes).
• Strategically plan and implement system improvements across the network, although increased pipe sizes across the entire would clearly be impractical and investment would be better focussed on areas at greatest risk. 
• Include additional capacity for new build developments and into the existing system through network improvements to accommodate for projected increases in rainfall.    
• Limit downstream impacts from new drainage systems by designing with over-sized pipe diameters and manholes to deliver a maximum appropriate outfall discharge, such as equivalent to normal greenfield runoff.  (This is currently applied with the design of highways improvements).
• Promote and increase investment into the wider application of source control techniques to attenuate flow volumes earlier in the system and reduce downstream impacts on existing ageing sewer networks.  This would also have the added benefit of reducing peak flood flows in problem watercourses.  (There are ongoing questions over the practicability of these methods, due to ownership issues and planning policy guidance requiring increasing numbers of houses with less available space between, which need to be resolved).
• Investigate opportunities for the management of combined flooding from different sources, such as the recent Defra Integrated Urban Drainage pilot schemes taking place within the region in Newcastle (North Gosforth and Ouseburn, see Case Study) and Hartlepool.
• Incorporate the retrofitting of SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) for an overall reduction of urban runoff.  Although, opportunities to retro-fit existing infrastructure may be limited and difficult, i.e. costly, to achieve.  
• Consider the retrofitting of balancing tanks into historic drainage systems in known flood areas to accommodate excess flows when sewers reach capacity.
• Provide households across residential areas with water butts for rainwater harvesting to counteract the effects of development creep, i.e. gardens being paved over. 
• Undertake public education for the importance of SUDS, source control of flooding, the community benefits of water butts, and the wider impacts of paving over garden areas.
• Ensure sufficient flood-proofing of infrastructure and equipment at sewage treatment works and pumping stations to accommodate greater flows.
• Undertake improvements to overflows from combined sewer networks (combined sewer overflows, CSOs) in key environmentally sensitive locations where increased spills will have detrimental effects.
• Improve outfall capacity, storage provision or include pumping at CSOs most likely to be affected by climate changes (sea level rise or raised flood depths).  The design of fluvial flood defences should ensure the consideration of the impacts of raised water levels on adjacent CSOs.

 

Durham City Council

top

Flooding from the rivers and streams is generally pro-actively managed by the appropriate authorities as part of well-established flood risk management programmes.  These include flood warning systems, long-term and strategic planning, and the development and maintenance of appropriate flood risk management solutions.  Typically, these activities inherently consider the likely effects of future climate changes and are planned to continue into the future as part of central government’s approach to flood risk management.

The Regional Flood Defence Committee has various flood risk management projects scheduled in their current programme for implementation, funded through their Local Levy programme.  At a region-wide level these include a review of critical infrastructure at risk of flooding, climate change business adaptation project, and the mapping of areas at risk of surface water flooding.

In addition to this programme of works, there are other major flood risk management schemes identified by the Environment Agency on their medium term programme, for implementation beyond 2011.  These include an indicative £2.5M flood improvements scheme for Durham.

New drainage schemes and improvements typically incorporate some consideration for climate changes based on current best practice guidance.  Existing systems, however, are generally managed in a more reactive sense, although drainage area plans produced by the water companies should highlight areas most likely to be at risk.  The key action that could be taken would be to assess all systems likely to affect large numbers of people based on local climate changes, rather than general guidance values, to determine future areas at risk. 

In particular, the following adaptation measures should continue to be incorporated in this approach:

• Identify the criticality and vulnerability of key public infrastructure (electricity, gas, water supply, sewage works, telecommunications, transport, schools) and produce regulations for their protection from flooding.  (Summer 2007 floods indicated how poorly protected some of vital key infrastructure is).  Many organisations rely critically on constant power supply.  The risks need to be considered cross-organisationally to identify key interdependencies.  Systems are only as strong as the weakest link and this may lie with another organisation or operator.
• Determine priorities for the protection of properties and assets in the event of flooding: priority to the protection of critical infrastructure and key access routes; followed by vulnerable populations; followed by flooding to residential housing.
• Relocate key industries/businesses and critical/vulnerable properties away from potential flood risk, particularly where it is inappropriate or unsustainable to provide defences.
• Maintain and, where necessary, improve flood defences to raise the standard and condition of existing defences.
• Use changes in local land management in rural areas to reduce rates of surface runoff, such as the provision of hedgerows and ditches, and the lateral ploughing of fields along contours to reduce field runoff and the wash off of sediments, and retain nutrients on the fields.
• Increase maintenance of watercourse channels to retain flow capacity. 
• Continue the tight control of developments allowable within the flood plain corridor.
• Improve the future planning management of caravan and camping parks with increased tourism.  Low volume sites are not currently subject to planning permission due to their temporary nature.  Sites are often placed near watercourses/sea and are highly vulnerable to flooding impacts.
• For new developments move away from lowest cost to most adaptable and sustainable developments, with the inclusion of sufficient resilience as necessary for the location.
• Provide flood proofing/resilience for properties and homes, such as raised electrics, raised sub-floor (for post-event draining).  Make the most of opportunities for retrofitting during refurbishments of old housing stock.  [see Three Regions “Your home in a changing climate" report, on methods for retrofitting existing homes for climate change impacts].
• Continue monitoring and flood warning, particularly in upstream areas due to specific issues and nature of flooding. 
• Incorporate more detailed assessments of the numbers of properties at risk under future climate scenarios based on detailed hydrological and hydraulic modelling.
• Provide improved regulation and guidance across all sectors for consideration of the impacts of flooding due to climate change.  Many regulators are not currently engaged in the debate on climate change, and its inclusion in their requirements and guidance, i.e. OFWAT, Rail Regulator, Housing Corporation. 
• Improvements to flood warning systems, specifically in fast reacting catchments.
• Production of multi-agency response plans, to co-ordinate responses during extreme events.
• Improve response units and equipment, and ensure clear access routes are available. 
• Establish partnership approaches and cross-sectoral responses to reduce potential flooding, for example the storage of water in uplands areas to fight potential fires caused by higher summer temperatures.
• Look for more innovative sustainable flood management approaches rather then traditional flood defences, such as allowing managed retreat areas and the upstream storage of flood water.
• Provide temporary or demountable flood defences available to low impact areas frequently affected by flooding, and ensure access routes are always available for their installation. (In summer 2007, it was not possible to install temporary defences to one area due to severe flooding of the surrounding roads blocking access).
• Use public campaigns to reduce fly tipping and clear rubbish from local watercourses to reduce flood impacts during flash summer events and increased winter rainfall.
• Develop new roads and railway sections at raised levels (on stilts/viaducts) in flood prone areas.  Consider such improvements and new bypasses for main routes already affected.

For drainage systems:

• Include additional capacity for new build developments and into the existing system through network improvements to accommodate for projected increases in rainfall.   
• Limit downstream impacts from new drainage systems by designing with over-sized pipe diameters and manholes to deliver a maximum appropriate outfall discharge, such as equivalent to normal greenfield runoff.  (This is currently applied with the design of highways improvements).
• Determine a clear co-ordinating framework between local government, water companies, Highways Agency and Environment Agency for managing the flood risk from surface water drainage.
• Promote and increase investment into the wider application of source control techniques to attenuate flow volumes earlier in the system and reduce downstream impacts on existing ageing sewer networks.  This would also have the added benefit of reducing peak flood flows in problem watercourses.  (There are ongoing questions over the practicability of these methods, due to ownership issues and planning policy guidance requiring increasing numbers of houses with less available space between, which need to be resolved).
• Provide households across residential areas with water butts for rainwater harvesting to counteract the effects of development creep, i.e. gardens being paved over. 
• Undertake public education for the importance of SUDS, source control of flooding, the community benefits of water butts, and the wider impacts of paving over garden areas.
• Investigate opportunities for the management of combined flooding from different sources, such as the recent Defra Integrated Urban Drainage pilot schemes taking place within the region in Newcastle (North Gosforth and Ouseburn, see Case Study) and Hartlepool.
• Incorporate the retrofitting of SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) for an overall reduction of urban runoff.  Although, opportunities to retro-fit existing infrastructure may be limited and difficult, i.e. costly, to achieve. 
• Implement flood warning systems specifically for surface water flooding.
• Ensure current design standards are appropriate, and locally relevant, to accommodate future increases in rainfall/runoff.  (Current planning requirements for new sewer design are outdated.  Designs often use old rainfall data and are required to a 1 in 30-year standard.  Northumbrian Water design new sewers to a 1 in 40-year standard, to accommodate for future climate changes).
• Strategically plan and implement system improvements across the network, although increased pipe sizes across the entire would clearly be impractical and investment would be better focussed on areas at greatest risk. 
• Consider the retrofitting of balancing tanks into historic drainage systems in known flood areas to accommodate excess flows when sewers reach capacity.
• Ensure sufficient flood-proofing of infrastructure and equipment at sewage treatment works and pumping stations to accommodate greater flows.
• Flood-proof remote properties which are vulnerable to sewer flooding (or localised surface water or river flooding) where drainage improvements would be costly. 
• Undertake improvements to overflows from combined sewer networks (combined sewer overflows, CSOs) in key environmentally sensitive locations where increased spills will have detrimental effects.
• Improve outfall capacity, storage provision or include pumping at CSOs most likely to be affected by climate changes (sea level rise or raised flood depths).  The design of fluvial flood defences should ensure the consideration of the impacts of raised water levels on adjacent CSOs.

 

Easington District

top

Flooding from the rivers, streams and sea is generally pro-actively managed by the appropriate authorities as part of well-established flood risk management programmes.  These include flood warning systems, long-term and strategic planning, and the development and maintenance of appropriate flood risk management solutions.  Typically, these activities inherently consider the likely effects of future climate changes and are planned to continue into the future as part of central government’s approach to flood risk management.

The Regional Flood Defence Committee has various flood risk management projects scheduled in their current programme for implementation, funded through their Local Levy programme.  At a region-wide level these include a review of critical infrastructure at risk of flooding, climate change business adaptation project, and the mapping of areas at risk of surface water flooding.

In addition to this programme of works, there are other major flood risk management schemes identified across the region by the Environment Agency on their medium term programme, for implementation beyond 2011.  Currently none of those identified are within the Easington district, however the programme is reviewed on an ongoing basis as priorities for schemes change.

New drainage schemes and improvements typically incorporate some consideration for climate changes based on current best practice guidance.  Existing systems, however, are generally managed in a more reactive sense, although drainage area plans produced by the water companies should highlight areas most likely to be at risk.  The key action that could be taken would be to assess all systems likely to affect large numbers of people based on local climate changes, rather than general guidance values, to determine future areas at risk. 

In relation to river and tidal flooding, as there are only a limited number of properties and assets currently affected, and few additional assets affected with climate changes in the future, then there is less need for adaptation in relation to these types of flooding in the district than other areas of the region.

Certain regional adaptation strategies, in relation to planning policies and protection to vulnerable properties, would be good practice to follow in the future.  In particular, the following adaptation measures should be considered to be incorporated where applicable:

• Continue monitoring and flood warning for major river and tidal events that are likely to affect large areas and have significant impacts.
• Incorporate more detailed assessments of the numbers of properties at risk under future climate scenarios based on detailed hydrological and hydraulic modelling.
• Identify the criticality and vulnerability of key public infrastructure (electricity, gas, water supply, sewage works, telecommunications, transport, schools) and produce regulations for their protection from flooding.  (Summer 2007 floods indicated how poorly protected some of vital key infrastructure is).  Many organisations rely critically on constant power supply.  The risks need to be considered cross-organisationally to identify key interdependencies.  Systems are only as strong as the weakest link and this may lie with another organisation or operator.
• Relocate critical infrastructure and vulnerable properties away from potential flood risk, particularly where it is inappropriate or unsustainable to provide defences.
• Continue the tight control of developments allowable within the flood plain.
• Production of multi-agency response plans to co-ordinate responses during extreme events. 
• Improve response units and equipment, and ensure clear access routes are available.
• Determine priorities for the protection of properties and assets in the event of flooding: priority to the protection of critical infrastructure and key access routes; followed by vulnerable populations; followed by flooding to residential housing.
• Provide temporary or demountable flood defences available to low impact areas frequently affected by flooding, and ensure access routes are always available for their installation. (In summer 2007, it was not possible to install temporary defences to one area due to severe flooding of the surrounding roads blocking access).
• Increase maintenance of watercourse channels to retain flow capacity. 
• Use public campaigns to reduce fly tipping and clear rubbish from becks to reduce the potential flood impacts during flash summer events and increased winter rainfall.
• Provide flood proofing/resilience for properties and homes, such as raised electrics, raised sub-floor (for post-event draining).  Make the most of opportunities for retrofitting during refurbishments of old housing stock.  [see Three Regions “Your home in a changing climate" report, on methods for retrofitting existing homes for climate change impacts].
• For new developments move away from lowest cost to most adaptable and sustainable developments, with the inclusion of sufficient resilience as necessary for the location.
• Develop new roads and railway sections at raised levels (on stilts/viaducts) in flood prone areas.  Consider such improvements and new bypasses for main routes already affected.

For drainage systems:

• Determine a clear co-ordinating framework between local government, water companies, Highways Agency and Environment Agency for managing the flood risk from surface water drainage.
• Implement flood warning systems specifically for surface water flooding.
• Ensure current design standards are appropriate, and locally relevant, to accommodate future increases in rainfall/runoff.  (Current planning requirements for new sewer design are outdated.  Designs often use old rainfall data and are required to a 1 in 30-year standard.  Northumbrian Water design new sewers to a 1 in 40-year standard, to accommodate for future climate changes).
• Strategically plan and implement system improvements across the network, although increased pipe sizes across the entire would clearly be impractical and investment would be better focussed on areas at greatest risk. 
• Include additional capacity for new build developments and into the existing system through network improvements to accommodate for projected increases in rainfall.    
• Limit downstream impacts from new drainage systems by designing with over-sized pipe diameters and manholes to deliver a maximum appropriate outfall discharge, such as equivalent to normal greenfield runoff.  (This is currently applied with the design of highways improvements).
• Promote and increase investment into the wider application of source control techniques to attenuate flow volumes earlier in the system and reduce downstream impacts on existing ageing sewer networks.  This would also have the added benefit of reducing peak flood flows in problem watercourses.  (There are ongoing questions over the practicability of these methods, due to ownership issues and planning policy guidance requiring increasing numbers of houses with less available space between, which need to be resolved).
• Investigate opportunities for the management of combined flooding from different sources, such as the recent Defra Integrated Urban Drainage pilot schemes taking place within the region in Newcastle (North Gosforth and Ouseburn, see Case Study) and Hartlepool.
• Incorporate the retrofitting of SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) for an overall reduction of urban runoff.  Although, opportunities to retro-fit existing infrastructure may be limited and difficult, i.e. costly, to achieve.  
• Consider the retrofitting of balancing tanks into historic drainage systems in known flood areas to accommodate excess flows when sewers reach capacity.
• Provide households across residential areas with water butts for rainwater harvesting to counteract the effects of development creep, i.e. gardens being paved over. 
• Undertake public education for the importance of SUDS, source control of flooding, the community benefits of water butts, and the wider impacts of paving over garden areas.
• Ensure sufficient flood-proofing of infrastructure and equipment at sewage treatment works and pumping stations to accommodate greater flows.
• Flood-proof remote properties which are vulnerable to sewer flooding (or localised surface water or river flooding) where drainage improvements would be costly. 
• Undertake improvements to overflows from combined sewer networks (combined sewer overflows, CSOs) in key environmentally sensitive locations where increased spills will have detrimental effects.
• Improve outfall capacity, storage provision or include pumping at CSOs most likely to be affected by climate changes (sea level rise or raised flood depths).  The design of fluvial flood defences should ensure the consideration of the impacts of raised water levels on adjacent CSOs.

 

Gateshead Council

top

Flooding from the main rivers is generally pro-actively managed by the appropriate authorities as part of well-established flood risk management programmes.  These include flood warning systems, long-term and strategic planning, and the development and maintenance of appropriate flood risk management solutions.  Typically, these activities inherently consider the likely effects of future climate changes and are planned to continue into the future as part of central government’s approach to flood risk management.

The Regional Flood Defence Committee has various flood risk management projects scheduled in their current programme for implementation, funded through their Local Levy programme.  Within the Gateshead district these include a culvert replacement scheme at Blackhall Mill, to be undertaken during 2009/10.

In addition to this programme of works, there are other major flood risk management schemes identified by the Environment Agency on their medium term programme, for implementation beyond 2011. These include an indicative £1.8M flood improvements scheme for the tidal section of the River Team and a further scheme at BlackHall Mill with an initial estimated cost of £0.6M.

New drainage schemes and improvements typically incorporate some consideration for climate changes based on current best practice guidance.  Existing systems, however, are generally managed in a more reactive sense, although drainage area plans produced by the water companies should highlight areas most likely to be at risk.  The key action that could be taken would be to assess all systems likely to affect large numbers of people based on local climate changes, rather than general guidance values, to determine future areas at risk. 

In particular, the following adaptation measures should continue to be incorporated in this approach:

• Concentrate flood risk management efforts in the specific key risk areas, such as along the Team Valley and at the lower, tidal section of the Team.
• Look for more innovative sustainable flood management approaches rather then traditional flood defences, such as allowing managed retreat areas and the upstream storage of flood water.  (An example of this is on the River Team where flood storage areas are being proposed for flood control, although the project is presently still in a planning phase).
• Identify the criticality and vulnerability of key public infrastructure (electricity, gas, water supply, sewage works, telecommunications, transport, schools) and produce regulations for their protection from flooding.  (Summer 2007 floods indicated how poorly protected some of vital key infrastructure is).  Many organisations rely critically on constant power supply.  The risks need to be considered cross-organisationally to identify key interdependencies.  Systems are only as strong as the weakest link and this may lie with another organisation or operator.
• Relocate key industries/businesses and critical/vulnerable properties away from potential flood risk, particularly where it is inappropriate or unsustainable to provide defences.
• Use public campaigns to reduce fly tipping and clear rubbish from streams and culverts to reduce flood impacts during flash summer events and increased winter rainfall.
• Continue monitoring and flood warning, particularly in upstream areas due to specific issues and nature of flooding.
• Incorporate more detailed assessments of the numbers of properties at risk under future climate scenarios based on detailed hydrological and hydraulic modelling.
• Provide improved regulation and guidance across all sectors for consideration of the impacts of flooding due to climate change.  Many regulators are not currently engaged in the debate on climate change, and its inclusion in their requirements and guidance, i.e. OFWAT, Rail Regulator, Housing Corporation. 
• Continue the tight control of developments allowable within the flood plain corridor.
• Improvements to flood warning systems, specifically in fast reacting catchments and for surface water flooding.
• Production of multi-agency response plans, to co-ordinate responses during extreme events.
• Improve response units and equipment, and ensure clear access routes are available.
• Determine priorities for the protection of properties and assets in the event of flooding: priority to the protection of critical infrastructure and key access routes; followed by vulnerable populations; followed by flooding to residential housing.
• Establish partnership approaches and cross-sectoral responses to reduce potential flooding, for example the storage of water in uplands areas to fight potential fires caused by higher summer temperatures.
• Maintain and, where necessary, improve flood defences to raise the standard and condition of existing defences.
• Provide temporary or demountable flood defences available to low impact areas frequently affected by flooding, and ensure access routes are always available for their installation. (In summer 2007, it was not possible to install temporary defences to one area due to severe flooding of the surrounding roads blocking access).
• Increase maintenance of watercourse channels to retain flow capacity. 
• Provide flood proofing/resilience for properties and homes, such as raised electrics, raised sub-floor (for post-event draining).  Make the most of opportunities for retrofitting during refurbishments of old housing stock.  [see Three Regions “Your home in a changing climate" report, on methods for retrofitting existing homes for climate change impacts].
• For new developments move away from lowest cost to most adaptable and sustainable developments, with the inclusion of sufficient resilience as necessary for the location.
• Develop new roads and railway sections at raised levels (on stilts/viaducts) in flood prone areas.  Consider such improvements and new bypasses for main routes already affected.

For drainage systems:

• Limit downstream impacts from new drainage systems by designing with over-sized pipe diameters and manholes to deliver a maximum appropriate outfall discharge, such as equivalent to normal greenfield runoff.  (This is currently done with the design of highways improvements in Gateshead).
• Incorporate the retrofitting of SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) for an overall reduction of urban runoff.  Although, opportunities to retro-fit existing infrastructure may be limited and difficult, i.e. costly, to achieve. 
• Provide households across residential areas with water butts for rainwater harvesting to counteract the effects of development creep, i.e. gardens being paved over. 
• Undertake public education for the importance of SUDS, source control of flooding, the community benefits of water butts, and the wider impacts of paving over garden areas.
• Determine a clear co-ordinating framework between local government, water companies, Highways Agency and Environment Agency for managing the flood risk from surface water drainage.
• Ensure current design standards are appropriate, and locally relevant, to accommodate future increases in rainfall/runoff.  (Current planning requirements for new sewer design are outdated.  Designs often use old rainfall data and are required to a 1 in 30-year standard.  Northumbrian Water design new sewers to a 1 in 40-year standard, to accommodate for future climate changes).
• Strategically plan and implement system improvements across the network, although increased pipe sizes across the entire would clearly be impractical and investment would be better focussed on areas at greatest risk. 
• Include additional capacity for new build developments and into the existing system through network improvements to accommodate for projected increases in rainfall.   
• Promote and increase investment into the wider application of source control techniques to attenuate flow volumes earlier in the system and reduce downstream impacts on existing ageing sewer networks.  This would also have the added benefit of reducing peak flood flows in problem watercourses.  (There are ongoing questions over the practicability of these methods, due to ownership issues and planning policy guidance requiring increasing numbers of houses with less available space between, which need to be resolved).
• Investigate opportunities for the management of combined flooding from different sources, such as the recent Defra Integrated Urban Drainage pilot schemes taking place within the region in Newcastle (North Gosforth and Ouseburn, see Case Study) and Hartlepool.
• Consider the retrofitting of balancing tanks into historic drainage systems in known flood areas to accommodate excess flows when sewers reach capacity.
• Ensure sufficient flood-proofing of infrastructure and equipment at sewage treatment works and pumping stations to accommodate greater flows.
• Flood-proof remote properties which are vulnerable to sewer flooding (or localised surface water or river flooding) where drainage improvements would be costly. 
• Undertake improvements to overflows from combined sewer networks (combined sewer overflows, CSOs) in key environmentally sensitive locations where increased spills will have detrimental effects.
• Improve outfall capacity, storage provision or include pumping at CSOs most likely to be affected by climate changes (sea level rise or raised flood depths).  The design of fluvial flood defences should ensure the consideration of the impacts of raised water levels on adjacent CSOs.

 

Hartlepool Borough Council

top

Flooding from the rivers, streams and sea is generally pro-actively managed by the appropriate authorities as part of well-established flood risk management programmes.  These include flood warning systems, long-term and strategic planning, and the development and maintenance of appropriate flood risk management solutions.  Typically, these activities inherently consider the likely effects of future climate changes and are planned to continue into the future as part of central government’s approach to flood risk management.

The Regional Flood Defence Committee has various flood risk management projects scheduled in their current programme for implementation, funded through their Local Levy programme.  These include a tidal resilience study along the Tees to review the flood risks to local industry, to be undertaken during 2008/09.

In addition to this programme of works, there are other major flood risk management schemes identified by the Environment Agency on their medium term programme, for implementation beyond 2011.  These include an indicative £5.7M flood improvements scheme for Greatham North.

New drainage schemes and improvements typically incorporate some consideration for climate changes based on current best practice guidance.  Existing systems, however, are generally managed in a more reactive sense, although drainage area plans produced by the water companies should highlight areas most likely to be at risk.  The key action that could be taken would be to assess all systems likely to affect large numbers of people based on local climate changes, rather than general guidance values, to determine future areas at risk. 

In particular, the following adaptation measures should continue to be incorporated in this approach:

• Determine priorities for the protection of properties and assets in the event of flooding: priority to the protection of critical infrastructure and key access routes; followed by vulnerable populations; followed by flooding to residential housing.
• Identify the criticality and vulnerability of key public infrastructure (particularly Hartlepool nuclear power station, electricity, gas, water supply, sewage works, telecommunications, transport, schools) and produce regulations for their protection from flooding.  (Summer 2007 floods indicated how poorly protected some of vital key infrastructure is).  Many organisations rely critically on constant power supply.  The risks need to be considered cross-organisationally to identify key interdependencies.  Systems are only as strong as the weakest link and this may lie with another organisation or operator.
• Relocate key industries/businesses and critical/vulnerable properties away from potential flood risk, particularly where it is inappropriate or unsustainable to provide defences.
• Establish partnership approaches and cross-sectoral responses to reduce potential flooding.
• Continue the tight control of developments allowable within the flood plain.
• Maintain and, where necessary, improve flood defences to raise the standard and condition of existing defences.
• Provide temporary or demountable flood defences available to low impact areas frequently affected by flooding, and ensure access routes are always available for their installation. (In summer 2007, it was not possible to install temporary defences to one area due to severe flooding of the surrounding roads blocking access).
• Use public campaigns to reduce fly tipping and clear rubbish from becks to reduce flood impacts during flash summer events and increased winter rainfall.
• Continue monitoring and flood warning for river and tidal events.
• Incorporate more detailed assessments of the numbers of properties at risk under future climate scenarios based on detailed hydrological and hydraulic modelling.
• Provide improved regulation and guidance across all sectors for consideration of the impacts of flooding due to climate change.  Many regulators are not currently engaged in the debate on climate change, and its inclusion in their requirements and guidance, i.e. OFWAT, Rail Regulator, Housing Corporation. 
• Production of multi-agency response plans, to co-ordinate responses during extreme events.
• Improve response units and equipment, and ensure clear access routes are available. 
• Look for more innovative sustainable flood management approaches rather then traditional flood defences, such as allowing managed retreat areas and the upstream storage of flood water.
• Increase maintenance of watercourse channels to retain flow capacity. 
• Provide flood proofing/resilience for properties and homes, such as raised electrics, raised sub-floor (for post-event draining).  Make the most of opportunities for retrofitting during refurbishments of old housing stock.  [see Three Regions “Your home in a changing climate" report, on methods for retrofitting existing homes for climate change impacts].
• For new developments move away from lowest cost to most adaptable and sustainable developments, with the inclusion of sufficient resilience as necessary for the location.
• Develop new roads and railway sections at raised levels (on stilts/viaducts) in flood prone areas.  Consider such improvements and new bypasses for main routes already affected.

For drainage systems:

• Determine a clear co-ordinating framework between local government, water companies, Highways Agency and Environment Agency for managing the flood risk from surface water drainage.
• Investigate opportunities for the management of combined flooding from different sources, such as the recent Defra Integrated Urban Drainage pilot schemes taking place within the region in Newcastle (North Gosforth and Ouseburn, see Case Study) and also in Hartlepool.  In Hartlepool the project focuses on the interactions of the local watercourses and sewers to improve future maintenance, operation and serviceability.
• Implement flood warning systems specifically for surface water flooding.
• Review the connection of becks into public sewers to reduce the increasing flows being passed to treatment.  Disconnect from the system to discharge directly into watercourses or the sea, or investigate opportunities for stormwater storage.
• Ensure current design standards are appropriate, and locally relevant, to accommodate future increases in rainfall/runoff.  (Current planning requirements for new sewer design are outdated.  Designs often use old rainfall data and are required to a 1 in 30-year standard.  Northumbrian Water design new sewers to a 1 in 40-year standard, to accommodate for future climate changes).
• Strategically plan and implement system improvements across the network, although increased pipe sizes across the entire would clearly be impractical and investment would be better focussed on areas at greatest risk. 
• Include additional capacity for new build developments and into the existing system through network improvements to accommodate for projected increases in rainfall.   
• Limit downstream impacts from new drainage systems by designing with over-sized pipe diameters and manholes to deliver a maximum appropriate outfall discharge, such as equivalent to normal greenfield runoff.  (This is currently applied with the design of highways improvements).
• Promote and increase investment into the wider application of source control techniques to attenuate flow volumes earlier in the system and reduce downstream impacts on existing ageing sewer networks.  This would also have the added benefit of reducing peak flood flows in problem watercourses.  (There are ongoing questions over the practicability of these methods, due to ownership issues and planning policy guidance requiring increasing numbers of houses with less available space between, which need to be resolved).
• Incorporate the retrofitting of SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) for an overall reduction of urban runoff.  Although, opportunities to retro-fit existing infrastructure may be limited and difficult, i.e. costly, to achieve.  
• Consider the retrofitting of balancing tanks into historic drainage systems in known flood areas to accommodate excess flows when sewers reach capacity.
• Provide households across residential areas with water butts for rainwater harvesting to counteract the effects of development creep, i.e. gardens being paved over. 
• Undertake public education for the importance of SUDS, source control of flooding, the community benefits of water butts, and the wider impacts of paving over garden areas.
• Ensure sufficient flood-proofing of infrastructure and equipment at sewage treatment works and pumping stations to accommodate greater flows.
• Flood-proof remote properties which are vulnerable to sewer flooding (or localised surface water or river flooding) where drainage improvements would be costly. 
• Undertake improvements to overflows from combined sewer networks (combined sewer overflows, CSOs) in key environmentally sensitive locations where increased spills will have detrimental effects.
• Improve outfall capacity, storage provision or include pumping at CSOs most likely to be affected by climate changes (sea level rise or raised flood depths).  The design of fluvial flood defences should ensure the consideration of the impacts of raised water levels on adjacent CSOs.

 

Middlesbrough Council

top

Flooding from main rivers is generally pro-actively managed by the appropriate authorities as part of well-established flood risk management programmes.  These include flood warning systems, long-term and strategic planning, and the development and maintenance of appropriate flood risk management solutions.  Typically, these activities inherently consider the likely effects of future climate changes and are planned to continue into the future as part of central government’s approach to flood risk management.

The Regional Flood Defence Committee has various flood risk management projects scheduled in their current programme for implementation, funded through their Local Levy programme.  Within Middlesbrough these include a tidal resilience study along the Tees to review the flood risks to local industry and a project working with local communities to provide improvements to the becks and reduce flood risk, to be undertaken during 2008/09.

In addition to this programme of works, there are other major flood risk management schemes identified across the region by the Environment Agency on their medium term programme, for implementation beyond 2011.  Currently none of those identified are within Middlesbrough, however the programme is reviewed on an ongoing basis as priorities for schemes change.

New drainage schemes and improvements typically incorporate some consideration for climate changes based on current best practice guidance.  Existing systems, however, are generally managed in a more reactive sense, although drainage area plans produced by the water companies should highlight areas most likely to be at risk.  The key action that could be taken would be to assess all systems likely to affect large numbers of people based on local climate changes, rather than general guidance values, to determine future areas at risk. 

In particular, the following adaptation measures should continue to be incorporated in this approach:

• Ensure the continuing protection of important industries with specific defences and bunding to reduce the local flood risk.
• Identify the criticality and vulnerability of key public infrastructure (electricity, gas, water supply, sewage works, telecommunications, transport, schools) and produce regulations for their protection from flooding.  (Summer 2007 floods indicated how poorly protected some of vital key infrastructure is).  Many organisations rely critically on constant power supply.  The risks need to be considered cross-organisationally to identify key interdependencies.  Systems are only as strong as the weakest link and this may lie with another organisation or operator.
• Relocate key industries/businesses and critical/vulnerable properties away from potential flood risk, particularly where it is inappropriate or unsustainable to provide defences.
• Continue the tight control of developments allowable within the flood plain.
• Develop new roads and railway sections at raised levels (on stilts/viaducts) in flood prone areas (such as the A178 Tees Road in Middlesbrough).  Consider such improvements and new bypasses for main routes already affected.
• Ongoing public campaigns, as previously adopted in Middlesbrough, to reduce fly tipping and clear rubbish from becks to reduce flood impacts during flash summer events and increased winter rainfall.
• Establish partnership approaches and cross-sectoral responses to reduce potential flooding.
• Maintain and, where necessary, improve flood defences to raise the standard and condition of existing defences.
• Provide temporary or demountable flood defences available to low impact areas frequently affected by flooding, and ensure access routes are always available for their installation. (In summer 2007, it was not possible to install temporary defences to one area due to severe flooding of the surrounding roads blocking access).
• Continue monitoring and flood warning for river and tidal events.
• Incorporate more detailed assessments of the numbers of properties at risk under future climate scenarios based on detailed hydrological and hydraulic modelling.
• Provide improved regulation and guidance across all sectors for consideration of the impacts of flooding due to climate change.  Many regulators are not currently engaged in the debate on climate change, and its inclusion in their requirements and guidance, i.e. OFWAT, Rail Regulator, Housing Corporation. 
• Production of multi-agency response plans, to co-ordinate responses during extreme events.
• Improve response units and equipment, and ensure clear access routes are available. 
• Determine priorities for the protection of properties and assets in the event of flooding: priority to the protection of critical infrastructure and key access routes; followed by vulnerable populations; followed by flooding to residential housing.
• Look for more innovative sustainable flood management approaches rather then traditional flood defences, such as allowing managed retreat areas and the upstream storage of flood water.
• Increase maintenance of becks to retain flow capacity. 
• Provide flood proofing/resilience for properties and homes, such as raised electrics, raised sub-floor (for post-event draining).  Make the most of opportunities for retrofitting during refurbishments of old housing stock.  [see Three Regions “Your home in a changing climate" report, on methods for retrofitting existing homes for climate change impacts].
• For new developments move away from lowest cost to most adaptable and sustainable developments, with the inclusion of sufficient resilience as necessary for the location.

For drainage systems:

• Determine a clear co-ordinating framework between local government, water companies, Highways Agency and Environment Agency for managing the flood risk from surface water drainage.
• Implement flood warning systems specifically for surface water flooding.
• Review the connection of becks into public sewers to reduce the increasing flows being passed to treatment.  Disconnect from the system to discharge directly into watercourses or the sea, or investigate opportunities for stormwater storage.
• Ensure current design standards are appropriate, and locally relevant, to accommodate future increases in rainfall/runoff.  (Current planning requirements for new sewer design are outdated.  Designs often use old rainfall data and are required to a 1 in 30-year standard.  Northumbrian Water design new sewers to a 1 in 40-year standard, to accommodate for future climate changes).
• Strategically plan and implement system improvements across the network, although increased pipe sizes across the entire would clearly be impractical and investment would be better focussed on areas at greatest risk. 
• Include additional capacity for new build developments and into the existing system through network improvements to accommodate for projected increases in rainfall.   
• Limit downstream impacts from new drainage systems by designing with over-sized pipe diameters and manholes to deliver a maximum appropriate outfall discharge, such as equivalent to normal greenfield runoff.  (This is currently applied with the design of highways improvements).
• Promote and increase investment into the wider application of source control techniques to attenuate flow volumes earlier in the system and reduce downstream impacts on existing ageing sewer networks.  This would also have the added benefit of reducing peak flood flows in problem watercourses.  (There are ongoing questions over the practicability of these methods, due to ownership issues and planning policy guidance requiring increasing numbers of houses with less available space between, which need to be resolved).
• Investigate opportunities for the management of combined flooding from different sources, such as the recent Defra Integrated Urban Drainage pilot schemes taking place within the region in Hartlepool and Newcastle (North Gosforth and Ouseburn, see Case Study).  In Hartlepool the project focuses on the interactions of the local watercourses and sewers to improve future maintenance, operation and serviceability.
• Incorporate the retrofitting of SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) for an overall reduction of urban runoff.  Although, opportunities to retro-fit existing infrastructure may be limited and difficult, i.e. costly, to achieve.  
• Consider the retrofitting of balancing tanks into historic drainage systems in known flood areas to accommodate excess flows when sewers reach capacity.
• Provide households across residential areas with water butts for rainwater harvesting to counteract the effects of development creep, i.e. gardens being paved over. 
• Undertake public education for the importance of SUDS, source control of flooding, the community benefits of water butts, and the wider impacts of paving over garden areas.
• Ensure sufficient flood-proofing of infrastructure and equipment at sewage treatment works and pumping stations to accommodate greater flows.
• Flood-proof remote properties which are vulnerable to sewer flooding (or localised surface water or river flooding) where drainage improvements would be costly. 
• Undertake improvements to overflows from combined sewer networks (combined sewer overflows, CSOs) in key environmentally sensitive locations where increased spills will have detrimental effects.
• Improve outfall capacity, storage provision or include pumping at CSOs most likely to be affected by climate changes (sea level rise or raised flood depths).  The design of fluvial flood defences should ensure the consideration of the impacts of raised water levels on adjacent CSOs.

 

Newcastle upon Tyne City Council

top

Flooding from main rivers is generally pro-actively managed by the appropriate authorities as part of well-established flood risk management programmes.  These include flood warning systems, long-term and strategic planning, and the development and maintenance of appropriate flood risk management solutions.  Typically, these activities inherently consider the likely effects of future climate changes and are planned to continue into the future as part of central government’s approach to flood risk management.

The Regional Flood Defence Committee has various flood risk management projects scheduled in their current programme for implementation, funded through their Local Levy programme.  Within Newcastle Upon Tyne these include an integrated urban drainage study considering combined river and surface water flooding aspects along the northern section of the Ouseburn through Gosforth, to be undertaken during 2009/10.

In addition to this programme of works, there are other major flood risk management schemes identified by the Environment Agency on their medium term programme, for implementation beyond 2011.  These include an indicative £2.5M tidal flood improvements scheme for Newcastle Quayside.

New drainage schemes and improvements typically incorporate some consideration for climate changes based on current best practice guidance.  Existing systems, however, are generally managed in a more reactive sense, although drainage area plans produced by the water companies should highlight areas most likely to be at risk.  The key action that could be taken would be to assess all systems likely to affect large numbers of people based on local climate changes, rather than general guidance values, to determine future areas at risk. 

In particular, the following adaptation measures should continue to be incorporated in this approach:

• Concentrate flood risk management efforts in the specific key risk areas, such as Newcastle Quayside and along the Ouseburn.
• Identify the criticality and vulnerability of key public infrastructure (electricity, gas, water supply, sewage works, telecommunications, transport, schools) and produce regulations for their protection from flooding.  (Summer 2007 floods indicated how poorly protected some of vital key infrastructure is).  Many organisations rely critically on constant power supply.  The risks need to be considered cross-organisationally to identify key interdependencies.  Systems are only as strong as the weakest link and this may lie with another organisation or operator.
• Relocate key industries/businesses and critical/vulnerable properties away from potential flood risk, particularly where it is inappropriate or unsustainable to provide defences.
• Use public campaigns to reduce fly tipping and clear rubbish from local watercourses to reduce flood impacts during flash summer events and increased winter rainfall.
• Continue monitoring and flood warning, particularly in upstream areas due to specific issues and nature of flooding.
• Incorporate more detailed assessments of the numbers of properties at risk under future climate scenarios based on detailed hydrological and hydraulic modelling.
• Provide improved regulation and guidance across all sectors for consideration of the impacts of flooding due to climate change.  Many regulators are not currently engaged in the debate on climate change, and its inclusion in their requirements and guidance, i.e. OFWAT, Rail Regulator, Housing Corporation. 
• Continue the tight control of developments allowable within the flood plain corridor.
• Improvements to flood warning systems, specifically in fast reacting catchments.
• Production of multi-agency response plans, to co-ordinate responses during extreme events.
• Improve response units and equipment, and ensure clear access routes are available. 
• Determine priorities for the protection of properties and assets in the event of flooding: priority to the protection of critical infrastructure and key access routes; followed by vulnerable populations; followed by flooding to residential housing.
• Establish partnership approaches and cross-sectoral responses to reduce potential flooding.
• Maintain and, where necessary, improve flood defences to raise the standard and condition of existing defences.
• Look for more innovative sustainable flood management approaches rather then traditional flood defences, such as allowing managed retreat areas and the upstream storage of flood water.
• Provide temporary or demountable flood defences available to low impact areas frequently affected by flooding, and ensure access routes are always available for their installation. (In summer 2007, it was not possible to install temporary defences to one area due to severe flooding of the surrounding roads blocking access).
• Increase maintenance of watercourse channels to retain flow capacity. 
• Provide flood proofing/resilience for properties and homes, such as raised electrics, raised sub-floor (for post-event draining).  Make the most of opportunities for retrofitting during refurbishments of old housing stock.  [see Three Regions “Your home in a changing climate" report, on methods for retrofitting existing homes for climate change impacts].
• For new developments move away from lowest cost to most adaptable and sustainable developments, with the inclusion of sufficient resilience as necessary for the location.
• Develop new roads and railway sections at raised levels (on stilts/viaducts) in flood prone areas.  Consider such improvements and new bypasses for main routes already affected.

For drainage systems:

• Investigate opportunities for the management of combined flooding from different sources, such as the recent Defra Integrated Urban Drainage pilot schemes taking place within the region in Newcastle (North Gosforth and Ouseburn, see Case Study) and Hartlepool.  At North Gosforth, Newcastle Great Park, the project is focussing on future maintenance, operation and serviceability. The strategy is to be in place by 2013.
• Incorporate the retrofitting of SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) for an overall reduction of urban runoff.  Although, opportunities to retro-fit existing infrastructure may be limited and difficult, i.e. costly, to achieve. 
• Provide households across residential areas with water butts for rainwater harvesting to counteract the effects of development creep, i.e. gardens being paved over. 
• Undertake public education for the importance of SUDS, source control of flooding, the community benefits of water butts, and the wider impacts of paving over garden areas.
• Implement flood warning systems specifically for surface water flooding.
• Determine a clear co-ordinating framework between local government, water companies, Highways Agency and Environment Agency for managing the flood risk from surface water drainage.
• Ensure current design standards are appropriate, and locally relevant, to accommodate future increases in rainfall/runoff.  (Current planning requirements for new sewer design are outdated.  Designs often use old rainfall data and are required to a 1 in 30-year standard.  Northumbrian Water design new sewers to a 1 in 40-year standard, to accommodate for future climate changes).
• Strategically plan and implement system improvements across the network, although increased pipe sizes across the entire would clearly be impractical and investment would be better focussed on areas at greatest risk. 
• Include additional capacity for new build developments and into the existing system through network improvements to accommodate for projected increases in rainfall.   
• Limit downstream impacts from new drainage systems by designing with over-sized pipe diameters and manholes to deliver a maximum appropriate outfall discharge, such as equivalent to normal greenfield runoff.  (This is currently applied with the design of highways improvements in Newcastle, for example on the recent Scotswood Road improvements).
• Promote and increase investment into the wider application of source control techniques to attenuate flow volumes earlier in the system and reduce downstream impacts on existing ageing sewer networks.  This would also have the added benefit of reducing peak flood flows in problem watercourses.  (There are ongoing questions over the practicability of these methods, due to ownership issues and planning policy guidance requiring increasing numbers of houses with less available space between, which need to be resolved).
• Consider the retrofitting of balancing tanks into historic drainage systems in known flood areas to accommodate excess flows when sewers reach capacity.
• Ensure sufficient flood-proofing of infrastructure and equipment at sewage treatment works and pumping stations to accommodate greater flows.
• Flood-proof remote properties which are vulnerable to sewer flooding (or localised surface water or river flooding) where drainage improvements would be costly. 
• Undertake improvements to overflows from combined sewer networks (combined sewer overflows, CSOs) in key environmentally sensitive locations where increased spills will have detrimental effects.
• Improve outfall capacity, storage provision or include pumping at CSOs most likely to be affected by climate changes (sea level rise or raised flood depths).  The design of fluvial flood defences should ensure the consideration of the impacts of raised water levels on adjacent CSOs.

 

North Tyneside Council

top

Flooding from the rivers, streams and sea is generally pro-actively managed by the appropriate authorities as part of well-established flood risk management programmes.  These include flood warning systems, long-term and strategic planning, and the development and maintenance of appropriate flood risk management solutions.  Typically, these activities inherently consider the likely effects of future climate changes and are planned to continue into the future as part of central government’s approach to flood risk management.

The Regional Flood Defence Committee has various flood risk management projects scheduled in their current programme for implementation, funded through their Local Levy programme.  At a region-wide level these include a review of critical infrastructure at risk of flooding, climate change business adaptation project, and the mapping of areas at risk of surface water flooding.

In addition to this programme of works, there are other major flood risk management schemes identified across the region by the Environment Agency on their medium term programme, for implementation beyond 2011.  Currently none of those identified are within the North Tyneside district, however the programme is reviewed on an ongoing basis as priorities for schemes change.

New drainage schemes and improvements typically incorporate some consideration for climate changes based on current best practice guidance.  Existing systems, however, are generally managed in a more reactive sense, although drainage area plans produced by the water companies should highlight areas most likely to be at risk.  The key action that could be taken would be to assess all systems likely to affect large numbers of people based on local climate changes, rather than general guidance values, to determine future areas at risk. 

In particular, the following adaptation measures should continue to be incorporated in this approach:

• Continue monitoring and providing flood warning
• Incorporate more detailed assessments of the numbers of properties at risk under future climate scenarios based on detailed hydrological and hydraulic modelling.
• Identify the criticality and vulnerability of key public infrastructure (electricity, gas, water supply, sewage works, telecommunications, transport, schools) and produce regulations for their protection from flooding.  (Summer 2007 floods indicated how poorly protected some of vital key infrastructure is).  Many organisations rely critically on constant power supply.  The risks need to be considered cross-organisationally to identify key interdependencies.  Systems are only as strong as the weakest link and this may lie with another organisation or operator.
• Relocate key industries/businesses and critical/vulnerable properties away from potential flood risk, particularly where it is inappropriate or unsustainable to provide defences.
• Provide improved regulation and guidance across all sectors for consideration of the impacts of flooding due to climate change.  Many regulators are not currently engaged in the debate on climate change, and its inclusion in their requirements and guidance, i.e. OFWAT, Rail Regulator, Housing Corporation. 
• Continue the tight control of developments allowable within the flood plain.
• Production of multi-agency response plans, to co-ordinate responses during extreme events.
• Improve response units and equipment, and ensure clear access routes are available. 
• Determine priorities for the protection of properties and assets in the event of flooding: priority to the protection of critical infrastructure and key access routes; followed by vulnerable populations; followed by flooding to residential housing.
• Establish partnership approaches and cross-sectoral responses to reduce potential flooding.
• Maintain and, where necessary, improve flood defences to raise the standard and condition of existing defences.
• Look for more innovative sustainable flood management approaches rather then traditional flood defences, such as allowing managed retreat areas and the upstream storage of flood water.
• Provide temporary or demountable flood defences available to low impact areas frequently affected by flooding, and ensure access routes are always available for their installation. (In summer 2007, it was not possible to install temporary defences to one area due to severe flooding of the surrounding roads blocking access).
• Increase maintenance of watercourse channels to retain flow capacity. 
• Use public campaigns to reduce fly tipping and clear rubbish from local watercourses to reduce flood impacts during flash summer events and increased winter rainfall.
• Provide flood proofing/resilience for properties and homes, such as raised electrics, raised sub-floor (for post-event draining).  Make the most of opportunities for retrofitting during refurbishments of old housing stock.  [see Three Regions “Your home in a changing climate" report, on methods for retrofitting existing homes for climate change impacts].
• For new developments move away from lowest cost to most adaptable and sustainable developments, with the inclusion of sufficient resilience as necessary for the location.
• Develop new roads and railway sections at raised levels (on stilts/viaducts) in flood prone areas.  Consider such improvements and new bypasses for main routes already affected.
• Improve the future planning management of caravan and camping parks with increased tourism.  Low volume sites are not currently subject to planning permission due to their temporary nature.  Sites are often placed near watercourses/sea and are highly vulnerable to flooding impacts.

For drainage systems:

• Determine a clear co-ordinating framework between local government, water companies, Highways Agency and Environment Agency for managing the flood risk from surface water drainage.
• Implement flood warning systems specifically for surface water flooding.
• Ensure current design standards are appropriate, and locally relevant, to accommodate future increases in rainfall/runoff.  (Current planning requirements for new sewer design are outdated.  Designs often use old rainfall data and are required to a 1 in 30-year standard.  Northumbrian Water design new sewers to a 1 in 40-year standard, to accommodate for future climate changes).
• Strategically plan and implement system improvements across the network, although increased pipe sizes across the entire would clearly be impractical and investment would be better focussed on areas at greatest risk. 
• Include additional capacity for new build developments and into the existing system through network improvements to accommodate for projected increases in rainfall.    
• Limit downstream impacts from new drainage systems by designing with over-sized pipe diameters and manholes to deliver a maximum appropriate outfall discharge, such as equivalent to normal greenfield runoff.  (This is currently applied with the design of highways improvements).
• Promote and increase investment into the wider application of source control techniques to attenuate flow volumes earlier in the system and reduce downstream impacts on existing ageing sewer networks.  This would also have the added benefit of reducing peak flood flows in problem watercourses.  (There are ongoing questions over the practicability of these methods, due to ownership issues and planning policy guidance requiring increasing numbers of houses with less available space between, which need to be resolved).
• Investigate opportunities for the management of combined flooding from different sources, such as the recent Defra Integrated Urban Drainage pilot schemes taking place within the region in Newcastle (North Gosforth and Ouseburn, see Case Study) and Hartlepool.
• Incorporate the retrofitting of SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) for an overall reduction of urban runoff.  Although, opportunities to retro-fit existing infrastructure may be limited and difficult, i.e. costly, to achieve.  
• Consider the retrofitting of balancing tanks into historic drainage systems in known flood areas to accommodate excess flows when sewers reach capacity.
• Provide households across residential areas with water butts for rainwater harvesting to counteract the effects of development creep, i.e. gardens being paved over. 
• Undertake public education for the importance of SUDS, source control of flooding, the community benefits of water butts, and the wider impacts of paving over garden areas.
• Ensure sufficient flood-proofing of infrastructure and equipment at sewage treatment works and pumping stations to accommodate greater flows.
• Flood-proof remote properties which are vulnerable to sewer flooding (or localised surface water or river flooding) where drainage improvements would be costly. 
• Undertake improvements to overflows from combined sewer networks (combined sewer overflows, CSOs) in key environmentally sensitive locations where increased spills will have detrimental effects.
• Improve outfall capacity, storage provision or include pumping at CSOs most likely to be affected by climate changes (sea level rise or raised flood depths).  The design of fluvial flood defences should ensure the consideration of the impacts of raised water levels on adjacent CSOs.

 

Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council

top

Flooding from the rivers, streams and sea is generally pro-actively managed by the appropriate authorities as part of well-established flood risk management programmes.  These include flood warning systems, long-term and strategic planning, and the development and maintenance of appropriate flood risk management solutions.  Typically, these activities inherently consider the likely effects of future climate changes and are planned to continue into the future as part of central government’s approach to flood risk management.

The Regional Flood Defence Committee has various flood risk management projects scheduled in their current programme for implementation, funded through their Local Levy programme.  Within the Redcar and Cleveland borough these include a tidal resilience study along the Tees to review the flood risks to local industry and a scheme to provide improved trash screens to remove debris from the watercourse at Skinningrove, to be undertaken during 2008/09.

In addition to this programme of works, there are other major flood risk management schemes identified across the region by the Environment Agency on their medium term programme, for implementation beyond 2011.  Currently none of those identified are within the Redcar and Cleveland borough, however the programme is reviewed on an ongoing basis as priorities for schemes change.

New drainage schemes and improvements typically incorporate some consideration for climate changes based on current best practice guidance.  Existing systems, however, are generally managed in a more reactive sense, although drainage area plans produced by the water companies should highlight areas most likely to be at risk.  The key action that could be taken would be to assess all systems likely to affect large numbers of people based on local climate changes, rather than general guidance values, to determine future areas at risk. 

In particular, the following adaptation measures should continue to be incorporated in this approach:

• Ensure the continuing protection of important industries with specific defences and bunding to reduce the local flood risk.
• Relocate key industries/businesses and critical/vulnerable properties away from potential flood risk, particularly where it is inappropriate or unsustainable to provide defences.
• Continue the tight control of developments allowable within the flood plain.
• Continue monitoring and flood warning for river and tidal events, particularly in upstream areas due to specific issues and the nature of flooding. 
• Improvements to flood warning systems, specifically in fast reacting catchments.
• Improve response units and equipment, and ensure clear access routes are available. 
• Look for more innovative sustainable flood management approaches rather then traditional flood defences, such as allowing managed retreat areas and the upstream storage of flood water.
• Establish partnership approaches and cross-sectoral responses to reduce potential flooding, for example the storage of water in uplands areas to fight potential fires caused by higher summer temperatures.
• Use changes in local land management in rural areas to reduce rates of surface runoff, such as the provision of hedgerows and ditches, and the lateral ploughing of fields along contours to reduce field runoff and the wash off of sediments, and retain nutrients on the fields.
• Improve the future planning management of caravan and camping parks with increased tourism.  Low volume sites are not currently subject to planning permission due to their temporary nature.  Sites are often placed near watercourses/sea and are highly vulnerable to flooding impacts.
• Incorporate more detailed assessments of the numbers of properties at risk under future climate scenarios based on detailed hydrological and hydraulic modelling.
• Identify the criticality and vulnerability of key public infrastructure (electricity, gas, water supply, sewage works, telecommunications, transport, schools) and produce regulations for their protection from flooding.  (Summer 2007 floods indicated how poorly protected some of vital key infrastructure is).  Many organisations rely critically on constant power supply.  The risks need to be considered cross-organisationally to identify key interdependencies.  Systems are only as strong as the weakest link and this may lie with another organisation or operator.
• Provide improved regulation and guidance across all sectors for consideration of the impacts of flooding due to climate change.  Many regulators are not currently engaged in the debate on climate change, and its inclusion in their requirements and guidance, i.e. OFWAT, Rail Regulator, Housing Corporation. 
• Production of multi-agency response plans, to co-ordinate responses during extreme events.  Effectively manage problems related to the potential isolation during flooding of emergency response co-ordination and rest centres are overcome to ensure delivery.
• Determine priorities for the protection of properties and assets in the event of flooding: priority to the protection of critical infrastructure and key access routes; followed by vulnerable populations; followed by flooding to residential housing.
• Provide temporary or demountable flood defences available to low impact areas frequently affected by flooding, and ensure access routes are always available for their installation. (In summer 2007, it was not possible to install temporary defences to one area due to severe flooding of the surrounding roads blocking access).
• Increase maintenance of becks to retain flow capacity. 
• Ongoing public campaigns, as previously adopted in Middlesbrough, to reduce fly tipping and clear rubbish from becks to reduce flood impacts during flash summer events and increased winter rainfall.
• Provide flood proofing/resilience for properties and homes, such as raised electrics, raised sub-floor (for post-event draining).  Make the most of opportunities for retrofitting during refurbishments of old housing stock.  [see Three Regions “Your home in a changing climate" report, on methods for retrofitting existing homes for climate change impacts].
• For new developments move away from lowest cost to most adaptable and sustainable developments, with the inclusion of sufficient resilience as necessary for the location.
• Develop new roads and railway sections at raised levels (on stilts/viaducts) in flood prone areas.  Consider such improvements and new bypasses for main routes already affected.

For drainage systems:

• Determine a clear co-ordinating framework between local government, water companies, Highways Agency and Environment Agency for managing the flood risk from surface water drainage.
• Implement flood warning systems specifically for surface water flooding.
• Ensure current design standards are appropriate, and locally relevant, to accommodate future increases in rainfall/runoff.  (Current planning requirements for new sewer design are outdated.  Designs often use old rainfall data and are required to a 1 in 30-year standard.  Northumbrian Water design new sewers to a 1 in 40-year standard, to accommodate for future climate changes).
• Strategically plan and implement system improvements across the network, although increased pipe sizes across the entire would clearly be impractical and investment would be better focussed on areas at greatest risk. 
• Include additional capacity for new build developments and into the existing system through network improvements to accommodate for projected increases in rainfall.   
• Limit downstream impacts from new drainage systems by designing with over-sized pipe diameters and manholes to deliver a maximum appropriate outfall discharge, such as equivalent to normal greenfield runoff.  (This is currently applied with the design of highways improvements).
• Promote and increase investment into the wider application of source control techniques to attenuate flow volumes earlier in the system and reduce downstream impacts on existing ageing sewer networks.  This would also have the added benefit of reducing peak flood flows in problem watercourses.  (There are ongoing questions over the practicability of these methods, due to ownership issues and planning policy guidance requiring increasing numbers of houses with less available space between, which need to be resolved).
• Investigate opportunities for the management of combined flooding from different sources, such as the recent Defra Integrated Urban Drainage pilot schemes taking place within the region in Newcastle (North Gosforth and Ouseburn, see Case Study) and Hartlepool.
• Incorporate the retrofitting of SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) for an overall reduction of urban runoff.  Although, opportunities to retro-fit existing infrastructure may be limited and difficult, i.e. costly, to achieve.  
• Consider the retrofitting of balancing tanks into historic drainage systems in known flood areas to accommodate excess flows when sewers reach capacity.
• Provide households across residential areas with water butts for rainwater harvesting to counteract the effects of development creep, i.e. gardens being paved over. 
• Undertake public education for the importance of SUDS, source control of flooding, the community benefits of water butts, and the wider impacts of paving over garden areas.
• Ensure sufficient flood-proofing of infrastructure and equipment at sewage treatment works and pumping stations to accommodate greater flows.
• Flood-proof remote properties which are vulnerable to sewer flooding (or localised surface water or river flooding) where drainage improvements would be costly. 
• Undertake improvements to overflows from combined sewer networks (combined sewer overflows, CSOs) in key environmentally sensitive locations where increased spills will have detrimental effects.
• Improve outfall capacity, storage provision or include pumping at CSOs most likely to be affected by climate changes (sea level rise or raised flood depths).  The design of fluvial flood defences should ensure the consideration of the impacts of raised water levels on adjacent CSOs.

 

Sedgefield Borough Council

top

Flooding from the rivers is generally pro-actively managed by the appropriate authorities as part of well-established flood risk management programmes.  These include flood warning systems, long-term and strategic planning, and the development and maintenance of appropriate flood risk management solutions.  Typically, these activities inherently consider the likely effects of future climate changes and are planned to continue into the future as part of central government’s approach to flood risk management.

The Regional Flood Defence Committee has various flood risk management projects scheduled in their current programme for implementation, funded through their Local Levy programme.  At a region-wide level these include a review of critical infrastructure at risk of flooding, climate change business adaptation project, and the mapping of areas at risk of surface water flooding.

In addition to this programme of works, there are other major flood risk management schemes identified across the region by the Environment Agency on their medium term programme, for implementation beyond 2011.  Currently none of those identified are within the Sedgefield Borough, however the programme is reviewed on an ongoing basis as priorities for schemes change.

New drainage schemes and improvements typically incorporate some consideration for climate changes based on current best practice guidance.  Existing systems, however, are generally managed in a more reactive sense, although drainage area plans produced by the water companies should highlight areas most likely to be at risk.  The key action that could be taken would be to assess all systems likely to affect large numbers of people based on local climate changes, rather than general guidance values, to determine future areas at risk. 

In particular, the following adaptation measures should continue to be incorporated in this approach:

• Continue the tight control of developments allowable within the flood plain corridor.
• For new developments move away from lowest cost to most adaptable and sustainable developments, with the inclusion of sufficient resilience as necessary for the location.
• Continue monitoring and flood warning, particularly in upstream areas due to specific issues and nature of flooding. 
• Incorporate more detailed assessments of the numbers of properties at risk under future climate scenarios based on detailed hydrological and hydraulic modelling.
• Identify the criticality and vulnerability of key public infrastructure (electricity, gas, water supply, sewage works, telecommunications, transport, schools) and produce regulations for their protection from flooding.  (Summer 2007 floods indicated how poorly protected some of vital key infrastructure is).  Many organisations rely critically on constant power supply.  The risks need to be considered cross-organisationally to identify key interdependencies.  Systems are only as strong as the weakest link and this may lie with another organisation or operator.
• Relocate key industries/businesses and critical/vulnerable properties away from potential flood risk, particularly where it is inappropriate or unsustainable to provide defences.
• Provide improved regulation and guidance across all sectors for consideration of the impacts of flooding due to climate change.  Many regulators are not currently engaged in the debate on climate change, and its inclusion in their requirements and guidance, i.e. OFWAT, Rail Regulator, Housing Corporation. 
• Improvements to flood warning systems, specifically in fast reacting catchments.
• Production of multi-agency response plans, to co-ordinate responses during extreme events.
• Improve response units and equipment, and ensure clear access routes are available. 
• Determine priorities for the protection of properties and assets in the event of flooding: priority to the protection of critical infrastructure and key access routes; followed by vulnerable populations; followed by flooding to residential housing.
• Establish partnership approaches and cross-sectoral responses to reduce potential flooding.
• Maintain and, where necessary, improve flood defences to raise the standard and condition of existing defences.
• Look for more innovative sustainable flood management approaches rather then traditional flood defences, such as allowing managed retreat areas and the upstream storage of flood water.
• Provide temporary or demountable flood defences available to low impact areas frequently affected by flooding, and ensure access routes are always available for their installation. (In summer 2007, it was not possible to install temporary defences to one area due to severe flooding of the surrounding roads blocking access).
• Increase maintenance of watercourse channels to retain flow capacity. 
• Use public campaigns to reduce fly tipping and clear rubbish from local watercourses to reduce flood impacts during flash summer events and increased winter rainfall.
• Provide flood proofing/resilience for properties and homes, such as raised electrics, raised sub-floor (for post-event draining).  Make the most of opportunities for retrofitting during refurbishments of old housing stock.  [see Three Regions “Your home in a changing climate" report, on methods for retrofitting existing homes for climate change impacts].
• Develop new roads and railway sections at raised levels (on stilts/viaducts) in flood prone areas.  Consider such improvements and new bypasses for main routes already affected.

For drainage systems:

• Determine a clear co-ordinating framework between local government, water companies, Highways Agency and Environment Agency for managing the flood risk from surface water drainage.
• Implement flood warning systems specifically for surface water flooding.
• Ensure current design standards are appropriate, and locally relevant, to accommodate future increases in rainfall/runoff.  (Current planning requirements for new sewer design are outdated.  Designs often use old rainfall data and are required to a 1 in 30-year standard.  Northumbrian Water design new sewers to a 1 in 40-year standard, to accommodate for future climate changes).
• Strategically plan and implement system improvements across the network, although increased pipe sizes across the entire would clearly be impractical and investment would be better focussed on areas at greatest risk. 
• Include additional capacity for new build developments and into the existing system through network improvements to accommodate for projected increases in rainfall.   
• Limit downstream impacts from new drainage systems by designing with over-sized pipe diameters and manholes to deliver a maximum appropriate outfall discharge, such as equivalent to normal greenfield runoff.  (This is currently applied with the design of highways improvements).
• Promote and increase investment into the wider application of source control techniques to attenuate flow volumes earlier in the system and reduce downstream impacts on existing ageing sewer networks.  This would also have the added benefit of reducing peak flood flows in problem watercourses.  (There are ongoing questions over the practicability of these methods, due to ownership issues and planning policy guidance requiring increasing numbers of houses with less available space between, which need to be resolved).
• Investigate opportunities for the management of combined flooding from different sources, such as the recent Defra Integrated Urban Drainage pilot schemes taking place within the region in Newcastle (North Gosforth and Ouseburn, see Case Study) and Hartlepool.
• Incorporate the retrofitting of SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) for an overall reduction of urban runoff.  Although, opportunities to retro-fit existing infrastructure may be limited and difficult, i.e. costly, to achieve.  
• Consider the retrofitting of balancing tanks into historic drainage systems in known flood areas to accommodate excess flows when sewers reach capacity.
• Provide households across residential areas with water butts for rainwater harvesting to counteract the effects of development creep, i.e. gardens being paved over. 
• Undertake public education for the importance of SUDS, source control of flooding, the community benefits of water butts, and the wider impacts of paving over garden areas.
• Ensure sufficient flood-proofing of infrastructure and equipment at sewage treatment works and pumping stations to accommodate greater flows.
• Flood-proof remote properties which are vulnerable to sewer flooding (or localised surface water or river flooding) where drainage improvements would be costly. 
• Undertake improvements to overflows from combined sewer networks (combined sewer overflows, CSOs) in key environmentally sensitive locations where increased spills will have detrimental effects.
• Improve outfall capacity, storage provision or include pumping at CSOs most likely to be affected by climate changes (sea level rise or raised flood depths).  The design of fluvial flood defences should ensure the consideration of the impacts of raised water levels on adjacent CSOs.

 

South Tyneside Council

top

Flooding from the rivers, streams and sea is generally pro-actively managed by the appropriate authorities as part of well-established flood risk management programmes.  These include flood warning systems, long-term and strategic planning, and the development and maintenance of appropriate flood risk management solutions.  Typically, these activities inherently consider the likely effects of future climate changes and are planned to continue into the future as part of central government’s approach to flood risk management.

The Regional Flood Defence Committee has various flood risk management projects scheduled in their current programme for implementation, funded through their Local Levy programme.  At a region-wide level these include a review of critical infrastructure at risk of flooding, climate change business adaptation project, and the mapping of areas at risk of surface water flooding.

In addition to this programme of works, there are other major flood risk management schemes identified across the region by the Environment Agency on their medium term programme, for implementation beyond 2011.  Currently none of those identified are within the South Tyneside district, however the programme is reviewed on an ongoing basis as priorities for schemes change.

New drainage schemes and improvements typically incorporate some consideration for climate changes based on current best practice guidance.  Existing systems, however, are generally managed in a more reactive sense, although drainage area plans produced by the water companies should highlight areas most likely to be at risk.  The key action that could be taken would be to assess all systems likely to affect large numbers of people based on local climate changes, rather than general guidance values, to determine future areas at risk. 

In particular, the following adaptation measures should continue to be incorporated in this approach:

• Continue monitoring and flood warning for river and tidal events.
• Incorporate more detailed assessments of the numbers of properties at risk under future climate scenarios based on detailed hydrological and hydraulic modelling.
• Identify the criticality and vulnerability of key public infrastructure (electricity, gas, water supply, sewage works, telecommunications, transport, schools) and produce regulations for their protection from flooding.  (Summer 2007 floods indicated how poorly protected some of vital key infrastructure is).  Many organisations rely critically on constant power supply.  The risks need to be considered cross-organisationally to identify key interdependencies.  Systems are only as strong as the weakest link and this may lie with another organisation or operator.
• Relocate key industries/businesses and critical/vulnerable properties away from potential flood risk, particularly where it is inappropriate or unsustainable to provide defences.
• Provide improved regulation and guidance across all sectors for consideration of the impacts of flooding due to climate change.  Many regulators are not currently engaged in the debate on climate change, and its inclusion in their requirements and guidance, i.e. OFWAT, Rail Regulator, Housing Corporation. 
• Continue the tight control of developments allowable within the flood plain.
• Production of multi-agency response plans, to co-ordinate responses during extreme events.
• Improve response units and equipment, and ensure clear access routes are available. 
• Determine priorities for the protection of properties and assets in the event of flooding: priority to the protection of critical infrastructure and key access routes; followed by vulnerable populations; followed by flooding to residential housing.
• Establish partnership approaches and cross-sectoral responses to reduce potential flooding.
• Maintain and, where necessary, improve flood defences to raise the standard and condition of existing defences.
• Look for more innovative sustainable flood management approaches rather then traditional flood defences, such as allowing managed retreat areas and the upstream storage of flood water.
• Provide temporary or demountable flood defences available to low impact areas frequently affected by flooding, and ensure access routes are always available for their installation. (In summer 2007, it was not possible to install temporary defences to one area due to severe flooding of the surrounding roads blocking access).
• Increase maintenance of watercourse channels to retain flow capacity. 
• Use public campaigns to reduce fly tipping and clear rubbish from local watercourses to reduce flood impacts during flash summer events and increased winter rainfall.
• Provide flood proofing/resilience for properties and homes, such as raised electrics, raised sub-floor (for post-event draining).  Make the most of opportunities for retrofitting during refurbishments of old housing stock.  [see Three Regions “Your home in a changing climate" report, on methods for retrofitting existing homes for climate change impacts].
• For new developments move away from lowest cost to most adaptable and sustainable developments, with the inclusion of sufficient resilience as necessary for the location.
• Develop new roads and railway sections at raised levels (on stilts/viaducts) in flood prone areas.  Consider such improvements and new bypasses for main routes already affected.
• Improve the future planning management of caravan and camping parks with increased tourism.  Low volume sites are not currently subject to planning permission due to their temporary nature.  Sites are often placed near watercourses/sea and are highly vulnerable to flooding impacts.

For drainage systems:

• Determine a clear co-ordinating framework between local government, water companies, Highways Agency and Environment Agency for managing the flood risk from surface water drainage.
• Implement flood warning systems specifically for surface water flooding.
• Ensure current design standards are appropriate, and locally relevant, to accommodate future increases in rainfall/runoff.  (Current planning requirements for new sewer design are outdated.  Designs often use old rainfall data and are required to a 1 in 30-year standard.  Northumbrian Water design new sewers to a 1 in 40-year standard, to accommodate for future climate changes).
• Strategically plan and implement system improvements across the network, although increased pipe sizes across the entire would clearly be impractical and investment would be better focussed on areas at greatest risk. 
• Include additional capacity for new build developments and into the existing system through network improvements to accommodate for projected increases in rainfall.   
• Limit downstream impacts from new drainage systems by designing with over-sized pipe diameters and manholes to deliver a maximum appropriate outfall discharge, such as equivalent to normal greenfield runoff.  (This is currently applied with the design of highways improvements).
• Promote and increase investment into the wider application of source control techniques to attenuate flow volumes earlier in the system and reduce downstream impacts on existing ageing sewer networks.  This would also have the added benefit of reducing peak flood flows in problem watercourses.  (There are ongoing questions over the practicability of these methods, due to ownership issues and planning policy guidance requiring increasing numbers of houses with less available space between, which need to be resolved).
• Investigate opportunities for the management of combined flooding from different sources, such as the recent Defra Integrated Urban Drainage pilot schemes taking place within the region in Newcastle (North Gosforth and Ouseburn, see Case Study) and Hartlepool.
• Incorporate the retrofitting of SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) for an overall reduction of urban runoff.  Although, opportunities to retro-fit existing infrastructure may be limited and difficult, i.e. costly, to achieve.  
• Consider the retrofitting of balancing tanks into historic drainage systems in known flood areas to accommodate excess flows when sewers reach capacity.
• Provide households across residential areas with water butts for rainwater harvesting to counteract the effects of development creep, i.e. gardens being paved over. 
• Undertake public education for the importance of SUDS, source control of flooding, the community benefits of water butts, and the wider impacts of paving over garden areas.
• Ensure sufficient flood-proofing of infrastructure and equipment at sewage treatment works and pumping stations to accommodate greater flows.
• Flood-proof remote properties which are vulnerable to sewer flooding (or localised surface water or river flooding) where drainage improvements would be costly. 
• Undertake improvements to overflows from combined sewer networks (combined sewer overflows, CSOs) in key environmentally sensitive locations where increased spills will have detrimental effects.
• Improve outfall capacity, storage provision or include pumping at CSOs most likely to be affected by climate changes (sea level rise or raised flood depths).  The design of fluvial flood defences should ensure the consideration of the impacts of raised water levels on adjacent CSOs.

 

Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council

top

Flooding from the rivers, streams and sea is generally pro-actively managed by the appropriate authorities as part of well-established flood risk management programmes.  These include flood warning systems, long-term and strategic planning, and the development and maintenance of appropriate flood risk management solutions.  Typically, these activities inherently consider the likely effects of future climate changes and are planned to continue into the future as part of central government’s approach to flood risk management.

The Regional Flood Defence Committee has various flood risk management projects scheduled in their current programme for implementation, funded through their Local Levy programme.  Within the Redcar and Cleveland borough these include a tidal resilience study along the Tees to review the flood risks to local industry and a project to protect the most vulnerable properties along the Lustrum Beck in Stockton, to be undertaken during 2008/09.

In addition to this programme of works, there are other major flood risk management schemes identified by the Environment Agency on their medium term programme, for implementation beyond 2011.  These include an indicative £6.4M flood improvements scheme at Billingham Wharf, and a further scheme at Port Clarence with an initial estimated cost of £3.2M.

New drainage schemes and improvements typically incorporate some consideration for climate changes based on current best practice guidance.  Existing systems, however, are generally managed in a more reactive sense, although drainage area plans produced by the water companies should highlight areas most likely to be at risk.  The key action that could be taken would be to assess all systems likely to affect large numbers of people based on local climate changes, rather than general guidance values, to determine future areas at risk. 

In particular, the following adaptation measures should continue to be incorporated in this approach:

• Ensure the continuing protection of important industries with specific defences and bunding to reduce the local flood risk.
• Relocate key industries/businesses and critical/vulnerable properties away from potential flood risk, particularly where it is inappropriate or unsustainable to provide defences.
• Identify the criticality and vulnerability of key public infrastructure (electricity, gas, water supply, sewage works, telecommunications, transport, schools) and produce regulations for their protection from flooding.  (Summer 2007 floods indicated how poorly protected some of vital key infrastructure is).  Many organisations rely critically on constant power supply.  The risks need to be considered cross-organisationally to identify key interdependencies.  Systems are only as strong as the weakest link and this may lie with another organisation or operator.
• Determine priorities for the protection of properties and assets in the event of flooding: priority to the protection of critical infrastructure and key access routes; followed by vulnerable populations; followed by flooding to residential housing.
• Continue the tight control of developments allowable within the flood plain.
• Maintain and, where necessary, improve flood defences to raise the standard and condition of existing defences.
• Provide temporary or demountable flood defences available to low impact areas frequently affected by flooding, and ensure access routes are always available for their installation. (In summer 2007, it was not possible to install temporary defences to one area due to severe flooding of the surrounding roads blocking access).
• Ongoing public campaigns, as previously adopted in Middlesbrough, to reduce fly tipping and clear rubbish from becks to reduce flood impacts during flash summer events and increased winter rainfall.
• Continue monitoring and flood warning for river and tidal events.
• Incorporate more detailed assessments of the numbers of properties at risk under future climate scenarios based on detailed hydrological and hydraulic modelling.
• Provide improved regulation and guidance across all sectors for consideration of the impacts of flooding due to climate change.  Many regulators are not currently engaged in the debate on climate change, and its inclusion in their requirements and guidance, i.e. OFWAT, Rail Regulator, Housing Corporation. 
• Production of multi-agency response plans, to co-ordinate responses during extreme events.
• Improve response units and equipment, and ensure clear access routes are available.  (In the North East, the fire service at Ashington has three high volume pumps [three times faster than conventional fire service pumps].  These were recently used in response to major regional flood events such as around Hull in summer 2007, and Carlisle in 2005).
• Establish partnership approaches and cross-sectoral responses to reduce potential flooding.
• Look for more innovative sustainable flood management approaches rather then traditional flood defences, such as allowing managed retreat areas and the upstream storage of flood water.
• Increase maintenance of watercourse channels to retain flow capacity. 
• Provide flood proofing/resilience for properties and homes, such as raised electrics, raised sub-floor (for post-event draining).  Make the most of opportunities for retrofitting during refurbishments of old housing stock.  [see Three Regions “Your home in a changing climate" report, on methods for retrofitting existing homes for climate change impacts].
• For new developments move away from lowest cost to most adaptable and sustainable developments, with the inclusion of sufficient resilience as necessary for the location.
• Develop new roads and railway sections at raised levels (on stilts/viaducts) in flood prone areas.  Consider such improvements and new bypasses for main routes already affected.

For drainage systems:

• Determine a clear co-ordinating framework between local government, water companies, Highways Agency and Environment Agency for managing the flood risk from surface water drainage.
• Implement flood warning systems specifically for surface water flooding.
• Ensure current design standards are appropriate, and locally relevant, to accommodate future increases in rainfall/runoff.  (Current planning requirements for new sewer design are outdated.  Designs often use old rainfall data and are required to a 1 in 30-year standard.  Northumbrian Water design new sewers to a 1 in 40-year standard, to accommodate for future climate changes).
• Strategically plan and implement system improvements across the network, although increased pipe sizes across the entire would clearly be impractical and investment would be better focussed on areas at greatest risk. 
• Include additional capacity for new build developments and into the existing system through network improvements to accommodate for projected increases in rainfall.   
• Limit downstream impacts from new drainage systems by designing with over-sized pipe diameters and manholes to deliver a maximum appropriate outfall discharge, such as equivalent to normal greenfield runoff.  (This is currently applied with the design of highways improvements).
• Promote and increase investment into the wider application of source control techniques to attenuate flow volumes earlier in the system and reduce downstream impacts on existing ageing sewer networks.  This would also have the added benefit of reducing peak flood flows in problem watercourses.  (There are ongoing questions over the practicability of these methods, due to ownership issues and planning policy guidance requiring increasing numbers of houses with less available space between, which need to be resolved).
• Investigate opportunities for the management of combined flooding from different sources, such as the recent Defra Integrated Urban Drainage pilot schemes taking place within the region in Newcastle (North Gosforth and Ouseburn, see Case Study) and Hartlepool.  In Hartlepool the project focuses on the interactions of the local watercourses and sewers to improve future maintenance, operation and serviceability.
• Incorporate the retrofitting of SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) for an overall reduction of urban runoff.  Although, opportunities to retro-fit existing infrastructure may be limited and difficult, i.e. costly, to achieve.  
• Consider the retrofitting of balancing tanks into historic drainage systems in known flood areas to accommodate excess flows when sewers reach capacity.
• Provide households across residential areas with water butts for rainwater harvesting to counteract the effects of development creep, i.e. gardens being paved over. 
• Undertake public education for the importance of SUDS, source control of flooding, the community benefits of water butts, and the wider impacts of paving over garden areas.
• Ensure sufficient flood-proofing of infrastructure and equipment at sewage treatment works and pumping stations to accommodate greater flows.
• Flood-proof remote properties which are vulnerable to sewer flooding (or localised surface water or river flooding) where drainage improvements would be costly. 
• Undertake improvements to overflows from combined sewer networks (combined sewer overflows, CSOs) in key environmentally sensitive locations where increased spills will have detrimental effects.
• Improve outfall capacity, storage provision or include pumping at CSOs most likely to be affected by climate changes (sea level rise or raised flood depths).  The design of fluvial flood defences should ensure the consideration of the impacts of raised water levels on adjacent CSOs.

 

Sunderland City Council

top

Flooding from the rivers, streams and sea is generally pro-actively managed by the appropriate authorities as part of well-established flood risk management programmes.  These include flood warning systems, long-term and strategic planning, and the development and maintenance of appropriate flood risk management solutions.  Typically, these activities inherently consider the likely effects of future climate changes and are planned to continue into the future as part of central government’s approach to flood risk management.

The Regional Flood Defence Committee has various flood risk management projects scheduled in their current programme for implementation, funded through their Local Levy programme.  At a region-wide level these include a review of critical infrastructure at risk of flooding, climate change business adaptation project, and the mapping of areas at risk of surface water flooding.

In addition to this programme of works, there are other major flood risk management schemes identified by the Environment Agency on their medium term programme, for implementation beyond 2011.  Within Sunderland these include an indicative £2.5M flood improvements scheme on the Wear at Fatfield.

New drainage schemes and improvements typically incorporate some consideration for climate changes based on current best practice guidance.  Existing systems, however, are generally managed in a more reactive sense, although drainage area plans produced by the water companies should highlight areas most likely to be at risk.  The key action that could be taken would be to assess all systems likely to affect large numbers of people based on local climate changes, rather than general guidance values, to determine future areas at risk. 

In particular, the following adaptation measures should continue to be incorporated in this approach:

• Identify the criticality and vulnerability of key public infrastructure (electricity, gas, water supply, sewage works, telecommunications, transport, schools) and produce regulations for their protection from flooding.  (Summer 2007 floods indicated how poorly protected some of vital key infrastructure is).  Many organisations rely critically on constant power supply.  The risks need to be considered cross-organisationally to identify key interdependencies.  Systems are only as strong as the weakest link and this may lie with another organisation or operator.
• Relocate key industries/businesses and critical/vulnerable properties away from potential flood risk, particularly where it is inappropriate or unsustainable to provide defences.
• Use public campaigns to reduce fly tipping and clear rubbish from local watercouses to reduce flood impacts during flash summer events and increased winter rainfall.
• Continue monitoring and flood warning for river and tidal events.
• Incorporate more detailed assessments of the numbers of properties at risk under future climate scenarios based on detailed hydrological and hydraulic modelling.
• Provide improved regulation and guidance across all sectors for consideration of the impacts of flooding due to climate change.  Many regulators are not currently engaged in the debate on climate change, and its inclusion in their requirements and guidance, i.e. OFWAT, Rail Regulator, Housing Corporation. 
• Continue the tight control of developments allowable within the flood plain corridor.
• Production of multi-agency response plans, to co-ordinate responses during extreme events.
• Improve response units and equipment, and ensure clear access routes are available. 
• Determine priorities for the protection of properties and assets in the event of flooding: priority to the protection of critical infrastructure and key access routes; followed by vulnerable populations; followed by flooding to residential housing.
• Establish partnership approaches and cross-sectoral responses to reduce potential flooding.
• Maintain and, where necessary, improve flood defences to raise the standard and condition of existing defences.
• Look for more innovative sustainable flood management approaches rather then traditional flood defences, such as allowing managed retreat areas and the upstream storage of flood water.
• Provide temporary or demountable flood defences available to low impact areas frequently affected by flooding, and ensure access routes are always available for their installation. (In summer 2007, it was not possible to install temporary defences to one area due to severe flooding of the surrounding roads blocking access).
• Increase maintenance of watercourse channels to retain flow capacity. 
• Provide flood proofing/resilience for properties and homes, such as raised electrics, raised sub-floor (for post-event draining).  Make the most of opportunities for retrofitting during refurbishments of old housing stock.  [see Three Regions “Your home in a changing climate" report, on methods for retrofitting existing homes for climate change impacts].
• For new developments move away from lowest cost to most adaptable and sustainable developments, with the inclusion of sufficient resilience as necessary for the location.
• Develop new roads and railway sections at raised levels (on stilts/viaducts) in flood prone areas.  Consider such improvements and new bypasses for main routes already affected.

For drainage systems:

• Incorporate the retrofitting of SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) for an overall reduction of urban runoff.  Although, opportunities to retro-fit existing infrastructure may be limited and difficult, i.e. costly, to achieve. 
• Provide households across residential areas with water butts for rainwater harvesting to counteract the effects of development creep, i.e. gardens being paved over. 
• Undertake public education for the importance of SUDS, source control of flooding, the community benefits of water butts, and the wider impacts of paving over garden areas.
• Determine a clear co-ordinating framework between local government, water companies, Highways Agency and Environment Agency for managing the flood risk from surface water drainage.
• Implement flood warning systems specifically for surface water flooding.
• Ensure current design standards are appropriate, and locally relevant, to accommodate future increases in rainfall/runoff.  (Current planning requirements for new sewer design are outdated.  Designs often use old rainfall data and are required to a 1 in 30-year standard.  Northumbrian Water design new sewers to a 1 in 40-year standard, to accommodate for future climate changes).
• Strategically plan and implement system improvements across the network, although increased pipe sizes across the entire would clearly be impractical and investment would be better focussed on areas at greatest risk. 
• Include additional capacity for new build developments and into the existing system through network improvements to accommodate for projected increases in rainfall.   
• Limit downstream impacts from new drainage systems by designing with over-sized pipe diameters and manholes to deliver a maximum appropriate outfall discharge, such as equivalent to normal greenfield runoff.  (This is currently applied with the design of highways improvements).
• Promote and increase investment into the wider application of source control techniques to attenuate flow volumes earlier in the system and reduce downstream impacts on existing ageing sewer networks.  This would also have the added benefit of reducing peak flood flows in problem watercourses.  (There are ongoing questions over the practicability of these methods, due to ownership issues and planning policy guidance requiring increasing numbers of houses with less available space between, which need to be resolved).
• Investigate opportunities for the management of combined flooding from different sources, such as the recent Defra Integrated Urban Drainage pilot schemes taking place within the region in Newcastle (North Gosforth and Ouseburn, see Case Study) and Hartlepool.
• Consider the retrofitting of balancing tanks into historic drainage systems in known flood areas to accommodate excess flows when sewers reach capacity.
• Ensure sufficient flood-proofing of infrastructure and equipment at sewage treatment works and pumping stations to accommodate greater flows.
• Flood-proof remote properties which are vulnerable to sewer flooding (or localised surface water or river flooding) where drainage improvements would be costly. 
• Undertake improvements to overflows from combined sewer networks (combined sewer overflows, CSOs) in key environmentally sensitive locations where increased spills will have detrimental effects.
• Improve outfall capacity, storage provision or include pumping at CSOs most likely to be affected by climate changes (sea level rise or raised flood depths).  The design of fluvial flood defences should ensure the consideration of the impacts of raised water levels on adjacent CSOs.

 

Teesdale District Council

top

Flooding from the rivers is generally pro-actively managed by the appropriate authorities as part of well-established flood risk management programmes.  These include flood warning systems, long-term and strategic planning, and the development and maintenance of appropriate flood risk management solutions.  Typically, these activities inherently consider the likely effects of future climate changes and are planned to continue into the future as part of central government’s approach to flood risk management.

The Regional Flood Defence Committee has various flood risk management projects scheduled in their current programme for implementation, funded through their Local Levy programme.  At a region-wide level these include a review of critical infrastructure at risk of flooding, climate change business adaptation project, and the mapping of areas at risk of surface water flooding.

In addition to this programme of works, there are other major flood risk management schemes identified across the region by the Environment Agency on their medium term programme, for implementation beyond 2011.  Currently none of those identified are within the Teesdale district, however the programme is reviewed on an ongoing basis as priorities for schemes change.

New drainage schemes and improvements typically incorporate some consideration for climate changes based on current best practice guidance.  Existing systems, however, are generally managed in a more reactive sense, although drainage area plans produced by the water companies should highlight areas most likely to be at risk.  The key action that could be taken would be to assess all systems likely to affect large numbers of people based on local climate changes, rather than general guidance values, to determine future areas at risk. 

In particular, the following adaptation measures should continue to be incorporated in this approach:

• Continue monitoring and flood warning, particularly in upstream areas due to specific issues and nature of flooding. 
• Improvements to flood warning systems, specifically in fast reacting catchments.
• Improve response units and equipment, and ensure clear access routes are available. 
• Look for more innovative sustainable flood management approaches rather then traditional flood defences, such as allowing managed retreat areas and the upstream storage of flood water.
• Establish partnership approaches and cross-sectoral responses to reduce potential flooding, for example the storage of water in uplands areas to fight potential fires caused by higher summer temperatures.
• Use changes in local land management in rural areas to reduce rates of surface runoff, such as the provision of hedgerows and ditches, and the lateral ploughing of fields along contours to reduce field runoff and the wash off of sediments, and retain nutrients on the fields.
• Increase maintenance of watercourse channels to retain flow capacity. 
• Provide temporary or demountable flood defences available to low impact areas frequently affected by flooding, and ensure access routes are always available for their installation. (In summer 2007, it was not possible to install temporary defences to one area due to severe flooding of the surrounding roads blocking access).
• Improve the future planning management of caravan and camping parks with increased tourism.  Low volume sites are not currently subject to planning permission due to their temporary nature.  Sites are often placed near watercourses/sea and are highly vulnerable to flooding impacts.
• Incorporate more detailed assessments of the numbers of properties at risk under future climate scenarios based on detailed hydrological and hydraulic modelling.
• Identify the criticality and vulnerability of key public infrastructure (electricity, gas, water supply, sewage works, telecommunications, transport, schools) and produce regulations for their protection from flooding.  (Summer 2007 floods indicated how poorly protected some of vital key infrastructure is).  Many organisations rely critically on constant power supply.  The risks need to be considered cross-organisationally to identify key interdependencies.  Systems are only as strong as the weakest link and this may lie with another organisation or operator.
• Relocate key industries/businesses and critical/vulnerable properties away from potential flood risk, particularly where it is inappropriate or unsustainable to provide defences.
• Provide improved regulation and guidance across all sectors for consideration of the impacts of flooding due to climate change.  Many regulators are not currently engaged in the debate on climate change, and its inclusion in their requirements and guidance, i.e. OFWAT, Rail Regulator, Housing Corporation. 
• Continue the tight control of developments allowable within the flood plain corridor.
• Production of multi-agency response plans, to co-ordinate responses during extreme events.
• Determine priorities for the protection of properties and assets in the event of flooding: priority to the protection of critical infrastructure and key access routes; followed by vulnerable populations; followed by flooding to residential housing.
• Maintain and, where necessary, improve flood defences to raise the standard and condition of existing defences.
• Use public campaigns to reduce fly tipping and clear rubbish from local watercourses to reduce flood impacts during flash summer events and increased winter rainfall.
• Provide flood proofing/resilience for properties and homes, such as raised electrics, raised sub-floor (for post-event draining).  Make the most of opportunities for retrofitting during refurbishments of old housing stock.  [see Three Regions “Your home in a changing climate" report, on methods for retrofitting existing homes for climate change impacts].
• For new developments move away from lowest cost to most adaptable and sustainable developments, with the inclusion of sufficient resilience as necessary for the location.
• Develop new roads and railway sections at raised levels (on stilts/viaducts) in flood prone areas.  Consider such improvements and new bypasses for main routes already affected.

For drainage systems:

• Determine a clear co-ordinating framework between local government, water companies, Highways Agency and Environment Agency for managing the flood risk from surface water drainage.
• Limit downstream impacts from new drainage systems by designing with over-sized pipe diameters and manholes to deliver a maximum appropriate outfall discharge, such as equivalent to normal greenfield runoff.  (This is currently applied with the design of highways improvements).
• Ensure sufficient flood-proofing of infrastructure and equipment at sewage treatment works and pumping stations to accommodate greater flows.
• Flood-proof remote properties which are vulnerable to sewer flooding (or localised surface water or river flooding) where drainage improvements would be costly. 
• Implement flood warning systems specifically for surface water flooding.
• Ensure current design standards are appropriate, and locally relevant, to accommodate future increases in rainfall/runoff.  (Current planning requirements for new sewer design are outdated.  Designs often use old rainfall data and are required to a 1 in 30-year standard.  Northumbrian Water design new sewers to a 1 in 40-year standard, to accommodate for future climate changes).
• Strategically plan and implement system improvements across the network, although increased pipe sizes across the entire would clearly be impractical and investment would be better focussed on areas at greatest risk. 
• Include additional capacity for new build developments and into the existing system through network improvements to accommodate for projected increases in rainfall.    
• Promote and increase investment into the wider application of source control techniques to attenuate flow volumes earlier in the system and reduce downstream impacts on existing ageing sewer networks.  This would also have the added benefit of reducing peak flood flows in problem watercourses.  (There are ongoing questions over the practicability of these methods, due to ownership issues and planning policy guidance requiring increasing numbers of houses with less available space between, which need to be resolved).
• Investigate opportunities for the management of combined flooding from different sources, such as the recent Defra Integrated Urban Drainage pilot schemes taking place within the region in Newcastle (North Gosforth and Ouseburn, see Case Study) and Hartlepool.
• Incorporate the retrofitting of SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) for an overall reduction of urban runoff.  Although, opportunities to retro-fit existing infrastructure may be limited and difficult, i.e. costly, to achieve.  
• Consider the retrofitting of balancing tanks into historic drainage systems in known flood areas to accommodate excess flows when sewers reach capacity.
• Provide households across residential areas with water butts for rainwater harvesting to counteract the effects of development creep, i.e. gardens being paved over. 
• Undertake public education for the importance of SUDS, source control of flooding, the community benefits of water butts, and the wider impacts of paving over garden areas.
• Undertake improvements to overflows from combined sewer networks (combined sewer overflows, CSOs) in key environmentally sensitive locations where increased spills will have detrimental effects.
• Improve outfall capacity, storage provision or include pumping at CSOs most likely to be affected by climate changes (sea level rise or raised flood depths).  The design of fluvial flood defences should ensure the consideration of the impacts of raised water levels on adjacent CSOs.

 

Tynedale Council

top

Flooding from main rivers is generally pro-actively managed by the appropriate authorities as part of well-established flood risk management programmes.  These include flood warning systems, long-term and strategic planning, and the development and maintenance of appropriate flood risk management solutions.  Typically, these activities inherently consider the likely effects of future climate changes and are planned to continue into the future as part of central government’s approach to flood risk management.

The Regional Flood Defence Committee has various flood risk management projects scheduled in their current programme for implementation, funded through their Local Levy programme.  Within the Tynedale district these include a flood defence scheme for areas upstream of Haydon Bridge, around Brigwood, to be undertaken during 2008/09.

In addition to this programme of works, there are other major flood risk management schemes identified by the Environment Agency on their medium term programme, for implementation beyond 2011.  These include an indicative £0.75M flood improvements scheme at Tynemills.

New drainage schemes and improvements typically incorporate some consideration for climate changes based on current best practice guidance.  Existing systems, however, are generally managed in a more reactive sense, although drainage area plans produced by the water companies should highlight areas most likely to be at risk.  The key action that could be taken would be to assess all systems likely to affect large numbers of people based on local climate changes, rather than general guidance values, to determine future areas at risk. 

In particular, the following adaptation measures should continue to be incorporated in this approach:

• Concentrate flood risk management efforts in the specific key risk areas, such as Haydon Bridge, Corbridge, Warden, Hexham, etc.
• Continue monitoring and flood warning, particularly in upstream areas due to specific issues and nature of flooding.
• Improvements to flood warning systems, specifically in fast reacting catchments and for surface water flooding.
• Improve response units and equipment, and ensure clear access routes available to remote areas.  (In Northumberland, the fire service at Ashington has three high volume pumps [three times faster than conventional fire service pumps].  These were recently used in response to major regional flood events such as around Hull in summer 2007, and Carlisle in 2005.   Northumberland Fire and Rescue is procuring new pumps and boats for use in times of extreme flooding).
• Identify the criticality and vulnerability of key public infrastructure (electricity, gas, water supply, sewage works, telecommunications, transport, schools) and produce regulations for their protection from flooding.  (Summer 2007 floods indicated how poorly protected some of vital key infrastructure is).  Many organisations rely critically on constant power supply.  The risks need to be considered cross-organisationally to identify key interdependencies.  Systems are only as strong as the weakest link and this may lie with another organisation or operator.
• Look for more innovative sustainable flood management approaches rather then traditional flood defences, such as allowing managed retreat areas and the upstream storage of flood water.
• Use changes in local land management in rural areas to reduce rates of surface runoff, such as the provision of hedgerows and ditches, and the lateral ploughing of fields along contours to reduce field runoff and the wash off of sediments, and retain nutrients on the fields.
• Establish partnership approaches and cross-sectoral responses to reduce potential flooding, for example the storage of water in uplands areas to fight potential fires caused by higher summer temperatures.
• Increase maintenance of watercourse channels to retain flow capacity. 
• Improve the future planning management of caravan and camping parks with increased tourism.  Low volume sites are not currently subject to planning permission due to their temporary nature.  Sites are often placed near watercourses/sea and are highly vulnerable to flooding impacts.
• Incorporate more detailed assessments of the numbers of properties at risk under future climate scenarios based on detailed hydrological and hydraulic modelling.
• Relocate key industries/businesses and critical/vulnerable properties away from potential flood risk, particularly where it is inappropriate or unsustainable to provide defences.
• Provide improved regulation and guidance across all sectors for consideration of the impacts of flooding due to climate change.  Many regulators are not currently engaged in the debate on climate change, and its inclusion in their requirements and guidance, i.e. OFWAT, Rail Regulator, Housing Corporation. 
• Continue the tight control of developments allowable within the flood plain corridor.
• Production of multi-agency response plans, to co-ordinate responses during extreme events.
• Determine priorities for the protection of properties and assets in the event of flooding: priority to the protection of critical infrastructure and key access routes; followed by vulnerable populations; followed by flooding to residential housing.
• Maintain and, where necessary, improve flood defences to raise the standard and condition of existing defences.
• Provide temporary or demountable flood defences available to low impact areas frequently affected by flooding, and ensure access routes are always available for their installation. (In summer 2007, it was not possible to install temporary defences to one area due to severe flooding of the surrounding roads blocking access).
• Use public campaigns to reduce fly tipping and clear rubbish from becks to reduce flood impacts during flash summer events and increased winter rainfall.
• Provide flood proofing/resilience for properties and homes, such as raised electrics, raised sub-floor (for post-event draining).  Make the most of opportunities for retrofitting during refurbishments of old housing stock.  [see Three Regions “Your home in a changing climate" report, on methods for retrofitting existing homes for climate change impacts].
• For new developments move away from lowest cost to most adaptable and sustainable developments, with the inclusion of sufficient resilience as necessary for the location.
• Develop new roads and railway sections at raised levels (on stilts/viaducts) in flood prone areas.  Consider such improvements and new bypasses for main routes already affected.

For drainage systems:

• Flood-proof remote properties which are vulnerable to sewer flooding (or localised surface water or river flooding) where drainage improvements would be costly. 
• Undertake improvements to overflows from combined sewer networks (combined sewer overflows, CSOs) in key environmentally sensitive locations where increased spills will have detrimental effects.
• Determine a clear co-ordinating framework between local government, water companies, Highways Agency and Environment Agency for managing the flood risk from surface water drainage.
• Ensure current design standards are appropriate, and locally relevant, to accommodate future increases in rainfall/runoff.  (Current planning requirements for new sewer design are outdated.  Designs often use old rainfall data and are required to a 1 in 30-year standard.  Northumbrian Water design new sewers to a 1 in 40-year standard, to accommodate for future climate changes).
• Strategically plan and implement system improvements across the network, although increased pipe sizes across the entire would clearly be impractical and investment would be better focussed on areas at greatest risk. 
• Include additional capacity for new build developments and into the existing system through network improvements to accommodate for projected increases in rainfall.   
• Limit downstream impacts from new drainage systems by designing with over-sized pipe diameters and manholes to deliver a maximum appropriate outfall discharge, such as equivalent to normal greenfield runoff.  (This is currently applied with the design of highways improvements).
• Promote and increase investment into the wider application of source control techniques to attenuate flow volumes earlier in the system and reduce downstream impacts on existing ageing sewer networks.  This would also have the added benefit of reducing peak flood flows in problem watercourses.  (There are ongoing questions over the practicability of these methods, due to ownership issues and planning policy guidance requiring increasing numbers of houses with less available space between, which need to be resolved).
• Investigate opportunities for the management of combined flooding from different sources, such as the recent Defra Integrated Urban Drainage pilot schemes taking place within the region in Newcastle (North Gosforth and Ouseburn, see Case Study) and Hartlepool.
• Incorporate the retrofitting of SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) for an overall reduction of urban runoff.  Although, opportunities to retro-fit existing infrastructure may be limited and difficult, i.e. costly, to achieve.  
• Consider the retrofitting of balancing tanks into historic drainage systems in known flood areas to accommodate excess flows when sewers reach capacity.
• Provide households across residential areas with water butts for rainwater harvesting to counteract the effects of development creep, i.e. gardens being paved over. 
• Undertake public education for the importance of SUDS, source control of flooding, the community benefits of water butts, and the wider impacts of paving over garden areas.
• Ensure sufficient flood-proofing of infrastructure and equipment at sewage treatment works and pumping stations to accommodate greater flows.
• Improve outfall capacity, storage provision or include pumping at CSOs most likely to be affected by climate changes (sea level rise or raised flood depths).  The design of fluvial flood defences should ensure the consideration of the impacts of raised water levels on adjacent CSOs.

 

Wansbeck District Council

top

Flooding from the rivers, streams and sea is generally pro-actively managed by the appropriate authorities as part of well-established flood risk management programmes.  These include flood warning systems, long-term and strategic planning, and the development and maintenance of appropriate flood risk management solutions.  Typically, these activities inherently consider the likely effects of future climate changes and are planned to continue into the future as part of central government’s approach to flood risk management.

The Regional Flood Defence Committee has various flood risk management projects scheduled in their current programme for implementation, funded through their Local Levy programme.  At a region-wide level these include a review of critical infrastructure at risk of flooding, climate change business adaptation project, and the mapping of areas at risk of surface water flooding.

In addition to this programme of works, there are other major flood risk management schemes identified across the region by the Environment Agency on their medium term programme, for implementation beyond 2011.  Currently none of those identified are within the Wansbeck district, however the programme is reviewed on an ongoing basis as priorities for schemes change.

New drainage schemes and improvements typically incorporate some consideration for climate changes based on current best practice guidance.  Existing systems, however, are generally managed in a more reactive sense, although drainage area plans produced by the water companies should highlight areas most likely to be at risk.  The key action that could be taken would be to assess all systems likely to affect large numbers of people based on local climate changes, rather than general guidance values, to determine future areas at risk. 

In particular, the following adaptation measures should continue to be incorporated in this approach:

• Continue provision of flood warning to areas at risk in advance of high tidal surge events, and improvements to warnings for surface water flooding.
• Improve response units and equipment, and ensure clear access routes available.  (In Northumberland, the fire service at Ashington has three high volume pumps [three times faster than conventional fire service pumps].  These were recently used in response to major regional flood events such as around Hull in summer 2007, and Carlisle in 2005.   Northumberland Fire and Rescue is procuring new pumps and boats for use in times of extreme flooding).
• Identify the criticality and vulnerability of key public infrastructure (electricity, gas, water supply, sewage works, telecommunications, transport, schools) and produce regulations for their protection from flooding.  (Summer 2007 floods indicated how poorly protected some of vital key infrastructure is).  Many organisations rely critically on constant power supply.  The risks need to be considered cross-organisationally to identify key interdependencies.  Systems are only as strong as the weakest link and this may lie with another organisation or operator.
• Continue the tight control of developments allowable within the flood plain.  Planning control with respect to flooding at locations such as the Blyth Power Station and Port will need to be managed carefully to ensure that future properties and critical assets are not put at risk.
• Relocate key industries/businesses and critical/vulnerable properties away from potential flood risk, particularly where it is inappropriate or unsustainable to provide defences.
• Provide improved regulation and guidance across all sectors for consideration of the impacts of flooding due to climate change.  Many regulators are not currently engaged in the debate on climate change, and its inclusion in their requirements and guidance, i.e. OFWAT, Rail Regulator, Housing Corporation. 
• Production of multi-agency response plans, to co-ordinate responses during extreme events.
• Determine priorities for the protection of properties and assets in the event of flooding: priority to the protection of critical infrastructure and key access routes; followed by vulnerable populations; followed by flooding to residential housing.
• Establish partnership approaches and cross-sectoral responses to reduce potential flooding.
• Maintain and, where necessary, improve flood defences to raise the standard and condition of existing defences.
• Look for more innovative sustainable flood management approaches rather then traditional flood defences, such as allowing managed coastal retreat areas.
• Provide temporary or demountable flood defences available to low impact areas frequently affected by flooding, and ensure access routes are always available for their installation. (In summer 2007, it was not possible to install temporary defences to one area due to severe flooding of the surrounding roads blocking access).
• Increase maintenance of watercourse channels to retain flow capacity. 
• Use public campaigns to reduce fly tipping and clear rubbish from becks to reduce flood impacts during flash summer events and increased winter rainfall.
• Provide flood proofing/resilience for properties and homes, such as raised electrics, raised sub-floor (for post-event draining).  Make the most of opportunities for retrofitting during refurbishments of old housing stock.  [see Three Regions “Your home in a changing climate" report, on methods for retrofitting existing homes for climate change impacts].
• For new developments move away from lowest cost to most adaptable and sustainable developments, with the inclusion of sufficient resilience as necessary for the location.
• Develop new roads and railway sections at raised levels (on stilts/viaducts) in flood prone areas.  Consider such improvements and new bypasses for main routes already affected.

For drainage systems:

• Determine a clear co-ordinating framework between local government, water companies, Highways Agency and Environment Agency for managing the flood risk from surface water drainage.
• Ensure current design standards are appropriate, and locally relevant, to accommodate future increases in rainfall/runoff.  (Current planning requirements for new sewer design are outdated.  Designs often use old rainfall data and are required to a 1 in 30-year standard.  Northumbrian Water design new sewers to a 1 in 40-year standard, to accommodate for future climate changes).
• Strategically plan and implement system improvements across the network, although increased pipe sizes across the entire would clearly be impractical and investment would be better focussed on areas at greatest risk. 
• Include additional capacity for new build developments and into the existing system through network improvements to accommodate for projected increases in rainfall.   
• Limit downstream impacts from new drainage systems by designing with over-sized pipe diameters and manholes to deliver a maximum appropriate outfall discharge, such as equivalent to normal greenfield runoff.  (This is currently applied with the design of highways improvements).
• Promote and increase investment into the wider application of source control techniques to attenuate flow volumes earlier in the system and reduce downstream impacts on existing ageing sewer networks.  This would also have the added benefit of reducing peak flood flows in problem watercourses.  (There are ongoing questions over the practicability of these methods, due to ownership issues and planning policy guidance requiring increasing numbers of houses with less available space between, which need to be resolved).
• Investigate opportunities for the management of combined flooding from different sources, such as the recent Defra Integrated Urban Drainage pilot schemes taking place within the region in Newcastle (North Gosforth and Ouseburn, see Case Study) and Hartlepool.
• Incorporate the retrofitting of SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) for an overall reduction of urban runoff.  Although, opportunities to retro-fit existing infrastructure may be limited and difficult, i.e. costly, to achieve.  
• Consider the retrofitting of balancing tanks into historic drainage systems in known flood areas to accommodate excess flows when sewers reach capacity.
• Provide households across residential areas with water butts for rainwater harvesting to counteract the effects of development creep, i.e. gardens being paved over. 
• Undertake public education for the importance of SUDS, source control of flooding, the community benefits of water butts, and the wider impacts of paving over garden areas.
• Ensure sufficient flood-proofing of infrastructure and equipment at sewage treatment works and pumping stations to accommodate greater flows.
• Undertake improvements to overflows from combined sewer networks (combined sewer overflows, CSOs) in key environmentally sensitive locations where increased spills will have detrimental effects.
• Improve outfall capacity, storage provision or include pumping at CSOs most likely to be affected by climate changes (sea level rise or raised flood depths).  The design of fluvial flood defences should ensure the consideration of the impacts of raised water levels on adjacent CSOs.

 

Wear Valley District Council

top

Flooding from the rivers, streams and sea is generally pro-actively managed by the appropriate authorities as part of well-established flood risk management programmes.  These include flood warning systems, long-term and strategic planning, and the development and maintenance of appropriate flood risk management solutions.  Typically, these activities inherently consider the likely effects of future climate changes and are planned to continue into the future as part of central government’s approach to flood risk management.

The Regional Flood Defence Committee has various flood risk management projects scheduled in their current programme for implementation, funded through their Local Levy programme.  At a region-wide level these include a review of critical infrastructure at risk of flooding, climate change business adaptation project, and the mapping of areas at risk of surface water flooding.

In addition to this programme of works, there are other major flood risk management schemes identified across the region by the Environment Agency on their medium term programme, for implementation beyond 2011.  Currently none of those identified are within the Wear Valley district, however the programme is reviewed on an ongoing basis as priorities for schemes change.

New drainage schemes and improvements typically incorporate some consideration for climate changes based on current best practice guidance.  Existing systems, however, are generally managed in a more reactive sense, although drainage area plans produced by the water companies should highlight areas most likely to be at risk.  The key action that could be taken would be to assess all systems likely to affect large numbers of people based on local climate changes, rather than general guidance values, to determine future areas at risk. 

In particular, the following adaptation measures should continue to be incorporated in this approach:

• Continue monitoring and flood warning, particularly in upstream areas due to specific issues and nature of flooding.
• Improvements to flood warning systems, specifically in fast reacting catchments.
• Improve response units and equipment, and ensure clear access routes are available. 
• Establish partnership approaches and cross-sectoral responses to reduce potential flooding, for example the storage of water in uplands areas to fight potential fires caused by higher summer temperatures.
• Maintain and, where necessary, improve flood defences to raise the standard and condition of existing defences.
• Look for more innovative sustainable flood management approaches rather then traditional flood defences, such as allowing managed retreat areas and the upstream storage of flood water.
• Use changes in local land management in rural areas to reduce rates of surface runoff, such as the provision of hedgerows and ditches, and the lateral ploughing of fields along contours to reduce field runoff and the wash off of sediments, and retain nutrients on the fields.
• Provide temporary or demountable flood defences available to low impact areas frequently affected by flooding, and ensure access routes are always available for their installation. (In summer 2007, it was not possible to install temporary defences to one area due to severe flooding of the surrounding roads blocking access).
• Continue the tight control of developments allowable within the flood plain corridor.
• Improve the future planning management of caravan and camping parks with increased tourism.  Low volume sites are not currently subject to planning permission due to their temporary nature.  Sites are often placed near watercourses/sea and are highly vulnerable to flooding impacts.
• Incorporate more detailed assessments of the numbers of properties at risk under future climate scenarios based on detailed hydrological and hydraulic modelling.
• Identify the criticality and vulnerability of key public infrastructure (electricity, gas, water supply, sewage works, telecommunications, transport, schools) and produce regulations for their protection from flooding.  (Summer 2007 floods indicated how poorly protected some of vital key infrastructure is).  Many organisations rely critically on constant power supply.  The risks need to be considered cross-organisationally to identify key interdependencies.  Systems are only as strong as the weakest link and this may lie with another organisation or operator.
• Relocate key industries/businesses and critical/vulnerable properties away from potential flood risk, particularly where it is inappropriate or unsustainable to provide defences.
• Provide improved regulation and guidance across all sectors for consideration of the impacts of flooding due to climate change.  Many regulators are not currently engaged in the debate on climate change, and its inclusion in their requirements and guidance, i.e. OFWAT, Rail Regulator, Housing Corporation. 
• Production of multi-agency response plans, to co-ordinate responses during extreme events.
• Determine priorities for the protection of properties and assets in the event of flooding: priority to the protection of critical infrastructure and key access routes; followed by vulnerable populations; followed by flooding to residential housing.
• Increase maintenance of watercourse channels to retain flow capacity. 
• Use public campaigns to reduce fly tipping and clear rubbish from becks to reduce flood impacts during flash summer events and increased winter rainfall.
• Provide flood proofing/resilience for properties and homes, such as raised electrics, raised sub-floor (for post-event draining).  Make the most of opportunities for retrofitting during refurbishments of old housing stock.  [see Three Regions “Your home in a changing climate" report, on methods for retrofitting existing homes for climate change impacts].
• For new developments move away from lowest cost to most adaptable and sustainable developments, with the inclusion of sufficient resilience as necessary for the location.
• Develop new roads and railway sections at raised levels (on stilts/viaducts) in flood prone areas.  Consider such improvements and new bypasses for main routes already affected.

For drainage systems:

• Determine a clear co-ordinating framework between local government, water companies, Highways Agency and Environment Agency for managing the flood risk from surface water drainage.
• Limit downstream impacts from new drainage systems by designing with over-sized pipe diameters and manholes to deliver a maximum appropriate outfall discharge, such as equivalent to normal greenfield runoff.  (This is currently applied with the design of highways improvements).
• Ensure sufficient flood-proofing of infrastructure and equipment at sewage treatment works and pumping stations to accommodate greater flows.
• Flood-proof remote properties which are vulnerable to sewer flooding (or localised surface water or river flooding) where drainage improvements would be costly. 
• Implement flood warning systems specifically for surface water flooding.
• Ensure current design standards are appropriate, and locally relevant, to accommodate future increases in rainfall/runoff.  (Current planning requirements for new sewer design are outdated.  Designs often use old rainfall data and are required to a 1 in 30-year standard.  Northumbrian Water design new sewers to a 1 in 40-year standard, to accommodate for future climate changes).
• Strategically plan and implement system improvements across the network, although increased pipe sizes across the entire would clearly be impractical and investment would be better focussed on areas at greatest risk. 
• Include additional capacity for new build developments and into the existing system through network improvements to accommodate for projected increases in rainfall.    
• Promote and increase investment into the wider application of source control techniques to attenuate flow volumes earlier in the system and reduce downstream impacts on existing ageing sewer networks.  This would also have the added benefit of reducing peak flood flows in problem watercourses.  (There are ongoing questions over the practicability of these methods, due to ownership issues and planning policy guidance requiring increasing numbers of houses with less available space between, which need to be resolved).
• Investigate opportunities for the management of combined flooding from different sources, such as the recent Defra Integrated Urban Drainage pilot schemes taking place within the region in Newcastle (North Gosforth and Ouseburn, see Case Study) and Hartlepool.
• Incorporate the retrofitting of SUDS (Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems) for an overall reduction of urban runoff.  Although, opportunities to retro-fit existing infrastructure may be limited and difficult, i.e. costly, to achieve.  
• Consider the retrofitting of balancing tanks into historic drainage systems in known flood areas to accommodate excess flows when sewers reach capacity.
• Provide households across residential areas with water butts for rainwater harvesting to counteract the effects of development creep, i.e. gardens being paved over. 
• Undertake public education for the importance of SUDS, source control of flooding, the community benefits of water butts, and the wider impacts of paving over garden areas.
• Undertake improvements to overflows from combined sewer networks (combined sewer overflows, CSOs) in key environmentally sensitive locations where increased spills will have detrimental effects.
• Improve outfall capacity, storage provision or include pumping at CSOs most likely to be affected by climate changes (sea level rise or raised flood depths).  The design of fluvial flood defences should ensure the consideration of the impacts of raised water levels on adjacent CSOs.

top