003 4 R Nene CFMP Dec 2008

River Nene
Catchment Flood Management Plan

December 2008
Environment Agency
River Nene Catchment Flood Management Plan – December 2008
We are the Environment Agency. It’s our job to look after your
environment and make it a better place – for you, and for future
generations.
Your environment is the air you breathe, the water you drink and the
ground you walk on. Working with business, Government and
society as a whole, we are making your environment cleaner and
healthier.
The Environment Agency. Out there, making your environment a

better place.
Published by:
Environment Agency
Rio House
Waterside Drive, Aztec West
Almondsbury, Bristol BS32 4UD
Tel: 01454 624400 Fax: 01454 624409
© Environment Agency December 2008
All rights reserved. This document may be reproduced with

prior permission of the Environment Agency.
Environment Agency
Foreword
Many areas of England and Wales have suffered serious flooding in recent years. This
means that flooding has a high profile and is a major concern to people living in flood risk
areas. We expect future climate change to increase the risk of flooding and we must also
take account of continuing development pressures and manage them against this
background.
Flood risk management is complex with many links to other policy areas at both national
and local level. We are aiming to set flood risk management within the broader concept of a
catchment as a whole. Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMPs) are a key part of
this, as they will feed into the proposed EU Floods Directive.
CFMPs look to the future and take a broad view of flood risk at catchment level up to 100
years. We take into account factors such as climate change, future development and
changes in land use and land management when producing sustainable policies for
managing flood risk in the future. As a key part of this, we have consulted the many
interested groups involved in managing flood risk.
We are trying to move away from building hard defences towards using and managing the
land in a more sustainable way. If we fully understand flood risks both now and in the
future, we can target our resources where they are needed most.
Andy Baxendale
Area Manager Northern
Environment Agency
Environment Agency Office Anglian Region
Environment Agency Project Executive Roy Lobley
Environment Agency Project Manager Tracy Hodsman
Consultant Halcrow Group Limited
Consultant Project Manager Ian Rose
Copyright
The maps in this report are reproduced from Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance
Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) Crown Copyright. Unauthorised
reproduction infringes on Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
Environment Agency, 100026380, 2010
Document issue history
Revision reference / issue date Issued to:

Final Plan v7.2, August 2008 Tracy Hodsman, Environment Agency
Final Plan v7.3, September 2008 Tracy Hodsman, Environment Agency
Final Plan v8.3, November 2008 Lee Thornley, Environment Agency
Final Plan v9.1, December 2008 Lee Thornley, Environment Agency
Final Plan v10.0, December 2008 Lee Thornley, Environment Agency
Final Plan v11.2, December 2008 Lucy Harper, Environment Agency
Final Plan v12 December 2008 Lucy Harper, Environment Agency
Environment Agency
Contents
List of Tables.............................................................................................................................................. i
List of Figures .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Executive summary................................................................................................................................... i
Catchment overview i
Current flood risk issues ii
Future changes and flood risk issues iii
Development of catchment policies iii
Action Plan v
1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Aims and scope 2
1.3 Policies 3
1.4 Links with other plans 5
1.5 Involving others 14
2 Catchment overview............................................................................................................................ 22
2.1 Definition and extent of the River Nene Catchment 22
2.2 Topography 29
2.3 Geology and hydrogeology 29
2.4 Geomorphology 31
2.5 Soils 34
2.6 Land use and land management 35
2.7 Hydrology 41
2.8 Environment and Heritage 52
2.9 Communities and the local economy 61
2.10 Summary 63
3 Current flood risks and management................................................................................................ 69

3.1 Introduction 69
3.2 History of flooding 69
3.3 Current Flood Risk management 81
3.4 Sources and probability of flooding 110
3.5 Consequences of Flooding 121
3.6 Summary of Flood Risk 167
4 Future Flood Risk .............................................................................................................................. 185

4.1 Introduction 185
4.2 Future Scenarios 189
Environment Agency
4.3 Assessment of future flood risk 193
4.4 Summary of future flood risk 232
4.5 Comparison of current and future flood risk 250
5 Catchment objectives ....................................................................................................................... 269

5.2 CFMP objectives 269
5.3 Catchment opportunities and constraints 269
6 Policy appraisal ................................................................................................................................. 278

6.2 Policies for the River Nene catchment 279
7 Action Plan ......................................................................................................................................... 360

7.2 Action plan 361
7.3 Outcomes of our policies 464
7.4 Monitoring, review and evaluation 464
Glossary of terms ................................................................................................................................. 465
Bibliography.......................................................................................................................................... 477
Appendices
A: Responsibilities for Flood Risk Management and Associated Activities
B: Environmental Report
C: Communication Plan
D: Urban Growth
E: WFD Compliance
Environment Agency
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Representation on Steering Group............................................................................................. 14
Table 1.2 The consultation process............................................................................................................ 15
Table 1.3 Summary of particular responses............................................................................................... 19
Table 2.1 Catchment overview ................................................................................................................... 24
Table 2.2 Urban fractions of the main catchments..................................................................................... 39
Table 2.3 Flood peaks and volumes ........................................................................................................ 44
Table 2.4 Characteristics of tributary catchments ...................................................................................... 51
Table 2.5 Relevant LBAP species and associated threats and opportunities............................................ 56
Table 2.6 Relevant LBAP habitats and associated threats and opportunities ........................................... 56
Table 2.7 River reaches designated under the Freshwater Fisheries Directive. ....................................... 60
Table 2.8 Summary of key catchment and flooding characteristics ........................................................... 67
Table 3.1 Historic flooding .......................................................................................................................... 72
Table 3.2 RFRA and SFRA status.............................................................................................................. 89
Table 3.3 Numbers of IDB pumping stations.............................................................................................. 91
Table 3.4 Major flood defences .................................................................................................................. 92
Table 3.5 Consequence of failure of a flood risk management system ..................................................... 98
Table 3.6 Flood defences and structures ................................................................................................. 100
Table 3.7 Improvements required to the network of gauging stations ..................................................... 105
Table 3.8 Summary of trigger sites and flood warning areas ................................................................... 106
Table 3.9 Sites used for level to level correlations ................................................................................... 108
Table 3.10 Flood warning codes .............................................................................................................. 109
Table 3.11 Summary of the sources of river flooding............................................................................... 116
Table 3.12 Number of people affected by flooding at key locations......................................................... 125
Table 3.13 Overview of the impacts of flooding at key locations ............................................................. 133
Table 3.14 Number of properties affected at key locations ...................................................................... 140
Table 3.15 Residential and commercial damages at key locations ......................................................... 143
Table 3.16 Agricultural damages.............................................................................................................. 144
Table 3.17 Critical infrastructure at risk from flooding .............................................................................. 147
Table 3.18 Transport infrastructure at risk from flooding ......................................................................... 150
Table 3.19 Designated nature conservation sites within the floodplain and likely effects of flooding...... 155
Table 3.20 Numbers and types of historic assets currently at risk of flooding ........................................ 163
Table 3.21 Numbers and types of potentially polluting sources currently at risk of flooding.................... 166
Table 3.22 Current flood risk issues ......................................................................................................... 168
Table 4.1 Implications of rural land use changes ..................................................................................... 186
Table 4.2 Urban growth and land requirements ....................................................................................... 188
Table 4.3 Impact of climate change on peak river flow in England and Wales........................................ 189
Table 4.4 Increases in height of storm surges due to climate change ..................................................... 189
Environment Agency i
Table 4.5 CFMP scenarios ....................................................................................................................... 190
Table 4.6 Adjustments to drivers for period 2050 to 2100 ....................................................................... 190
Table 4.7 Number of people affected by flooding at key locations for the future scenario ...................... 193
Table 4.8 Future change in flood depth.................................................................................................... 197
Table 4.9 Overview of the impacts of flooding at key locations in the catchment for the future .............. 200
Table 4.10 Future numbers of properties affected at key locations ......................................................... 211
Table 4.11 Future economic damages at key locations ........................................................................... 213
Table 4.12 Future agricultural damages................................................................................................... 215
Table 4.13 Critical infrastructure affected in the future............................................................................. 219
Table 4.14 Key transport links at risk of flooding in the future. ................................................................ 222
Table 4.15 Future changes in flood risk to designated nature conservation sites. .................................. 226
Table 4.16 Future changes in flood risk to historic environment features................................................ 230
Table 4.17 Numbers and types of potentially polluting sources at risk of flooding in the future ............. 231
Table 4.18 Summary of future flood risk .................................................................................................. 233
Table 4.19 Comparison of current and future flood risk ........................................................................... 251
Table 5.1 Summary of objectives ............................................................................................................. 270
Table 5.2 Catchment opportunities and constraints ................................................................................. 275
Table 6.1 Description of policy units......................................................................................................... 280
Table 6.2 Application of objectives to policy units .................................................................................... 289
Table 6.3 Definition of generic responses ................................................................................................ 290
Table 6.4 Application of generic response to policy options .................................................................... 290
Table 6.5 Strategic responses considered for implementation of policy options ..................................... 292
Table 6.6 Summary of preferred policy for policy unit: Upper and middle Nene catchment .................... 292
Table 6.7 Summary of preferred policy for policy unit: River Nene (Weedon to Kislingbury) .................. 297
Table 6.8 Summary of preferred policy for policy unit: Wootton .............................................................. 301
Table 6.9 Summary of preferred policy for policy unit: Northampton Central .......................................... 304
Table 6.10 Summary of preferred policy for policy uni: Northampton Outer ............................................ 308
Table 6.11 Summary of preferred policy for policy unit: River Nene corridor .......................................... 312
Table 6.12 Summary of preferred policy for policy unit: Kettering ........................................................... 316
Table 6.13 Summary of preferred policy for policy unit: Corby ................................................................ 319
Table 6.14 Summary of preferred policy for policy unit: Wellingborough................................................. 323
Table 6.15 Summary of preferred policy for policy unit: Rushden & Raunds .......................................... 326
Table 6.16 Summary of preferred policy for policy unit: Thrapston.......................................................... 329
Table 6.17: Summary of preferred policy for policy unit: Barnwell ........................................................... 332
Table 6.18 Summary of preferred policy for policy unit: River Nene (Oundle to Water Newton)............ 336
Table 6.19 Summary of preferred policy for policy unit: Peterborough and the Nene Washes ............... 339
Table 6.20 Summary of preferred policy for policy unit: The Fens........................................................... 343
Table 6.21 Summary of cumulative effects .............................................................................................. 348
Table 6.22 Interaction between policies of different units ........................................................................ 356
Table 7.1 Action Plan for Policy Unit: Upper and Middle Nene Catchment ............................................. 362
ii Environment Agency
Table 7.2 Action Plan for Policy Unit: River Nene (Weedon to Kislingbury) ............................................ 370
Table 7.3 Action Plan for Policy Unit: Wootton......................................................................................... 377
Table 7.5 Action Plan for Policy Unit: Northampton Outer ....................................................................... 390
Table 7.6 Action Plan for Policy Unit: River Nene Corridor ...................................................................... 398
Table 7.7 Action Plan for Policy Unit: Kettering........................................................................................ 405
Table 7.8 Action Plan for Policy Unit: Corby ............................................................................................ 413
Table 7.9 Action Plan for Policy Unit: Wellingborough ............................................................................. 420
Table 7.10 Action Plan for Policy Unit: Rushden and Raunds ................................................................. 428
Table 7.11 Action Plan for Policy Unit: Thrapston.................................................................................... 436
Table 7.12 Action Plan for Policy Unit: Barnwell ...................................................................................... 441
Table 7.13 Action Plan for Policy Unit: River Nene (Oundle to Water Newton) ....................................... 445
Table 7.14 Action Plan for Policy Unit: Peterborough and the Nene Washes ......................................... 451
Table 7.15 Action Plan for Policy Unit: The Fens..................................................................................... 460
Environment Agency iii

List of Figures
Figure 0.1 The preferred policy options.......................................................................................................vii
Figure 1.1 Anglian Region CFMPs ............................................................................................................... 3
Figure 1.2 Links between CFMPs and other plans within the wider planning framework............................ 6
Figure 2.1 The River Nene catchment........................................................................................................ 25
Figure 2.2 Transport networks.................................................................................................................... 26
Figure 2.3 Local Authorities........................................................................................................................ 27
Figure 2.4 Internal Drainage Board boundaries ......................................................................................... 28
Figure 2.5 Topography ............................................................................................................................... 30
Figure 2.6 Channel gradients of the River Nene and its main tributaries................................................... 31
Figure 2.7 Solid geology............................................................................................................................. 32
Figure 2.8 Drift geology .............................................................................................................................. 33
Figure 2.9 Soil types ................................................................................................................................... 36
Figure 2.10 Agricultural land classification ................................................................................................. 37
Figure 2.11 The proportion of agricultural land classes ............................................................................. 38
Figure 2.12 Land cover (Source: Land Cover Map 2000) .......................................................................... 40
Figure 2.13 The proportions of land cover (Source: Land Cover Map 2000)............................................. 41
Figure 2.14 The drainage of the fenland .................................................................................................... 42
Figure 2.15 Average annual rainfall............................................................................................................ 45
Figure 2.16 Rivers and catchments............................................................................................................ 46
Figure 2.17 Hydrographs of flood flow ....................................................................................................... 47
Figure 2.18 Influence of the Northampton Washlands on flood flow through Peterborough ..................... 48
Figure 2.19 The accumulation of flood flow along the River Nene............................................................. 49
Figure 2.20 Contributions (a) to flood flow through Peterborough; (b) catchment areas ........................... 50
Figure 2.21 Sensitivity of the catchment response..................................................................................... 52
Figure 2.22 Statutory Nature Conservation Sites....................................................................................... 55
Figure 2.23 The historic and built environment .......................................................................................... 59
Figure 2.24 Population of the main urban areas ........................................................................................ 64
Figure 2.25 Population by local authority ................................................................................................... 65
Figure 2.26 Age structure of inhabitants .................................................................................................... 66
Figure 3.1 Extent of fluvial flooding in March 1947 .................................................................................... 76
Figure 3.2 Extent of flooding in May 1978.................................................................................................. 77
Figure 3.3 Extent of fluvial flooding in April 1998 ....................................................................................... 78
Figure 3.4 Photographs of the April 1998 flood.......................................................................................... 79
Figure 3.5 Location of surface water, sewer and groundwater flood incidents .......................................... 80
Figure 3.6 A timeline of changes to the River Nene................................................................................... 82
Figure 3.7 The growth of Northampton ...................................................................................................... 83
Figure 3.8 Catchment-wide flood map ....................................................................................................... 85
iv Environment Agency
Figure 3.9 (a) Flood extents through Kislingbury, Peterborough, Thrapston and Northampton without
defences ..................................................................................................................................................... 86
Figure 3.9 (b) Flood extents through Kettering, Oundle and Wellingborough without defences ............... 87
Figure 3.10 Main flood defences and flood storage areas ......................................................................... 94
Figure 3.11 Flood risk management systems ............................................................................................ 99
Figure 3.12 Spending as a percentage of total by (a) watercourse and (b) activity................................. 101
Figure 3.13 Expenditure on maintenance activities in sub-catchments ................................................... 101
Figure 3.14 Spending on operating and maintaining flood defences and structures per defended property
.................................................................................................................................................................. 102
Figure 3.15 Network of rainfall and river gauges...................................................................................... 104
Figure 3.16 Flood watch and flood warning areas ................................................................................... 107
Figure 3.17 Sources of flooding incidents ................................................................................................ 111
Figure 3.18 Catchment wide flood map with defences for the 10%, 1.0% and 0.1% AEP flood ............. 113
Figure 3.19(a) Flood extents with defences through Peterborough, Northampton and Kislingbury ........ 114
Figure 3.19(b) Flood extents with defences through Kettering, Oundle and Wellingborough.................. 115
Figure 3.20 Flood zones in the Fens ........................................................................................................ 120
Figure 3.21 Potential for surface water flooding....................................................................................... 122
Figure 3.22 Potential for groundwater flooding ........................................................................................ 123
Figure 3.23 The location of people affected ............................................................................................. 128
Figure 3.24 Depth of flooding at key locations ......................................................................................... 129
Figure 3.25 Social Vulnerability ................................................................................................................ 132
Figure 3.26 Property damages ................................................................................................................. 142
Figure 3.27 Agricultural damages............................................................................................................. 145
Figure 3.28 Critical infrastructure at risk of flooding ................................................................................. 146
Figure 4.1 The future accumulation of flood flow along the River Nene .................................................. 192
Figure 4.2 Flood flow through Peterborough............................................................................................ 193
Figure 4.3 Numbers of people at risk in a current and future flood for key locations............................... 195
Figure 4.4 Future flood depths at key locations ...................................................................................... 196
Figure 4.5 Future change in flood depth at key locations......................................................................... 198
Figure 4.6 Comparison of the number of properties at risk during a current and future flood in key
locations.................................................................................................................................................... 210
Figure 4.7 Future property damages ........................................................................................................ 214
Figure 4.8 Comparison of economic damages for a current and future flood at key locations. ............... 215
Figure 4.9 Future agricultural damages ................................................................................................... 216
Figure 4.10 Critical infrastructure at risk................................................................................................... 217
Figure 4.11 Upper Nene Gravel Pits SSSI ............................................................................................... 229
Figure 6.1 Policy Units.............................................................................................................................. 286
Figure 6.2 The preferred policy options.................................................................................................... 291
Figure 7.1 The flood risk management planning framework .................................................................... 360
Environment Agency v
Executive summary
This report presents the Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP) for the River Nene
catchment which drains into The Wash in the east of England. The document provides an
overview of the River Nene catchment, the current flood risk and the possible future flood risk.
We then set out our preferred plan for sustainable flood risk management over the next 100
years.
During the preparation of the plan, we acted upon comments received on a scoping report
and a draft consultation plan. We hope that the support for the plan will continue.
Catchment overview
The River Nene is one of several large rivers which drain part of the east of England to The
Wash. The catchment of the River Nene extends from The Wash as far west as Daventry and
includes the main urban centres of Northampton, Wellingborough, Kettering Corby and
2
Peterborough. The CFMP covers an overall area of about 2270km which includes the area
of the Fens which drains to the River Nene. The area has a population of about 750,000.
To the west, the River Nene rises on the predominantly clay

soils of the Northampton uplands and flows across gently
undulating rural country to the flat plains around
Peterborough before entering the embanked tidal reach
across the Fens, much of which lies below sea level. The
steeper headwater tributaries of the River Nene – the
Kislingbury Branch, the Brampton Branch and the Wootton
Brook – meet in Northampton. In its course from
Northampton to Peterborough, the River Nene is joined by
three principal tributaries, all from the north – the River Ise,
Harper’s Brook and Willow Brook.
The underlying geology of the catchment broadly comprises older limestones and mudstones
to the west, overlain by sandstones in the middle of the catchment. In most places, the rocks
are overlain by more recent drift deposits.
Ecological diversity is recognised by a suite of international and European designations

including Ramsar sites, Special Protection Areas (SPA), and Special Areas of Conservation
(SAC). The catchment contains three sites of international/European nature conservation
importance:
• Nene Washes (designated an SPA, SAC and Ramsar site)

• Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits (designated an potential SPA)
• Orton Pit (designated an SAC)
The Wash is an internationally protected Ramsar site, Special Protection Area (SPA) and
Special Area of Conservation (SAC).
These four sites, together with an additional 60 sites within the catchment, are also
designated as nationally important Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs).
A number of Scheduled Ancient Monuments (SAMs), listed buildings and structures, Historic
Parks and Gardens, and Conservation Areas are distributed throughout the CFMP area.
Environment Agency i
Current flood risk issues
The main sources of flood risk for people, property, infrastructure and the land are:
• The flooding of the River Nene and its tributaries, principally the River Ise. Particular
areas at risk are the outer areas of Northampton, Wellingborough, Kettering and
Corby.
• Tidal flooding from the overtopping of the embankments of the tidal reach of the River
Nene downstream of Peterborough. Flooding of the Fens could be widespread.
Overtopping, if it were accompanied by breaching of the embankments, could lead to
the rapid inundation of fenland and a severe risk to the life of people close to the
embankments.
• Surface water and sewer flooding in the large urban centres. Incidents are recorded
in Corby, Wellingborough and Kettering.
• Groundwater flooding. There are water-bearing rocks in the catchment which could
lead to flooding although few incidents of such flooding are recorded.
Flooding from the sea along The Wash coastline is not covered in the CFMP. The Wash
Shoreline Management Plan will consider the risks posed by this type of flooding.
The River Nene catchment has a history of flood risk

issues, generally arising from high rainfall which has led to
extensive flooding of the river floodplains. However, recent
times, especially the last 80 years, have seen the
implementation of many engineering schemes that have
modified the catchment’s response to rainfall. These
schemes include the straightening of rivers, the
construction of flood bypass channels and the
implementation of large flood alleviation schemes.
In addition we operate a flood warning service to reduce the impact of flooding on those
affected. However, we cannot prevent flooding and some parts of the catchment are still more
vulnerable than others to the risk of flooding.
We estimate that there are about 4180 people, 430 commercial and 1670 residential
properties at risk of river flooding in the 1% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) flood. This
means that about 1% of the population is at risk of river flooding.
We estimate that a 1% AEP flood would cause about £110m of damage to commercial and
about £30m of damage to residential property. The damage to agricultural land would be
about one tenth of that to property.
Critical infrastructure and community services are affected by flooding. All the main railway
lines are potentially at risk, as are many main roads. Community services currently at risk
include a hospital and a care home. Critical infrastructure at risk includes a number of
electricity sub-stations, water and sewage treatment works, waste management facilities, and
an Integrated Pollution Prevention Control (IPPC) site.
It is difficult to quantify the risk of flooding to environmental features within the catchment. In
the current 1% AEP flood, the Nene Washes (SPA, SAC and Ramsar site), Upper Nene
Valley Gravel Pits (a potential SPA), Orton Pit (SAC) would be affected as would some 15
SSSIs and 48 SAMs would be affected by the 1% AEP flood.
ii Environment Agency
Future changes and flood risk issues
Future land use changes such as agricultural intensification or changes in drainage practices
could affect future flood flow, but these changes are very difficult for us to predict and are
unlikely to happen uniformly across the catchment. Urban growth, which we estimated at
growth centres across the catchment, will have a localised effect in increasing flood risk,
depending on the level of any measures used to control the surface runoff from new urban
areas.
Global climate modelling shows us that in the future winter

rainfall will increase and sea levels will rise. There could
also be more sudden summer storms, as summer
temperatures increase and trigger more thunderstorms.
Climate change is likely to be the dominant cause of the
increase in flood risk in the River Nene catchment through
higher river flows and surge tides.
We estimate that the risk to people will approximately

double over the period of 100 years in the 1% AEP flood
to about 9000 people, that damage to residential property
will approximately treble to about £84m and to commercial property will approximately double
to about £223m. The increases are due to greater flood volumes, the more frequent and
extensive flooding of floodplains and the reduced standard of protection offered by flood
defences and other flood management works.
The risk to critical infrastructure and community services also increases in the future.
An assessment of future changes in flood risk for the designated nature conservation sites
within the catchment has identified that two additional SSSIs will in the future be potentially
affected by flooding during events with a less than 1% AEP flood. These sites are Bozeat
Meadows SSSI and Wansford Pasture SSSI. The 18 designated sites currently affected in the
1% AEP flood are likely to see an increase in flood extent in the future. However, this
increase is predicted to be minimal in the majority of sites. Significant increases in flood risk
are predicted, relative to the current situation, for a limited number of sites such as Orton Pit
SAC and the River Ise and Meadows SSSI, although these changes are expected to be
positive
No additional SAMs will be at risk at the 1% AEP flood. Two additional SAMs will become at
risk at the 0.1% AEP flood; Peterborough Cathedral Precincts; and, Saxon Palace Complex
and Saxon and Medieval Urban Deposits in Northampton.
Development of catchment policies

In the CFMP, we aim to recommend broad policies for the management of the current and
future flood risk in the River Nene catchment. The policies were identified through appraising
different policies against a number of objectives. We set nine objectives, based on specific
issues and taking into account opportunities and constraints associated with delivering
sustainable flood risk management:
• To minimise flood related risks to the population

• To minimise risks to critical infrastructure and community facilities
• To minimise community disruption from flooding
• To minimise economic impacts of flooding
• Ensure future investment in the catchment is proportional to the risks
• Protect and enhance significant historic environment assets and their settings
• Protect and contribute to the improvement of designated nature conservation sites
(SSSI, SPA, SAC and Ramsar)
Environment Agency iii

• Enhance the biodiversity of the catchment by improving the quality of the river
environment and contributing to UK Biodiversity Action Plan targets
• Support the achievement of good status/potential of surface and groundwater bodies
under the Water Framework Directive
We divided the River Nene catchment into 14 areas called policy units. Each unit represents
similar types of flood risk in terms of the mechanisms of flooding, the level of risk and the type
of receptor (people, environment etc). We assigned each unit a policy through a detailed
objective-led appraisal process using the nine objectives.
The policies which we recommend for each policy unit are:
Policy unit – Upper and middle Nene Reduce existing flood risk management actions
catchment (accepting that flood risk will increase with time).
Take action with others to store water or

manage runoff in locations that provide overall
Policy unit – River Nene (Weedon to flood risk reduction or environmental benefits
Kislingbury) locally or elsewhere in the catchment (which
may constitute an overall flood risk reduction, for
example for habitat inundation)
Continue with existing or alternative actions to

manage flood risk at the current level (accepting
Policy unit – Wootton
that flood risk will increase over time from this
baseline)
Take further action to sustain the current level

of flood risk into the future (responding to the
Policy unit – Northampton Central
potential increases in risk from urban development,
land use change and climate change)

Policy unit – Northampton Outer
Take action with others to store water or

manage runoff in locations that provide overall
flood risk reduction or environmental benefits
Policy unit – River Nene Corridor
locally or elsewhere in the catchment (which
may constitute an overall flood risk reduction, for
example for habitat inundation)

Policy unit – Kettering
Take further action to reduce flood risk (now

Policy unit – Corby
and/or in the future)

Policy unit – Wellingborough

Policy unit – Rushden & Raunds
iv Environment Agency

Policy unit – Thrapston
baseline)

Policy unit – Barnwell
baseline)

Policy unit – River Nene (Oundle to manage flood risk at the current level (accepting
Water Newton) that flood risk will increase over time from this
baseline)

Policy unit – Peterborough and the of flood risk into the future (responding to the
Nene Washes potential increases in risk from urban development,

Policy unit – The Fens
The policy units and the recommended policies are shown in Figure 0.1.
Action Plan
The River Nene CFMP will help us to prioritise our flood risk management activities, focus our
resources in the locations with the greatest need, and determine what responses we need to
consider further. It will feed into our long term investment plans to maximise our funding of
flood risk management activity. Our responses to flood risk will be broader than traditionally
used for flood defence. We will select from a range of delivery plans (including Strategy
Plans, projects and actions) to manage flood risk in a sustainable way in a policy unit.
The Action Plan is the way we and our partners deliver the CFMP policies. To produce the
Action Plan, we have used the results from policy appraisal and looked at a range of possible
measures to manage flood risk in a policy unit.
Our vision for the River Nene catchment is to reduce our flood risk management activity and
maintenance where it is appropriate through much of the rural areas of the River Nene
catchment. We will investigate opportunities for flood storage along the River Nene floodplain
in order to prevent an increase of flood risk to the main urban centres of Northampton,
Kettering, Wellingborough and Peterborough. Other measures within these urban centres
might be necessary if upstream floodplain storage cannot be developed in time or if
insufficient storage is available to provide the protection which we need. Measures are
needed now to reduce the particular concentration of flood risk which exists in Corby.
Where the River Nene crosses the fenlands, we need to take further action to sustain the
current level of flood risk management into the future.
In order to achieve a sustainable approach to flood risk management we have adopted

actions that challenge previous methods of flood defence. In the River Nene catchment the
actions comprise a range of measures that include the following:
Environment Agency v
• Flood risk management needs to be linked closely with regeneration and
redevelopment so that the location, layout and design of development can be resilient
and reduce flood risk.
• Application of appropriate planning and building regulations for proposed
developments under PPS25.
• Risk based approach to maintenance, we will reduce our maintenance where risk is
low and target our activities to where we need to reduce risk.
• Investigate and raise awareness of surface water and sewer flooding.
• Develop emergency response plans to mitigate risk to critical infrastructure.
• Increase flood awareness and education including the promotion of self help
schemes.
• Maximise opportunities to enhance the environment, use the functioning floodplain
and encourage take-up of agri-environmental schemes to improve land use
management and flood risk.
vi Environment Agency
Figure 0.1 The preferred policy options
Environment Agency vii

1 Introduction
We are preparing Catchment Flood Management Plans
(CFMPs) throughout England and Wales to set future
policies for flood risk management. The River Nene CFMP
covers an area of 2,270km2 and contains the River Nene
and its major tributaries of the Kislingbury Branch,
Brampton Branch, Wootton Brook, River Ise, Willow Brook
and Harpers Brook, plus a number of smaller tributaries.
This section explains what a CFMP is, what it should
achieve and how it fits into the overall flood risk
management process.
1.1 Background
Flooding is a natural phenomenon that affects around five million people in two million
properties in England and Wales. Changes in climate, urbanisation and land use will increase
the risk of flooding in the future. Our aim is to reduce the risks flooding causes to people,
property and the environment. However, although we can plan for, manage and defend
against flooding, it will never be technically, economically or environmentally possible to
prevent flooding entirely. We therefore have to reassess the way we live and cope with the
ever present threat of floods. We have to change our approach from defending to managing
floods. This will mean reducing the likelihood of flooding and the impact of floods when they
occur. Therefore, our future strategy will focus on flood risk management.
Flood risk is made up of two parts: the chance (or probability) of a particular flood and the
impact (or consequence) that the flood would cause if it occurred. Many people are familiar
with the term “a 1 in a 100 year flood”, but do not really know what it means. After a major
flood, people often think that this will not happen again for a long time. But, in reality it can
happen again at any time. The likelihood of a particular flood happening is best expressed as
a chance or probability over a period of one year. For example, ‘there is a 1 in 100 chance of
flooding in any given year in this location’. This is usually described as a 1% annual
exceedance probability (AEP) flood. Throughout this report floods are expressed as
probabilities of occurrence. So, a 1% annual exceedance probability is equivalent to a 1 in
100 year flood, and a 0.1% annual exceedance probability is equivalent to a 1 in 1000 year
flood.
Flood risk management is about understanding and managing the probability and
consequences of flooding, to reduce the risks to people, property and the environment. We
need a long term, sustainable approach to flood risk management that works with nature in a
way that is fair and affordable, for both current and future generations. Sustainable flood risk
management is about how the decisions we make about flood risk management now will
affect people in the future. We need to try and avoid tying future generations into inflexible or
expensive flood risk management policies.
Flood risk management is not just about building flood defences, in many cases these are
uneconomic and would damage the environment. It is important to recognise that the amount
of water generated during a flood is often so large that it may not be possible to reduce flood
risk everywhere within the catchment. The rainwater needs to go somewhere. If we change
the use of floodplains, then we need to find somewhere else for the water to go to.
Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMPs) are based on this new way of thinking about
flooding and flood risk, and encourage an integrated approach to flood risk management in
the catchment. A CFMP is a high level strategic plan that we will use to work with other
decision makers within a river catchment to identify and agree policies for sustainable flood
risk management over the next 100 years.
Environment Agency 1
Planning for the future
Conditions in the River Nene catchment will not remain unchanged. In particular, the
processes and drivers which influence the way floods are generated and the damage they
cause are expected to change. We need to recognise what these changes might be, how the
catchment might respond to them and the flood risk issues they could lead to. With this
appreciation of what could happen, we can take action now to manage the risks in the most
effective way. We need to understand the extent, nature and scale of current and future flood
risk across the whole catchment, due to climate change, land use and urban development,
before choosing the most appropriate flood risk management policy.
In order to plan appropriate actions, we need to identify our

policies for flood risk management around the catchment. A
key consideration is that our actions should be sustainable.
We need to be sure to identify any alternative actions which
could prove to be more sustainable than our current actions.
CFMP planning aims to select policies and actions at a
strategic level, taking account of their combined effect
across the whole catchment. We shall not, accordingly,
determine actions at a local level. Planning requires that we
understand the extent, nature and scale of current and
future flood risk across the whole catchment, due to climate
change, land use and urban development, before choosing
the most appropriate flood risk management policy.
CFMPs are broad scale plans with a 100 year horizon. Whilst it is not possible to understand
in detail the flood risks in 100 years time, we can project general trends to test the
sustainability of our plans. The CFMP will consider all sources of flood risk (including fluvial,
surface water, groundwater, sewer and the effects of high tide levels on the river system). We
will regularly review the CFMP (every six years or as required) to reflect any significant
changes in flood risk in the CFMP area.
1.2 Aims and scope

Key objectives
The overall objective of the CFMP process is to develop sustainable policies for managing
flood risk within the River Nene catchment in the long term. This will take into account the
likely impacts of future changes in:
• climate;
• land use and land management;
• urban development.
It will also contribute towards sustainable development in the future.
In addition to the overall objective, the CFMP has the following over-arching objectives:
• to assess current and future flood risk from all sources within the catchment and the
effect of current ways of reducing flood risk. We measure the scale of risk in
economic, social and environmental terms;
• to identify opportunities and constraints for reducing flood risk within the catchment;
• to find opportunities when managing flood risk to improve our natural and historic
assets; and
• to prioritise our work and that of other key organisations in managing flood risk within
the catchment.
These are the general objectives for all CFMPs. Each CFMP will have more specific policy
appraisal objectives relating to the flood risk management issues in the particular catchment.
2 Environment Agency
Aims
The aims of the River Nene CFMP are:
• to reduce the risk of flooding and harm to people, the natural, historic and built
environment caused by floods;
• to maximise opportunities to work with natural processes and to deliver multiple
benefits from flood risk management, and make an effective contribution to
sustainable development;
• to support the implementation of EU directives, the delivery of Government and other
stakeholder policies and targets, and our Environmental Vision;
• to promote sustainable flood risk management; and
• to inform and support planning policies, statutory land use plans and implementation
of the Water Framework Directive.
The location of the River Nene CFMP in relation to nearby CFMPs and the Wash Shoreline
Management Plan (SMP) is shown in Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.1 Anglian Region CFMPs
1.3 Policies
CFMP policies are driven by the extent, nature and scale of current and future flood risk
across the whole catchment. Within most catchments it is not possible to reduce flood risk
everywhere (in social, economic and environmental terms), so we need to understand where
the greatest risks are and why, before choosing which policy to implement. The CFMP
identifies where we may need to do more to reduce the risk of flooding, where we need to
carry on doing what we are doing, or where it might be more sustainable to do less and
accept that the flood risk will increase in particular areas.
The CFMP will show the broad areas where these different
policies need to be applied. These areas are known as
‘policy units’ and it is at this scale that the policies to
address flood risk will be set. The policies from which the
CFMP can select are detailed below. Strategy and delivery
Plans will continue to decide exactly what we should do in
order to deliver our policy objectives.
Policy 1 - No active intervention (including flood

warning and maintenance). Continue to monitor and
advise. We could select this policy for natural catchments
where the river is connected to the floodplains and flooding
has beneficial effects for habitats. It could be selected if the
risk posed by flooding is low, and will remain so in the
future.
Policy 2 - Reduce existing flood risk management

actions (accepting that flood risk will increase over
time). We may select this policy for places where current
and future risks do not warrant as much intervention (for example on maintenance) and it is
clearly not worth continuing. Here, we can allow the risk of flooding to increase naturally over
time. Following this policy, where we have assets in place now, we may look at the options
and timing of withdrawing or retreating flood defences in our System Asset Management
Plans.
Policy 3 - Continue with existing or alternative actions to manage flood risk at the
current level. We may select this policy where the risks are currently managed appropriately
and where the risk of flooding is not expected to increase significantly in the future. Where we
are confident that the risks do need managing we may need to review if what we are doing
currently is the best way of managing the risk in the longer term.
Policy 4 - Take further action to sustain the current level of flood risk into the future
(responding to the potential increases in risk from urban development, land use
change and climate change). We may select this policy where the risk is currently managed
appropriately, but risk is expected to rise significantly in the future. In these circumstances, we
would need to do more in the future to reduce the increase in risks.
Policy 5 - Take further action to reduce flood risk. This policy is about reducing the flood
risk either now or in the future where the existing/ future flood risk is too high. We may select
policy 5 where short and/or long term management is required to reduce the current and/or
future flood risks.
Policy 6 – Take action with others to store water or manage runoff in locations that
provide overall flood risk reduction or environmental benefits locally or elsewhere in
the catchment. We can apply this policy either locally to a flooding problem, or some
distance away where flooding is not a problem. However, the principle behind policy 6 is that
we transfer flooding to places where it can bring benefits, which reduces the risk in areas
where it is a problem. This may mean that we can restore floodplains and improve habitats,
reducing the negative impacts of flooding elsewhere within the catchment. This may also
include changing the way we use the land to hold water within that part of the catchment for
longer, reducing flood risk elsewhere.
1.4 Links with other plans
1.4.1 Introduction
A CFMP represents the first step in the strategic flood risk
management planning process. It provides a framework
beneath which we may carry out more detailed
assessments of flood risk, for example, through strategies
or specific schemes. There are a number of existing
policies, plans and strategies that are relevant to the
River Nene CFMP area. We used these to identify any
opportunities and constraints and appraised them against
our policies for flood risk management.
These policies, plans and strategies have been

developed by a number of organisations including;
ourselves (studies related to flood risk management and
shoreline management), national and regional
government (planning guidance and
environmental/habitat plans) and local authorities (local
plans and local biodiversity plans). The relevant plans
and strategies are reviewed in the following sections.
Figure 1.2 shows the planning framework within which we are developing the CFMP. The
figure shows how the CFMP will fit within the wider statutory and non-statutory planning
framework in England and Wales.
1.4.2 Our corporate strategies

The main aims of the Environment Agency are set out in our corporate vision which is a
strategic level national statement. We developed this vision further in our corporate strategy,
‘Creating A Better Place’ and subsequently the ‘Anglian Region Local Contributions 2006 -
2011’. Our priorities in the Anglian Region are:
• to create sustainable communities

• to respond to climate change
• to manage our waterways
• to protect our coastline
• to manage and protect our farmland by supporting farmers
These local priorities will help us meet our vision of ‘Creating A Better Place’ for everyone.
1.4.3 Government policies and guidance
Water Framework Directive (WFD)
This European Directive has the objective of introducing consistent water management
across Europe in order to:
• reduce pollution, prevent the deterioration and improve the health of aquatic
ecosystems;
• promote the sustainable use of water; and
• help to reduce the effects of floods and droughts
The WFD requires the production of a River Basin Management Plan (RBMP) for each river
basin district. There are nine river basin districts within England and Wales, and the draft
Anglian RBMP is due to be published in December 2008. We will then have a consultation
period and publish the final report in December 2009. The Anglian RBMP covers an area of
27,890km2. This will include the programmes of measures for achieving WFD objectives
which are to be achieved before the end of 2015.
Figure 1.2 Links between CFMPs and other plans within the wider planning framework
An important part of RBMPs will be the ‘Programme of Measures’ that will identify the steps
we need to take to achieve the objectives of the WFD. CFMPs will have an important role in
developing the Programme of Measures.
The RBMPs will, over time, help us to achieve:
• cleaner rivers and lakes that have reduced levels of eutrophication, acidification and
other water pollution;
• wiser, sustainable use of water as a natural resource;
• healthy ecosystems for wildlife that lives in and around water;
• rivers and lakes that are valued features or our urban and rural landscapes.
Within the Anglian region we have identified the following list of significant water management
issues which we will be aiming to address through our RBMP: abstraction and other artificial
flow pressures, alien species, nitrate, phosphorus, physical modification, estuaries and
coasts, rivers and lakes, sediment.
The Floods Directive
The European Directive on the Assessment and
Management of Flood Risks (the Floods Directive) aims to
help prevent and limit floods and their damaging effects on
human health, the environment, infrastructure and property.
The Floods Directive will be brought into force in
September 2009.
The Floods Directive will require the preparation of Flood

Risk Management Plans (FRMPs) that will sit alongside the
RBMPs prepared under the WFD. The FRMPs we prepare
in the future will build on CFMPs and Shoreline
Management Plans (SMPs).
Making Space for Water (Defra, 2004)

Making Space for Water takes a catchment wide approach to flood risk management and
therefore provides guidance on the strategic approach to be adopted in CFMPs. This strategy
has a lifetime of 20 years, during which the Government is seeking to implement a more
holistic approach to managing flooding and erosion risks, and emphasises ecological
enhancements and non-structural solutions such as managed realignment and wetland
creation. This strategy requires account to be taken of all sources of flooding, and ensuring
that flood risk is embedded in Government policies.
1.4.4 Development plans
National Planning Guidance

The Government’s Planning Policy Guidance 25, PPS25 (Development and Flood Risk,
updated from PPG25) is particularly relevant to the CFMP. The aims of PPS25 are to ensure
that flood risk is taken into account at all stages in the planning process to avoid inappropriate
development in areas at risk of flooding, and to direct development away from the highest risk
areas. It sets out a risk-based approach to evaluate if new development is appropriate in
areas at risk from flooding, and provides guidance regarding development that will be affected
and how flood risk should be assessed. Local authorities should consider the risks of flooding
and the standards of defence at sites proposed for development and what sort of
development would be appropriate. This approach reflects the general direction for flood and
coastal erosion risk management set out in Making Space for Water (Defra 2004) and is used
to inform regional planning bodies in the preparation of Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) and
Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) in developing their Local Development Frameworks (LDFs).
The approach is in line with the CFMP requirement that future flood risk management be
sustainable.
Regional Planning Guidance

The government has introduced a new planning system to
manage how development takes place in towns and the
countryside. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act
(2004) introduced a new ‘two-tiered’ plan system, made
up of RSSs and LDFs:
Regional planning bodies are in the process of preparing

RSSs. These have been informed by the Government’s
national policy on flood risk management set out in
Making Space for Water.
The River Nene catchment encompasses two Regional Spatial Strategies:
• East of England Regional Plan (Draft Revision to the RSS, RSS14, EERA November
2004)
• RSS for the East Midlands (RSS8, OPDM March 2005) & Draft Regional Plan (2006)
These RSS provide a framework for the development of the region over the next 15 to 20
years. Policy SS14 (Development and flood risk) in the Draft East of England Regional Plan
states that coastal and river flood risk is a significant factor in the East of the England. The
stated priority is to defend existing properties from flooding, and where possible locate new
development in locations with little or no risk of flooding. We will use this CFMP to help drive
sustainable flood risk management, whereby we will use a range of measures to manage
flood risk rather than focusing on flood defence as we have tended to do in the past.
Policy 36 (A Regional Approach to Managing Flood Risk) of the East Midland RSS requires
that development Plans, future Local Development Frameworks, and strategies of relevant
agencies, including CFMPs should:
• be informed by the use of appropriate Strategic Flood Risk Assessments (SFRAs) in

order to evaluate actual flood risk and should include policies which prevent
inappropriate development either in, or where there would be an adverse impact on,
the coastal and fluvial floodplain areas;
• deliver a programme of flood management schemes that also maximise biodiversity
and other regeneration benefits; and
• require sustainable drainage in all new developments where practicable.
Regional Flood Risk Appraisals (RFRAs) have been undertaken for both the East of England
(July 2006) and the East Midlands (July 2006) regions. These RFRAs and CFMPs are used
to inform the policies in the development of RSS. CFMPs support polices within the RSS
documents that require any development that takes place in current or future flood risk areas
to be resilient to flooding, protected to appropriate standards and not to increase the risk of
flooding elsewhere.
Local Development Frameworks

The River Nene catchment lies partially within the administrative boundaries of Bedford
Borough Council (BC), Corby BC, Daventry District Council (DC), East Northamptonshire DC,
Fenland DC, Huntingdonshire DC, Kettering BC, King’s Lynn and West Norfolk BC,
Northamptonshire BC, Peterborough City Council, South Holland DC, South
Northamptonshire DC and Wellingborough BC. Each of these LPAs must prepare a LDF
which will comprise folder documents (Local Development Documents) for delivering the
spatial strategy for the area.
Development Plan Documents outline the key development goals of the LDF. An LDF must
include a Core Strategy, Site-Specific Allocations of land, a Proposals Map and may also
contain additional optional development documents such as Area Action Plans.
LDFs will allow local planning authorities to manage development in their area and to set out
the factors they will take into account when deciding planning applications. Generally, plans
will aim to:
• Guide and promote development and ensure sufficient

land is available to meet the expected need for such
uses as employment and housing;
• Ensure that development takes place in the most
sustainable way i.e. it minimises the impact on the
present environment and maximises the opportunities
available in the future;
• Protect existing assets such as recreation areas,
wildlife and buildings of special interest;
• Improve the quality of the physical environment;
• Give a degree of certainty to landowners, developers
and the public as to the likely future pattern of development in their area;
• Bring issues before local people and provide opportunities for public participation.
The North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy (February 2007) provides the overall
strategic plan for North Northamptonshire which includes the areas covered by Corby,
Kettering, Wellingborough and East Northamptonshire Councils. The plan takes into account
other relevant strategies and programmes, and is concerned with not increasing flood risk
and, where possible, minimising overall flood risk. This policy is being implemented through
SFRAs.
Each local authority has either undertaken or is in the process of undertaking a SFRA. SFRAs
are used to allocate land for development outside flood risk areas. SFRAs and CFMPs are
used by local authorities to help formulate policy options for future development. Section
3.3.3, details the status and key findings of SFRA’s undertaken for Local Authorities within the
River Nene catchment. The flood risk policies contained in the LDF have either been updated
or will be updated based on the guidance contained in PPS25, the findings of the SFRAs and
CFMPs.
Milton Keynes and South Midlands (MKSM) Sub-Regional Strategy (March 2005)
In addition to the RSS and LDF the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub-Regional strategy
complements the policies listed above. The purpose of this strategy is to provide a clear,
agreed sub-regional strategy for the period 2001-2021 and a long-term vision for the sub-
region towards the year 2031. It provides guidance on the scale, location and timing of the
development and the associated transport, employment and social infrastructure needed to
achieve the vision of sustainable communities. It advises that growth areas will require a
strategic approach (as developed by CFMPs) and investment programme for waste water and
surface water drainage management which takes a co-ordinated approach so that catchment
flood risk is not increased as a result of the cumulative impacts of development. The following
plans were prepared for the same areas covered by the LDF and MKSM sub-regional
strategy, but are now being replaced with the introduction of the new planning system:
• Northamptonshire Structure Plan 1996–2016 (March 2001)

• Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan 2001-2016 (October 2003)
• Local Development Plans
1.4.5 River Nene catchment studies and plans

Shoreline Management Plan
Shoreline Management Plans are the coastal equivalents of CFMPs. SMPs give us a
framework for dealing with coastal flooding and erosion over a large area. The plans look at
how the maritime local authorities and ourselves can work together to reduce the risks to
people, property, land and the environment from sea flooding and coastal erosion.
The Wash SMP will provide management policies for coastal flooding and erosion risk as far
up the River Nene tidal channel as Guy’s Head. This point, the boundary between the SMP
and the CFMP, is where coastal processes cease to have an effect although the tidal limit is
at the Dog-in-a-Doublet Sluice further up the tidal channel. CFMP policies apply inland from
Guy’s Head and accordingly take account of tidal flooding from the tidal reach between Guy’s
Head and the Dog-in-a-Doublet Sluice.
A revision of The Wash SMP is due to be published. The policies of the Anglian CFMPs are
being considered in the development of policies for the
revision of The Wash SMP.
System Asset Management Plans

The policies adopted from the CFMP process will help us
prepare System Asset Management Plans (SAMPs). These
plans will provide information on all flood defence structures
(including third party assets) and, at a high level, give
guidance on how to manage them and whether changes
will be needed in the future. Plans will include reasons for
the selected approach.
Water Level Management Plans

A Water Level Management Plan (WLMP) is a statement of
the water level management objectives for a given area,
and considers the means by which the objectives may be achieved. It considers the water
level requirements for a range of activities, including agriculture, flood defence and
conservation, and how these can be integrated. WLMPs are prepared by us, Internal
Drainage Boards (IDBs) and certain LPAs. Priority is given to preparing plans for Sites of
Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), i.e. sites of national nature conservation importance. The
main requirement for these sites is to maintain or rehabilitate the feature for which they were
designated and these must not be negatively impacted by the CFMP’s policies.
The Southfield Farm Marsh SSSI WLMP (October 2006) is currently in place within the River
Nene catchment. This revised WLMP supersedes the initial plan produced for this site in
2003. The SSSI is on the left bank of the River Ise as it flows between Kettering and Barton
Seagrave, where it is crossed and bisected by the A14 trunk road. The SSSI is the largest
known area of long established tall grass washland in Northamptonshire. The WLMP has
been put in place because regular prolonged flooding is necessary for the benefit of the
washland species for which the SSSI was designated.
A WLMP for the Nene Washes (a non priority WLMP) is being produced and is due to be
completed by the end of 2009.
River Nene flood modelling study

Following the flood of April 1998, a model of the River Nene was developed to assist the long-
term planning of flood risk. At the strategic level, the model reveals features of the catchment
response to storm rainfall. The development of the model has led to a number of studies,
which we considered in the development of the CFMPs policies. These studies include:
• studies associated with the future development of Northampton by English

Partnerships
• the investigation of the control of water levels within the Nene Washes in the interests
of nature conservation
• the flood risk assessment to accompany the planning application for the
Wellingborough East development
River Nene Flood Mapping Studies

We are currently undertaking a programme of flood mapping for the River Nene catchment.
These studies produce maps which show the extent of floods of particular annual exceedance
probabilities. Flood mapping for the upper Nene is complete and we are now progressing our
programme of flood mapping for the middle and lower reaches of the catchment.
River Nene catchment planning

There is a history of catchment planning in the form of:
• Upper Nene Catchment Management Plan (NRA, 1994)

• Lower Nene Catchment Management Plan (NRA, 1994)
These plans have an emphasis on problems of water quality and the consequences for water
resources.
There is, too, a history of strategies associated with the tidal reach of the River Nene. The
most recent are:
• Tidal Nene Strategy Study Phase C (Environment Agency, March 2003)
The study recommends that the existing level of defence be maintained.
• Lower Nene tidal Limit: evaluating the consequences to all Environment Agency
functions relating to possible relocation of the tidal limit: scoping study’ (Posford
Duvivier for Environment Agency, 1997)
The study investigated several alternative locations of the tidal sluice under existing
conditions and concluded that there would be no overall benefit in moving it.
River Nene Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS)
The main issue in managing abstraction is to meet the need of abstractors, while leaving
water in the environment to conserve water habitats. It does not therefore directly affect
CFMPs.
Northampton Development and Flood Risk Management Update of Strategic Review

In 2000 we published a strategic review of development
and flood risk in Northampton. The document set out
existing levels of risk, forecast development and measures
necessary to reduce flood risk. However, the Milton Keynes
and South Midlands growth area forecasts have
superseded the estimates used in this review and it was
therefore necessary to update our calculations as done in
this update prior to re-assessing the impact of further
development. The recommendations made in this review
were referred to in the development of this CFMP.
Water Cycle Strategies

Water Cycle Strategies (WCS) have been undertaken for North Northamptonshire and West
Northamptonshire (outline WCS complete for both) and Corby within the River Nene
catchment. WCSs present an overview of the water cycle considering flood risks, sewage
treatment and the foul network, water supply and water resources both now and in the future.
The purpose of these studies is to identify potential constraints to development using the
proposed housing trajectory. It indicates when constraints need to be addressed and what
infrastructure is needed, and thereby supports the strategic approach of CFMPs for the
management of flood risk.
North Northamptonshire (which comprises Corby, Kettering, Wellingborough and East

Northamptonshire) is seeking to facilitate the delivery of a combined total of 52,100 new
homes and 43,800 new jobs by 2021, with a possible further 28,000 homes between 2021
and 2031. The Northamptonshire Outline Strategy proposes further work to identify specific
flood risk mitigation measures that will prevent new development having a negative impact on
existing homes and benefit the area as a whole. It identifies the key constraints of water
supply and sewage treatment, and concludes that water companies are hindered from putting
strategic infrastructure in place owing to their funding constraints. This issue could
compromise development plans for North Northants and, potentially, developments in
surrounding areas.
In order to meet the proposed levels of growth, significant

levels of investment will be required in North
Northamptonshire. One particular area identified for
improvement is the sewage treatment system for Kettering
and Wellingborough which will require significant network
and treatment capacity upgrades to meet demand.
In West Northamptonshire, the main focus for growth is

the three urban centres of Daventry, Northampton and
Towcester (Towcester is outside the River Nene
catchment). The housing targets for growth in the draft
East Midlands Regional Plan will be exceeded by
Daventry DC, but there will be a shortfall in Northampton of 13,832. Key findings of the
scoping stage are that the management of additional surface runoff from development is
critical for the management of flood risk. In Northampton, major upgrades would be required
to the existing sewer system to accommodate the proposed growth. For Daventry it is
recommended models are built to better understand the capacity of the existing sewerage
system.
Corby is expected to double in population between now and 2031. This will have a serious
impact on water infrastructure over the next 25 years. The 2007 WCS concludes that a total
of £76 million will need to be spent over this period to make sure that growth can be
accommodated without detriment to the existing community.
North Northamptonshire Flood Risk Management Study (June 2007)

The SFRAs (Kettering and Wellingborough, East Northamptonshire and Corby) undertaken
for North Northamptonshire, the WCS and the River Nene CFMP were used to develop the
proposed Flood Risk Management Strategy for North Northamptonshire. This study was
undertaken because of the challenges North Northamptonshire faces in being expected to
accommodate more housing growth than any other part of the Milton Keynes and South
Midlands growth area. The key findings of this study and requirements for the strategy were:
• Surface water management is a key issue in all four LPAs in North Northamptonshire;
• SFRAs provide a useful framework for development planning and flood risk
management but further update and clarification is needed to fully comply with
PPS25, for example, to address the latest guidance on climate change, to assess all
sources of flooding in more detail and to map the functional floodplain;
• A robust flood risk management strategy for North Northamptonshire will be needed
(even if the development sites are located in low risk areas) in order to address extra
surface runoff and residual risk issues resulting from planned growth proposals and
the existing flooding problems on the receiving watercourses.
• The proposed strategy should explore the opportunities to reduce the existing flood
risk through a range of measures and suitable planning interventions together with
collaborative working with all parties involved (e.g. planners, developers, regulators
and community groups).
River Nene Waterway Plan (Environment Agency, 2004)

This plan outlines management and development proposals for the River Nene navigation. It
outlines a vision for the sustainable development of the navigable river, for the benefit of
boating, recreation and the natural environment. It is important that we develop and manage
our waterways sustainably and ensure that our future policies for flood risk management, as
developed in this CFMP, correspond to our plans for the waterway.
The Fens Waterways Link; a plan to extend navigation

across the Fens
We are working with our partners to develop a link which
will bring together economic, community and environmental
issues and raise the profile of the Fens waterways as a
tourist destination. The scheme, the biggest waterway
enhancement project in Europe, will open up 240 km of
waterway; 80 km of new waterway and provide increased
access to 160 km.
The Link will connect the cathedral cities of Lincoln,

Peterborough and Ely and also incorporate the market
towns of Boston, Spalding, Crowland and Ramsey. In association with other waterway
regeneration schemes, the Link will create a new circular waterway for recreation, tourism
and the environment through the Fens. This CFMP will help us ensure that any risk of
flooding associated with this project is managed appropriately.
1.4.6 Environment plans for the River Nene catchment
A Biodiversity Action Strategy for Anglian Region

The Government aims to meet its commitments to improving biodiversity through National
Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs). The BAPs are made up of Species Action Plans and Habitat
Action Plans, which set targets for nationally and locally important habitats and wildlife. These
are developed at the local level into Local Biodiversity Action Plans (LBAPs), which aim to
provide effective local action to meet the national priorities and highlight species and habitats,
which are particularly important at the local level. The four LBAPs produced for areas within
the River Nene catchment are for Northamptonshire, Cambridgeshire, Lincolnshire and
Norfolk (only a small area for the latter two). The species and habitats that the BAP is
designed to protect must not be negatively impacted by the CFMP’s policies. We considered
the BAP habitats and species and the plan’s actions when appraising the policy units and
choices.
Habitat Action Plans

Habitat Action Plans are split into two categories, Broad
Habitat Statements and UK BAP Priority Habitat Action
Plans. Broad Habitat Statements comprise summary
descriptions of 28 natural, semi-natural and urban
habitats and the current issues affecting the habitat.
Policies have been produced to address these issues.
UK BAP Priority Habitat Action Plans are made up of
detailed descriptions for 45 habitats that fall within the
Broad Habitat classification. Detailed actions and
targets for conserving these habitats have been
produced. These habitats are priority habitats within the
East of England and East Midlands Biodiversity
Strategies, and were considered in this CFMP for the
management of flood risk. The targets used to categorise them include maintaining existing
distribution and habitat quality, improving existing quality or creating new areas of habitats.
The CFMP policies will need to ensure that flood risk management activities comply with
these targets for priority habitats. Habitats that are present within the River Nene catchment
include:
• Lowland meadows
• Lowland grasslands
• Lowland heaths
• Fens
• Wet woodlands
• Lowland mixed deciduous and other woodlands
Species Action Plans

Species Action Plans (SAPs) have been created as part of the United Kingdom Biodiversity
Action Plan to protect species which are under threat. Currently in the United Kingdom there
are 391 SAPs for various species. Any of these could be present in the River Nene catchment
area and in developing our CFMP policies we aimed to ensure that our flood risk
management activities do not adversely affect these plans.
Natura 2000 sites

Natura 2000 sites are a EU network of protected areas. This network includes two types of
designated areas: Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protection Areas (SPA).
SACs are designated under the EC Habitats Directive and SPAs are classified under the EC
Wild Birds Directive. This CFMP has considered these sites in the development of flood risk
management policies. Natura 2000 Habitats sites within the Nene catchment are:
• The Nene Washes SPA and SAC

• Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits potential SPA
• Orton Pit SAC
The Wash (classified as The Wash SPA and The Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC) is
located adjacent to the catchment boundary.
Environmental Stewardship farming initative

Environmental Stewardship is an agri-environment scheme which provides funding to farmers
and other land managers in England who deliver effective environmental management on
their land. Its primary objectives are to:
• conserve wildlife (biodiversity)

• maintain and enhance landscape quality and character
• protect the historic environment and natural resources
• promote public access and understanding of the countryside
The initative has the secondary objectives of flood management and genetic conservation.
Environmental stewardship has three elements:
• Entry Level Stewardship

o Open to all farmers and landowners
o Simple and effective land management
• Organic Entry Level Stewardship
o Organic strand of ELS
o Open to all farmers not receiving Organic Farming Scheme aid
• Higher Level Stewardship
o Targeted environmental management
o Capital work plans
In developing the CFMP policies we aim to ensure our flood risk management activities are
consistent with the objectives of the Environmental Stewardship farming initative.
1.5 Involving others

There are many organisations, groups and individuals with an interest in how flood risk is
managed including local authorities, internal drainage boards, water companies, conservation
bodies and the public. The success of the CFMP depends upon working with these
organisations to set and introduce policies.
With the continued input of other organisations, we shall make sure that we recognise the
main issues of flood risk and that the CFMP meets the interests of all concerned. We hope
that other organisations will use the CFMP to help them make decisions on the main issues
relating to flood risk management.
1.5.1 Project Team and Steering Group

The CFMP was prepared by a Project Team (PT) made up of us and our consultants. The
preparation was guided by a Steering Group (SG) whose members provided advice and
information and approved reports before we consulted more widely with a Consultation Group
(CG). The representation of the SG is shown in Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 Representation on Steering Group

Organisation Representatives
Environment Agency Roy Lobley
Project executive
Tracy Hodsman
Project manager
Guy Szomi
Project sponsor
Jim Marshall
Project manager
Gerry Crasto
Development Control Technical Specialist
Ian Cappitt (formerly Heather Toor & Allen Risby)
Senior Environmental Assessment Officer
Roger Valentine
Waterways
Independent consultant Tom Youdan
Regional Flood Defence Committee Geoff Beel
Defra Alan Ibbotson/David Wilson
East of England Regional Assembly Alan Wheeler
Consultant planner
East Midlands Regional Assembly Alison Hepworth (formerly Mary Beasley)
Policy Advisor (Environment)
Organisation Representatives
Natural England Stella Baylis (formerly Jonathan Graham)
Advisor – Land Management and Conservation
RSPB Sarah Dawkins (formerly Rob Lucking)
Conservation Officer
Middle Level Commissioners David Thomas
Chief engineer
North Level IDB Steve Morris
Chief executive and chief clerk
Anglian Water Services Gerry Spraggs
Project manager (hydrology)
Halcrow Group Ltd Ian Rose
Project manager
The two Regional Assembly members represented the local authorities within the River Nene
catchment.
1.5.2 Communication Plan

We are working with several organisations and agencies with responsibility for flood risk
management. We aim to encourage co-operation among them and to ensure that we reach
informed decisions about future flood risk management. The responsibilities that the
organisations, including ourselves, have for flood risk management are set out in Appendix A.
The Communication Plan, in Appendix C, provides information about the membership of the
PT and SG and lists the membership of the wider CG. We shall revise the Communication
Plan if any changes are made to the organisations or representatives.
Roy Lobley is the project executive with ultimate responsibility for the CFMP; he will make
sure that the CFMP meets all of its required objectives. The project executive, Environment
Agency project manager and assistant, and the consultant’s project director and manager are
core PT members. We have staff on the PT that we call upon for specialist advice during the
CFMP process.
1.5.3 Consultation Programme

The preparation of the CFMP proceeded through an inception stage, a scoping stage and,
finally, a main stage. We obtained information about the catchment during the inception and
scoping stages and started on a series of consultations entailing meetings and workshops
with the PT and SG and public consultations and exhibitions. The involvement of the PT and
SG began with the inception stage and has continued. There were two consultations involving
the wider CG.
The consultation process is set out in Table 1.2.
Table 1.2 The consultation process

Who
Stage Date Method Aim & outcome
consulted
Inception Nov Inception report issued
Jul 04 – 04
Dec 04 Dec SG First meeting Inception report reviewed and
04 approved for despatch to CG
Dec SG sub- To form the historical perspective of
04 group changes in the River Nene catchment
Dec CG By distribution of Consultation on inception report. CG
04 report limited to a core group of key
stakeholders at this stage
Scoping Jan 05 PT First meeting To inform the PT of progress with the

Dec 04 – scoping stage and to obtain advice
Who
consulted
Sep 05 on the scoping of CFMP objectives
and scenarios and environmental
issues and objectives
Feb SG Meeting Workshop on drivers of change in
05 flood risk and environmental
constraints and opportunities
Apr 05 SG sub- Meeting in IDB Consultation with North Level IDB
group offices and the Middle Level Commissioners
(SG members) to obtain information
about IDB areas and about their
approach to FRM
Apr 05 Agency Meeting in Agency Enquiry about SFRAs in the River
office Nene catchment
May SG Meeting Agreement on revisions to draft
05 scoping report in preparation for its
issue to the CG. There was an
emphasis in this consultation on
scenarios and objectives
Jun 05 Scoping report issued
Jul – CG By distribution of Consultation on scoping report. 36
Sep report (CDs and written responses received.
05 printed copies) and
questionnaire
Sep SG Meeting Review of consultation on scoping
05 report and planning of the main stage
report
Draft Dec PT Meeting To inform the PT of the plan for the
Main Oct 05 draft main stage and to obtain views
05 – Jul on the planned work. Consultee
06 comments on scoping work reviewed.
A number of PT concerns discussed.
Dec SG Meeting Introduction to the main stage of the
05 CFMP; included presentation of key
aspects of the CFMP
Jan 06 PT Meeting To inform the PT of progress in
drafting the CFMP. Discussion of
how public consultation should be
conducted.
Mar SG Meeting Presentation of draft; guidance
06 received on preparation of
consultation draft plan
Jul 06 SG & CG Meeting Meeting held during consultation
period to brief SG and CG members
on the consultation draft plan and to
encourage responses
Jul 06 Consultation
Draft Plan
issued
Jul – CG By distribution of Consultation draft plan. 32 written
Oct 06 report and responses received.
questionnaire.
Public exhibitions
held in
Northampton and
Peterborough
Who
consulted
Main Oct
07 – Jul
08 Jul 08 PT &SG Meeting To approve final plan for publication
1.5.4 Consultation Summary
Scoping Report Consultation

The scoping report put forward our early ideas about the scenarios of future conditions and
the objectives which flood risk management should achieve. We sought the consultees’ views
on these aspects in particular. In summary, key points of the consultation are:
Scenarios and drivers of change to flood risk:
Change to rural land use: The ideas in the scoping report of a radical change in the fenland
was refuted by the National Farmers’ Union but the IDBs acknowledged the potential for
some change. They thought the intensification of agriculture unlikely and the Country Land
and Business Association envisaged a shift in agriculture to non-food crops. The shift was
noted in recent years to an increased protection to property across the fenland.
Urban growth: The regional assemblies, supported by Peterborough County Council,

recognised the role of CFMPs in informing the development of planning policy; the CFMP
projections of future flood risk could show what constraints should be imposed upon urban
growth. The Country Land and Business Association emphasised the infrastructure growth
that is likely to accompany urban growth and its potential impact on rural landowners.
Climate change: The need for a realistic assessment was emphasised.
Objectives: Views were expressed on some particular aspects that the catchment objectives
should embrace. These included sustainable urban drainage and urban growth, the provision
for enterprises (Port Sutton Bridge Ltd) and the enhancement of amenities.
Opportunities: Consultees were aware of the opportunities which future flood risk
management could present, including the promotion of green infrastructure, the reinstatement
of floodplains, the use of stored floodwater to augment summer water resources for irrigation
and such projects as the Fens Waterways Link.
Strategic Environmental Assessment: English Heritage was concerned about the

conservation of heritage assets. English Nature saw the opportunity that the CFMP presents
to build upon the Biodiversity Action Plan. The Wash Estuary Advisory Group drew attention
to the significance of the CFMPs of the rivers entering The Wash to the ‘The Wash
Biodiversity Plan’. These points informed our preparation of the draft CFMP.
Draft CFMP Report Consultation

Table 1.3 summarises the responses received during the
consultation on the Draft CFMP and the actions that we
took to address them. Below is a summary of the main
issues that were highlighted during the scoping and draft
stage consultations.
Strategic approach: It was recognised by the SG that the

distribution of urban growth around the catchment could
influence how floodwater accumulates in the River Nene.
The CFMP should consider this influence. The SG also
recognised that the strategic approach taken by the CFMP could, in further studies, show the
constraints which might need to be placed upon the long-term plans for urban growth.
Implementation of CFMP: Consultees (including Bearwood Engineering, for example),

emphasised the need to inform stakeholders of the progress of implementing the CFMP. We
shall establish an implementation group to monitor and report on the delivery of the CFMP.
There will be an annual report on the progress with the delivery of the CFMP actions. We
expect this reporting and our Flood Awareness Campaign to help us raise the public’s
awareness of flood risk issues and how we are addressing them.
Integration of the CFMP into the planning system: Consultees (Northamptonshire County
Council, for example) asked about the role of the CFMPs within the planning system. The
CFMP policies will feed into the planning system at a regional and local level by informing the
Regional Spatial Strategy and the Development Plans. CFMP planning takes account of the
extent of development which is envisaged, particularly the development being led by the
DCLG (previously the ODPM). The authorities want to see flood risk management being
secured in planning consents and the monitoring of the effectiveness of the flood risk
management measures.
Flood risk management and water resources development: On the suggestion of East of
England Regional Assembly, the CFMP mentioned the possible opportunity to combine
storage for floodwater and water supply.
Flood storage proposals: The National Farmer’s Union was concerned about the sustainability
of providing flood storage for future flood risk management which encroaches on agricultural
land. This aspect will need consideration in the planning of flood storage proposals.
Flood storage eco-system: In the Steering Group consultations, it was recognised that flood
storage tends to develop an ecosystem which attracts environmental designations,
constraining the use of the storage. The impact of water level variation in the Nene Washes is
an example.
The Wash and coastline habitats: The Wash and North Norfolk Coast European Marine Site
Management Group is concerned about the potential that a future increase in the discharge of
floodwater from the River Nene into The Wash could have the potential to cause the
deterioration of the natural habitats of the Wash and North Norfolk Coast for which the area
was designated a European Marine Site. In compliance with UK Habitat Regulations, the
CFMP addresses this issue through the inclusion of an Appropriate Assessment.
Non-statutory sites: The Wildlife Trusts mentioned the many non-statutory sites (County
Wildlife Sites, for example) which the CFMP does not consider. Their appraisal would be
considered in further studies following on from the CFMP.
Revision of CFMP
After the consultation period through the summer of 2006, we decided that we needed the
CFMP to have a more comprehensive action plan than we had envisaged when we prepared
the Consultation Draft Plan (July 2006). We accordingly set out on a programme of revising
the CFMP of which this CFMP is the first issue. In order to improve the action plan, we
required the identification of policy units more closely related to areas which shared sources
of flooding and a similar nature of risk; for example urban areas, the floodplains of main
rivers, and the larger areas of the catchment drained by minor watercourses and generally
with no concentrations of flood risk. This reassignment of policy units enabled us to identify a
single policy option for each policy unit. In the Consultation Draft Plan we had about half the
number of policy units of the revised CFMP and more than one policy option for each policy
unit.
The outcome of the revision is a CMFP which helps us to target more precisely the allocation
of investment in future flood risk management across the River Nene catchment and to be
consistent in our allocation of investment across catchments.
This issue of the CFMP has information about the drainage of the fenland catchments. We
expect to obtain more information about these catchments from the IDBs with the intention of
incorporating it into a future revision of the CFMP.
Table 1.3 Summary of particular responses
Organisation Response Corresponding Action
Private individual 1. Possible future requirement for more stored water for public supply 1. Explanation of possible opportunity to combine
may conflict with provision of storage for floodwater, or storage of storage for floodwater and water supply added.
floodwater could support water resource development.
East Northamptonshire 1. Explain connection between SFRA and other strategies (listed) and 1. Explanation added
District Council link to CFMP monitoring 2. This will be taken into account in further studies.
2. How will FRM measures affect the catchment?
East of England Regional 1. Consider opportunities to link FRM to water resource development 1. Explanation of possible opportunity to combine
Assembly storage for floodwater and water supply added.
English Heritage 1. Recognise listed buildings as elements of the historic environment 1. None. Listed buildings are specifically mentioned
and scoped out of CFMP but intention is that they
be covered in subsequent studies.
Farming & Wildlife Add: encourage landowners to consider flood alleviation/wetland Consider inclusion in revised action plan.
Advisory Group creation under the Higher Level Stewardship option of the Environmental
Stewardship farming initiative
The Inland Waterways Suggestions about use of existing reservoirs for flood control. Explanation that existing AWS reservoirs are
Association – Northampton unavailable for flood control added.
Branch The potential of BW reservoirs to be considered in a
future study – add to action plan
The Inland Waterways 1. Fens Waterways Link could fulfil several purposes 1. Reference to recreational uses added.
Association –
Peterborough Branch
Weekley Parish Council 1. Commenting calls for assurance about enforcement of flood 1. Scale of development considered in CFMP
protection measures with planning consents and concern about planning
scale of ODPM development in upper catchment.
Natural England 1. Need reference to Environmental Character Assessment by NCC in 1. NCC’s Environmental Character Study
reference to landscape character
National Farmers’ Union – 1. Concern about implication of policy P6: 1. Acknowledge limitation on what compensation
East Midlands Region - proper consultation required about flood storage proposals can be provided: address in a subsequent study
- compensating for changes by increasing flood storage
seems an unsustainable cycle
Northampton Borough 1. Add mention of urban conservation areas 1. Explanation of conservation area added
Council 2. Add mention of Northamptonshire Environmental Characterisation 2. Mention added
project
Northamptonshire County 1. Clarify how CFMP should be integrated into the planning system 1. The policies in the CFMP will feed into the
Council 2. Environment Agency needs more publicity about its FRM efforts planning system at a regional and local level by
informing the Regional Spatial Strategy and
Development Plans.
2. We consulted widely on the CFMP throughout the
process. Public awareness and education on flood
risk is an ongoing priority.
Wash & North Norfolk The CFMP has the potential to cause the deterioration of the natural Would be part of an Appropriate Assessment.
Coast European Marine habitats of the Wash and North Norfolk Coast for which the area was
Site Management Group designated a European Marine Site. To comply with the UK Habitats
Regulations, the potential should be addressed in the CFMP.
Peterborough City Council 1. Population likely to increase beyond national trend 1. Faster rate of growth acknowledged
Royal Society for the 1 Adopt policy P6 as widely as possible 1. P6 widely represented through policy appraisal
Protection of Birds – 2 Nene Washes; preserve infrequent spring flooding 2. Consider as part of Appropriate Assessment
Central England Region 3 Advice about ensuing CFMP reviews and strategies; especially link 3. Make appropriate reference in action plan
to WFD and treatment of SSSIs.
4 CFMP to consider Environment Agency’s duty under section 28G of 4. CFMP provides adequate high-level framework to
the Wildlife & Countryside Act further conservation and enhancement of SSSIs.
Propose that detailed consideration to be
undertaken at strategy and project level.
Royal Society for the Comments – focusing on the Fens - additional to those of RSPB – 1. Introduce via AA
Protection of Birds Central England Region. 2. Introduce via AA
1. Concern about condition and the continued deterioration of the Nene
Washes: CFMP could contribute to improvement
2. Wetland creation ‘opportunities mapping’ for fenland recommended
South Holland District 1. Comment about The Wash reflects the Wash & North Norfolk Coast 1. Would be part of an Appropriate Assessment. But
Council European Marine Site Management Group comment is an AA to form part of a CFMP?
South Northamptonshire 1. Environment Agency should be aware of local development 1. We reviewed the relevant plans for urban growth
Council frameworks in preparing final CFMP when preparing the CFMP.
2. Add control of surface runoff from new development to list of 2. Add into action plan: Promote the use of
measures sustainable drainage systems where appropriate.
Sustainable Development Several comments is placing emphasis to the large-scale growth 1. Summary amended
Delivery Team planned for this area. Some particular points: 2. Reference made to RSS (in draft)
1. Mention large scale growth in executive summary 3. Growth of water cycle infrastructure added
2. Mention Core Spatial Strategy for Northampton 4. Explanation of scenarios enhanced
3. Mention impact of growth on water cycle infrastructure
4. Base planning of flood protection for next 20 years on high scenario
to take account of uncertainty in growth rates.
Twywell Parish Council Council requires CFMP to have a dredging programme. We undertake a programme of dredging to maintain
channel depths, in the River Nene catchment. The
Operations Delivery team based at catchment
carries out this work.
The Wildlife Trusts – 1. Recognise opportunities offered by non-statutory sites (eg County 1. Propose no changes to CFMP. Consider in
Bedfordshire, Wildlife Sites) in Section 4.6.4. further studies.
Cambridgeshire,
Northamptonshire,
Peterborough
The Wildlife Trust for 1. Recognise opportunities offered by non-statutory sites (eg County 1. Propose no changes to CFMP. Consider in
Northampton Wildlife Sites) in Section 4.6.4. further studies.
2 Catchment overview
This section provides an overview of the CFMP area covering its natural and physical characteristics, land
use and land management.
We need to understand the characteristics of the CFMP area so that we can understand what can cause or
contribute to flooding, what offers us opportunities for and possibly constrains future flood risk
management, and what is at risk from flooding.
2.1 Definition and extent of the River Nene Catchment

The River Nene is one of several large rivers which drain part of the
east of England into The Wash. The catchment of the River Nene,
shown in Figure 2.1, extends from The Wash as far west as Daventry
and includes the main urban centres of Northampton, Wellingborough,
Kettering, Corby and Peterborough.
The boundary of the CFMP follows the boundary of the River Nene
catchment to Peterborough, an area of about 1710km2. Beyond
Peterborough, the CFMP boundary follows the boundary of the fenland
2
catchments which drain to the tidal reach of the River Nene, an area of about 560km , giving a total
2
catchment area of about 2270km . Figure 1.1 shows the boundaries which the River Nene CFMP shares
with the CFMPs of the adjacent catchments – the River Welland to the north and the Great Ouse to the
south. It also shows the boundary of the CFMPs with The Wash SMP.
The Wash SMP is concerned with policies for the future management of the coastal defences. Policies to
manage the tidal flood risk along the tidal River Nene to the Dog-in-a-Doublet Sluice are the subject of this
CFMP. CFMP policies will take precedence over SMP policies in areas, such as parts of the Fens, which
could come under the influence of both sets of policies.
The River Nene rises on the predominantly clay soils of the Northampton uplands and flows across gently
undulating rural country to the flat plains around Peterborough before entering the tidal reach across the
Fens. The steeper headwater tributaries of the River Nene – the Kislingbury Branch, the Brampton Branch
and the Wootton Brook – meet in Northampton. The upper catchment is crossed by the Grand Union Canal
and its Northampton Arm. The canal is supplied with water from the Daventry and Drayton reservoirs in the
upper catchment of the Kislingbury Branch. In the upper catchment of the Brampton Branch there are three
public water supply reservoirs – Ravensthorpe, Hollowell and Pitsford – owned and operated by Anglian
Water Services. The Kislingbury Branch is joined by the Weedon Branch where a flood storage reservoir
was constructed in 2002 to manage flood risk to the village of Weedon. Downstream of the confluence with
the Weedon Branch, the Kislingbury Branch has an extensive floodplain and is joined by the Wootton
Brook before entering Northampton where it is joined by the Grand Union Canal, immediately upstream of
the constrictive South Bridge, and by the Brampton Branch.
In its course from Northampton to Peterborough, the River Nene is

joined by three principal tributaries, all from the north – the River Ise,
Harper’s Brook and Willow Brook. More minor tributaries join the River
Nene from the smaller catchment area to the south of the river. Along
this reach, the River Nene has long been used for navigation. The
current system of locks largely came about when the River Nene was
linked to the Grand Union Canal via the Northampton Arm and the
Middle Level canals via the Stanground Lode at Peterborough. There
are a total of 38 locks and associated structures along this 95km length.
Willow Brook
Water for public water supply is abstracted from the River Nene close to
Wansford.
Mineral workings for extracting gravel are a feature of the floodplain throughout much of this length.
The River Nene was tidal, at least as far upstream as Peterborough until 1936 when the construction of the
Dog-in-a-Doublet Sluice, about 6km downstream of Peterborough, set a new tidal limit. Flood flow in the
River Nene cannot discharge through the sluice when the flood
coincides with high tide, a situation known as “tide lock”. When
tide lock occurs flood flow is released into the Morton’s Leam via
Stanground sluice. As flood flow continues, the Morton’s Leam
gradually floods onto areas of the River Nene Washes which
form a large storage area some 20km long by 2km wide. In
severe flooding, the Nene Washes are completely inundated. As
the tide ebbs, the Washes drain into the River Nene via Ring’s
End Sluice at Guyhirn.
Downstream of Peterborough, the River Nene is embanked

across the Fens in its course to The Wash. Before drainage was
introduced in Roman times, the Fens drained naturally into the
River Nene which then followed a course through March.
Drainage by pumping into the River Nene and the other fenland
rivers has caused the Fens to subside; the Fens now generally lie below the level of high tide. The fenland
towns of Wisbech and Sutton Bridge lie along the tidal River Nene and, being at the level of the
embankment crests, are generally above the level of the surrounding fenland. The Fens are separated
from The Wash by the embankments which form the coastal defences.
Although there are large centres of population, the catchment to Peterborough has a largely rural aspect
where agriculture is an important activity. Indeed, it was a need to increase agricultural production by
improving land drainage which led in the past to much modification of the main River Nene. Modification of
the river had begun in early times for navigation which is now an established feature of the river.
Information about the catchment and its principal sub-catchments is in Table 2.1. The table notes three
large reservoirs in the catchment of the Brampton Branch which are used by Anglian Water Services
(AWS) for water supply. AWS also abstracts water for supply from the River Nene close to Wansford.
As shown in Figure 2.2, the area is well-served by transport links: motorways – the M1 and A1(M) – serve
Northampton and Peterborough and trunk roads connect the main centres. Northampton and
Peterborough are also served by main railway routes. The transport links and access to the south east of
England will support the substantial urban growth which the catchment is expected to see.
The River Nene catchment lies within the counties of Northamptonshire, Leicestershire, Bedfordshire,
Cambridgeshire, Lincolnshire and Norfolk and covers all or parts of the district and borough councils
shown in Figure 2.3.
Infrastructure for flood risk management is evident around the catchment in the form of the main flood
storage areas of the Northampton Washlands and the Nene Washes, flood defences through
Northampton, smaller flood storage areas in headwater catchments and the Dog-in-a-Doublet Sluice.
We are responsible for flood risk management in the natural catchment to Peterborough and for the
maintenance of the tidal embankments across the fenland. The drainage of the fenland is the responsibility
of the Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs). The areas of fenland which the IDBs drain into the tidal River Nene
are shown in Figure 2.4. To the north of the river, much of the area is pumped into two high level carriers –
the South Holland and North Level Main Drains – and some of the area is pumped directly into the tidal
river. There is also an area which drains into the tidal river through a tidally-controlled sluice without
pumping. The drainage of these areas is the responsibility of the South Holland and North Level IDBs. The
drainage of the smaller fenland area to the south of the tidal river is divided among a number of smaller
IDBs.
Table 2.1 Catchment overview
Principal sub- Catchment Length of main
Main watercourses
catchments area, km2 river, km
Wootton Brook 90 18 Wootton Brook to confluence with
Kislingbury Branch
Kislingbury Branch 222 25.6 Kislingbury Branch to confluence with
Brampton Branch, catchment includes
British Waterways reservoirs; Weedon
Brook
Brampton Branch 245 27.3 Brampton Branch to confluence with
Kislingbury Branch; catchment includes
AWS reservoirs: Pitsford, Hollowell and
Ravensthorpe
River Ise 213 52.8 River Ise to confluence with River Nene at
Wellingborough; Slade Brook
Harper’s Brook 74 22.7 Harper’s Brook to confluence with River
Nene
Willow Brook 96 29.8 Willow Brook to confluence with River
Nene
Tidal limits Dog-in-a-Doublet Sluice on the River Nene downstream of Peterborough
Average annual 615mm
rainfall
Lias strata – limestones and mudstones to north and west, overlain by
Geology
sandstones along River Nene valley; drift deposits overlain by peat in the Fens
Principal urban Northampton, Wellingborough, Kettering, Corby and Peterborough
centres
Assets Total for CFMP area At risk of 1.0% flood
Population 809,565 1,445
Area (km2) 2,270 75.5
Agricultural Land 729 7.3
2
Grades 1 & 2, (km )
Properties, number 323,826 578
A-class roads, (km) 930 18.9
ot including
motorway
Railways (km) 122 4
Sites of Special 50 23.7
Scientific Interest
(km2)
Special Areas of 2 0.55
2
Conservation (km )
Special Protection 15.7 14.3
2
Areas (km )
2
Ramsar sites (km ) 15.7 14.3
Scheduled Ancient 116 34
Monuments
National Nature 3.83 0
Reserves (km2)
Figure 2.1 The River Nene catchment
Figure 2.2 Transport networks
Figure 2.3 Local Authorities
Figure 2.4 Internal Drainage Board boundaries
2.2 Topography
The River Nene has a long catchment, stretching some 110km between its western extremity and The
Wash. Figure 2.6 shows that the main tributaries rise in uplands at elevations of around 130mAOD and fall
quite steeply to the plains through which the main River Nene flows. The confluences, around
Northampton, of the three main upstream tributaries – the Wootton Brook, the Kislingbury Branch and the
Brampton Branch – are at about 55mOD. From Northampton, the river falls to about 10mAOD in
Peterborough. Downstream of Peterborough, the river enters its tidal reach in which flow is largely
controlled by the tidal cycle. Flow from the upper catchment is mostly discharged at low tide. To maintain a
river gradient down to The Wash, the river is carried between embankments across the depressed levels
of the Fens.
The gradient of the rivers in the catchment varies as shown in Figure

2.7 and the steepness of the main tributaries is apparent. Their slopes
vary little across their upper reaches but slacken to different degrees in
their lower reaches as they approach their confluences with the River
Nene. From the confluence with the main upstream tributaries to
Peterborough, the gradient of the River Nene is less steep than the
tributaries and quite uniform.
The steepness of the main tributaries leads to their relatively rapid

response to rainfall with high river flow velocities. Once in the River
Nene, however, floodwater moves more slowly due to the shallower river gradient. The differing speed of
water movement through the catchment leads to different flooding characteristics. Along the main
tributaries, flood flow is relatively swift and of short duration through urban centres such as Daventry,
Corby and Kettering. Along the main river and through such urban centres as Northampton,
Wellingborough and Peterborough, the slower movement of flood flow leads to more extensive flooding of
longer duration as the floodwater fills the river channel and moves across the floodplain.
2.3 Geology and hydrogeology

The River Nene catchment is underlain by rock formations of mainly Jurassic age. This solid geology is
shown in Figure 2.8. Older limestones and mudstones outcrop in the hills to the north and west. They are
overlain in the middle of the catchment by sandstones which are exposed along the valley of the River
Nene. Younger limestone rocks cap hills in the centre of the catchment and to the east and west the
youngest rocks – mudstones – occur.
The rocks are overlain by the more recent drift deposits shown in Figure 2.9. Much of the drift deposits are
the result of glaciations which led to the deposition of till, sands and gravels mostly in the middle of the
catchment. On top of the drift deposits are deposits derived from the shifting meanders of the River Nene,
comprising river terrace gravels and alluvium. These deposits lie along the river course. In the upper
reaches of the catchment, the drift deposits give way to expose the underlying rock.
The peats of the Fens formed after the period of glaciation. They were derived from material deposited
across the area by the shifting channels of the fenland rivers, including the River Nene.
The geology of the catchment has a significant influence on the response of the catchment to rainfall – how
rainfall becomes the surface runoff which gives rise to river flow. Formations with low permeability, such as
clay or glacial till, cause a large proportion of the rainfall to surface runoff into watercourses immediately
after the storm. Conversely, permeable rocks allow the greater infiltration of rainfall and give rise to less
surface runoff immediately after the storm. However, water continues to drain from the permeable rock
long after the storm has stopped and causes river flow to continue as baseflow. Permeable rocks can
sustain relatively high baseflow as the infiltrated rainfall continues to drain and river flow can seem like a
subdued response to the storm. In contrast, storm rainfall on an impermeable area leads to a greater
concentration of river flow followed by a quickly receding baseflow.
Figure 2.5 Topography
Figure 2.6 Channel gradients of the River Nene and its main tributaries
Much of the underlying rock across the River Nene catchment gives rise to impermeable clay-based soils
with the characteristic relatively quick response to rainfall and a high proportion of surface runoff followed
by high river flow. Rocks like the limestone of the Willow Brook catchment tend to lead to a slower
response to rainfall, a lower proportion of surface runoff but a sustained baseflow characteristic of a
permeable area. Hydrogeology is concerned with the water-bearing characteristics of rocks. The
sandstones and limestones are the main water-bearing rocks but other rocks can have layers in which
groundwater collects to emerge later as springs or seepage.
2.4 Geomorphology
Geomorphology describes the physical form of the river and the processes which cause the form to
change over time. River form varies from the straighter, incised river channels of the steeper upper
reaches to the meandering channels of the lower reaches. Meandering channels migrate over time and
evidence of earlier channels often remains in the river floodplains. Processes include the shifting of
material along the river and its deposition in the lower reaches. Sources of material are the erosion of the
river channels and the sediment carried into the river in surface surface runoff. These processes are slow
and geomorphological change tends to be gradual but can be accelerated by flood flow.
Geomorphological form and process are apparent in the River Nene

and its tributaries, particularly in the meandering of the River Nene
across its floodplain between Northampton and Peterborough. A natural
supply of sediment is more likely where the soil is less stable (for
example, the sandy loams of the River Ise catchment) and where hill
slopes are steep (for example, the Kislingbury and Brampton branches
of the River Nene). A further supply of sediment can be expected as a
result of the extensive introduction of land drainage across the
catchment in recent years.
The River Nene shows the influence of another agent of change –

man’s intervention over many years in training the river to improve
navigation and to improve the capacity of the river to discharge the land drainage. The locks and weirs
constructed for navigation tend to control river flow and to cause sediment to be deposited upstream of
them.
Figure 2.7 Solid geology
Figure 2.8 Drift geology
The Wash is a source of sediment for the tidal reach of the River Nene. Material is moved along the tidal
channel during the tidal cycle and tends to be deposited and to accumulate in the channel.
Man’s intervention in the form of the river cannot arrest geomorphological processes. Sediments continue
to be deposited, river banks to erode and meanders to migrate. Without a continuing intervention, there
would be a tendency for the river to put new areas at risk of flooding as the river channels silt up and shift.
Our flood risk management practice in the River Nene catchment accordingly includes the maintenance
and stabilising of river banks, the de-silting of river channels and, along the tidal reach, the dredging of the
river channel and the maintenance of the raised river embankments We do not, however, have data
relating to quantities of sediment or erosion in specific locations.
Some of our maintenance might be avoided if we were to allow the River Nene to return to a more natural
form where it has been straightened or constrained by flood defences, allowing the river to meander more
freely across the floodplain. This practice, of river restoration, can be part of making more use of
floodplains to store floodwater and lead to the enhancement of riverine habitats.
2.5 Soils
Soils characteristics are derived from the underlying geology and soil types have a significant impact on
how the catchment responds to rainfall. Loosely packed, deep soils retain more rainfall and have a slower
surface runoffresponse to rainfall than shallow or densely packed soils such as clays. The type of soil and
its drainage properties dictate the rate of infiltration to the sub-surface and hence the relationship between
run off, flow along soil horizons and infiltration to groundwater.
The soils in the catchment are predominantly deep clay soils largely developed over glacial till and will tend
to:
• lead to more rapid surface runoff from the upland areas on the edge of the catchment
• enable greater infiltration on the valley floor where the glacial till tends to be exposed
• be quite stable and less susceptible to erosion as the soil structures are better bonded
• be tightly formed and less likely to be broken apart.
• limit the agricultural land value due to poor drainage.
Figure 2.10 shows the broad distribution of soil types in the River Nene catchment. The information is
based on the 1:250,000 soils mapping (“Soilscape”) available from the National Soil Resources Institute.
Broadly, the soils can be grouped as shown in Figure 2.10 and described below:
• The upland areas in the west of the River Nene catchment tend to be associated with deep clay
soils largely developed over glacial till. They tend to lead to more rapid surface runoff which could
lead to the rapid onset of flooding, particularly if the ground is saturated in the winter.
• The area to the south and west of Corby has similarly deep clay soils with areas of seasonally wet
clays. These soil types and the urban area of Corby will tend to lead to more rapid surface runoff.
• To the west and north of Northampton soils have mostly impeded drainage. There are some areas
of deep clay but also seasonally wet deep clay and smaller areas of deep loam over clay. Again
this will lead to more rapid surface runoff and the potential for the rapid on-set of flooding when
ground may be saturated.
• The area around Northampton, along the Brampton Branch, along the River Ise and along Harpers
Brook contain large areas of loam over sandstone. These are lower lying and closer to the rivers.
The soils are better drained, causing more infiltration and reduced surface runoff. Surface runoff
from the surrounding higher ground, characterised by the clay soils, will potentially percolate into
this layer.
• To the west of Peterborough there is a relatively small area of shallow loams over limestone.
These are free draining soils which allow more infiltration and slower surface runoff.
• The eastern end of the catchment downstream of Peterborough also has clay rich soils with
seasonally wet deep clays and deep silts. The area is mostly drained by pumping.
• Across the Fens, there is a large proportion of seasonally wet clay which rests over a layer of peat.
These soils are naturally saturated for most of the year and drain poorly.
Figure 2.10 also summarises the drainage properties in each area. The properties are described more fully
below:
• Freely draining - absorb rainfall readily and allow it to drain

through to underlying layers
• Slightly impeded drainage – soils with tight, compact deep
subsoil that impedes downward water movement. After heavy
rainfall, particularly in winter months, sub soil may become
waterlogged
• Impeded drainage – greater impedance to downward water
movement than above and winter rainfall often results in
waterlogging
• Naturally wet – soils in low lying sites with permeable soils
affected by high groundwater
Soil type also influences the hydrology of the catchment indirectly as it is one of the factors determining
land use, particularly the type of agriculture, land management and environmental habitats. The
catchment has seen much land management in the form of the introduction of extensive areas of land
drainage. This practice modifies the hydrological characteristics of the soils. Aspects of land use and land
management are described in the next section.
2.6 Land use and land management

2.6.1 Land types
Land grading is used in the planning system when considering future land use and the allocation of
development.
The distribution of the agricultural land grades within the River Nene catchment is shown in Figure 2.11.
The figure also illustrates the link between the grades and the distribution of the soil class categories within
the catchment (See Figure 2.10).
Figure 2.12 shows the proportion of each land grade within the
catchment. Nearly 60% of the land is Grade 3, with Grades 1 and 2
making up a further 32%.
The higher Grade 1 agricultural land is found on the deep, silty and
seasonally wet soils of the Fens. This area is intensively farmed,
predominantly arable with almost no woodland or hedgerows forming
field boundaries.
Grade 2 agricultural land is found on the seasonally wet, deep, clay to

the east of Peterborough. The area is similarly extensive farmed from
growing crops, indicating the high agricultural productivity of this area.
Grade 3 agricultural land tends to be found on the drier clays and loams to the west of Peterborough.
There are smaller areas of Grade 2 land, notably on the loam soils of the lower lying ground closer to the
River Nene and River Ise.
The Wet Fens for the Future and the Great Fen projects aim to restore natural fenland habitat and show
how the land use of the Fens might evolve. Changes of this type could present opportunities for the
storage of floodwater on the Fens with implications for future flood risk management.
Figure 2.9 Soil types
Figure 2.10 Agricultural land classification
Figure 2.11 The proportion of agricultural land classes
2.6.2 Land use and land management

Several categories of land cover are shown in Figure 2.13 and the proportions of the land cover categories
within the catchment are shown in Figure 2.14.
Land use tends to be linked to the agricultural land classification class, and thereby to soils, topography
and geology. Comparisons of the soil map (Figure 2.10), the agricultural land classification map (Figure
2.12), and the land use map Figure 2.13) reveals a correlation among them.
The Fens with the deep clay soils and peat, intensively managed drainage and agricultural land classes
Grades 1 and 2 are almost completely arable with small pockets of fen and marsh over the peat. To the
west of Peterborough the land use becomes more mixed, but still predominantly arable.
The south edge of the catchment on the upper ground is mostly arable with small areas of broadleaved
mixed woodland and set-a-side grass. The valley floor of the Nene has areas of inland water (the gravel
workings), areas of improved grass and smaller areas of neutral grass and set-a-side grass.
The area between Kettering and Corby on the Harpers Brook tributary has a higher density of woodland.
To the west of Northampton, where soils are more mixed with areas of deep loam and seasonally wet
clays and where there are pockets of Grade 2 land, the land use is also more complex and mixed. Here
there are larger areas of improved grassland with the arable land.
With recent agricultural practices, it has been increasingly possible to convert the lower graded land into
land capable of producing crops, rather than just for grazing. This has been achieved through extensive
land drainage across the catchment and more recently the use of plastic sheeting to aid crop growth. This
latter practice may reduce infiltration and increase surface runoff.
Land management practices continue to change as agriculture tends to become more intensive. Drainage
and cultivation on the Fens has resulted in peat shrinkage and wind erosion of the fragile soils. Whilst there
is some conversion to grazing, the extent of intensive agriculture, the drainage infrastructure (in the form of
managed drains, pumping stations and raised watercourses) and recent rises in food prices means that it
is unlikely that the use of this land will change significantly in the near future.
The Fens are managed extensively for intensive agriculture. The land is drained into the tidal reaches of
the fenland rivers, much being pumped. Drainage is the responsibility of the IDBs. The IDBs covering the
fenland within the River Nene CFMP catchment were shown in Figure 2.4 with information about each of
the IDBs. The IDB boundaries are shown again in Figure 2.15 with the main drainage carriers and the main
pumping stations. The figure shows that the South Holland Main Drain receives some drainage by gravity
flow from an area to the north and drains into the tidal River Nene through a tidal sluice.
Good practice aims to control the erosion of agricultural soil through contour ploughing and leaving
uncultivated strips around field boundaries. The benefits of good practice can be seen at the field scale but
the significance of different agricultural practices on flooding at the catchment scale has not been clearly
shown.
2.6.3 Urban development

The catchment is predominantly rural, but has several large urban centres and many more scattered
communities. The urban areas are shown in Figure 2.2 and the rural nature is apparent from the relatively
slight urban fractions listed in Table 2.2. The main urban centres are located along the River Nene;
Northampton, Wellingborough and Peterborough. Other main urban centres lie in tributary catchments;
Kettering in the River Ise and Corby in the headwaters of the Harper’s Brook and Willow Brook.
Wellingborough lies in the confluence of the River Ise and the River Nene. Figure 2.2 also shows the main
transport links across the catchment. Transport infrastructure can add significantly to the overall urban
impact on a rural catchment.
Urban areas are characterised by extensive impervious surfaces, such

as roads and buildings, and are generally served by piped drainage
systems. This results in a more rapid response to rainfall and quicker
discharge to rivers. Current planning practice is to provide storage
within urban areas, as in Corby, and strategic storage like the
Northampton Washlands on the River Nene. These are aimed at
avoiding the increase in river flooding that urban drainage discharges
tend to cause. Urban areas are generally drained by urban drainage
systems comprising piped drainage and open watercourses. Drainage
systems are quite commonly overwhelmed in severe storms and
become sources of local flooding.
The substantial historic growth of the urban areas across the catchment is illustrated later in the report for
the case of Northampton. Northampton is currently undergoing extensive regeneration towards the centre
of the town with large areas of new housing planned for the west side at Upton. There are also extensive
areas of new development to the south of Peterborough. This may lead to increased rapid surface runoff
unless managed through sustainable urban drainage techniques. Substantial urban development is
expected in many parts of the catchment over the 100 year planning period of the CFMP.
Table 2.2 Urban fractions of the main catchments

Catchment Urban fraction,
Catchment Principal towns
area, km2 %
Upper Nene 675 9.0 Northampton, Daventry
River Ise 194 8.0 Wellingborough (part), Kettering
Harper’s Brook 74 1.0 Corby (part)
Willow Brook 90 16.4 Corby (part)
Minor catchments 677 8.1 Wellingborough (part), Oundle, Peterborough
The Fens 560 1.9 Wisbech, Sutton Bridge
Figure 2.12 Land cover (Source: Land Cover Map 2000)
Figure 2.13 The proportions of land cover (Source: Land Cover Map 2000)
2.7 Hydrology
2.7.1 Hydrological processes
To prepare policies for flood risk management, we need an appreciation of the hydrological processes in
the catchment and how the river floods.
Rain falling onto surfaces becomes surface runoff which in time becomes concentrated into river flow. The
change from rainfall to surface runoff is influenced by the type of surface:
Rural and agricultural land: Losses occur through infiltration and interception by vegetation. Agricultural
land drainage tends to reduce losses and to change the speed of the response of the catchment – the time
taken between rainfall and the concentration of flow into rivers.
Urban surfaces: Larger urban centres are generally served by drainage systems which collect the surface
surface runoff and discharge it directly to rivers with reduced losses compared to rural and agricultural
land. In some systems, the discharge is intercepted by small ponds designed to slow the discharge. This
approach, along with the use of permeable surfaces, aims to restore urban surface runoff to that from a
natural catchment and thus to reduce the impact of the urban drainage on the rivers.
Figure 2.14 The drainage of the fenland
A typical catchment combines different surfaces which, together with
other catchment characteristics such as the area, steepness and shape
of the catchment, determine how much and how quickly rainfall is
concentrated into the rivers. Large rural catchments tend to respond
critically to storms of long duration. They produce floods of large volume
but not necessarily of high peak flows. Catchments with large
proportions of urban areas and the steeper headwater catchments –
typically smaller catchments – tend to respond critically to more intense
storms of short duration. Flood flow can rise quickly to a high peak but
might not contribute a large flood volume to the downstream river
system.
Storm rainfall which does not surface runoff quickly tends to be released
slowly from lower soil layers and from water-bearing rocks such as limestone. This slower surface runoff,
known as baseflow, sustains river flow between periods of rainfall.
The River Nene catchment combines all types of surfaces so shows a wide range of responses to rainfall.
In the steeper headwater catchments of the tributaries, river flow rises quickly, helped by the largely clay-
based soils and, in the Harper’s Brook and Willow Brook catchments, by the large urban area of Corby.
The limestone rocks in the lower reaches of the Willow Brook, when they are saturated, are likely to
contribute to baseflow. Except where drainage is through urban drainage systems, surfaces in the lower-
lying valley of the River Nene will tend to drain more slowly because of the slacker gradients.
The surface runoff processes also apply in the fenland but here the catchments are not determined by
natural, topographic, boundaries but by the boundaries of the pumped drainage channels. The response to
storm rainfall is likely to be slow because of the shallow gradients although the dense drainage network
means that surface travel times are likely to be relatively short. The separation of the fenland from the
River Nene and the reliance on pumped drainage has the effect of attenuating the response of the River
Nene to rainfall on the lower catchment.
Average annual rainfall across the catchment, seen in Figure 2.16, shows the tendency towards the drier
east and for rainfall to be greater over higher ground. Average annual rainfall, however, is not necessarily
an indicator of the severity of storm rainfall.
2.7.2 Hydrology of the River Nene catchment

The main rivers and their catchments are shown in Figure 2.17. The three principal catchments above
Northampton – Wootton Brook and the Kislingbury and Brampton Branches of the River Nene – meet at
Northampton. Below Northampton, the River Nene flows for some 92km to Peterborough and the tidal limit
some 6km downstream of Peterborough. Along this length, the river is joined at intervals by the three main
tributaries – the River Ise, Harper’s Brook and Willow Brook. Smaller tributaries contribute flow from the
south.
The main River Nene: Figure 2.18, shows hydrographs at two locations on the River Nene and on the the
main tributaries, near their confluences with the River Nene. All the hydrographs are simulations, using a
broad-scale model, of the 1% AEP flood, rather than observed hydrographs or simulations of a recorded
flood. The hydrographs are not caused by the same storm but are the result of a storm which is critical for
each catchment. The durations of the critical storm vary around the catchment.
The hydrographs show that the peak of the flood is reached in about 20 hours after the start of the storm
on the Wootton Brook, the upper part of the Kislingbury Branch and on the Brampton Branch. On the River
Ise, the response time is about 30 hours, on the Harper’s Brook about 15 hours and on the Willow Brook
about 20 hours. The three upstream tributaries meet in Northampton which accordingly has a similar
response time – 25 to 30 hours– as seen in the hydrograph of the River Nene at South Bridge in
Northampton. The volume of the flood increases significantly as it moves downstream to Wansford and the
peak arrives just over 100 hours from the start of the storm.
Table 2.3 lists approximate flood peaks and volumes of the hydrographs and the duration of the storms
which produce them for the 1% AEP flood at several locations around the catchment.
Table 2.3 Flood peaks and volumes
Catchment Storm Flood peak, Flood volume,
area, km2 duration, h m3/s Mm3
River Nene at South Bridge in 564
31 145 19.3
Northampton
Kislingbury Branch (Dodford) 107 23 50 4.1
Brampton Branch 233 27 75 8.2
Wootton Brook 76 23 30 3.2
River Ise 195 19 55 6.1
Harper’s Brook 74 9 45 3.3
Willow Brook 90 11 45 4.2
River Nene at Wansford 1517 58 185 70.1
We emphasise the indicative nature of these results. Being produced with a broad-scale model, they can
only be approximate and are not the definitive results that we would produce for detailed studies.
The hydrographs shown in Figure 2.18 are at the gauging stations where we measure river flow. We used
the gauged flow records in our analyses of the hydrographs. There is an extensive flow record – the record
at the River Ise gauging station (Harrowden Mill) is the earliest; it starts in 1940. We have records of water
level at some 65 locations around the catchment, including the flow gauges. We also use records of
rainfall in our analyses. Figure 2.16 shows the locations of the rainfall gauges which lie within the
catchment.
Flood flow along the River Nene is influenced by the Northampton Washlands. The Washlands are
3
operated so as to limit flow entering the middle Nene downstream of Northampton to about 30m /s until the
storage capacity of the Washlands is exceeded. Stored floodwater is released from the Washlands as
flood flow in the river recedes. The effect of the operation of the Washlands is apparent as far downstream
as Peterborough. Figure 2.19 shows that the operation of the Washlands leads to a reduction of about
3
10m /s in the peak of the 1% AEP flood through Peterborough for the critical catchment-wide storm.
Along the navigable reaches of the River Nene, between Northampton and Peterborough, there are 37
locks. Weirs control the water level needed for navigation through the locks and have some influence on
slowing the movement of flood flow along the river.
Along the main River Nene, the river generally remains within its channel until flows up to about the 5%
AEP flood although the floodplain is used to some extent in the 50% AEP flood. Under the catchment-wide
storm which creates the 1% AEP flood through Peterborough, the river would rise out of its channel,
flooding the floodplain in the reach below Northampton for about two days and for about five days in the
reach leading to Peterborough. The extent of flooding across the floodplain would vary considerably along
the river but, as a broad indication would reach about 1km in total width in some locations, indicating a
fairly gradual movement of floodwater. Floodwater would be stored on the floodplain to very variable
depths but reaching depths of around 2m to 3m in places.
Downstream of Peterborough, the river enters the embanked reach

which carries the river across the Fens. At high tide, the Dog-in-a-
Doublet sluice, which lies downstream of Peterborough, prevents flood
flow from entering the tidal reach. Instead, flood flow is diverted through
the Stanground Sluice onto the River Nene Washes where it is
detained until low tide when it can be released into the tidal River Nene
through Ring’s End Sluice. Flood risk to Peterborough is hardly affected
by the tidal cycle because of the release of flood flow into the Nene
Washes. The Nene Washes contain the floodwater diverted into them;
floodwater does not spill from the Nene Washes into other parts of the
Fens to at least the flood of 0.5% AEP.
Figure 2.15 Average annual rainfall
Figure 2.16 Rivers and catchments
Figure 2.17 Hydrographs of flood flow
The fenland drainage system is man-made and its response to rainfall is carefully managed by the IDBs
which maintain and operate the drainage network and pumping stations so as to provide relevant
standards of protection to developed areas and agricultural land.
The accumulation of flood flow along the River Nene is influenced by the separation of the tributary inflows,
particularly those of the main tributaries. Figure 2.20 shows the contributions of the main tributaries to the
1% AEP flood through Peterborough. Here, the three main tributaries upstream of Northampton are
represented by the hydrograph of the Upper Nene, which applies just downstream of the Northampton
Washlands. The tributary hydrographs rise to a peak in about 50 hours in this flood but are separated by
their travel time along the River Nene. The flood through Peterborough peaks about 120 hours after the
start of the storm and about 70 hours after the peak of the hydrograph from the Upper Nene.
The hydrographs shown in Figure 2.20 relate to a storm occurring uniformly across the entire catchment.
Real storms tend not to be uniform but to vary as the storm moves across the catchment, leading to
different patterns of accumulation.
The separation of the tributary hydrographs has the effect of prolonging the hydrograph of flood flow
through Peterborough without a significant increase in the peak of the Northampton hydrograph, as is seen
by comparing the top and bottom hydrographs in Figure 2.20. The increase in flood volume between
Northampton and Peterborough is apparent.
The proportions of flood volume contributed by the main tributaries to the flood through Peterborough are
shown in Figure 2.21(a). Almost half the flood volume is contributed by the catchment to Northampton –
the upper Nene. The remaining volume is divided approximately equally between the main gauged
tributaries and the ungauged catchment area (the ‘other areas’), largely lying to the south of the middle
reach of the River Nene, but including areas between the main gauged catchments to the north of the
middle reach. The flood volumes are based on the hydrographs shown in Figure 2.20 which do not show
the complete recession of the Peterborough hydrograph. If the time base of the hydrographs were
extended, more flood volume would be accumulated, leading to a shift in the segments of the pie chart,
Figure 22.2(a) towards the comparison of catchment areas shown in Figure 22.2(b). Other reasons also
account for differences between the pie charts, particularly the variation in the proportion of surface runoff
around the catchment.
Figure 2.18 Influence of the Northampton Washlands on flood flow through Peterborough
Figure 2.19 The accumulation of flood flow along the River Nene
(a)
(b)
Figure 2.20 Contributions (a) to flood flow through Peterborough; (b) catchment areas
The main tributary catchments: The three main tributaries of the Upper Nene – the Wootton Brook and the
Kislingbury and Brampton Branches – respond to storm rainfall in similar times. The flood of April 1998
passed through Northampton in a single peak which arrived about 22 hours after the start of the storm.
Each tributary has its own influences on how it responds to storm rainfall. We can expect the AWS
reservoirs in the catchment of the Brampton Branch to spill in major floods like the one in April 1998. The
reservoirs would probably moderate the impact of less severe floods if the reservoirs were not full when the
flood started.
The relatively small British Waterways reservoirs in the upper reaches of the Kislingbury Branch are
unlikely to have a significant influence on how the catchment responds but the wide floodplain in the lower
reaches of the Kislingbury Branch tends to moderate flood flow. The catchment is crossed by the Grand
Union Canal which, with its Northampton Arm, may have some effect on how the catchment responds. The
canal does not, however, introduce floodwater from other catchments. The Northampton Arm crosses the
lower reach of the Wootton Brook in a particularly constrictive aqueduct; the constriction has some
influence in moderating flood flow.
The flood storage reservoir recently constructed on the Weedon Branch is designed to protect Weedon but
also has some influence in reducing flood risk in the Kislingbury Branch through to Northampton.
The River Ise is joined by the Slade Brook in Kettering. Both receive drainage flows from Kettering and
both have small flood storage ponds along their courses. Wellingborough lies around the confluence of the
River Ise and River Nene, the River Ise receiving much of the drainage flow from Wellingborough.
Harper’s Brook and Willow Brook have rural catchments but both receive drainage flow from Corby which
lies in their headwaters. The headwaters of the Willow Brook Southern stream were diverted into Harper’s
Brook via a tunnel about 40 years ago. The drainage from Corby is moderated by a number of flood
storage ponds.
The catchment area to the south of the Middle Nene is drained into the river by several networks of
ordinary watercourses. Some have flood storage ponds in their upper reaches.
Information about flood storage reservoirs and other major flood defences is provided in Section 3.3.4
which includes Figure 3.9 showing their locations.
Table 2.4 lists characteristics of the main tributary catchments. In Table 2.4, the percentage of runoff
contributing to flood flow is the standard percentage runoff (SPR) used by the Flood Estimation Handbook
and the descriptions are the urbanisation categories adopted in the handbook.
Table 2.4 Characteristics of tributary catchments

Kislingbury Brampton Wootton River Ise Harper’s Willow
Branch Branch Brook Brook Brook
Catchment area,
km2
105 233 76 195 71 95
Total length of
main river, km
25.6 27.3 18.0 52.8 22.7 29.8
Percentage of
rainfall contributing
to flood flow 43 35 38 35 41 43
Urbanisation Essentially Slightly Essentially Slightly Essentially Moderately

rural urbanised rural urbanised rural urbanised
2.7.3 Sensitivities of the catchment response

Using our broad-scale model, we can investigate the sensitivities of flood flow along the River Nene to the
separation of the tributary inflows and to the effect of introducing storage in different parts of the
catchment. All the analyses relate to the 1% AEP flood through Peterborough and the results are shown in
Figure 2.22. Hydrograph A in the figure is the current response of the catchment. Our selection of storage
volumes is not based upon any study of the feasibility of implementing the storage.
Timing of tributary inflows: Delaying the arrival of the hydrographs of the Middle Nene tributaries tends to
cause the tributary floods to coincide with the flood arriving from the Upper Nene. Hydrograph B shows the
increase in the flood through Peterborough were the hydrographs of the River Ise, Harper’s Brook and
Willow Brook delayed by 30 hours.
Effect of flood storage along the River Ise: Supposing the construction of controlled flood storage, similar to
the Northampton Washlands, along the River Ise could lead to the shift in the Peterborough hydrograph A
to hydrograph C, a later flood with a lower peak.
Effect of flood storage on the River Nene floodplain: There are gravel pits along the River Nene floodplain
which might in time be used to increase the storage for floodwater on the floodplain. More use of the
floodplain in this way would slow the movement of floodwater along the River Nene and reduce flood risk
to downstream urban areas such as Peterborough. Assuming more floodplain storage between the
confluences of the Harper’s Brook and the Willow Brook could lead to the shift in the Peterborough
hydrograph A to hydrograph D, again a later flood with a lower peak.
Our exploration reveals the significance of the tributary phasing and the travel times along the River Nene
to the accumulation of flood flow. The appreciation will help us later when we come to consider the need to
co-ordinate the distribution of flood storage around the catchment with urban growth and to consider the
other drivers of change to flood risk
Figure 2.21 Sensitivity of the catchment response
2.8 Environment and Heritage

2.8.1 Introduction
The natural and built environments of the River Nene catchment present opportunities and constraints for
flood risk management. In this section, we present information about the nature, location and importance of
the environmental features of the catchment. Understanding these features allows us to fully consider the
environment when we prepare flood risk management policies, making sure that we manage flood risk in a
sustainable and integrated way. Although each is presented separately, the features interact and cannot
be considered in isolation.
2.8.2 Nature conservation and biodiversity

Human activity has had a great influence on the biodiversity interest of the River Nene catchment. The
extensive clearance of ancient woodland, intensification of agricultural activities, drainage of the Fens,
modification of watercourses and associated shrinkage of their floodplains have shaped the present
landscape and its related biodiversity interest. Natural habitats of ecological value within the catchment,
such as wet meadows and floodplain grassland are now fragmented in distribution and limited in extent.
Future urban development could further isolate these areas of habitat and reduce their extent. However,
recent human activities such as gravel extraction, the building of reservoirs for public water supply and the
development of washlands for flood management have created new habitats which now support their own
biodiversity interest.
In this context, the Nene CFMP presents an opportunity to positively contribute to the aquatic and wetland
biodiversity interest of the catchment, by setting requirements for the protection of designated sites
sensitive to flooding and identifying strategic opportunities for biodiversity enhancements within and
beyond designated sites.
Designated sites
Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protection Areas (SPA) are sites of European nature
conservation importance (also known as European Sites) designated under the EU Habitats Directive
(92/43/EEC) and EU Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) respectively. Ramsar sites are internationally important
wetlands designated under the 1971 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance,
especially as waterfowl habitat.
The catchment contains three sites of international nature conservation importance as shown on Figure
2.23:
• Nene Washes (designated as a SPA, SAC and Ramsar site)

• Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits (designated as a potential SPA)
• Orton Pit (designated as a SAC)
The Nene Washes, located downstream of Peterborough, occupy a

large impounded area between the tidal River Nene and Morton’s
Leam. This site supports internationally and nationally important
numbers of birds, particularly breeding and over wintering wildfowl
and waders, together with associated habitats and species. Water
levels are controlled throughout the year to maximise the value of the
grassland and ditch habitats for wildfowl. Within this site, the timing
and management of flood waters from the River Nene is critical to
maintaining its designated nature conservation interest features.
More flooding could increase the extent of wetland habitats within the
site, although deeper and more frequent flooding, particularly during
the spring months when large numbers of breeding birds use the
Washes, could adversely affect breeding success and population numbers. Aquatic features such as
spined loach Cobitis taenia (the reason for the designation of part of the site as a SAC) are sensitive to
increased suspended sediment loads resulting from increased flooding.
The Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits comprise a network of restored gravel pits within the floodplain of the
River Nene from Northampton to the north of Thrapston. This site supports internationally and nationally
important number of birds, particularly breeding and over wintering wildfowl and waders, together with
associated habitats and species. The bird populations and associated wetland features of these gravel pits
are located within the floodplain and are sensitive to changes in water level and water quality caused by
flooding from the River Nene.
Orton Pit is designated for its extensive pond system, which is characterised by alkaline water and low
levels of nutrients, and its associated stonewort community. It is also designated for its internationally
important populations of great crested newts Triturus cristatus. The stonewort community is susceptible to
any changes in nutrient levels, and as such would be sensitive to nutrient laden floodwaters from
Stanground Lode.
Outside the catchment, the internationally important estuarine ecosystem of The Wash is immediately
adjacent to the catchment boundary and receives the waters of the River Nene. This area is managed by
The Wash Estuary Management Group and is a European marine site; designated as a SAC, SPA and
Ramsar site. The aquatic and intertidal features of this estuary are sensitive to changes in salinity, water
quality, sedimentary processes, and flood flows from the River Nene.
These four European sites, together with an additional 60 sites within the catchment, are also designated
as nationally important Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). SSSIs are the best examples of the
UK’s flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features. These sites and the five National Nature
Reserves (NNRs) within the catchment are protected nationally by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
(as amended). Figure 2.23 shows the locations of all designated nature conservation sites within the
catchment.
Many of these nationally important sites are located adjacent to the River Nene and its tributaries, or are
connected hydrologically through flood flows, tributaries and ditches or groundwater. Of these sites, 20 are
located within the floodplain of the River Nene and its tributaries and are potentially sensitive to changes in
the flooding regime and/or the impacts of flood risk management activities. These sites are listed and
described in Table 3.19 in Section 3.5.5. Although recent condition assessments by Natural England (see
details in Table 3.19) identified that several of these sites are in unfavourable condition, this is not due to
the current flooding regime. However, because many of these sites depend on seasonal flooding or an
appropriate water level management regime, changes to the current flooding regime could be harmful or
beneficial to their nature conservation interest as described in Table 3.19.
In this context, the River Nene CFMP can identify sustainable flood
risk management policies that take into account the requirements for
the future management of these sites. This will help to reduce any
adverse effects of flooding to the sites, and enable the identification
of opportunities to positively contribute to their nature conservation
interest features and objectives.
The designated sites receiving statutory protection represent only a

limited proportion of the overall land area of the catchment. Much of
the biodiversity value of the catchment is located outside these sites
and will be increasingly threatened by the predicted urban growth
within the catchment. Other areas managed for their nature conservation interest include numerous County
Wildlife Sites (CWS) and nature reserves run by the local Wildlife Trusts, the Royal Society for the
Protection of Birds (RSPB) and Natural England. Many of these are located in the River Nene catchment,
and, for example, a tidal stretch of the river within the Fens is a CWS. These sites include habitats such as
flood meadows, fenland, marsh and willow carr. We do not consider these non-designated sites further
within this CFMP, but the potential effects of actions to manage flood risk on these sites, must be
considered in any strategies or more detailed studies that follow this CFMP.
Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs)

The wider biodiversity of the catchment includes habitats and species associated with the river
environment, both within and outside nature conservation sites, which are targeted for action under the UK
BAP. The UK BAP is the UK Government’s response to the international Convention on Biological
Diversity signed in 1992. BAPs identify key ‘priority’ species and habitats that are considered to be under
threat, either on a local or national basis, and set out a plan of action to protect and enhance them. BAPs
are set at both a national and local level.
In developing this CFMP, we identified and considered the distribution of national level UK BAP priority
habitats present within the catchment, where information is available. These include: lowland meadows;
lowland grasslands; lowland heaths; fens; wet woodlands; and lowland mixed deciduous and other
woodlands. Limited available information regarding the distribution of these national BAP priority habitats
was used to inform the policy appraisal and selection process for this CFMP described in Section 6.
In addition to the national-level BAPs, specific action plans (local BAPs) are identified for species and
habitats in Northamptonshire, Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire and include, in Cambridgeshire, a 50 year
wildlife vision produced by the Biodiversity Partnership for Cambridge and Peterborough. The aquatic and
wetland species and habitats listed in the Northamptonshire, Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire local BAPs
(LBAPs) are detailed in Tables 2.5 and 2.6. These tables list those habitats and species sensitive to
flooding and/or flood risk management activities, and describe related threats and beneficial opportunities.
No information is available regarding the distribution of these features for consideration within this CFMP.
However, potential impacts on these features and opportunities to contribute to LBAP targets will need to
be considered in more detail in any subsequent strategies or more detailed studies arising from this CFMP.
Figure 2.22 Statutory Nature Conservation Sites
Table 2.5 Relevant LBAP species and associated threats and opportunities
LBAP Species Flooding-related threats Flooding-related opportunities
Vascular Plants Habitat loss Improve water quality
Grass-wrack pondweed Water pollution Bankside restoration
(Potamogeton compressus) Bank modifications
Greater water-parsnip (Sium
latifolium)
Ribbon-leaved water plantain
(Alisma gramineum)
Amphibians Water pollution Improve water quality
Great crested newt (Triturus Changes in water level Terrestrial and aquatic habitat
cristatus) Inappropriate land restoration and/or creation e.g.
management ponds
Habitat loss.
Crustacean Pollution of water courses Improve water quality
Freshwater white-clawed Habitat modification Habitat restoration
crayfish (Austropotamobius
pallipes)
Insects Loss of fen habitat Maintain or increase extent of fen
Large copper butterfly (Lycaena habitat
dispar)
Mammals Habitat loss or fragmentation Use of alternative flood defence
Otter (Lutra lutra) Water pollution measures to minimise
Water vole (Arvicola terrestris) River engineering: structures, disturbance
bank works and inappropriate Bankside restoration
soil disposal
Inappropriate river habitat
management
Birds Habitat loss (reedbeds and Reedbed restoration
Bittern (Botaurus stellaris) open water)
Molluscs Conversion of wetland to Restoration / creation of grazing
Glutinous Snail (Myxas arable farming, with marsh and ditches
glutinosa) associated water table
Shining ram’s-horn snail lowering
(Segmentina nitida)
Witham orb mussel (Sphaerium
solidum)
Table 2.6 Relevant LBAP habitats and associated threats and opportunities
LBAP Habitat Flooding-related threats Flooding-related opportunities
Cambridge LBAP
Fens Drainage and inappropriate land Maintain water levels
management practices
Reedbeds Drainage and inappropriate Restore and increase extent
hydrological management
Wet woodland Drainage and inappropriate Maintain water levels and avoid
hydrological management altering hydrological regimes
Flood prevention measures leading Increase extent
to a loss of dynamic disturbance
succession systems
Floodplain grazing Flood defence works with no Use flood defences that do not affect
marsh (includes the integrated flood management seasonal flooding
Nene Washes and
Castor Meadows)
Ditches Drainage and inappropriate Maintain water levels in ditches
hydrological management
Rivers and streams Land drainage and flood defences Increase flood plains
Inappropriate management of Restore natural processes
marginal habitat Promote appropriate management of
Disturbance marginal habitat
LBAP Habitat Flooding-related threats Flooding-related opportunities
Mineral restoration sites Preference to restore sites to other Use mineral extraction pits for flood
uses storage and creation of new habitat
Lincolnshire LBAP
Ponds, lakes and Lack of management results in Improved management
reservoirs succession and drying out Creation of new ponds and lakes as
Damage and disturbance flood storage
Springs and Flushes Ground water abstraction Maintain water table
Land drainage Monitor abstraction
Rivers, canals and Land drainage and waterways Build sympathetic flooding and
drains management navigational structures
Navigational and flood defence Maintain water levels downstream of
structures flood defences
Northamptonshire LBAP
Wet and Marshy Drainage and inappropriate Increase extent
Grassland hydrological management Maintain water levels
Chalk Rivers Physical modifications such as
flood defences.
Open and Standing Inappropriate management Manage to maintain as open water
Water practices Monitor abstraction
Abstraction
2.8.3 Historic environment

The River Nene catchment has a long history of human activity and settlement dating back to prehistoric
times. The result is a wealth of historic environment assets, particularly in the Fens, including bridges,
deserted villages and buried artefacts. Many of these are legally protected, including 191 scheduled
monuments, such as earthworks, Roman forts, bridges and castles at Fotheringhay and Northampton; 32
Registered Historic Parks and Gardens, relics of former royal and private deer parks created during
medieval times; and historic battlefields at Northampton and Naseby. The distribution of these sites is
shown on Figure 2.24. Table 3.20 in Section 3.3.4 lists those historic environment assets within the
catchment floodplain.
The catchment contains many conservation areas, and listed buildings and structures of various grades.
Conservation areas are areas of special architectural or historic interest designated by local authorities
because their character or appearance is worthy of preserving or improving.
Most historic environment assets will be vulnerable to damage from

flooding, including occasional flooding. If flooding occurs more often in
the future and is more severe, it may lead to the loss or damage of
these assets. Historic environment assets and their settings may be
vulnerable to damage resulting from flood risk management schemes,
in particular those requiring construction of defences. The alteration of
water levels may also impact upon historic resources, for example, by
altering the preservation environment of buried archaeology or causing
structural damage to historic buildings. It is an offence under the 1979
Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act to deliberately flood
land in, on or under which there is a scheduled monument.
Not all nationally important historic environment assets are designated. Other features may be known and
recorded on the Local Authority Historic Environment Record (HER). Additionally, there may be unknown
features of significant interest, particularly buried archaeological remains. These are particularly likely to
occur in deeply alluviated floodplains. Unquarried and undeveloped areas adjacent to the River Nene
within Northamptonshire are identified as Archaeological Areas of high importance.
We did not take listed buildings and data from the HER into account in the CFMP, considering the detail to
be inappropriate. There are tens of thousands of sites which are not considered, through designation
procedures, to be of national importance. However, these data will be considered, and the views of local
authority and Archaeological Trust archaeological officers sought at more detailed stages of flood risk
management planning.
2.8.4 Surface water quality and resources
In the past, we classified the water quality of watercourses using the General Quality Assessment (GQA)
scheme. Water quality in much of the catchment’s rivers is considered to be of good or very good
biological GQA status. Water quality is also assessed against a series of targets and objectives which have
been set to provide a defined level of protection for aquatic life and other uses. These River Quality
Objectives are defined as River Ecosystem targets. These targets have been met in recent years.
We now assess river water quality against the requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD)
(2000/60/EC). The WFD sets environmental objectives for rivers (and other types of water bodies such as
lakes and groundwaters) to achieve good ecological and chemical status by 2015. These objectives, and
the measures required to achieve these objectives, for the River Nene catchment are detailed in the
Anglian River Basin Management Plan (RBMP); to be published in 2009. The future requirements of the
WFD will significantly influence and inform the recommendations of and actions arising from the Nene
CFMP. In 2005, we assessed the risk of water bodies in England and Wales failing to reach these WFD
objectives. We identified that the River Nene and its tributaries were at risk of failing to meet its objectives
due to one or more of the five pressures assessed (diffuse and point source pollution,
physical/morphological alteration, water flow and regulation, and alien species). Also, the history of
physical changes to the river and its floodplain means that it is likely to be classified as a ‘heavily modified
waterbody’ with the implication that restoration to its natural morphology will not be required to achieve its
environmental objectives.
We did not consider the status of lake waterbodies classified under the WFD within the catchment, e.g. the
reservoirs in the upper catchment, in this CFMP.
There are a significant number of treated sewage discharges to the River Nene including major sewage
treatment works (STW) such as Broadholme, Great Billing, Whilton, Corby and Flag Fen. These
discharges make up most of the river flow during dry summer months. The high phosphate load contained
within these discharges was identified as having an effect on wetland sites including the Nene Washes.
The River Nene is designated as a Sensitive Area (Eutrophic) under the Urban Waste Water Treatment
Directive. Anglian Water Services (AWS) has provided phosphate removal at the major sewage treatment
works since the end of 1998 to combat the problem, and improvements have been noted. The impacts of
this point source pollution are included within the consideration of WFD requirements within this CFMP.
Most of the River Nene Catchment and surrounding area has also been designated as a Nitrate Vulnerable
Zone (NVZ) under the EU Nitrates Directive (91/676/EC) as this land drains to waters that are sensitive to
or affected by nitrates from agricultural sources. The Nitrates Directive sets out measures to prevent and
manage any adverse pollution impacts. The flooding of agricultural land can exacerbate existing problems
with the rapid dispersion and runoff of pollutants (e.g. agrochemicals and nitrate-rich fertilisers) into
receiving watercourses during floods with resulting adverse impacts on water quality. The impacts of this
diffuse pollution are included within the consideration of WFD requirements within this CFMP.
Major water demands in the catchment include surface water abstractions for public water supply, industry
and agriculture. These abstractions include significant AWS abstractions for the public water supply
reservoirs of Rutland Water and Pitsford Water. In March 2005 we produced the River Nene Catchment
Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS). This sets out the abstraction licensing strategy for managing
water resources in the River Nene catchment between 2005 and 2011. The CAMS identified that much of
the catchment is over-licensed and careful management of the limited available water resources will be
required. The demand for water supply is set to increase with the predicted population growth within the
catchment. The impacts of abstraction are included within the consideration of WFD requirements within
this CFMP.
Figure 2.23 The historic and built environment
2.8.5 Groundwater quality
The Nene CAMS (Environment Agency 2005) did not define or assess any aquifers within the Nene
catchment, reflecting the absence of significant groundwater abstraction for public water supply within the
catchment. There are, however, a number of minor aquifers that contribute to river flow and are used
locally for small scale water supply.
Some of the groundwater bodies within the catchment are classified as at risk of failing to meet their WFD
objectives, particularly along the River Nene valley downstream of Northampton where point and diffuse
source pollution are potentially significant issues.
Potential impacts on groundwater quality and resources are not considered further in this CFMP as
groundwater flooding is not considered to be a significant issue.
2.8.6 Fisheries
Fish populations along the River Nene are typical of a lowland river in eastern England, with coarse
fisheries throughout the catchment and salmonids found in faster-flowing headwaters and tributaries.
Stretches of the River Nene, Ise and Willow Brook are designated under the Freshwater Fisheries
Directive (78/659/EEC), adopted in 1978 and updated in 2006 (2006/44/EC) as listed in Table 2.7. This
Directive sets water quality standards for these river stretches.
Table 2.7 River reaches designated under the Freshwater Fisheries Directive.
River/tributary Number of designated reaches Total length covered (km)
Nene 23 123
Ise 9 44
Willow Brook 6 29
Total 32 167
Given the strategic nature of this CFMP, strategic issues relating to freshwater or tidal fisheries are not
considered in detail in this CFMP, although the water quality standards of the Freshwater Fisheries
Directive form part of the requirements of the WFD. Specific fisheries issues relating to the maintenance of
suitable bankside habitats and the prevention of barriers to migration will need to be considered in more
detail in any subsequent strategies or more detailed studies arising from this CFMP.
2.8.7 Landscape
The landscape character of the catchment varies from the undulating
ridges and vales of the upper tributaries to the wide and meandering
river valley of the middle Nene and the flat and open landscape of the
Fens. The detailed character of the catchment’s landscape has been
defined in Northamptonshire County Council’s Environmental Character
Study (ECS) and nationally by Natural England within its descriptions of
the component Character Areas. The Northamptonshire ECS maps
provide detailed assessments of current landscape, biodiversity and
historic landscape character and set out guidelines indicating how
development should work with the landscape rather than against it.
There are no statutorily designated landscapes within the catchment, although it contains distinctive
landscapes that are of particular local importance because of their special character and quality.
Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) has defined seven Special Landscape Areas which provide some
protection to these undeveloped parts of the catchment against inappropriate development.
The impacts of flooding are not considered to result in permanent large-scale landscape character
changes throughout the Nene catchment. The breaching of the flood embankments within the Fens during
a severe flood could, however, result in some significant changes. Therefore, strategic issues relating to
landscape character are not considered in this CFMP. However, local changes in landscape character and
visual amenity will need to be considered at more detailed stages of the flood risk management process.
2.8.8 Navigation
The River Nene is designated as a statutory navigation and forms a majorroute for boaters wishing to
access both the Middle Level in the Fens, and the Grand Union Canal at Northampton. Downstream of
Wisbech, the river is also used for commercial navigation with ports at Wisbech and Sutton Bridge.
The water level in the river between Northampton and the tidal limit at Dog-in-a-Doublet sluice is artificially
maintained for navigation. Along the riverbanks are boatyards, moorings and riverside facilities linked with
this navigation. The River Nene Waterways Plan sets out a programme of works to maintain and improve
the navigation infrastructure on a five yearly cycle. Following the construction of the Fens Waterways
Strategic Link, usage of this navigation is set to increase greatly. This on-going project aims to create a
new navigation network in the Fens to connect up the existing navigations, and will link to the River Nene
at Stanground in Peterborough via a newly constructed channel. In association with other waterway
regeneration schemes, the Link will create a new circular waterway through the Fens for recreation,
tourism and the environment, linking the cathedral cities of Lincoln, Peterborough and Ely.
The need to maintain a functioning navigation along the River Nene, and the opportunities for the
enhancement of this and linked navigations are recognised in this CFMP, although the impacts of flooding
are not considered to result in permanent large-scale disruption. Therefore, strategic issues relating to this
navigation are not considered in detail in this CFMP. Local disruption to navigation will be considered in
more detail in any subsequent strategies or more detailed studies arising from this CFMP.
2.8.9 Tourism and recreation

The catchment also provides opportunities for recreational activities such as angling, walking and cycling,
amongst others. The River Nene, its tributaries and adjacent lakes formed from gravel extraction, are a
valuable angling source, offering a wide range of opportunities for fishermen. Activities such as walking
and cycling in the River Nene Valley are very popular and increasing in demand. There are a number of
County Paths and Long Distance Paths, such as the Nene Way which follows the course of the river for
110km between Northampton and the Wash. There are numerous caravan parks and other facilities
located along the river to provide for visitors to the area and users of the navigation.
Areas of washland and flood meadow within the catchment provide recreational resources for local
communities. For example, the 100 hectares Northampton Washlands is heavily used by local people for
shooting, fishing, walking and birdwatching.
The demand for recreation facilities is set to increase with population growth in the catchment. The
development of significant urban areas under the Government’s Sustainable Communities programme will
bring an increased demand, but also a means to deliver new recreational opportunities with the
requirement to provide Green Infrastructure. The River Nene Regional Park is a flagship project, run by
Northamptonshire County Council, in recognition of the opportunities arising from the Milton Keynes South
Midlands strategy. The River Nene Regional Park initiative is not a ‘park’ in the traditional sense, but is a
unique, forward thinking network of environmental, sport and cultural projects. The Regional Park will be
the central mode by which green space provision will be achieved and will be vital to the Government’s
vision of the ‘liveability’ of the area.
At a strategic level, the River Nene CFMP recognises the need to maintain recreational amenities and
activities within the River Nene corridor, including the potential for temporary disruption of these activities
during flooding, and the opportunities for the development of new river-based amenities presented by the
planned urban growth within the catchment. We considered these aspects as high-level constraints and
opportunities during the development of the River Nene CFMP.
2.9 Communities and the local economy

2.9.1 Population
Urban centres can expose people and property to flooding, giving
rise to flood risk. The local economy influences urban development
and thus leads to changes in flood risk. The development of
communities and local economies are accordingly considerations for
the planning of future flood risk management.
The River Nene catchment has a population of about 750,000, mainly

centred on major urban settlements such as Peterborough,
Northampton, Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough. The remaining population lives in smaller settlements
dispersed throughout the largely rural catchment. The populations of main urban centres and local
authorities are shown in Figures 2.26 and 2.27.
The size and location of towns influences flood risk. Increasing urbanisation creates more impermeable
areas which gives rise to more, and faster, surface runoff. The location of new development is significant in
influencing the distribution of flood risk around the catchment. Further development in areas already prone
to flooding will make the risk of future flooding increase if measures are not taken to protect both new and
existing urban areas.
The age structure of the population of the main urban areas within the River Nene catchment is shown in
Figure 2.27. For each urban area 30-39 year olds form a greater proportion of the population than the other
age groups. The less than 20 years and greater than 60 year olds age groups form the smallest proportion
of the population. In each urban area detailed in Figure 2.27 at least 87% of the population is of working
age.
The population of the catchment is expected to increase at a greater rate than the national average
because of the planned growth associated with the Government’s Sustainable Communities plan and the
Milton Keynes and South Midlands (MKSM) Sub-Regional Strategy. In Northamptonshire, Northampton,
Corby, Wellingborough and Kettering are already experiencing significant housing and employment
growth. The Strategy proposes approximately 101,000 dwellings, most of which will be directed towards
the larger urban areas.
Peterborough is the northerly extent of the Government’s London-Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough

(LSCP) growth area and the regeneration of the city centre and the wider rejuvenation and development of
Peterborough could see major additional inward investment of some £750m over the next 15 years. As
part of this regeneration and development, proposals for significant housing growth will be addressed.
2.9.2 Economy
The local economy supports a high rate of employment and a generally affluent population. Part of the
affluence is attributable to the close working and rapid communication links with London, the South East,
East of England and the West Midlands. However, there are degrees of deprivation to be found in rural
areas where access to key services can be difficult for less mobile groups of people.
The economies of Northampton, Wellingborough and Kettering have

been based on the traditional industries of footwear and engineering but
these are now diversifying. The service sector is now the most important
employer in Northampton although manufacturing still contributes to the
economy. In and around Wellingborough and Kettering, there are now
wholesale, storage and distribution industries. The steel industry which
was for a long time important to the economy of Corby has declined but
remains a major employer.
Peterborough has the fastest growing economy in the region of the East
of England, largely driven by the location in Peterborough of high
technology industries and large retail distributors. In this city there has been an increase of 12% in the
number of companies registered between 1999 and 2005. The Local Area Labour Force Survey (LALFS)
for Peterborough shows that the main industries of employment are public administration, education and
health, distribution, hotels and restaurants, banking, finance and insurance, and manufacturing. In the East
of England Plan 17,400 net additional jobs are planned for the period between 2001 and 2021.
In Northamptonshire, approximately 81,000 new jobs are proposed in the MKSM Sub-Regional Strategy.
Most of this growth will be directed towards the larger urban areas, including Northampton, Corby,
Kettering, Wellingborough and Daventry.
The predominantly rural economy of the Fens has long included a strong agricultural and industrial
tradition. The area has the most productive farmland in the country and some industries, such as food
processing, packaging and transport, are directly related to the agricultural production of the area.
However, the fenlands are developing a diverse economy and other industries such as brick making,
printing and engineering have established their skill base and infrastructure over many years.
2.9.3 Transport
The CFMP area contains regionally important transport links, most notably the M1, A1(M), A45, A14 and
A47 roads and key national rail links, including the East Coast mainline, Midland mainline and the West
Coast mainline which provide direct train links to London from Northampton, Peterborough,
Wellingborough and Kettering. The M1 connects Northampton with London to the south and Sheffield to
the north and beyond. There is also a network of locally significant major roads, particularly the A1(M) and
the A47 which link Peterborough with the north, south and east, and other A-roads linking the main urban
areas within the catchment.
Within the main urban areas of the catchment much of the existing road infrastructure experiences
widespread congestion during peak periods as many of the existing roads and junctions were not designed
to accommodate the levels of traffic demand currently experienced. Furthermore, the growth proposed in
the MKSM Sub-Regional Strategy is likely to lead to traffic growth rates of up to 50% in the period to 2021.
There are implications for transport which led Northamptonshire County Council to develop a Transport
Strategy for Growth (TSfG) which sets out the integrated transport framework to support housing
growth and the associated economic growth and regeneration. The transport proposals are set within
existing and emerging economic, environmental and social strategic frameworks necessary to ensure the
growth is sustainable.
2.10 Summary
A summary of the information presented in Chapter 2 in the form of key catchment and flooding
characteristics is given in Table 2.8.
Figure 2.24 Population of the main urban areas
Figure 2.25 Population by local authority
Figure 2.26 Age structure of inhabitants
Table 2.8 Summary of key catchment and flooding characteristics
Principal sub-catchments
Catchment Impact on
characteristics flooding Wootton Kislingbury Brampton
River Ise Harper’s Brook Willow Brook
Brook Branch Branch
A large
catchment
2 2 2 2 2 2
Area area indicates 90km 222km 245km 213km 74km 96km
a large river
flow
Altitude from Altitude from Altitude from
Steeper
130mAODdropping 120mAODdropping 120mAODdropping
slopes cause
Altitude from steeply to 90mOD, Altitude from Altitude from steeply to steeply to
a faster
Topography 115mAOD to then the gradient 115mAODto 140mAODto 45mAOD, then the 60mAOD, then the
response to
60mAOD becomes a little 55mAOD 35mAOD gradient becomes gradient becomes
rainfall and
gentler down to a little gentler a little gentler
shorter travel
55mAOD down to 25mAOD down to 15mAOD
times
Porous and Limestones, Largely Largely
Limestones,
Solid permeable mudstones limestones limestones Largely limestones
mudstones and Limestones
geology rock and drift and and and and mudstones
Geology
sandstones
deposits sandstones sandstones sandstones
slowresponse Freely
Freely draining
Drift to rainfall Freely Freely draining till
glacial sand and Freely draining till Freely draining till
geology draining till draining till with some
gravel
alluvium
Sedimentation
reduces
channel
capacity, There is no specific data/ information available about the geomorphology of the River Nene CFMP area.
erosion can However, physical processes are likely to allow sediment to be transported along watercourses in the steeper
Geomorphology
affect parts of the sub-catchments where velocities are higher, whereas deposition will occur where the channel
defences or gradient is shallower and velocities are lower.
change
course of
channel
Soils with high Loams and Naturally wet Mix of free Mix of free
Largely wet loams
clay content clays which loams and clays draining soils draining soils Clays which
Soils and clays with
can increase impede which impede and those that and those that impede drainage
impeded drainage
the speed and drainage drainage are naturally are naturally
Principal sub-catchments
Catchment Impact on
characteristics flooding Wootton Kislingbury Brampton
River Ise Harper’s Brook Willow Brook
Brook Branch Branch
quantity of wet wet
surface runoff
Vegetation In each of the sub-catchments land use is mixed, but predominantly arable. The south edge of the catchment on
can reduce the upper ground is mostly arable with small areas of broadleaved mixed woodland and set-a-side grass. The
Land-use and
the quantity area between Kettering and Corby on the Harpers Brook tributary has a higher density of woodland. To the west
management
and speed of of Northampton there are larger areas of improved grassland with the arable land.
surface runoff
Main river length 18km 25.6km 27.3km 52.8km 22.7km 29.8km
Annual rainfall 600-650mm 600-750mm 550-700mm 550-700mm 550-650mm 550-650mm
Hydrology
Catchment Response Approximately Approximately 20 Approximately Approximately Approximately 15 Approximately 20
response times 20 hours hours 20 hours 30 hours hours hours
Environment and Heritage 5 SSSIs 6 SSSIs 3 SSSIs 7 SSSIs 6 SSSIs 7 SSSIs

The River Nene catchment has a population of about 750,000, mainly centred on major urban settlements such
as Peterborough, Northampton, Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough. The remaining population lives in smaller
Communities and the local economy
settlements dispersed throughout the largely rural catchment. The size and location of towns influences flood risk.
Increasing urbanisation creates more impermeable areas which gives rise to more, and fastersurface runoff.
3 Current flood risks and
management
In this section, we explain the main causes and effects of flooding across the River Nene catchment, how
we manage these flood risks and how we fund our flood risk management activities. We use our
understanding of current flood risks and how they might change (Section 4) to select policies for our future
management of flood risk (Section 6).
3.1 Introduction
Flooding arises from an event such as storm rainfall and a surge tide. Water from these sources cannot
be safely carried away by normal routes but instead find new pathways overland leading to the flooding of
vulnerable receptors – people, property and the environment.
In explaining the flooding in the River Nene catchment, we examine the sources and pathways of flooding
and investigate its impact on the receptors in the catchment.
Minor floods occur fairly frequently, major floods only rarely. We use probability as a measure of how
minor, or major, a flood is and combine the probability with the consequence of the flood – its impact on
receptors – to determine flood risk. We manage flood risk by aiming to influence the probability of flooding
and to reduce the consequence of flooding. Our flood risk management in the River Nene catchment takes
many forms; for example, we have built flood storage reservoirs and flood defences to reduce flooding and
have introduced flood warning to reduce the consequences of flooding.
3.2 History of flooding

Records of flooding can reveal much about how a catchment responds
to rainfall and the receptors which are vulnerable to flooding from
different sources, intensities, frequencies and pathways. We use data
from flood records in our investigation of flood risk and the factors that
contribute to flooding such as heavy rainfall, tidal surges or blockages
of surface water drainage systems. Some details of historic flooding
within the River Nene catchment dating from 1847 are shown in Table
3.1. The historic record over the last 160 years shows that there have
been many heavy storms that have caused flooding in the River Nene
catchment at all times of the year, although with the older written
accounts of flooding it has often been difficult to assess which parts of
the River Nene catchment were affected. Historical records are mostly sketchy and incomplete, but are
useful for providing background information. More recent gauged records and flooding databases are more
valuable for estimating flood frequency and severity at different locations. Anglian Water has advised that
its register of surface water flooding incidents lists a number of properties at risk of sewer flooding within
Corby, Kettering, Northampton, Peterborough and Wellingborough.
Extensive, catchment-wide fluvial floods tend to occur in the River Nene catchment when heavy and
prolonged rainfall occurs and falls on an already saturated catchment. Sites along the River Nene from
Northampton to Peterborough have been affected by fluvial flooding on a number of occasions, while
surface water, sewer and groundwater flooding has been more localised.
Flood risk in the River Nene catchment was brought to public attention particularly during the severe river
flooding of April 1998 which led to fatalities in Northampton and caused much distress and damage along
the River Nene as far downstream as Peterborough. River flooding is also of concern along the
Kislingbury Branch and River Ise. There have been incidents of surface water flooding which is of
particular concern in Corby. Although it is well managed by the maintenance of embankments and tidal
structures, the risk of tidal flooding is of concern because of its potentially severe consequences.
A range of flood incidents are listed in Table 3.1. The table has a qualitative indication of the severity of the
flood and a measure of its probability where known. The flood of April 1998 was clearly a major flood; more
frequent, localised, floods are minor. More detail about some of the major and moderate floods is given
below.
River Nene from Northampton to Peterborough – March 1947

A combination of heavy rain on a frozen catchment caused high surface runoff rates which, followed by a
rapid snowmelt, resulted in flooding in the River Nene catchment from Northampton to Peterborough
(Figure 3.1). This large scale flood caused flooding to properties and damage to bridges downstream of
Northampton. However, this flood showed the effectiveness of the fenland drainage. The Fens were hardly
affected apart from extensive flooding around Crowland, in the River Nene catchment, which was caused
by the failure of part of the River Welland embankment.
Tidal flooding – January 1978

A breach in sea defences together with waves and strong winds caused flooding of the coastal areas.
Surface water flooding at Wisbech and Sutton Bridge – May 1978

High tides have contributed to flooding on several occasions by impeding the drainage of surface water
from towns along the tidal River Nene. Figure 3.2 shows the flooding of Wisbech and Sutton Bridge which
occurred for this reason in May 1978.
River Nene and smaller tributaries west of Corby,

Kettering and Wellingborough – June 1981
In June 1981 widespread flooding was caused by heavy
rainfall on a saturated catchment. Flooding was most
severe in the smaller catchments due to the intense nature
of the storm which only affected parts of the River Nene
catchment.
Sewer flooding in Peterborough – May 1986

Surcharging sewers and pumping stations caused the
flooding of 293 properties.
Flooding in Kettering, River Nene and River Ise – April 1998

Nene House car park (June 2007) Large areas along the River Nene and River Ise were
flooded due to heavy rainfall. Flooding affected similar
areas to the 1947 flood, but also further upstream of Peterborough and downstream of Northampton
(Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4). This incident had severe consequences with fatalities in Northampton and
extensive damage to property in several towns along the River Nene. The flooding in Northampton was
exacerbated by the failure of the pumps which discharge
surface water drainage from some areas. The severity of the
flood is very uncertain but might have been in excess of
0.7% AEP.
Slade Brook, Wootton Brook and River Ise – June 2007

The localised flooding that occurred in June 2007 is well
documented. Intense rainfall (over 65mm in three hours at
one gauge) amounting to a 1 in 15 year rainfall, fell on the
already saturated Wootton Brook catchment and the
predominantly urbanised Slade Brook catchment leading to
rapid surface runoff. In Slade Brook, river levels rose by
over two metres in one hour. The intensity of the rainfall
meant that drainage systems were completely
overwhelmed, flooding 29 properties in Kettering along the Flooding in Northampton,
Slade Brook and eight along the Wootton Brook. High flows Wootton Brook (June 2007)
from Slade Brook also caused levels to rise on the River Ise
flooding an industrial building and roads. There were no defence failures that occurred during this flood.
Figure 3.5 shows where surface water, sewer and groundwater flooding has occurred in the River Nene
catchment. It also shows the incidents of tidally-induced surface water flooding in the Lower Nene. We
obtained the information from the Flooded Properties Database and Strategic Flood Risk Assessments
(SFRAs). These types of flood incidents are minor in scale but can occur with high frequencies and are
likely to be under-represented in the available records.
There is a long history of human activity in the catchment of the River

Nene. Fenland drainage dates back to Roman times, but since the major
improvements in the 17th century, which culminated in the construction of
the Old Bedford river, there has been a gradual evolution towards the
current situation where efficient drainage works maintain intensive and
highly productive agriculture. Drainage has caused the peat to shrink
lowering the level of the land and increasing the dependence upon
pumped drainage to protect fields and property from flooding. As the land
shrank, the rivers draining to The Wash were embanked. The sinking of
the land since about 1850 is revealed, as shown in Figure 3.6, by the
column which was sunk into the Holme Fen on Whittlesey Mere. Although
within the Fens, Whittlesey Mere lies outside the boundary of the River
Nene CFMP. The figure shows that the lowering of the land has nearly
stopped.
As the Fens became more productive, the navigation and maintenance of the channels of the River Nene
upstream of the Fens were neglected and became more prone to flooding. When the River Nene
Catchment Board (RNCB) took up its responsibilities following the Land Drainage Act 1930, the RNCB
carried out work on the rivers aimed at ‘… getting rid of floodwater in the shortest possible time … and so
saving the area from serious damage.’ The work was extensive and included:
• Flood relief schemes to protect the borough of Northampton. The work is understood to comprise
the construction of the defences and a flood relief channel through Northampton.
• In the Middle Nene

o The rebuilding of locks and controlling water levels; ‘A considerable number of new cuts…
to straighten the river… All along its length, the river was excavated and improved
considerably… bridges rebuilt… banks repaired’.
• In the Lower Nene

o setting a tidal limit:
The tidal sluice at Dog-in-a-Doublet was constructed in 1936.
o flood protection for Peterborough:
Nene Washes developed. During high tide, floodwater in the River Nene through
Peterborough is diverted into the Nene Washes where it is detained until the tide ebbs,
allowing its release into the tidal river channel. The diversion protects Peterborough from
the raised water levels that would occur if a flood were to coincide with a high tide.
o along the River Nene to Wisbech:
This part of the tidal reach was embanked and the conveyance of floodwater through
Wisbech improved.
• Land drainage set up by the Land Drainage Act 1930 was vital to increase wartime food production
and continued to expand into the early 1970s.
The RNCB did not have the powers to tackle the problem of river pollution, although it expressed its
concerns.
The RNCB responded to the urgent priorities of the time, but the work it did may have had little effect in
improving the environment of the river and its floodplain. The RNCB left a legacy of flood defences
designed to contain flood flow and pass flood risk downstream. Through Northampton, the RNCB
constructed flood defences which separated the river from its floodplain and created a sense of security,
leading to the encroachment of development onto the floodplain. The RNCB’s legacy of flood defences
meant that the current authorities were committed to reinforcing this method of defending Northampton
and, in doing so, they continued to pass flood risk downstream. The RNCB’s successors realised that a
different way of managing flood risk was required and began a new approach to flood risk management
with the construction of the Northampton Washlands in the 1970s.
Table 3.1 Historic flooding
Date Source Scale River affected Locations Consequences
Autumn/Winter Fluvial Major River Nene Northampton to Peterborough Flooded 10,000 acres of land.
1847 Stopped all trains between
Northampton and Peterborough for
three days
18 Oct 1939 Fluvial Moderate River Nene Northampton Extensive flooding of property in
Northampton (St James’ End and Far
Cotton).
February 1940 Fluvial; Moderate River Nene Northampton
High tide Wellingborough
High water levels downstream of
Oundle
November Fluvial Moderate River Nene Weedon Flooding of property in Weedon
1946 Northampton
March 1947 Fluvial Major River Nene Sites along the River Nene: Properties flooded in Weedon
Harpers Brook Northampton to Peterborough Riverside properties were flooded in
River Ise Sites on Harpers Brook: Sudborough Northampton, but few if any were
Swanspool Brook to confluence with River Nene dwellings
Harrowden Brook Wellingborough – flooding from the Three bridges downstream of
Other minor watercourses River Nene, Ise and Swanspool Northampton were damaged
Brook The railway station, Victoria Mills, the
tannery and a few houses were flooded
Property flooded in Peterborough
Winter Fluvial Minor River Nene (seven flood
1950/51 peaks with sustained high
discharge)
November High tide; Minor River Nene
1954 tidal surge
and fluvial
June and July Fluvial Moderate River Nene
1958 River Ise
October 1960 Fluvial and Moderate River Nene Flooding from the Forty foot drain Localised flooding
high tide and other drains in the lower reaches
of the River Nene
1973 Surface Minor River Ise Geddington
Water
November Fluvial Minor River Nene Shallow inundation of the floodplain. No
1974 major flooding reported
March 1975 Fluvial Minor River Nene
January 1978 Tidal Major River Nene Breach in the Wash primary sea
defence at Ingleborough on the right
bank, approximately 5km downstream of
Wisbech. The tide reached near to the 1
in 200 year level and was accompanied
by strong winds and wave action
May 1978 Fluvial; high Moderate River Nene Wisbech
tide Sutton Bridge
March/April Fluvial Minor River Nene High river levels maintained for several
1979 River Ise weeks
1980 Surface Minor River Ise and Slade Brook Geddington
Water
June 1981 Fluvial and Moderate/ Major River Nene and Slade Corby Flooding to property and roads.
surface Brook Brigstock Problems were most severe in the
water Smaller tributaries west of Kettering smaller catchments due to the intense
Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough nature of the storm
Wellingborough Yardley Hastings
1981 Fluvial and Minor River Ise and Slade Brook Geddington
Surface
Water
1981 Fluvial and Moderate/ Major Swanspool Brook Wilby Severe flooding in the houses and
Surface gardens
Water
December Fluvial Minor River Nene Agricultural land flooded, but few roads
1981/January and no properties were flooded
1982
July 1982 Fluvial Minor Corby Flooding was generally limited to the
main valley water courses with
secondary flooding occurring in isolated
local low lying spots
April/ May Fluvial Minor River Nene Navigation on River Nene closed. Flood
1983 storage areas put to effective use to
keep flows within bank other than at
isolated low spots
May 1986 Fluvial and Moderate River Nene Peterborough Roads flooded in Peterborough and
Sewer Oundle Oundle
293 properties flooded in Peterborough
from surcharging of sewers and
pumping stations
September Fluvial Moderate River Nene and tributaries Weedon Severe flooding of property was
1992 Kislingbury experienced in several villages, the
Clipston worst of which was: Weedon (12),
Geddington Kislingbury (1), Clipston (3), Geddington
Nether Heyford (1), Nether Heyford (1), Southwick (9)
Southwick
1992 Surface River Ise Clipston -
water
1992 Surface Minor Titchmarsh -
Water
March 1998 Surface Minor Oundle
Water
April 1998 Fluvial Major River Nene Sites along the River Nene from Fatalities in Northampton and extensive
River Ise Newnham to near Cogenhoe, from damage to property in Northampton and
Probability of near Earls Barton to Guyhirn, and in damage to several other towns along
order of 1% AEP Wisbech and Sutton Bridge the River Nene. Total of approximately
Sites along the River Ise from 2800 properties affected, nearly 90%
downstream of Rushton (at A6003) residential and about 90% in
to Wellingborough Northampton. About 340 caravans
Pitsford Water to River Nene flooded, mostly in Billing Aquadrome.
1998 Surface Minor Titchmarsh
Water
November Fluvial Minor Harpers Brook Brigstock Properties flooded: Brigstock (1);
2000 River Ise Everdon Everdon (1); Geddington (3),
Geddington Sudborough (3)
Sudborough
July 2002 Blocked Minor - Thrapston One property flooded
culvert
October 2002 Surface Minor - Long Buckby Two properties flooded
water;
drainage
October 2002 Blocked Minor Rushden
Culvert
January 2003 Fluvial Minor River Nene Barnwell One property flooded at Barnwell Mill
January 2003 Blocked Minor - Chelveston One property flooded
culvert
January 2003 Fluvial Minor/ Moderate River Nene Cogenhoe Properties flooded: Cogenhoe (1); Earls
Earls Barton Barton (2); Elton (1), Islip (2),
Elton Northampton (1); Oundle (1); Perio (1),
Islip Ringstead (1)
Northampton
Oundle
Perio
Ringstead
August 2004 Surface Minor Oundle
Water
August 2004 Groundwater Minor - Glapthorn Properties flooded: Glapthorn (6);
Oundle Oundle (10)
August 2004 Sewer Minor - Kettering Five Properties flooded
June 2007 Fluvial Minor Slade Brook Kettering 29 commercial properties flooded and
Wootton Brook one domestic property from Slade
River Ise Brook. 8 domestic properties in
Collingtree Park from Wootton Brook.
Figure 3.1 Extent of fluvial flooding in March 1947
Figure 3.2 Extent of flooding in May 1978
Figure 3.3 Extent of fluvial flooding in April 1998
Figure 3.4 Photographs of the April 1998 flood
Figure 3.5 Location of surface water, sewer and groundwater flood incidents
(Source: Properties Flooded Database and SFRAs)
The authorities which succeeded the RNCB have been in charge for a similar amount of time (see Figure
3.6). Each has tended to take on increased responsibility.
Recently, there have been other changes:
• The growth of urban development: Development has tended to be concentrated around the towns
of Corby, Northampton, Daventry, Kettering, Wellingborough, Wisbech and Peterborough. Figure
3.7 shows an example of this development - the startling growth of Northampton over the last 150
years.
• Mineral extraction: Gravels were extracted from the floodplain for the construction industry in the
1930s although there are still some deposits which could be extracted. Clay pits serving brickworks
around Peterborough are now worked out and largely filled in.
Using flood storage, such as the Northampton Washlands, as a method of managing flood risk has
provided opportunities for environmental enhancement as would the reinstatement of the natural floodplain
storage which was lost with the early river works. In short, we have begun to see what is now regarded as
a sustainable approach to flood risk management.
3.3 Current Flood Risk management

3.3.1 Introduction
We take a leading role in managing flood risk within England and Wales. We do this by working with a
number of organisations, in particular the emergency services, the Highways Agency and Local Authorities
as well as the general public.
We have often responded to fluvial flooding by building defences.

These are physical structures such as embankments or flood walls
that are used to protect an area from flooding. Figure 3.8 illustrates
the extents of the 1.0% and the 0.1% AEP floods assuming the
absence of any defences. The figure is based upon our Flood Map
which is available to view on our website (www.environment-
agency.gov.uk/flood). Figures 3.9(a) and (b) illustrate the flood map
for selected locations around the catchment. In the upper part of the
River Nene catchment (Northampton and upstream), the flood zones
were derived with a high standard of modelling and also show areas
benefiting from defences. Elsewhere, the flood zones were derived
by a simpler method.
Maintaining defences to the required standard entails significant expenditure. In our drive towards
sustainable flood risk management, we are now moving from protecting property with flood defences to
less obtrusive measures which reduce flood risks by working with natural processes. These sustainable
measures for flood risk management include detaining floodwater on floodplains, improving our
maintenance practices (e.g. removing vegetation from river channels and culverts), flood forecasting,
widening our flood warning network and raising public awareness through flood risk mapping and
campaigns. We also manage flood risk by seeking to prevent inappropriate development within the
floodplain which can cause or worsen flooding. When development cannot be avoided, we advise on a
design which is resilient to flooding and can reduce risk to life and damages when flooding does occur.
Within the Environment Agency we have four key teams involved in the management of flood risk. The
teams are listed below and their activities explained in Sections 3.3.2 – 3.3.5:
• Flood risk mapping and data management

• Development control and planning liaison
• Asset system management and operations delivery
• Flood forecasting and flood incident management
Figure 3.6 A timeline of changes to the River Nene
Figure 3.7 The growth of Northampton
Defra has overall responsibility for flood risk management in England. It funds most of our flood risk
management activities, which we carry out through Regional Flood Defence Committees (RFDCs). They
are responsible for:
• recommending the amount of money that local authorities contribute to flood defence works;
• preparing an annual programme of flood defence maintenance and improvement works, deciding
what funding we need and obtaining approval from Defra;
• providing and operating flood warning systems.
Defra allocates grant in aid in a single block each year to fund our
flood risk management work. The RFDC sends in a bid to Defra each
year, and it bases the grant in aid allocation on this. On 1 April 2006,
Defra gave us responsibility for approving and paying for flood risk
management projects, including those that local authorities and IDBs
carry out. Defra grant in aid money cannot be carried forward from
one financial year to the next.
We also receive funding through a local authority levy. This is money raised as an element of council tax
that can be used to fund local schemes. This money can be carried forward from one financial year to the
next. In some areas, IDBs also pay for the benefit of our flood risk management work on rivers adjacent to
their catchments.
The other main source of flood risk management funding is the General Drainage Charge (GDC). This is a
statutory levy raised under the Water Resources Act 1991. It is paid by the occupiers of agricultural land
exceeding a certain acreage but is not levied on land within an Internal Drainage District. and the charge is
a contribution towards the cost of our flood risk management works. These works include maintaining and
improving main rivers, certain sea defences and tidal embankments protecting low-lying areas. GDC
represents only a small proportion of flood risk management expenditure.
3.3.2 Flood Risk Mapping and Data Management

The data and information to support flood risk management activities are obtained, managed and supplied
by our Flood Risk Mapping and Data Management teams.
We use Flood Zone Maps (www.environment-agency.gov.uk/flood) to aid our understanding of flood risk in
the River Nene catchment. These maps are based on a ‘bare earth’ model (with buildings, flood defences,
trees etc removed) which uses Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) terrain data to determine the flood extents.
The Flood Zone Map (Figure 3.8) provides an indication of the likelihood and potential extent of flooding
resulting from two different scenarios:
• Zone 3 – up to 1% AEP of fluvial flooding and 0.5% AEP of tidal flooding

• Zone 2 – up to 0.1% AEP of fluvial or tidal flooding
We are improving the information provided in our flood risk mapping by using a strategic model of the River
Nene catchment. £1.4m has been invested in the construction and calibration of the model. The
calibration of the model is proven on several historic floods and we up-date the model periodically to
ensure that it represents the current state of the catchment.
The River Nene catchment strategic model has since been used in the investment of a further £500,000 to
undertake Flood Map Improvements which focus on improving level and flow data and the mapping of
main river flood extents with and without defences and the identification of areas benefitting from defences
(ABD)
We are developing our National Flood Risk Assessment (NaFRA) mapping. NaFRA produces an
assessment of the likelihood of flooding based upon an assessment of risk factors, such as the
performance of defences.
We are also developing our Flood Hazard Mapping that will look at depth, direction and velocity of flows at
key high risk locations.
Figure 3.8 Catchment-wide flood map
(Source: Environment Agency flood map)
Figure 3.9 (a) Flood extents through Kislingbury, Peterborough, Thrapston and Northampton
without defences
Figure 3.9 (b) Flood extents through Kettering, Oundle and Wellingborough without defences
The National Flood and Coastal Defence Database project (NFCDD) provides a single place to find
detailed information on flood and coastal defences to help make better-informed decisions on defence
needs and measures. The objectives are to:
• provide data on flood and coastal defence needs;

• help prioritise investment;
• inform management decisions;
• measure the achievement of policy aim.
The database contains data provided by, and makes information available to, our Government sponsors,
local authorities, internal drainage boards and other interested public sector organisations. Linking these
organisations with one common source of information means policy development can be more consistent.
This database is a single and easily accessible source of all data relating to flood and coastal defences.
3.3.3 Development Control and Planning Liaison

Development in the floodplain increases the probability and consequence of flooding by locating more
people, properties and the economy at risk of flooding. Development can also increase risks to others and
compromise future options for reducing risks and adapting to climate change. The easiest way of reducing
these risks is to avoid development in flood risk areas.
In development control, we contribute to and influence the local planning authorities (LPAs) land use and
spatial policies. These policies seek to appraise, manage and reduce flood risk within the LPA boundary
and the wider catchment in line with current planning guidance, for example PPS25. Through these
policies we seek to:
• prevent inappropriate development in the floodplain or in areas at high risk of flooding

• develop and implement strategic measures to mitigate and reduce flood risk to people and
property
• reduce flood risk (where appropriate) to existing property and assets
• promote sustainable development practices
We support the planning system by providing technical information and advice on flood risk for proposed
new developments in line with PPS25. We work in partnership with LPAs and their consultants to facilitate
the production of Strategic Flood Risk Assessments (SFRAs) to PPS25 standard. We also advise
developers on the scope and detail of flood risk assessments to determine the level of flood risk for new
and existing developments. The policies in the CFMP will feed into the planning system at a regional and
local level by informing the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) and Local Development Framework (LDF)
documents.
SFRAs should be undertaken by all local authorities to guide planning decisions, allowing them to
implement the planning policy relating to development and flood risk (PPS25). Regional Flood Risk
Assessments (RFRAs) have been undertaken by some regional assemblies.
SFRAs assist in the identification of areas that are protected by flood defences and also identify rapid
inundation zones, those areas where the rapid inundation of flood waters means that there is no time to
evacuate the area safely. An SFRA should enable a local planning authority to undertake the ‘sequential
test’, as set out in PPS25, to prioritise development in areas with acceptable flood risk. Therefore, it is
important that all local authorities complete a SFRA and use the methods described in PPS25 to allocate
land for development to avoid increasing flood risk to either new or existing development.
The current status of RFRAs and SFRAs within the catchment is detailed in Table 3.2.
The way we currently respond to planning applications and local authority land use spatial planning
policies is very reactive. We need a more strategic approach to avoiding floodplain development, reduce
risks and counter the effects of climate change. This is most likely to happen where the key issues
identified in the CFMP are tackled in partnership with LPAs and the planning process. The CFMP
highlights opportunities for risk reduction, for example, by bringing areas of passive floodplain back into
active use. In this way, land use plans can respond to the acknowledged issues and complement our
activities.
We work with local authorities to make sure that new developments incorporate sustainable drainage
systems (SUDS) wherever possible. These surface water systems consider water quantity, quality and
amenity issues. SUDS are more sustainable than conventional drainage methods because they:
• manage surface runoff, reduce the impact of urbanisation on flooding;

• protect or enhance water quality;
• are sympathetic to the environmental setting and the needs of the local community;
• provide a habitat for wildlife in urban watercourses;
• encourage natural groundwater recharge (where appropriate).
SUDS work by:
• dealing with surface runoff close to where the rain falls;

• managing potential pollution at its source now and in the future;
• protecting water resources from point pollution (such as accidental spills) and diffuse sources.
Table 3.2 RFRA and SFRA status

Proportion of
authority area
Authority RFRA/ SFRA status Date complete/due
within the
catchment (%)
Regional
East of England 13% In progress January 2009
East Midlands 56% Complete July 2006
District
Bedford 5% Complete June 2006
Corby 66% Stage 2 complete -
Daventry 66% Complete -
East Northamptonshire 82% Stage 2 complete Sept 2006
Fenland 34% Complete Mar 2005
Huntingdonshire 5% Complete 2004
Kettering 77% Stage 2 complete May 2005
King's Lynn and West Norfolk 2% Complete Aug 2005
Northamptonshire Borough 100% Stage 2 complete 2004
Peterborough 61% Complete 2005 (updated 2008)
South Holland 34% Complete Dec 2002
South Northamptonshire 25% In progress -
Wellingborough 99% Stage 2 complete May 2005
Most types of new development will be supported by a flood risk assessment. These show how
development will manage principal and residual risks, and identify opportunities to reduce flood risks. Land
drainage consent and enforcement of the land drainage byelaws are other tools to prevent development
restricting the performance of, or access to, flood defence systems.
Our flood defence consent is required for any works in, over or under a designated main river or any works
within the byelaw distance of a main river or sea defence. In Anglian region, the byelaw distance for main
river is 9m measured horizontally from the top of the batter of a bank or from the landward toe of a raised
defence.
Our consent is also required for any works within an ordinary watercourse, which falls outside the
jurisdiction of an IDB. This includes all works, whether temporary or permanent, which affect the flow of an
ordinary watercourse.
The River Nene catchment has come under significant development pressure for a variety of reasons
including growth areas, infill development and other local development initiatives. Long term management
of flood risk may be compromised if suitable policies for the sustainable
management of flood risk are not adopted and implemented in the
catchment.
We provide consistent support for sustainable development in the

growth areas of Milton Keynes and South Midlands (MKSM) and
London-Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough (LSCP). We work with Local
Delivery Vehicles to provide our early and consistent input into the
following:
• Co-ordinating liaison and communications activities with

delivery partners;
• Promoting sustainability practices and timely environmental infrastructure proposals;
• Establishing objectives and key environmental requirements for the growth areas;
• Steering and providing input to major infrastructure related projects and strategies, such as Water
Cycle Strategies.
The key development areas in the catchment are as follows:
1. Daventry
Approximately 12,000 new dwellings are forecast for up to 2016; the majority of this development will
be on greenfield sites. In addition, infill and brownfield development continue to occur on a regular
basis.
2. Villages between Daventry and Northampton

There are several villages located along the Kislingbury Arm of the River Nene downstream of
Daventry. These include Dodford, Weedon, Nether Heyford, Flore and Kislingbury. No major
development is proposed for these villages; infill and minor brownfield proposals are typical for these
locations.
3. Northampton
The county town has been targeted for significant growth and development as a result of a number
of local and sub-regional development initiatives. Proposed growth is in the region of 30,000 new
dwellings for up to the 2016 horizon. Infill and brownfield development are a regular feature of
planning applications especially in the older parts of the town. Other development initiatives include
the Northampton Joint Initiative sites; Northampton waterfront; south west district including Sixfields,
Upton; Swan Valley, Collingtree and Wootton Strategic Development Area.
4. Wellingborough
Significant development is proposed in this area through both local and sub-regional development
initiatives. Approximately 13,000 dwellings are planned for up to the 2016 horizon and a large
proportion of this (approximately 90%) will be located in and around the town itself.
5. Kettering
This town is also affected by the sub-regional spatial development strategy (MKSM) and
approximately 13,000 new dwellings are proposed for up to the 2021 horizon under the North
Northants Core Spatial Strategy (NNCSS). Neighbouring towns are also affected due to urban
extensions e.g. Rothwell North, Desborough urban extension and Burton Latimer urban extension. In
addition, there is ongoing infill and town centre refurbishment and re-development in these areas.
6. Corby
Significant development is proposed for this town as an outcome of local and sub-regional strategies.
There are also various regeneration proposals, for example Catlyst Corby. Total dwellings proposed
are approximately 16,800 for the 2021 design horizon under the NNCSS.
7. East Northants
General development is proposed for the towns of Thrapston, Oundle; approximately 9,400 dwellings
are proposed for up to 2021 based on the NNCSS. Future development is limited to infill, brownfield
and/or small urban extensions.
8. Peterborough
The council has ambitious development plans for the city. Hamptons (500 hectares); Great Haddon
(700 hectares) both these developments drain to Stanground Lode. There are development
proposals for the South Bank and town centre area which are covered in the Water Cycle Strategy.
Proposed industrial development to the north west impacts brooks/main river in that area.
9. Wisbech
Infill and re-development proposals characterise development in this town. It is not affected by any
growth or sub-regional strategies. Re-development is proposed on the waterfront and we have
approved a scheme to upgrade flood defences in this area.
3.3.4 Asset System Management and Operations Delivery

We monitor the condition of existing main river flood defences to ensure that they are in a suitable
condition to protect people, their property and the environment from flooding. Where new defences are
needed, we identify and promote the associated design and construction work.
We also exercise a supervisory and enforcement role, using powers available under the Water Resources
Act 1991 (WRA), the Land Drainage Act 1991 (LDA) and our Land Drainage and Sea Defence Byelaws
(Appendix A). This includes taking appropriate action where offences have been committed, such as where
• the condition of a watercourse is such that the flow of water is impeded

• unauthorised structures have been erected in, over, under or adjacent to watercourses.
Under the LDA, Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs) have similar powers to us to take appropriate action
regarding watercourses (but excluding main rivers) in their drainage districts. There are seven IDBs
operating within the River Nene catchment. Table 3.3 details the number of pumping stations that each
IDB is responsible for maintaining within the Nene catchment. None of the IDBs are responsible for
maintaining any raised embankments. Also under the LDA, local authorities have powers in relation to non-
main river watercourses in their administrative area, although at a reduced scope compared to those
available to ourselves and IDBs.
Table 3.3 Numbers of IDB pumping stations

IDB Pumping stations
Feldale 1
Hundred of Wisbech 0
Nene Washland
0
Commissioners
North Level 12
Waldersey 2
Wingland 1
South Holland 9
Table 3.4 provides details of the major defences in the catchment and shows the overall standard or
protection (where available) offered by these defences. Figure 3.10 shows the location of these defences.
Although entire urban areas are highlighted in Table 3.4, this does not necessarily indicate that the whole
community is defended. Defended areas are still identified as flood risk areas. Providing flood defences
reduces, but does not entirely eliminate flood risk. Defences might be overtopped by an extreme flood, or
might fail when under stress. In addition, in areas where flood defence schemes have been implemented,
the standard of protection might have fallen since they were designed, due to changes in the method used
for estimating flood magnitudes.
Following serious flooding that occurred at Easter 1998 and autumn 2000, the Government reviewed how
flood risk is managed in England and Wales. As a result, a number of ordinary (non-main river)
watercourses were identified as “critical” in terms of flood risk and it was subsequently decided that we
should manage them. Between November 2004 and April 2006, these critical ordinary watercourses
(COWs) were transferred from local authority or IDB jurisdiction to us through the enmainment process.
Eighteen COWs were identified in the River Nene catchment, in Northampton, Nether Heyford, Corby,
Kettering, Wellingborough, Rushden, Raunds and Peterborough. Consequently, we can now use our
powers to operate and regulate these watercourses to minimise flood risk. In the period since enmainment
we have carried out pioneering maintenance to improve the condition of the former COWs and
commenced work on pre-feasibility studies, surveys and other asset improvements.
Table 3.4 shows that along the River Nene the defences are generally designed to protect against a 0.5%
AEP, although there are some exceptions (e.g. at Weedon and the Northampton washlands). The standard
of protection provided for the River Nene tributaries varies ranging from 0.5% to 10% AEP flood.
Table 3.4 Major flood defences

Standard of Date
River Community Defence type Responsibility
protection constructed
River Nene Wisbech Tidal floodwalls 0.5% EA
and gates
River Nene Agricultural fen – Tidal flood banks 0.5% EA
Wisbech to Dog
in a Doublet
River Nene Peterborough Whittlesey (River 0.5% EA
Nene) Washes
FSR
River Nene Thrapston Flood walls and 0.5% 2005 EA
banks
River Nene Northampton Northampton 12% for EA
Washlands FSR Billing
Aquadrome
River Nene Northampton Flood walls and 0.5% 2002 EA/local
banks authority/
private
River Nene Northampton Duston FSR EA/EP
River Nene Kislingbury Flood walls and 0.5% 2003 EA
banks, including
one demountable
wall section
River Nene Weedon Weedon FSR 2% 2003 EA
Morton’s Fen villages - Whittlesey (River EA
Leam Eldernell, Nene) Washes
Eastrea, Guyhirn FSR
Thorpe Peterborough Thorpe Drain EA
Meadows/ storage area
Drain
Barnwell Barnwell Barnwell FSR 1% EA
Brook
Willow Weldon Weldon FSR 2% EA
Brook
Willow Corby Gretton Brook 10% EA
Brook FSR
Willow Corby Crucible Road Corby BC
Brook FSR
Harper’s Brigstock, Great Oakley Approx 4% EA
Brook Sudborough FSR
Grendon Yardley Hastings Yardley Hasting North: approx EA
Brook FSRs (North, 2%
East, West) East & West:
approx 4%
Grendon Denton Denton FSR Approx 4%
Brook
Grendon Bozeat Bozeat FSR 2% EA
Brook
Swanspool Wilby Wilby FSR 2% EA
Brook
Harrowden Wellingborough Harrowden FSR 2% EA
Standard of Date
River Community Defence type Responsibility
protection constructed
Brook
Slade Kettering Kettering Leisure 2% Kettering BC
Brook Village FSR
Ise Geddington Flood Relief 1% 2000 EA
Channel
Ise Clipston Clipston FSR EA
Billing Northampton Flood detention Northampton
Brook ponds BC
Hardingsto Northampton Hardingstone Approx 2% EA
ne Dyke FSR
Dallington Northampton Flood wall and 0.5% 2002 EA
Brook banks
Dallington Northampton Dallington FSR 2% EA
Brook
Figure 3.10 Main flood defences and flood storage areas
The main flood defences in the catchment are as follows:
Northampton flood defence scheme
Northampton suffered extensive flooding in the

April 1998 floods. Following this event, a flood
defence scheme was carried out in the town to
improve the level of flood protection to a 0.5%
standard. The scheme cost £6.8 million and
involved channel works to improve the capacity of
the river, together with works to raise and improve
flood walls and embankments.
Victoria Park, Northampton
Weedon flood alleviation scheme
The village of Weedon Bec has a long history of

flooding from the River Nene, the most significant
events occurring during March 1947, September
1992 and April 1998. A flood storage area was built
upstream of the village near to Dodford Mill in
2002/3. A dam was constructed using clay sourced
from adjacent fields. The flood storage area holds
floodwater during periods of high flow and releases
it in a controlled manner. A large Hydro-Brake flow
control device controls flow through the dam to help
minimise the upstream storage required. The
scheme, which cost £1.2 million, has improved the
level of flood protection to a 2% standard.
Hydro-Brake and dam
Kislingbury flood alleviation scheme
The village of Kislingbury has a long history of

flooding from the River Nene, the most significant
events occurring during March 1947, September
1992 and April 1998. A flood alleviation scheme
was carried out in 2003, to improve the level of
flood protection to a 0.5% standard. The scheme
cost £1.6 million and involved the construction of
flood walls and flood banks and improvement
works to the bridge in the village.
Constructing the floodwalls
Northampton washlands
Northampton Washlands is an on-line flood water

storage reservoir provided in the 1970s to cope
with increased surface water run-off from the
planned expansion of Northampton up to 1981.
Situated on the River Nene between Weston Favell
Lock and Bedford Road Sluice, it covers an area of
some 97 hectares and is contained within clay
cored earth embankments. It provides a storage
volume of 2.4 million m3, and is categorised as a
large raised reservoir falling under the Reservoirs
Act 1975.
Aerial view of Northampton Washlands It is managed to maintain the flood risk to Billing
Aquadrome, situated downstream of the
Washlands site, at the current standard of 12%.
Cogenhoe, Barton and Hardwater Mills also
benefit.
Geddington flood alleviation scheme
The village of Geddington has a history of flooding

from the River Ise. Following the 1998 floods, a
flood alleviation scheme was completed in June
2001 to raise the level of flood protection to a 1%
standard. A bypass channel and flood relief berm
were constructed downstream of the Old Bridge in
the village, at a cost of £120,000. The scheme
allows floodwater to flow away from the vicinity of
the Old Bridge rather than ‘back up’ through the
bridge causing flooding.
Bypass channel
Thrapston and Islip flood alleviation scheme
Following the flooding in Thrapston and Islip in April

1998, a flood alleviation scheme was constructed
to protect Thrapston and Islip up to a 0.5%
standard. The scheme consists of two earth
embankments, one on each side of the river
upstream of Thrapston (Nine Arches) Bridge. The
eastern embankment links a disused railway
embankment to high ground at the edge of the
floodplain, thereby blocking off the upstream end of
Thrapston Dyke and utilising the embankment as
part of the town’s flood defences. Thrapston Dyke,
a backwater channel of the River Nene, flows
through the town and rejoins the river downstream
Flood wall adjacent to Thrapston Bridge of the town. There are also short lengths of
floodwall, raised parapet walls and kerbs on
Thrapston Bridge and demountable defences for
two houses downstream of the bridge.
Nene Washes
An area of land between Peterborough and Ring’s

End some 20km long by 2km wide. Flood flow in
the River Nene cannot discharge through the Dog
in a Doublet Sluice (tidal limit) when the flood
coincides with high tide – this is known as ‘tide
lock’. When tide lock occurs flood flow is released
into the Morton’s Leam via Stanground Sluice. As
flood flow continues, the Morton’s Leam gradually
floods onto the Nene Washes. In severe flooding,
the Nene Washes are completely inundated. As the
tide ebbs, the Washes drain into the River Nene via
Ring’s End Sluice at Guyhirn.
Nene Washes
Wisbech tidal flood walls and gates

The town of Wisbech is protected from tidal
flooding to a standard of 0.5%, by a system of flood
defences mainly comprising flood walls and flood
gates. The walls are either of concrete or steel
sheet pile construction and, in some cases, are
clad with brickwork. Some of the walls are set
within the busy port area of the town, where access
to the quayside and related properties and
businesses is required. Access is provided via a
number of flood gates, vehicular and pedestrian,
built into the walls. Under normal circumstances the
flood gates are left open, but when the predicted
tidal water level reaches a trigger level, they are
closed by our staff.
Flood walls
Work currently being undertaken on new defence schemes is detailed below:
• Between Northampton and Kislingbury, English Partnerships is constructing the Upton Flood
Attenuation Area (UFAA) adjacent to the River Nene. The UFAA is designed to provide flood
attenuation for developments on the outskirts of Northampton, as well as some “brownfield”
development sites within the town. It provides additional storage to compensate for the loss of
floodplain due to the new Cross-Valley Link Road currently under construction. It has also been
designed to further reduce flood water levels in the River Nene through Northampton. The scheme is
being built in three phases, with the first phase having been completed in 2007. Phase 2 is in
progress, with Phase 3 programmed to start in 2008.
• Topographical survey and a ground investigation has been carried out around Wansford as part of
work to assess the feasibility of providing flood defences to properties south-east of the River Nene.
Channel improvement works at Wansford Bridge are to be carried out in 2008 to improve the flow of
water through the flood arches at Wansford Bridge. Land levels will be reduced by removing silt that
has been deposited over the years together with heaps of material that have been placed in the
floodplain at some point in the past.
• The Wisbech Flood Risk Management (FRM) Scheme, the need for which was identified in the Tidal
River Nene Strategy, received approval from Defra in early 2007. The preferred option from the study
was to sustain the standard of protection against tidal flooding to the indicative standard of 0.5%. This
will be achieved by capital maintenance work to the existing flood walls, which comprise mainly of
steel sheet piling and brick-clad concrete walls. The work will include raising the defences to ensure
that the standard of protection is effective over the design life of the scheme. Scour protection will be
necessary to protect the toe of the steel sheet piling against exposure through erosion of the river
bed. Detailed design is in progress, with construction due to commence in mid-2008.
• The Thorpe Meadows watercourse is an enmained ex COW for which we undertook a feasibility
study and identified a potential scheme to protect several properties. We are currently undertaking a
project appraisal and expect a scheme design to be ready for construction next financial year.
• The part of Hogs Dyke through Raunds is also an enmained ex COW. Two properties were flooded in
March 2008. We are looking at installing telemetry on the watercourse and will be carrying out a pre-
feasibility study to see if there is a potential scheme for the town, particularly as there is significant
development planned for this area.
For management purposes, the main river network is divided into a number of flood risk management
systems. Each system comprises a group of assets that work together to control and direct river flows
within a specific river reach. Risk in each system is determined by assessing the likelihood and potential
impact of flooding occurring in that system. High risk assets are inspected every 6-12 months; medium risk
assets every 18-24 months; and low risk assets every 36-60 months. In the River Nene catchment we
spend approximately £40,000 per annum on asset inspections.
Using the data gathered from the asset inspections, we report our findings internally, through our
performance management system, and externally to Defra, through High Level Targets. We report the
length of raised defences and number or structures falling in each of five condition bands, where Band 1 is
“very good” and Band 5 is “very poor”.
The risk associated with the failure of each management system is defined by the impact of flooding; high,
medium or low, against the potential impact to people from system failure; low, medium, high and very
high. The combination of these two factors to produce an overall risk is shown in Table 3.5.
Figure 3.11 shows the flood risk management systems in the River Nene catchment. The high risk systems
are generally centred on developed urban areas, principally Wisbech, Sutton Bridge, Corby, Thrapston,
Kettering, Raunds, Rushden, Wellingborough, Northampton and Peterborough. Because of the high value
of agricultural land in the fens, the systems in these areas are also designated as high risk.
Table 3.5 Consequence of failure of a flood risk management system
Potential impact on people from system failure

Low Medium High Very High
Negligible risk to life. eg Time likely to be available Little warning of flooding Little warning of failure.
small/medium for evacuation in event of to residential or Possible loss of life/major
watercourses, defences failure, eg significant commercial property, eg injury. Sudden impact to
protecting agricultural watercourses without raised defences. vulnerable groups,
land, small FSRs. raised defences, Eg. Very significant
diversion channels, raised defences or large
medium FSRs, etc FSRs. Very significant
Impact of flooding
structures
LOW
Mixed/low value LOW LOW LOW MEDIUM
agricultural land
MEDIUM
SSSIs, high
grade LOW MEDIUM MEDIUM HIGH
agricultural land,
some properties
HIGH
Habitats
Regulation sites HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH
or urban areas
Figure 3.11 Flood risk management systems
In the River Nene catchment there are 217 km of main river defences and 703 main river
flood defence structures. The great majority of these are operated and maintained by us.
Table 3.6 indicates the ownership and condition of defences and structures by responsibility.
Table 3.6 Flood defences and structures

% in condition band
1 5
Organisation Asset type Quantity
very 2 3 4 very
good poor
Environment Defences 136 km 1.1 33.7 62.3 2.9
Agency Structures 441 no 4.4 69.6 24 1.8 0.2
Local authority Defences 11.9 km 2.3 82.6 13.9 1.2
Structures 108 no 1.8 50 15.7 31.6 0.9
IDB Defences 0.1 km 100
Structures 15 no 93.3 6.7
Private Defences 69 km 1.3 36.4 61.6 0.5 0.2
Structures 139 no 4.3 63.3 28.8 3.6
We have an annual budget of approximately £1,640,000 (based on 2007/08 figures) for asset
management within the River Nene catchment. However, this figure does not include
expenditure by the Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs). Figure 3.12(a) shows our spend is
mainly on the Middle Nene (50%), with least on the Wootton Brook and the Brampton Branch
of the River Nene. Spending is primarily on channel maintenance, tree work, weed control,
grass cutting and structure maintenance (Figure 3.12(b)).
(a)

(b)
Figure 3.12 Spending as a percentage of total by (a) watercourse and (b) activity
Figure 3.13 shows the expenditure on maintenance activities along each watercourse. On all
watercourses excluding the Middle and Lower Nene, the greatest expenditure is on tree work.
For the Middle Nene the greatest expenditure is on mechanical weed control, whereas for the
Lower Nene we spend most money on channel maintenance.
Figure 3.13 Expenditure on maintenance activities in sub-catchments
Figure 3.14 shows expenditure by properties defended from the 1% AEP flood. In the figure,
the Lower Nene includes Peterborough and the area of fenland lying within the boundary of
the River Nene CFMP and the Middle Nene includes the defended area of Central

Northampton. We make the assumption that all the expenditure contributes to the defence of
properties.
6,000
5,711
ASM expenditure per property protected in the 1% AEP flood event
5,000
4,095
4,000
3,000
2,334
2,000
1,566
1,212
1,000
299
25 37
-
Brampton Branch Harpers Brook Kislingbury Lower Nene Middle Nene River Ise and Willow Brook Wootton Brook
Branch Slade Brook
Figure 3.14 Spending on operating and maintaining flood defences and structures per
defended property
The current issues associated with management of the flood defence system in the
catchment are:
• Wisbech floodgates: ensuring that the gates are maintained to be always serviceable
for operation in a flood, and the closure of the gates at the appropriate time during a
flood.
• Carlsberg Sluice, Northampton: This is a third party structure that is not owned or
maintained or operated by us. Failure to close this sluice in a flood would potentially
cause flooding to Northampton.
General issues, which are relevant over the longer term are:
• The ongoing significant cost of flood risk management in general, which is likely to
increase as climate change effects increase.
• The importance of ongoing regular maintenance to ensure that existing assets remain
serviceable over their design life so that existing standards of protection are
maintained.
• Achieving the necessary maintenance regime without damaging or compromising
conservation interests.
3.3.5 Flood forecasting and flood incident management

Flood incident management is about preparing for, managing and reporting on flood incidents.
Using our flood warning service and with the efforts of many organisations we can plan,
prepare, manage and respond to floods. It is a fact of nature that rivers will occasionally flood,
and while we aim to lessen the risk, we will never be able to eliminate it completely. Warning
people about impending flooding is therefore one of our most important flood management
responsibilities. It allows people time to prepare; thus minimising damage to property and,
ultimately, reducing the risk of loss of life.
Flood forecasting
Flood Forecasting is part of Flood Risk Management (FRM) within the Environment Agency
and its core role is to provide a forecasting service to the area Flood Incident Management

(FIM) teams. Flood Forecasting requires monitoring daily situations using real time data and
forecast model data to provide accurate and timely warnings to the public. Information is
continually gathered from the Met Office and radar information can be viewed at all times. The
network of river level, flow and rainfall sites used for flood forecasting within the River Nene
catchment are shown in Figure 3.15.
Flood Forecasting has recently moved towards the sole

use of the National Flood Forecasting System (NFFS)
where developed models are integrated. NFFS forms a
part of the National Flood Forecasting Modelling System
Strategy (NFFMSS) established by our Head Office Flood
Risk Management team. We are adopting NFFS as a
standard flood forecasting system. The system comprises
a generic ‘shell’ which provides the user interface and
data handling tool into which the Region’s flood
forecasting models are input. Now re-named as the
Anglian Flood Forecasting System (AFFS) it receives real
time data from the Regional Telemetry System (SWANTEL) and our radar system, HYRAD,
and will use this data to generate forecasts of levels and flows in the Region’s rivers. The
system has also been developed to receive data from the Storm Tide Forecast Service
(STFS) to produce real time forecasts for specified locations along the coast. In autumn 2007,
AFFS was adopted as the primary tool for providing coastal flood forecasts in the region. In
the future, once we have gained confidence in the models within AFFS we will be able to
generate forecasts of levels and flows at specified locations within the Region’s river network
with longer lead times.
Flood forecasting is very important to the delivery of an accurate and timely service and
together we strive to improve this in every way possible, as detailed below:
• Improvements are required to the network of gauging stations as detailed in Table

3.7. We already have the budget in place to address most of the improvements
required.
• With the introduction of the Anglian Flood Forecasting System (AFFS) and the
models integrated within it we are advancing technology. Lead times for flood warning
across the catchment is approximately two hours. Lead times can be extended further
where forecast rainfall from HYRAD is used as an input to the forecasting models.
Increasing lead times ensures that the public and our professional partners have
more time to respond to warnings and take effective action. With increased
confidence in models/tools, we will be able to provide warnings with longer lead times
(forecasting capability has been proven to enable a six hour lead time).
• We currently use action based triggers which, when crossed, instigate an action such
as increasing the frequency of running the forecast models and using the level to
level correlations listed in Table 3.9. Current action based triggers are listed in Table
3.8. We will shortly develop our procedures to include result triggers that will indicate
the onset of flooding. We will be able to use this information to help reduce the
number of false warnings and therefore improve the service we provide.
• We have recently carried out a series of updates to the River Nene Flood Forecasting
model. These updates will be integrated into AFFS before March 2008.
• South Bridge is one of the gauges used in the River Nene Flood Forecasting model,
but we are aware that this gauge is inherently unstable and can cause the transfer of
errors in the upper model to downstream locations.

Figure 3.15 Network of rainfall and river gauges

Table 3.7 Improvements required to the network of gauging stations
Planned /
New/ Ex
Location Reasoning Priority Budgeted
Improvement COW?
for:
Middle Nene New River Nearest Upstream High No £25,000
(Thrapston/Oundle) Level Gauge Gauge 35km 2008/09
(N'Hampton
Washlands)
Upton Mill Fixing/Relocati Upton Mill no longer High No £50,000
on of Gauge functioning at high 2008/09
levels - gauge and
becomes bypassed £200,000
2009/10
Collingtree Park New River No Telemetry High/ No
Level Gauge upstream of Med
Collingtree Park, new
housing
developments may
exacerbate flooding
problems for
Collingtree Park
Residents
Flood warning
There are many different sources and types of flood risk and flooding including river, coastal,
estuarine, sewer, surface water, overland flow, burst water mains, etc. We do not and cannot
provide a Flood Warning Service for flooding from sewers, road drainage, overland flow from
heavy rain, or blockages, due to the uncertain nature of these floods. The flood warnings we
provide only apply to flooding from rivers and the sea.
Our current procedures for recommending warnings are by action triggers for individual river
level and flow sites as detailed in Table 3.8. Once a rain gauge and/or a river level gauge
reaches pre-set levels, catchment conditions are assessed using: soil moisture deficit data,
rainfall information from radar, and monitoring of telemetry for rainfall and river responses.
When catchment conditions suggest that a flood is expected, a flood warning will be issued to
the respective Flood Warning Area. Figure 3.16 shows the extent of our flood watch areas
and the parts of these areas in which we are currently able to provide flood warning. The
areas we are able to provide flood warning coverage for are detailed in Table 3.8.
Upon reaching an action trigger there is a built in two hour lead time before the onset of
flooding. This lead time is important as it allows people to take remedial action in the face of
an oncoming flood (such as lifting carpets, moving furniture, or in extreme cases, evacuating
a building). When a flood is developing we have further tools to aid with forecasting for
downstream sites, these consist of level to level correlations using the sites detailed in Table
3.9. However we will only recommend a warning once an action trigger has been met. For
fast responding sites we may include dual combination action triggers that may consist of a
river level and a rainfall amount at a nearby raingauge. Warnings for the tidal flood warning
areas are based on astronomical tidal levels together with surge levels and any developed
adjustments.

Table 3.8 Summary of trigger sites and flood warning areas
Primary Percentage
Number of
Trigger sites Flood Warning Area Dissemination uptake of
Properties
method FWD
Dodford River Nene in Kislingbury and at 65 FWD 66.15%
Bugbrooke Mill
Dodford River Nene and Tributaries from 364 FWD 53.85%
Brixworth Daventry to Kislingbury
Weedon Beck River Nene in Weedon 91 FWD and Sirens 65.93%
Weedon FSR
Victoria Park River Nene and tributaries in 3,078 7.31%
Towcester Northampton, including low-lying
Road Bridge areas adjacent to the river
South Bridge
River Nene and tributaries in the St 1,284 9.89%
James area of Northampton
River Nene and tributaries in the Far 1,183 3.13%
Cotton Area of Northampton
River Nene and tributaries in the 10 20.00%
Tanner Street area of Northampton
River Nene and tributaries in the St 32 0.00%
Peters Way and Victoria Promenade
areas of Northampton
River Nene and tributaries in the 244 22.54%
Dallington Brook area of Northampton
Washlands River Nene and tributaries from 617 FWD 25.12%
Southbridge Billing to Thrapston
River Nene at Billing Aquadrome 15 FWD 13.33%
Wootton Wootton Brook in the Collingtree Park 44 FWD 72.73%
Brook Area of Northampton
Barford Bridge River Ise and tributaries from Clipston 934 FWD 23.77%
to Wellingborough
Slade Brook Slade Brook in the Venture Park area 177 FWD 33.90%
of Kettering
Harrowden River Nene tributaries between 163 FWD 49.08%
Harpers Brook Thrapston and the Dog-in-a-Doublet
sluice in Peterborough
Willow Brook Willow Brook in Weldon and Kings 27 FWD 74.07%
FSR Cliffe
Harpers Brook Harpers Brook in Sudborough 18 FWD 61.11%
Islip River Nene between Thrapston and 130 FWD 51.54%
Lilford Castor including low lying mill
properties
River Nene between Thrapston and 2,659 FWD 7.75%
the Dog-in-a-Doublet sluice to the
east of Peterborough
Wansford North Bank Road alongside the River 4 FWD
Dog in a Nene, east of Peterborough and west 25.00%
Doublet of Dog-in-a-Doublet Sluice
Little Bridge B1040 Thorney to Whittlesey Road to 2 FWD
0.00%
the South of the River Nene
Wansford River Nene between Wansford and 2,414 FWD
the Dog-in-a-Doublet sluice to the 5.01%
east of Peterborough
Little Bridge River Nene in the Yarwell Headland 178 FWD
45.51%
and West Delph areas of Whittlesey
West Tidal Nene including Sutton Bridge 9,780 Sirens and Media
N/A
Lighthouse and Wisbech
Wash frontage from Frampton to 12,448 Sirens and Media
Admiralty Point and the Tidal Nene N/A
up to Dog in a Doublet
Note: FWD = Floodline Warnings Direct service

Figure 3.16 Flood watch and flood warning areas

Table 3.9 Sites used for level to level correlations
Upstream Site Downstream Site
Dodford Kislingbury Mill
Dodford Upton Mill
Kislingbury Upton Mill
Upton Mill Towcester Road
Wootton Park Towcester Road
Duston Mill Towcester Road
Towcester Road South Bridge
Victoria Park South Bridge
Duston Mill South Bridge
Upton Mill South Bridge
Wootton Park South Bridge
St Andrews Mill South Bridge
South Bridge Nunn Mills
Nunn Mills Northampton Washlands
Northampton Washlands Billing Lock
Horton Wootton Park
Wootton Park Duston Mill
Upton Mill Duston Mill
Brixworth Geldharts Mill
Geldharts Mill St Andrews Mill
Brixworth St Andrews Mill
St Andrews Mill Victoria Park
Islip Lilford
Harpers Brook Lilford
Lilford Wansford
Wansford Little Bridge
Weldon FSR (Willow Brook) Wansford
Barford Bridge (Ise) Harrowden (Ise)
Slade Brook (Ise) Harrowden (Ise)
If flooding is forecast, warnings are issued using a set of four easily recognisable codes. Each
of the four codes indicates the level of danger associated with the warning. The codes are not
always used in sequence; for example in the case of a flash flood, a Severe Flood Warning
may be issued immediately, with no other warning code preceding it. Table 3.10 describes the
four codes.

Table 3.10 Flood warning codes
Code Description
This means “flooding of low-lying land and roads is
expected”. We issue flood watches for large areas of
floodplain that have similar flooding characteristics.
They are not specific to individual areas and can cover
several communities and locations of flooding.
There is always a potential that parts of the floodplain

may suffer from more serious flooding than initially
indicated in the flood watch. Where feasible we will
issue a flood warning for these locations, but it is not
always possible to forecast when and where such
flooding will occur.
In these circumstances we will record further details

within our warning messages we send to you and on
Floodline to explain why we have issued the Flood
Watch and, if possible, a description of where we expect
flooding to occur.
This means that “Flooding of homes and businesses is
expected”. We mainly target Flood Warnings at specific
communities that are at risk from flooding. Some Flood
Warnings may apply to stretches of coast and river, but
they are only relevant to property and road flooding
along the stretch.
This means, “Severe flooding is expected. There is
extreme danger to life and property”. Again we mainly
issue these warnings to specific communities that are at
risk of severe flooding. Though some warnings may
apply to stretches of the coast and river.
We also use an “All Clear” message to indicate receding
floodwaters and a settled outlook.
We use a range of methods to disseminate flood warnings within the River Nene catchment.
These are:
• Media and other information sources - we have the following arrangements in place
to disseminate flood warnings:
o Local radio
o Television (including Ceefax page 419 and Teletext page 159)
o Webpage: www.environment-agency.gov,uk/floodline
o Floodline: 0845 988 1188
• Sirens – The use of sirens is considered in both a Flood Warning and Severe Flood
Warning situation. The decision to sound Sirens is taken after consultation between
the Environment Agency, local authority and the police. We have sirens in the
following locations:
o Long Sutton and Sutton Bridge have three Flood Warning Sirens, owned by
Lincolnshire County Council Emergency Planning Unit.
o Wisbech has two Flood Warning Sirens, owned by the Environment Agency.
o Northampton has five Flood Warning Sirens, owned by the Environment
Agency.
• Loudhailers - Loudhailer routes have been established to supplement Flood Warning
Sirens in Northampton, Sutton Bridge and Wisbech.
• Floodline Warnings Direct (FWD) – Flood warnings are sent by Phone, Fax, Email,
SMS text or Pager to all registered customers in those areas covered by our FWD
service.

• Flood Wardens – We have identified Flood Wardens across the Northern Area, who
disseminate flood warnings to the local community in these areas.
Of the 25 Flood Warning Areas in the River Nene catchment, 23 use FWD as the primary
dissemination method, with two using sirens and the media (Table 3.8). Nationally we aim to
achieve at least 50% Service uptake of our FWD service in areas where this service is
offered. In the River Nene catchment, of the 23 flood warning areas that use FWD, 16 have
registration less than 50% as detailed in Table 3.8. Further work is required in areas with poor
registration. This work will consist of recruitment mailings to encourage members of the public
to register to FWD and local Public Awareness Campaigns.
Figure 3.16 identifies those areas for which we are currently able to provide a flood warning
service. Of these areas, we are currently unable to offer a FWD service to the following areas:
• Tidal Nene including Sutton Bridge and Wisbech

• Wash frontage from Frampton to Admiraility Point and the tidal Nene up to Dog-in-a-
Doublet
In these two areas our primary dissemination method is sirens and the media (Table 3.8). We
are currently unable to offer a FWD service to an
appropriate level in these locations, due to recent
changes in the Flood Warning Service Limit, from the
Indicative Flood Map (IFM) to the Extreme Flood
Outline (EFO). Current flood warning areas cover the
IFM, not the EFO. A five year programme is in place to
migrate Northern Area’s flood warning coverage from
the IFM to the EFO. This programme of work will
ensure that all watercourses are covered with an
appropriate Flood Warning Service.
In conjunction with this five year programme to migrate Northern Area’s flood warning
coverage from the IFM to the EFO a plan is in place to migrate the current reach based
warning system to a community based warning system. Until this work is carried out for the
River Nene Catchment the Flood Incident Management Team will be unable to provide data
on Flood Risk. Our current plans are to have a community based warning system for the
River Nene Catchment by the end of March 2009.
3.4 Sources and probability of flooding

3.4.1 Introduction
The sources of flooding that we consider in the CFMP are:
• River flooding – severe rainfall or under-sized or blocked culverts or bridges raise

water levels in rivers and ditches and can cause floodwater to spread out across the
floodplain. Defences can be overtopped.
• Tidal flooding – this type of flooding occurs within rivers and estuaries when sea
levels are elevated during high tides combined with a storm surge. We did not
consider the impact of waves within this CFMP, nor the flooding of coastal frontages.
• Surface water flooding – this is caused by water collecting on or flowing over the
surface before soaking into the ground or entering a watercourse. This type of
flooding can occur throughout the catchment and is caused by certain topographical,
hydrological and soil conditions.
• Sewer flooding - flooding from urban sewer systems is dependent on several factors,
including network capacity, system blockages and water levels at their outlets. These
factors are local in scale and can not be addressed wholly within this CFMP.
• Groundwater flooding - this type of flooding occurs when groundwater levels rise to
the ground surface.
Flood risk is a combination of two components: the probability of a particular flood and the
consequence of the flood. Flood risk management can reduce the probability of occurrence
through the management of land, river systems and flood defences. Management can also

reduce the impact through influencing development in flood risk areas, implementing flood
warning systems, and developing flood emergency response procedures.
The probability of a flood occurring is presented in this CFMP as the percentage chance of a
flood of a certain magnitude being exceeded in any one year. For example, for river flooding,
we refer to the 1% AEP which means that there is a 1% chance that a river flood of that
magnitude will be exceeded in any one year. We use the 0.5% AEP for tidal flooding, and
0.1% AEP from either source to represent an extreme flood.
Recent studies have indicated that a significant proportion of flood-related insurance claims
within the United Kingdom are from non-fluvial flooding. For example, some 42% of the
flooding in autumn 2000 was from sources other than rivers or the sea. These included
surface water flooding, groundwater rising above ground level, and highway and drainage
systems.
Figure 3.17 shows the main sources of flooding in the catchment based on the numbers of
incidents recorded rather than their severity. The figure shows that fluvial flooding was the
cause of 54% of flooding incidents and, in combination with other sources of flooding, has
contributed to 68% of incidents. Surface runoff caused or was a factor in 16% of incidents.
The record of incidents is not comprehensive, particularly for surface water, sewer and
ground water flooding as often these types of incidents are not recorded. However, over
recent years the importance of recording all types of flooding incidents has become
increasingly recognised so it is likely that over the coming years we will be able to gain a
greater appreciation of the frequency and impact of the various sources of flooding.
Figure 3.17 Sources of flooding incidents

(Source: Properties Flooded Database and SFRA reports)

3.4.2 River flooding
Studies and records of flooding provide us with valuable information on river flooding.
However, changes in the catchment over time and the need to understand the effects flooding
has on society, the economy and the environment mean that we had to carry out further
analyses as part of the CFMP.
We developed a broad-scale hydraulic model which allows us to simulate the flooding of the
main rivers for selected probabilities of flooding caused by storm rainfall. The model
represents current conditions and includes the main flood defence schemes so we get a
realistic understanding of flooding. The model yields flood outlines, flood depths and flood
velocities for the main rivers.
The model covers the River Nene, the main tributaries and the tidal reach of the River Nene
and is a simpler version of the River Nene strategic model used for flood mapping and
mentioned in Section 3.3.2. The simplification was achieved by reducing the level of detail in
the River Nene strategic model yet retaining the overall calibration of the strategic model. The
model retains most of the boundaries of the strategic model, including the flow hydrographs
which were derived using the methods of the Flood Estimation Handbook.
For the CFMP, we used the model to simulate river flooding for the 10%, 1%, 0.1% AEP
floods.
From the analyses, we estimated flood extents, depths and

velocities at key risk locations across the catchment. We
stress that the broad-scale modelling does not provide the
rigorous results which we need for determining the
undefended Flood Maps available on our website
(www.environment-agency.gov.uk) or for designing flood
risk management measures.
We did not model the more minor, ordinary, watercourses

but, instead, made use of Flood Zones 2 and 3. Flood
Zones, being produced by a simple method of modelling (the JFLOW method), do not take
account of flood defences or flood storage, unlike the broad-scale model. By transposing
information from the broad-scale model we took account of flood defences and flood storage
to some extent and in areas known to benefit from defences we adjusted the flood extents
appropriately.
Although the results give a good indication of how the catchment as a whole is likely to
respond to flooding, they often do not represent the details particularly well. This is not a
concern for the CFMP, but care must be taken not to place too much confidence in the results
for specific places. The real value of the maps is in allowing us to assess relative change, and
the catchment’s sensitivity to that change.
Figure 3.18 shows flood extents accounting for the effect of defences for the whole length of
the River Nene and Figures 3.19 (a) and (b) show the extents through a selection of main
urban areas.

Figure 3.18 Catchment wide flood map with defences for the 10%, 1.0% and 0.1% AEP
flood

Figure 3.19(a) Flood extents with defences through Peterborough, Northampton and
Kislingbury

Figure 3.19(b) Flood extents with defences through Kettering, Oundle and
Wellingborough

Figure 3.19(a) shows the effectiveness of the defences through Kislingbury and Northampton
in protecting against a 1.0% AEP flood and the residual flooding that might occur in a 0.1%
AEP flood.
Figure 3.19(b) shows flood extents through Kettering, on the River Ise, Wellingborough,
around the confluence of the River Ise and the River Nene, and Oundle on the River Nene.
The flood extent through Kettering shows the vulnerability to the flooding of the Slade Brook
which joins the River Ise in Kettering. Through Wellingborough, flood risk arises around the
confluence. The meanders of the River Nene though Oundle have a wide floodplain which
encroaches upon the town.
Figure 3.19(a) shows flood extents through Peterborough and the flooding of the Nene
Washes. Peterborough, which has no formal defences through the city, is flooded to a limited
extent in the 1.0% flood.
The Fens, which are the dominant feature of this reach of the River Nene, are drained by an
extensive network of watercourses controlled by several IDBs as described in Section 2.6.
The sources of river flooding described in Section 3.4.2 are summarised in Table 3.11.
Table 3.11 Summary of the sources of river flooding

Sub-
Area Source
catchment
Upper Wootton Flooding from Wootton Brook, particularly in its lower
Nene Brook reaches. Onset of flooding is relatively quick
Kislingbury The lower reach of the Kislingbury Branch has a
Branch relatively shallow gradient and a wide floodplain. The
movement of floodwater is relatively slow but flood flow
is being brought under control by the flood storage
which is being constructed on the floodplain. The
Weedon Bec is a source of floodwater to the Kislingbury
Branch.
Brampton The relatively steep Brampton Branch contributes fairly
Branch rapid flood flow to the northern outskirts of
Northampton. Flood flow will be augmented if the large
public water supply reservoirs in the upper catchment
are spilling
Middle The River Floods flow sluggishly along the middle Nene and
Nene Nene extend across the wide floodplain where there can be
significant depths of flooding. Flood flow is moderated
by the Northampton Washlands.
The River Ise Floods flow rapidly along the River Ise. Flooding in
Kettering is caused by flood flow along the River Ise and
the Slade Brook which joins the River Ise in Kettering.
Flooding of Wellingborough is caused by the
combination of flood flow in the River Ise and the River
Nene.
Harper’s Floods flow rapidly along these rivers and are increased
Brook and by surface runoff from Corby which lies in the upper
Willow Brook parts of both catchments
Minor The several short tributaries to the south of the River
southern Nene contribute floodflow fairly rapidly to the river.
tributaries Several are moderated by small flood storage reservoirs
in their upper catchments designed to protect the urban
areas.
Lower Flood flow passes slowly through Peterborough and can
Nene be prolonged.

3.4.3 Tidal flooding
The sea poses a flood risk to the River Nene catchment because much of the fenland lies
below sea level and would be inundated were it not for the protection afforded by the coastal
defences and the embankments which carry the tidal reach of the River Nene across the
Fens to The Wash. The tidal reach extends upstream to the tidal limit which is controlled by
the operation of the Dog-in-a-Doublet Sluice.
Policies for managing tidal flooding from the coastline of the River Nene CFMP area are the
subject of The Wash SMP. The River Nene CFMP is concerned with policies for managing
the risk of flooding which is presented by the tidal reach of the River Nene.
The tidal reach does more than contain the rise and fall of the tide; it conveys the discharge
from the natural catchment of the River Nene to The Wash and drainage flow discharged from
part of the fenland. The drainage from both sources can be detained during high tide – a
condition known as tide-locking. Protection from flooding caused by detaining these flows is
afforded by the Nene Washes – for flow in the River Nene – and the storage capacity of the
fenland drainage network. A prolonged period of tide-locking caused by a tidal surge could
cause the levels of the detained water to exceed its protection level, leading to the flooding of
the fenland. This source of flooding, considered to be tidally-induced, is exacerbated if
fenland drainage and river flow reach the tidal reach during high tide, even more so if there is
a prolonged surge tide. The probability of flooding occurring during such a combination of
floods is not easily estimated.
The probability of tidal flooding can be estimated independently of river flow and drainage
discharge. Using our broad-scale model, we can show the rise and fall of the tide along the
tidal reach between The Wash and the Dog-in-a-Doublet Sluice and the drainage of the River
Nene into the tidal reach via the Sluice and the Nene Washes. The rise and fall of the tide is
driven by the sea level in The Wash which is applied at the end of the model – the West
Lighthouse.
Modelling shows that the Nene Washes contain floodwater diverted into them from the River
Nene, at least to the river flood of 0.5% AEP, and that the tidal embankments contain a tidal
surge of the same probability. A tidal surge of 0.1% probability, however, would overtop the
embankments and flood areas of the Fens. Overtopping can induce the breaching of the
embankments, leading rapidly to a far greater discharge followed by severe flooding. The
surge tide which overtops the River Nene tidal embankments is also likely to overtop the
embankments of the other fenland rivers with the result that the flooding of a location in the
Fens might not be attributable to just one river.
Breaching is most likely to occur with overtopping but could

happen at all states of the tide. We did not assess the
probability of breaching or of the flooding which it could
lead to.
We estimated the flooding that the overtopping of the

embankments could cause by spreading the volume of
floodwater in the tidal reach above the level of the
embankments across a simple ground model of the
adjacent fenland.
Tidal flooding would be extensive in the absence of the tidal defences. This is the condition
which is shown in the Agency’s Flood Map. We adopted the extents of the flood zones, shown
in the Flood Map, as representative of the flooding that would occur in the undefended case.
Figure 3.20 shows the Flood Map and the flood zones across the area of the Fens within the
River Nene CFMP.
3.4.4 Surface water and sewer flooding

Surface water flooding occurs as a result of excess overland flow rather than the overtopping
of watercourses. It is usually caused by intense, short-duration storms that overwhelm
drainage systems and sewer networks. Factors which contribute to sewer flooding include

blockages, poor maintenance of existing systems, undersized drainage networks and water
levels at their outlets. Surface water and sewer flooding affect localised areas within the
catchment, with flood depths tending to be shallow and relatively short in duration.
The recorded incidents of surface water and sewer flooding, described in Section 3.2, are too
few to reveal areas of particular susceptibility other than at Kettering and Geddington on the
River Ise. Incidents are recorded in Oundle and there is a record in 1986 of the flooding of
properties in Peterborough which is attributable to the surcharging of sewers. Several minor
incidents of property flooding attributable to the occasional blocking of culverts are recorded.
As little is revealed by the incidents of surface water flooding, we analysed the potential for
surface water flooding by considering the soils and urban areas within the catchment as
illustrated in Figure 3.21. In urban areas paved surfaces prevent rainfall from soaking into the
ground, which leads to increased surface runoff and a greater chance of ponding in relatively
low-lying areas.
Areas of Peterborough, Wellingborough, Corby and Daventry are at particular risk of surface
water flooding due to the relatively large urban areas. In large parts of the catchment between
Northampton and Peterborough there is a risk of localised flooding due to the presence of
deep clay soils which can impede drainage, and cause flooding at the base of slopes. Parts of
Northampton rely on the pumped discharge of surface water drainage.
In the upper catchment there is a moderate risk of flooding due

to soil types with typically intermediate drainage properties. In
other isolated areas of the catchment, loams over gravel,
limestone and sandstone readily absorbs water and reduces the
likelihood of flooding. In the Fens, the IDBs control water levels
by pumped drainage.
In an undeveloped area a proportion of the rainfall seeps or

infiltrates into the soil and so does not contribute to surface
runoff into watercourses, ditches or sewers. In the River Nene
catchment, much of the geology gives rise to clay-based soils which reduce infiltration and
cause relatively high surface runoff. On the Brampton Branch of the River Nene and the River
Ise the percentage of infiltration is higher due to the presence of permeable underlying
geology.
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) enable the original degree of infiltration to continue
when a site is developed with properties, buildings and roads all of which cut off the natural
path of the rainfall to the soil. There are numerous different ways that SUDS can be
incorporated into a development. The appropriate application of a SUDS scheme to a specific
development is heavily dependent upon the topography and geology of the site and the
surrounding areas. Careful consideration of the site characteristics is necessary to ensure the
future sustainability of the adopted drainage system.
Incidents of flooding in Corby are related to the blockage of drainage, caused by poorly
maintained urban watercourses, so are connected with surface water flooding.
Incidents of flooding from surcharged and blocked sewers are recorded by Anglian Water
Services in the DG5 register. The register has records of incidents in Wellingborough and
Kettering but the information does not enable comment to be made on any trend in the
incidents – whether they are tending to occur more or less frequently.
3.4.5 Groundwater flooding

Groundwater flooding occurs when water levels in the ground rise above the surface. But
groundwater may also cause harm in other ways, by entering basements for example.
The effects of groundwater flooding are often indistinguishable from the effects of fluvial
flooding and are not always obviously attributable to groundwater. As a result the recording of
groundwater flooding tends to be inconsistent and unreliable. We are not aware of any areas
which are notably susceptible to groundwater flooding, although incidents of flooding

attributed to groundwater are noted in Glapthorn and Oundle in August 2006 (Table 3.1) and
groundwater flooding has been recorded in areas of Kettering (London Road and St Mary’s
Road) and Northampton (Spinney Hill).
The River Nene catchment does not have any of the groundwater emergence zones,
identified by Defra (2004), in which there is a greater risk of groundwater flooding. However,
there are water-bearing rock formations, aquifers, in the catchment, described in Section 2.3,
which could potentially provide the necessary mechanisms for groundwater flooding to occur.
This potential varies throughout the catchment and Figure 3.22 shows the distribution of the
relative potential for flooding in the categories of high, moderate and low. The chance of each
location experiencing groundwater flooding is only relative to other locations within the River
Nene catchment and does not definitively mean that an area will or will not flood.
The categories are described below:
‘High Potential’: Areas that are most likely to provide mechanisms for groundwater flooding
to occur.
Within the River Nene catchment the only mechanism that falls into the high potential
category is: the rise of groundwater in aquifers in hydraulic continuity with river channels.
This type of flooding can occur wherever rivers are in hydraulic continuity with underlying
aquifers, but most specifically describes flooding occurring in the aquifers within superficial
deposits, river terrace deposits and associated floodplain gravels and sands for example.
Groundwater levels in these superficial deposits rise and fall in response to changes in river
level. This may be rapid, with groundwater responding almost as quickly as surface water
bodies, or it may be more subdued, reflecting the hydraulic properties of the superficial
deposits and the hydraulic connectivity.
Not generally recognised as being a form of groundwater

flooding, this mechanism can cause widespread flooding of
basements and may cause groundwater to emerge at the
surface in low lying areas. The effects may be widespread
and damaging and would include floodplains influenced by
both fluvial and tidal processes.
Not all superficial deposits will exhibit such tendencies, for

example where there is a cover of impermeable alluvium,
or where gravels are thin and discontinuous, the extent
and impact of groundwater flooding may be relatively low.
However overall, the likelihood of this type of flooding is relatively high within the catchment
floodplains, and the potential impact could be significant.
‘Moderate Potential’: Areas that have a moderate potential of providing the mechanisms for
groundwater flooding to occur.
The only mechanism included in this category is: the rise of groundwater levels in response to
severe and prolonged rainfall. This is the mechanism that led to the widespread groundwater
flooding from the chalk aquifers of south England during the winter of 2000/2001. However,
the hydrogeology of the River Nene catchment suggests there is only a moderate potential for
this mechanism to occur. This is a reflection of the aquifer properties of the main water
bearing strata – primarily limestones. Limestones are dominated by fracture flow, that
provides low levels of storage but may allow relatively rapid transmission (and hence
dispersal) of groundwater, contributing to increased baseflow in the rivers. The aquifers are
not extensive, laterally discontinuous and are frequently thin and interspersed with
impermeable layers (mudstones etc).

Figure 3.20 Flood zones in the Fens

Sustained high rates of prolonged rainfall may lead to localised flooding, as newly emerging
spring lines (e.g. where water bearing strata overlay impermeable strata), however this type
of flooding is not considered likely to be a widespread problem and is most likely to only affect
those areas where groundwater levels are high under more normal conditions.
‘Low Potential’ - Areas least likely to provide the mechanisms for groundwater flooding to
occur.
These areas include those underlain by impermeable drift deposits (e.g. Till) or solid strata
(e.g. Ampthill Clay.) where groundwater is unlikely to occur in any quantity. Flooding
mechanisms that have low (or very localised) potential include the rise in groundwater levels
as a result of obstructions to groundwater flow or loss of aquifer storage, water leaking from
mains, groundwater response following cessation of pumping or groundwater rise following
land subsidence.
3.5 Consequences of Flooding

3.5.1 Introduction
Having considered, in the last section, the sources and
probability of flooding, we must now consider the impact
that flooding has on receptors - the people, property, and
the environment – and thus the risk of flooding. Risk is
considered in terms of harm to individuals and/or threat of
loss of life, scale of damage to property and the damages
to environmental assets.
One of the key aims of the CFMP is to assess where in

the catchment flood risk is the greatest and how this might
change in the future. This will then allow flood risk
management policies to be targeted at those areas of
greatest need. It will also serve to provide a broad
framework for other decisions, for example, where new
developments might best be located in order to ensure the
sustainable management of future flood risk.
3.5.2 Methodology
The analysis of flood risk entails the:
• estimation of the flood probability and flood extent; and

• assessment of the damage and other consequences of flooding
We consider the impact of flooding on three main receptors:
1. Property and Infrastructure

Including loss or damage to commercial and residential property, infrastructure and
disruption to activities that may have economic value.
2. People
Including loss of life, injury and personal distress and the severance of communities.
Risks relating to people, and in particular those vulnerable to flooding
3. Environment
Including loss, damage and benefit to locally, nationally and internationally
designated environmental, cultural and historic sites.

Figure 3.21 Potential for surface water flooding

Figure 3.22 Potential for groundwater flooding
Property and Infrastructure

For the principal river network we used our broad-scale model of the River Nene together with
the Modelling and Decision Support Framework (MDSF) software developed for the
estimation of damages in CFMPs. MDSF generates flood damages for properties using the
depth of flooding and the type of property. For each property type an idealised depth-damage
relationship is used to calculate damages. MDSF generates a number of measures of risk
related to property:
• Average annual damage (AAD) and damages for specific annual exceedance
probabilities for commercial and residential properties (10%, 1% and 0.1% AEP
floods for example)
• Average annual damage (AAD) to agriculture
AAD is the aggregation of damages within the range of 20% and 0.5% AEP. We used another
approach for the more minor rivers beyond the boundaries of the broad-scale model. For this
approach, we used the extents of Flood Zones 2 and 3 and processed them in MDSF to
estimate property damage for the 0.1% and 1.0% AEP floods. We estimated AAD and the
damage in the 10% AEP flood by combining information about the 1.0% AEP flood for these
reaches with information about the 10% AEP flood and AAD in the area of the broad-scale
model. A similar approach was taken for estimating agricultural damages.
The risk of tidal flooding of the Fens was assessed by using our broad-scale model, and
where flood defences were overtopped in the future a more detailed 2D model was used to
map the extent of tidal flooding.
Risk to infrastructure was determined by identifying key infrastructure located within the 10%,
1% and 0.1% flood extents. This includes both transport infrastructure (major roads, railways,
canals) and critical infrastructure (schools, emergency response centres, water treatment
works, sewage water treatment works and electricity sub-stations). Depth of flooding at key
infrastructure and the area and length of feature flooded were determined where appropriate.
People
The number of people at risk was calculated by
multiplying the number of flooded residential properties
(as determined by the approach outlined above) by 2.5,
the approximate average number of occupants per
house. The impact of flooding on people was further
assessed through the Social Flood Vulnerability Index
(SFVI). The SFVI analysis gives an indication of the
areas that are most vulnerable to flooding, using
census output data. The census output data used
includes the incidence of people with long term illness,
single parents, the elderly and financially deprived households in each census output area.
Analyses of the risk to people posed by flood depth, duration and velocity were also made.
The average depth of flooding at each population centre was determined using flood depth
grids calculated in MDSF. Duration of flooding was estimated from the flood hydrographs at
key points in the catchment and quantitative estimates of velocity were made based on the
level of catchment urbanisation, catchment slope and floodplain dimensions.
Environment
We determined the consequences of flooding for the environment by first identifying the
environmental sites and features located within the current 10%, 1% and 0.1% flood extents
and quantifying the numbers and types of sites affected. We then determined the scale (e.g.
extent affected, magnitude) and nature (e.g. direct/indirect, positive/negative;
temporary/permanent) of the impacts of the current flooding regime on these sites. We
considered impacts on designated sites and features (e.g. protected nature conservation and
heritage sites) and on a wider range of environmental receptors including biodiversity,
fisheries, surface water and groundwater quality, landscape, historic environment and tourism
and recreation.

For all flood risk assessment work, on each receptor type, the following assumptions and
limitations should be noted:
• In the use of the National property dataset, we assumed that the population per
household was evenly distributed across the districts which in most cases will be
untrue
• Flood defences are included in the model as they were known in May 2005.
• We used model results from previous studies wherever possible.
• The estimation of damages in the areas beyond the boundaries of the broad-scale
model is less certain than for the area within the model. The damages and number of
properties generated in these areas should accordingly be regarded only as an
indication of the scale of flood risk.
• Using MDSF to generate flood areas on low-lying land next to embanked rivers can
underestimate damages because it takes no account of flooding when the defences
fail.
• We recommend that the strategies and other studies which might follow this CFMP
be based upon more detailed modelling.
• Agricultural damages are financial; they do not take into account any benefits which
flooding may bring.
• We simulated surface runoff confined to the naturally draining catchments upstream
of the tidal limit; we did not simulate surface runoff from the fenland catchments
Using a broad-scale model is precise enough for CFMPs. The modelling does not meet the
specification which we apply when preparing our Flood Map. Information in our Flood Map
accordingly takes precedence over any corresponding information which we derived for this
CFMP.
3.5.3 Risks to People

The social impacts of flooding can be devastating. They include loss of life and injury,
damage to property, the time, effort and financial implications of clean-up and repairs, the
disruption of having to live in temporary accommodation, and adverse health implications.
Also, communities may be disrupted due to damage and closure to key transport links and
services.
Table 3.12 shows the risk to people in a number of key locations around the catchment for
floods of different probabilties of exceedance.
Table 3.12 Number of people affected by flooding at key locations

Number of people affected by flooding
Location
10% AEP 1% AEP 0.1% AEP
Weedon and Bugbrooke 45 88 465
Kislingbury 3 5 180
Wootton 73 178 428
Blisworth 41 95 105
Northampton (central areas with
200yr standard of protection) 0 0 5885
Northampton (outer areas) 299 363 658
Yardley Hastings, Bozeat and
Grendon 49 115 138
Wellingborough 55 308 705
Geddington 5 30 115
Kettering 128 485 1008
Rushden 14 76 81
Raunds 47 265 420
Thrapston 0 0 350
Brigstock and Sudborough 45 70 90
Oundle 44 158 213
Barnwell 0 0 135
Corby and Weldon 335 835 1500

Location
10% AEP 1% AEP 0.1% AEP
Elton, Cotterstock and Tansor 55 88 125
Southwick and Kings Cliffe 31 73 95
Wansford, Stibbington and
Water Newton 38 148 205
Peterborough 57 396 1437
Other Areas 242 407 511
CATCHMENT TOTAL 1606 4183 14849
A very high number of people, 4183, are at risk from flooding during the 1% AEP flood, mostly
concentrated in the urban areas of Northampton, Corby and Weldon, Kettering,
Wellingborough, Peterborough and Raunds. These six locations all have greater than 250
people at risk and account for about 60% of the risk at the 1% AEP flood. There are
significant concentrations in Wansford, Stibbington and Water Newton, Wootton and Oundle,
though all the key locations (with the exception of those benefiting from defences) have at
least moderate numbers of people affected. Outside of the key locations identified in Table
3.12 there are over 400 people at risk.
Corby is one of the main urban centres beyond the boundaries of the broad-scale model. Our
estimates of flooding and its consequences in Corby are accordingly based on the method
which we adopt, described in Section 3.4.2, for the generally more minor watercourses. The
extent of the 1% AEP flood through Corby due to the flooding of watercourses is consistent
with that derived for the Corby Water Cycle Strategy, which uses detailed modelling, although
the WCS shows some additional areas at risk due to sewer flooding. The comparison
provides us with a degree of verification of the notable flood risk which we identify in Corby
and Weldon.
The number of people who are at risk from flooding at the 10% flood is about one third of
those at risk at the 1% AEP flood, however this is high for such a frequent flood. The people
at risk at the 10% AEP flood are more dispersed than
for the other two floods considered, with less
concentration in urban areas. There are a number of
rural locations which have a large proportion of those at
risk at the 10% AEP flood, including Brigstock and
Sudborough, Barnwell and Blisworth. These locations
make up a relatively large proportion of the risk for the
frequent floods, but a much smaller proportion of the
risk for less frequent floods. Some urban areas do have
a significant risk as well during the 10% AEP flood,
including Kettering, Corby and the undefended parts of
Northampton, which all have more than 100 people at
risk.
There are significantly more people at risk in the 0.1% AEP flood than the 10% and 1% AEP
floods. This is because many of the flood defences in the catchment have a standard of
protection of 0.5% and at the 0.1% AEP flood these defences are overtopped. Large
increases in flood risk in Northampton (central area), Kislingbury and Thrapston can be seen
as a result of this. For the 0.1% flood the people affected are found in major urban centres,
with approximately 80% of the people affected found in Northampton, Corby and Weldon,
Kettering, Wellingborough, Peterborough and Raunds. As well as areas where defences are
overtopped, there is a significant increase in flood risk in Wootton, Kettering, Wellingborough
and Peterborough. Extreme floods such as this can lead to significant social impacts,
including loss to life.
Figure 3.23 shows the location of the people at risk of flooding from the 1% AEP flood. The
map shows that large areas of the Fens have no risk to people, and large areas of the upper
catchment have limited risk to people. The large number of people at risk in the major urban
areas does not show up well because the census output areas in urban areas tend to be
much smaller than in rural areas. Still, the concentration of people in the eastern parts of

Northampton in the River Nene floodplain, areas of Corby, Kettering, Wellingborough and
Peterborough can be seen.
The impact of flooding cannot be repesented by the number of people at risk alone. The
following further factors are considered to be important in assessing the general impact of
flooding on people:
Rate of rise of flood water – situations when flood waters rise rapidly are much more
dangerous than situations where flood waters rise slowly. Fast rising water reduces the time
that people have to prepare for flooding and presents a hazard to life as it may occur before
warnings are given. Fast rising flood waters typically occur in urbanised, small and steep
catchments, and in cases where defences fail or are overwhelmed.
Response time – response time relates to the time it takes for a flood to occur following
rainfall. As with fast rising water a short response time reduces the time that people have to
prepare for a flood and may catch people unaware. Response times are usually long for a
large catchment, and typically lower for small, steep, urbanised catchments.
Flood water depth and velocity – deep and/or fast flowing water can provide a serious threat
to life and property. The damage caused by a flood depends largely on the depth and velocity
of flooding that occur. These in turn are influenced by the topography of the catchment, the
characteristics of the floodplain, and the magnitude of the flood. Flood depths of greater than
1.2m for still water, and velocities of greater than 0.8 m/s for shallow water pose significant
risks, as to combinations of velocity and depth between these limits.
Our main concern is to minimise the risk to life from flooding. This risk can be particularly high
where flooding happens quickly (especially for fast flowing water), or where flooding is deep.
Figure 3.24 shows the depth of flooding at some key locations within the catchment at the 1%
AEP flood.
High depths intersect with residential areas on the Slade Brook in Kettering, on the Wootton
Brook in Collingtree and in some parts of Rushden and Raunds. Aside from these areas the
only other significant risk of flooding to high depth is that caused by breaching in areas
benefiting from defence. Figure 3.24 does not show the risk to people that deep flooding can
pose when embankments are breached. In Northampton there is a small risk of breaching at
the 1% AEP flood which would lead to high depths and velocities posing a serious risk to life.
In the tidal reaches of the river, flooding associated with embankment failure also poses a
major risk to life. Breaching of flood defences can lead to rapid inundation of the areas behind
the defences, with the potential for large depths and high velocities. We estimate that 25,258
people living within 1km of the embankments along the tidal reach of the River Nene and are
at risk of rapid inundation. Not all of these people would be at risk in the event of defence
failure, as breaching is only likely to occur on one location. Sutton Bridge and Wisbech are at
particular risk of flooding in such an event, though the risk of breaching exists along the tidal
reach of the River Nene.
Flooding in the River Nene is not normally characterised by a rapid response time and rate of
water rising. Along the River Nene most locations see a gradual onset of flooding, however, in
some of the urbanised, upstream catchments there can be a rapid onset of flooding.
Urbanised catchments such as the Dallington Brook and Billing Brook in Northampton, and
the Skew Bridge Dyke in Rushden can see relatively rapid response times.

Figure 3.23 The location of people affected

Figure 3.24 Depth of flooding at key locations

Figure 3.25 shows the Social Flood Vulnerability Index (SFVI) in the areas at risk from
flooding in the 1% AEP flood. The SFVI was devised by the Flood Hazard Research Centre at
Middlesex University and recognises that some groups of people are more vulnerable to
flooding and are likely to have greater difficulty in coping with the aftermath of flooding. The
SFVI for a neighbourhood is produced by looking at a variety of statistical information which
mostly comes from the census. This includes:
• People with long term illnesses

• Single parents
• People over the age of 75
• Economically deprived households (measured using indicators such as car
ownership, unemployment and the ratio of rooms to people in a household
In general there is a low to moderate SFVI in the River Nene catchment area, however there
are pockets with higher SFVI in Northampton, Kettering, Raunds and Corby. Of these
Northampton has the highest social vulnerability to flooding, in areas that benefit from the
defences recently constructed. The higher SFVI in parts of these towns is due, for the most
part, to a higher incidence of economically deprived households. Scattered areas of the upper
and middle catchment have a moderate to high social vulnerability to flooding as a result of a
large numbers of residents aged over 75.
Table 3.13 gives an overview of the impacts of flooding in a number of key locations within
the catchment for the 1% AEP flood. The table gives the approximate number of residents
affected, and some idea of the key impacts of flooding at each location, including the speed of
onset, velocity of flow, duration of flood and social impact. Finally an estimate of the scale of
disruption for each location is made, based on the impact that flooding at that location would
have. This is not a formal measure, but a way to assess the impact at each key location
taking into account the impacts of flooding considered in the table. We recognise that to the
individuals involved any flooding is distressing but we are looking at the effects on the
community as a whole. The scale of disruption has been graded into three categories:
• Low: few properties affected by flooding. Some flooding on minor streets;

• Moderate: distributed across the area but not a major disruption to community life;
and
• High: major disruption, community stops for some time. This may happen at a local
level if, for example, entire villages were cut off. In an extreme flood, this may result in
loss of access to healthcare, community infrastructure and/or emergency services.
3.5.4 Risks to Property and Infrastructure

Property
In the River Nene catchment there are 2102 properties at risk of flooding at the 1% AEP flood:
1672 residential properties, and 429 commercial properties. Table 3.14 is a summary of the
risk to properties at key locations for the 10%, 1% and 0.1% AEP floods.
60% of the properties at risk of flooding at the 1% AEP

flood are found in the six key locations that are also
where the majority of people at risk are: Northampton,
Wellingborough, Kettering, Corby, Raunds and
Peterborough. All of these locations have greater than
130 properties affected, with 381 properties at risk in
Corby. Smaller, but still significant, concentrations of
properties at risk include Wansford, Stibbington and
Water Newton, Oundle and Wootton.
80% of those properties at risk of flooding throughout the catchment at the 1% AEP flood are
residential, with significant concentrations of commercial properties found only in
Wellingborough, Northampton and Corby. Outside of the key locations identified there
remains a risk to smaller clusters of properties and isolated dwellings, as shown by the
number of properties at risk in other areas.

Properties at risk of frequent flooding (flooding at the 10% AEP flood) are found throughout
the catchment with all locations in Table 3.14 having some properties affected (except for
those benefiting from defences). Compared with the less frequent floods, the proportion of
commercial properties affected is higher at the 10% AEP flood, about 30% of the total
properties. This can be attributed to significant numbers of commercial properties at risk of
frequent flooding at industrial sites in the River Nene floodplain in Wellingborough and
Northampton. Rural concentrations of flooding, such as Brigstock and Sudborough, and Elton,
Cotterstock and Tansor, see relatively large numbers of residential properties at risk of
frequent flooding though no significant increases in property numbers for higher magnitude
floods. Overall there are a large number of properties which have a significant risk of frequent
flooding with serious social and economic implications
As with the number of people at risk, there is a significant increase in the number of
properties at risk of flooding at the 0.1% AEP flood. The overtopping of defences in
Thrapston, Kislingbury, and most notably Northampton, is a large part of the reason for the
dramatic increase. Nearly 3000 properties are at risk in Northampton as a result of defence
overtopping, more than the combined number of properties at risk throughout the entire
catchment at the 1% AEP flood. Large increases in the number of properties affected do
occur elsewhere, notably in Peterborough and Weedon, where many more residential
properties are affected.
Only 17% of the properties at risk at the 0.1% AEP flood are commercial, and nearly half of
those are at risk due to the overtopping of defences in Northampton. The number of
commercial properties at risk in the catchment does not increase between the 10% and 0.1%
to the same extent as the increase in residential properties. This is because many of the
commercial properties at risk at the 0.1% AEP flood are industrial sites that are at frequent
risk of flooding.

Figure 3.25 Social Vulnerability

Table 3.13 Overview of the impacts of flooding at key locations
Speed of onset of
No. of How long will Scale of
Location flooding and Velocity of flow Depth Social impact
residents flooding last? disruption
mechanism
Weedon and 88 Flooding from Moderate. Valley < 0.5m 24 – 36 hours Moderate – LOW
Bugbrooke upstream tributaries quite narrow, at Weedon. Mostly SFVI
of the Nene. Valleys gradient quite category 3.
are steep, so onset steep implying
of flooding likely to high velocities.
be rapid, though Railway
storage area embankment
upstream of Weedon downstream of
reduces response Weedon likely to
time. act as barrier
reducing flow
through town.
Kislingbury 5 Flooding from the Low – moderate. Up to 1.5m, 24 – 36 hours, Low – SFVI LOW
Kislingbury branch of Valley quite wide, though defended. though may be category 2.
the river Nene. though does longer if water
Potential for sudden narrow at gets trapped
flooding as a result Kislingbury. Slope behind
of breach of moderate. Though defences.
defences, though unlikely, if breach
unlikely. did occur could
lead to high
velocities.
Wootton 178 Flooding from the Moderate. Valley < 0.5m for most Up to 24 Low. Most of MODERATE
Wootton Brook. narrow in places, properties. A hours. properties are in
Speed of onset gradient moderate, small handful areas given SFVI
gradual / moderate and the response flooded to depths category of 1 or
taking over 24 hours. time is reasonably of up to 2.5m 2.
short.
Blisworth 95 Flooding from the Moderate. Valley < 0.5m Up to 24 hours Low – Moderate. LOW –
Milton Malsor Brook. quite narrow and SFVI categories MODERATE
Repsonse time likely gradient relatively 2 and 3.

Speed of onset of
mechanism
to be relatively rapid steep.
due to steep gradient
and upstream nature
of catchment
Northampton 0 Northampton Potential for very All properties Up to 24 High. Areas that LOW
(central areas with defended by high velocities and defended at 1% hours. benefit from
200yr standard of defences of 0.5% in the centre of AEP flood. defences are
protection) AEP standard, which Northampton if typically SFVI
if breached could defences are category 4 and 5.
lead to sudden breached.
flooding, though this
is unlikely.
Northampton 363 Flooding from the Low in areas < 0.5m from the Up to 24 hours Varied. Low on HIGH
(outer areas) River Nene, the flooded by the Nene. Up to 1m on Nene, and the River Nene to
Dallington Brook and River Nene. Likely from the smaller Brampton the east of the
Billing Brook. River to be higher on the urban Branch. Less centre, with SFVI
Nene has a rapid Dallington and watercourses. on Billing and of 2. High on the
response at Billing Brook, as Dallington Billing Brook and
Northampton, steep urban Brook. Dallington Brook,
however speed of watercourses with typically category
response reduced by narrow valley. 4.
upstream storage
areas. Response
from Billing and
Dallington Brooks
likely to be rapid due
to urbanised
catchments and
steep catchments.
Yardley Hastings, 115 Flooding from the Moderate. Typically < 0.5m Up to 24 hours Low – Moderate. LOW -
Bozeat and Grendon Brook. Gradient is SFVI categories MODERATE
Grendon Grendon Brook moderate / steep 2 and 3.

Speed of onset of
mechanism
catchment is in and floodplain is
middle reaches of narrow in places
catchment, and indicating high
gradient is relatively velocities in
steep indicating places, though
moderate response generally velocities
time. likely to be
moderate
Wellingborough 308 Flooding from the Low from the Nene < 0.5m Up to 48 hours Moderate. Most MODERATE
River Nene, River and Ise. Properties from the Ise of properties fall
Ise, Harrowden at risk are on the and Nene. under SFVI
Brook and edge of the category 3.
Swanspool Brook floodplain, with
numerous
obstacles to
reduce velocity.
Smaller tributaries
in Wellingborough
may give higher
velocities.
Geddington 30 Flooding from the Low. Properties < 0.5m Up to 24 hours Low – Moderate. LOW
River Ise. Onset of flooded in SFVI categories
flooding likely to be Geddington are on 2 and 3.
moderate. the edge of the
flood extent, where
velocities will be
low.
Kettering 485 Flooding primarily Moderate. 0.5 - 2m 6 – 18 hours Moderate – High. HIGH
from the Slade Catchment is on the Slade SFVI category 3
Brook, not from the moderately steep Brook is predominant,
River Ise. Speed of and valley of the though there is a
onset is moderate, Slade Brook is significant area

Speed of onset of
mechanism
typically around 12 narrow. Quick run of category 4.
hours. off from urban
areas likely to lead
to high velocities in
parts.
Rushden 76 Flooding from the Moderate – High. 0.5 – 1.5m Up to 24 hours Moderate – SFVI MODERATE
Skew Bridge Dyke. Catchment is category 3
Watercourse is quite moderately steep
steep and urbanised, and valley is quite
so would expect a narrow. Quick run
moderate to fast off from urban
response time. areas likely to lead
parts.
Raunds 265 Flooding from the Moderate – High. Typically < 0.5m, Up to 24 hours Moderate – High. MODERATE
Raunds Hog Dyke. Catchment is though a number SFVI category 3
Watercourse is quite moderately steep of properties is predominant,
steep and urbanised, and valley is quite flooded up to though there is a
so would expect a narrow. Quick run 1.5m significant area
moderate to fast off from urban of category 4.
response time. areas likely to lead
parts.
Thrapston 0 Flooding from the Low – moderate. All properties 48 – 72 hours Moderate – SFVI LOW
River Nene. Flooding Valley relatively defended at 1% category 3
likely to occur over wide, onset of AEP flood.
48 hours after flooding relatively
rainfall, and onset slow. Potential for
likely to be slow, high velocities
unless defences resulting from
breached over sudden breach of
overtopped, which is defences.

Speed of onset of
mechanism
unlikely.
Brigstock and 70 Flooding from the Moderate. Valley 1 - 2m in Approx. 12 Low – Moderate. LOW
Sudborough Harper’s Brook. floor is relatively Brigstock, less in hours SFVI categories
Peak of flooding narrow, and Sudborough 2 and 3.
likely to occur within gradient is
12 hours of rainfall. moderate. Onset
Onset of flooding of flooding is rapid.
likely to be relatively
rapid.
Oundle 158 Flooding from the Low. Wide valley, < 0.5m, though 48 – 96 hours Moderate – SFVI MODERATE
River Nene has a and shallow river handful of category 3
gradual onset due to gradient. residences to the
storage along the Properties affected south of Oundle
length of the River are on the edge of up to 2m
Nene. Flooding likely the flood extent.
to occur 48 – 72
hours after rainfall.
Barnwell 0 Flooding from the Flood storage area All properties Up to 24 hours Moderate – SFVI LOW
Barnwell Brook. upstream of defended at 1% category 3
Watercourse is quite Barnwell prevents AEP flood.
steep and narrow, flooding of
response time properties.
increased by flood
storage area.
Corby and Weldon 835 Flooding from the Low – moderate. < 0.5m for almost Approx. 12 Moderate – High. HIGH
upstream tributaries Wide valley bottom all properties, hours Typically SFVI
of the Harper’s and and low depth of though a small categories 3 and
Willow Brook. flooding is broadly number flooded 4.
Flooding likely to suggestive of low to depths up to
occur relatively velocities. Urban 1.5m
quickly after rainfall, nature of the
especially due to upstream

Speed of onset of
mechanism
urban drainage catchment means
problems in Corby. that there is the
Onset likely to be possibility of higher
moderately fast velocities as a
given the wide valley result of surface
floor. runoff in some
areas.
Elton, Cotterstock 88 Flooding from the Low. Wide valley, < 0.5m 48 – 96 hours Moderate – SFVI LOW
and Tansor River Nene has a and shallow river category 3
gradual onset due to gradient.
storage along the Properties affected
length of the River are on the edge of
Nene. Flooding likely the flood extent.
to occur 48 – 72
Southwick and 73 Flooding from the Moderate. < 0.5m in areas Approx. 12 hrs Low – Moderate. LOW
Kings Cliffe Willow Brook and the Relatively steep, where properties SFVI categories
Southwick Brook. narrow water flooded 2 and 3.
Flooding likely to course, and onset
occur within 12 hours is relatively rapid.
of rainfall, with Therefore would
relatively rapid onset expect at least
of flooding. moderate
velocities.
Wansford, 148 Flooding from the Low. Wide valley, < 0.5m typically, 48 – 96 hours Moderate - LOW -
Stibbington and River Nene has a and shallow river though up to 2m typically SFVI MODERATE
Water Newton gradual onset due to gradient. for approx. 10 category 3
storage along the Properties affected residences in
length of the River are on the edge of Wansford.
Nene. Flood peak the flood extent.
likely to occur 72 - 96

Speed of onset of
mechanism
Peterborough 396 Flooding from the Low – wide valley, < 0.5m typically, 48 – 96 hours. Moderate - MODERATE -
River Nene and and shallow river though up to 1m Lower in a typically SFVI HIGH
Stanground Lode. gradient. in some areas. number of category 3
Gradual onset from Properties affected areas only
the River Nene due are on the edge of inundated for
to upstream storage, the flood extent. peak.
with flood peak likely Due to the shallow
to occur 72 - 96 gradient and wide
hours after rainfall. river valley low
Onset likely to be velocities expected
more rapid from the on the Stanground
Stanground Lode. Lode as well.

Table 3.14 Number of properties affected at key locations
Properties at risk with current defences
Location Source of flooding 10% 1% 0.1%
Residential Commercial Total Residential Commercial Total Residential Commercial Total
Weedon and Weedon Branch of the River
Bugbrooke Nene, and Bugbrooke Brook 18 3 21 35 9 44 186 21 207
Kislingbury Branch of the
Kislingbury
River Nene 1 7 8 2 7 9 72 16 88
Wootton Wootton Brook 29 2 31 71 3 74 171 5 176
Blisworth Milton Malsor Brook 16 11 27 38 24 62 42 24 66
Northampton (outer River Nene, Brampton Branch,
areas) Dallington Brook, Billing Brook 120 105 225 145 106 251 263 147 410
Northampton (central
areas with 200yr River Nene, Brampton Branch
standard of protection) 0 0 0 0 0 0 2354 585 2939
Yardley Hastings,
Grendon Brook
Bozeat and Grendon 20 3 23 46 6 52 55 6 61
Harrowden and Swanspool
Wellingborough
Brooks, River Ise and Nene 22 44 66 123 84 207 282 97 379
Geddington River Ise 2 1 3 12 3 15 46 5 51
Kettering River Ise, Slade Brook 51 11 62 194 14 208 403 44 447
Rushden Skew Bridge Dyke 5 9 14 31 13 44 33 19 52
Raunds Raunds Hogs Dyke 19 24 43 106 28 134 168 36 204
Thrapston River Nene 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 49 189
Brigstock and
Harper’s Brook
Sudborough 18 3 21 28 5 33 36 8 44
Oundle River Nene 17 4 21 62 8 70 84 22 106
Barnwell Barnwell Brook 18 2 20 44 2 46 53 2 55
Corby and Weldon Harper’s Brook, Willow Brook 134 26 160 334 47 381 600 60 660
Elton, Cotterstock and
River Nene
Tansor 22 5 27 35 5 40 50 6 56
Southwick and Kings Willow Brook and Southwick
Cliffe Brook 12 1 13 28 2 30 37 2 39
Wansford, Stibbington
River Nene
and Water Newton 15 10 25 58 17 75 81 19 100
Peterborough River Nene, Stanground Lode 23 2 25 158 7 165 575 28 603
Other Areas 80 26 106 122 39 161 208 55 263
CATCHMENT TOTAL 642 299 941 1672 429 2101 5939 1256 7195

Economic Risk
Table 3.15 shows estimated economic damages to commercial and residential properties for
the 10%, 1% and 0.1% AEP floods. The predicted Annual Average Damage (AAD) is also
given for each key location.
Most locations have limited economic damages of less than £1M at the 10% AEP flood. The
catchment wide estimated economic damages are approximately £41M, about 65% of which
is accounted for by significant commercial and residential damages in the undefended areas
of Northampton. These damages can largely be attributed to the areas of industry at risk in
the River Nene floodplain immediately downstream of the Northampton Washlands. These
areas suffer significant economic damages because they are frequently flooded to levels
above the property threshold.
The economic damages estimated for the 1% AEP flood are substantially higher than for the
10% AEP flood. Economic damages of greater than £30M are found in Northampton and
Wellingborough, primarily commercial damages, with significant commercial and residential
damages occurring in Corby. The key locations for economic damages at the 1% AEP flood
are Northampton, Wellingborough, Kettering, Rushden, Raunds and Corby, which between
them account for 60% of the total damages, within which they also account for about 80% of
the commercial damages. Residential damages tend to be spread out across the catchment
more, with the damage per property not deviating as much as for commercial properties.
Commercial damages dominate the economic damages with about 80% of the damages
being commercial. Areas with low numbers of commercial properties at risk, for example
Peterborough, tend to have much lower damages. Although commercial damages are
predominantly confined to the 6 urban areas listed above, there are a number of rural
hotspots which have high commercial damages. These include Blisworth, Kislingbury,
Wansford and the villages in the Grendon Brook catchment – Grendon, Yardley Hastings and
Bozeat.
Economic damages at the 0.1% AEP flood are dominated by the areas flooded when the
Northampton defences overtop. Damages in these areas of Northampton account for over
50% of the residential damages and nearly two thirds of the commercial damages. Major
increases in economic damages also occur in Thrapston and Kislingbury, where defences
would be overtopped at the 0.1% AEP flood, and in Peterborough, Kettering and Weedon.
These large increases in economic damages in Weedon and Peterborough are associated
with large increases in properties at risk from the 1% AEP flood to the 0.1% AEP flood, partly
due to flood flows exceeding the capacity of upstream flood storage areas.
Just under half of the AAD for the catchment is in Northampton, a figure that takes into
account the defences in central Northampton. The rest of the AAD is distributed evenly
around the catchment, with only Corby and Weldon, and Wellingborough, having significant
large AADs outside of Northampton. The high estimated AAD in these locations is caused by
the large damages accrued at high frequency floods (>4% AEP).
Figure 3.26 shows the distribution of the damages at the 1% AEP flood around the catchment
by census output area. The large risk in the major urban areas does not show up well
because the census output areas in urban areas tends to be much smaller than in rural areas.
Large property damages in Wellingborough, Corby, Raunds and the undefended areas of
Northampton can be seen though. Other areas where there are relatively high damages
include the villages on the Grendon Brook, and the settlements along the River Nene
between Oundle and Peterborough. It is notable that large areas of the Fens and of the upper
catchment have no, or very low, damages.

Figure 3.26 Property damages

Table 3.15 Residential and commercial damages at key locations
Economic damages with current defences (£m)
Location 10% 1% 0.1%
AAD
Residential Commercial Total Residential Commercial Total Residential Commercial Total
Weedon and Bugbrooke 0.17 0.24 0.49 0.73 0.75 0.50 1.25 3.48 2.99 6.47
Kislingbury 0.56 0.00 2.64 2.64 0.03 3.46 3.49 2.13 5.65 7.78
Wootton 0.08 0.16 0.01 0.17 0.99 0.16 1.15 3.26 0.50 3.76
Blisworth 0.29 0.12 0.53 0.65 0.83 3.69 4.52 1.02 7.15 8.17
Northampton (central areas with standard
protection) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 88.26 442.32 530.58
Northampton (outer areas) 5.28 2.40 24.70 27.10 3.01 33.03 36.04 5.92 85.43 91.35
Yardley Hastings, Bozeat and Grendon 0.29 0.16 0.49 0.65 1.10 3.41 4.51 1.39 4.03 5.42
Wellingborough 1.16 0.02 0.65 0.66 0.89 29.61 30.50 4.13 71.03 75.16
Geddington 0.05 0.10 0.01 0.11 0.39 0.09 0.48 1.59 0.42 2.01
Kettering 0.33 0.35 0.08 0.43 3.47 3.58 7.05 10.53 27.59 38.12
Rushden 0.20 0.01 0.10 0.11 0.60 4.60 5.19 0.65 4.69 5.34
Raunds 0.26 0.07 0.08 0.15 2.90 4.00 6.90 4.96 4.00 8.96
Thrapston 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.41 11.33 14.74
Brigstock and Sudborough 0.07 0.13 0.09 0.22 0.53 0.38 0.91 0.92 0.62 1.54
Oundle 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.15 0.54 0.59 1.13 1.89 4.31 6.20
Barnwell 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.79 0.17 1.96
Corby and Weldon 1.11 0.25 1.76 2.01 6.45 14.01 20.46 12.82 12.41 25.23
Elton, Cotterstock and Tansor 0.10 0.05 0.36 0.41 0.16 0.69 0.85 0.68 1.09 1.77
Southwick and Kings Cliffe 0.04 0.12 0.02 0.14 0.61 0.00 0.61 1.12 0.03 1.15
Wansford, Stibbington and Water Newton 0.14 0.19 0.59 0.78 0.80 1.85 2.65 2.71 4.06 6.77
Peterborough 0.12 0.21 0.09 0.30 1.43 0.33 1.76 8.45 8.88 17.33
Other Areas 0.92 1.40 2.58 3.98 3.37 4.56 7.93 8.33 15.08 23.41
CATCHMENT TOTAL 11.22 6.07 35.33 41.40 28.85 108.54 137.39 169.44 713.78 883.21
Table 3.16 shows the agricultural damages in the upper, middle and lower catchment, while Figure 3.27
shows the distribution of agricultural damages within the catchment. The middle Nene accounts for most of
the damages and has the highest damages per hectare flooded. In the unlikely event of a breach of flood
defences in the Fens, it is likely that significant agricultural damages would occur here, given the quality of
the agricultural land. We did not include these damages in Table 3.16, as we are assessing the defended
scenario. The agricultural AAD is approximately one tenth of the AAD to properties.
Table 3.16 Agricultural damages

Location Agricultural AAD (£k)
Upper Nene 220
Middle Nene 730
Lower Nene 88
CATCHMENT TOTAL 1,037
Critical Infrastructure
Table 3.17 lists the critical infrastructure at risk from flooding and their locations are shown in Figure 3.28.
There is a significant risk to critical infrastructure at the 1% AEP flood. Disruption to 21 electricity
substations and 10 sewage treatment works (STWs) would have a major adverse impact on thousands of
people beyond those directly affected by flooding. The consequences of this level of disruption to
infrastructure would be widespread and may not be confined solely to the River Nene catchment.
In comparison with the number of STWs and electricity substations at risk there is a smaller number of
community and emergency response centres affected. One care home, one police station and one hospital
are at risk of flooding at the 1% AEP flood, and their flooding would have a significant local impact. There
are no water treatment works at risk.
The majority of sewage treatment works at risk are at risk of frequent flooding. For operational purposes
they are often situated close to rivers and as a result they can be subject to frequent flooding. Those STWs
at risk from the River Nene are at risk of flooding to depths of up to 2m, whilst others are at risk of flooding
to lower depths. The infrastructure of sewage treatment works can be damaged by flooding and the
functioning of the works can be impaired if they have to discharge into a flooded river.
The majority of electricity sub-stations at risk at the 1% AEP flood are found in the industrial areas in the
east of Northampton, and in Wellingborough. Relatively few electricity sub-stations are at risk at the 10%
AEP flood in comparison with the 1% AEP flood. There is a considerable increase in the number at risk of
flooding at the 0.1% AEP flood, and this is largely due to overtopping of defences in the centre of
Northampton. Overtopping of defences in Northampton at the 0.1% AEP flood is also the reason for the
large increase in the number of waste management sites affected and a school being affected.
Transport Infrastructure
Table 3.18 shows the major transport infrastructure at risk of flooding.
Key national rail links pass through the Nene catchment, including the East Coast mainline, Midland
mainline and West Coast mainline. Severe disruption could occur to regional and national rail services
during a 1% or a 0.1% AEP flood.
Whilst not at risk of flooding the East Coast mainline is at risk of

disruption during a 0.1% AEP flood in Peterborough. The Midland
mainline is at risk of flooding at Burton Latimer during a 1% AEP
flood, and at Kettering during a 0.1% AEP flood. The Northampton
branch of the West Coast Mainline is at risk of flooding at the 1% and
0.1% AEP floods from the Wootton Brook, River Nene and Brampton
Branch of the River Nene. The West Coast mainline is at risk of
disruption during a 1% and 0.1% AEP flood from a number of
upstream tributaries of the River Nene.

Figure 3.27 Agricultural damages

Figure 3.28 Critical infrastructure at risk of flooding

Table 3.17 Critical infrastructure at risk from flooding
Number of assets at risk
Asset Location Source of flooding
10% AEP flood 1% AEP flood 0.1% AEP flood
Total 6 22 61
River Nene, Stanground
Peterborough 0 1 2
Lode
Thrapston River Nene 0 0 1
Willow Brook, Harpers
Corby 0 1 2
Brook
Kettering River Ise, Slade Brook 1 4 5
River Ise, River Nene,
Electricity sub-
Wellingborough Swanspool Brook, 0 4 8
stations
Harrowden Brook
Wootton Wootton Brook 0 0 3
River Nene, Brampton
Northampton (defended) 0 0 22
Branch
Northampton (Outer) Branch, Billing Brook, 5 10 12
Dallington Brook
Other Areas River Nene and tributaries 0 2 6
Total 7 10 12
Corby Willow Brook 1 1 1
Raunds Raunds Hog Dyke 0 0 1
Stibbington River Nene 1 1 1
Weedon Kislingbury Branch 1 1 1
Bugbrooke Bugbrooke Brook 0 0 1
Sewage Treatment
Yardley Hastings Grendon Brook 0 1 1
Works
Wittering Unnamed tributary 1 1 1
Newnham Newnham Arm 1 1 1
Brixworth Brampton Branch 0 1 1
Great Billing River Nene 1 1 1
Broadholme River Nene 1 1 1
Islip River Nene 1 1 1
Waste Management Total 2 5 14

Number of assets at risk
Asset Location Source of flooding
10% AEP flood 1% AEP flood 0.1% AEP flood
Sites Corby Willow Brook 0 1 1
Harrowden Brook
Branch
Northampton (Outer) Branch, Billing Brook, 0 1 3
Dallington Brook
Total 1 1 3
IPPC Sites Harrowden Brook
Branch
Bugbrooke Kislingbury Branch 0 0 1
Total 0 0 1
Schools
Northampton (defended) Brampton Branch 0 0 1
Total 0 1 2
Care Homes Corby Willow Brook 0 1 1
Total 0 1 3
Emergency
Response Centres Wellingborough 0 0 1
Swanspool Brook
Watford Gap Welton Grange Arm 0 0 1
Total 0 1 1
Hospitals
Rushden Skew Bridge Dyke 0 1 1

None of the railways in the catchment is at significant risk of flooding or disruption during the
10% AEP flood, and no railway stations are at risk of flooding. Sections of the Nene Valley
Heritage Railway are at risk of flooding at the 1% AEP flood, but were not included in the
analysis as they are not considered part of the national rail network.
A number of major roads would be flooded in a 1% AEP flood, including the A45 at a number
of locations along the River Nene from Northampton to Rushden, and the A1 at Alwalton and
Wansford. The M1 traverses a number of the upstream tributaries of the River Nene, which
we did not model. Therefore it is difficult to tell whether or not the motorway would be
affected, though it is unlikely that it would flood at anything other than a high magnitude flood
(0.1%). While the motorway is unlikely to be flooded, disruption could occur at the 1% and
0.1% AEP floods.
As with the M1, it is difficult to tell the extent to which some of the roads could be affected by
the smaller tributaries. This is because these tributaries were not modelled, rather analysis
was carried out using our flood zones, which are less accurate than focussed modelling
studies. Thus, the number of roads given as flooded is likely to be a conservative estimate.
Flooding can also put at risk the stability of embankments, particularly those carrying railway
lines. Most at risk are those which detain a depth of floodwater.
Flooding of minor roads can isolate communities or force residents to make long diversions.
Minor roads within the River Nene floodplain between Northampton and Peterborough are
particularly susceptible to flooding, and as such residents of communities alongside this
stretch of the River Nene are at particular risk of these consequences of flooding.
3.5.5 Risks to the Environment

Introduction
In Section 2.8, we described the natural and historic environment of the catchment and the
sensitivity of environmental features and sites to flooding and flood risk management actions.
This section identifies and describes the environmental sites and features present in the
catchment, which are located within the floodplain and are currently at risk from flooding.
Flooding can have positive or negative effects on the

environment of the River Nene catchment. Risks to the
environment can occur either directly (e.g. the erosion of
an archaeological feature by floodwaters) or indirectly
(e.g. flooding of a contaminated site resulting in the
release of contaminated substances into the floodwaters
with resulting effects on water quality of the receiving
watercourse); or by a combination of both means. It is
important to understand the nature of these effects and
how these occur to inform the selection of appropriate
flood risk management policies in this CFMP.

Table 3.18 Transport infrastructure at risk from flooding
Asset Flooded
Asset Route Location Source of flooding 10% AEP flood 1% AEP flood 0.1% AEP flood
Peterborough Line unlikely to
East Coast Mainline River Nene No No flood but disruption
possible.
Burton Latimer River Ise No Yes Yes
Midland Mainline
Kettering Slade Brook No No
Various locations Line may flood,
West Coast Mainline between Kilby River Nene tributaries No disruption to
RAILWAYS and Blisworth services more likely. Yes
Line may flood,
Wootton Wootton Brook No disruption to
West Coast Mainline services more likely.
Northampton Branch
Northampton River Nene,
No Yes Yes
Brampton Branch
Peterborough – Ely Peterborough
River Nene No No Yes
Railway
West
ROADS River Nene Yes Yes Yes
Northampton
East
A45 River Nene Yes Yes Yes
Northampton
Wellingborough River Nene Yes Yes Yes
Higham Ferrers River Nene Yes Yes
Northampton Protected by
A5123 River Nene Yes Yes
defences
Northampton
A508 River Nene Protected by Yes

Asset Flooded
defences
Chapel Brampton Brampton Branch Yes Yes Yes
A5199
Spratton Spratton Brook Yes Yes Yes
A43 Northampton Brampton Branch No Yes Yes
A508 Wootton Wootton Brook Yes Yes Yes
A510 Wellingborough River Ise No No Disruption
A5193 Wellingborough River Nene No No Yes
A509 Kettering River Ise No No Yes
A427 Oundle River Nene No Disruption Yes
Wansford River Nene No No Disruption
A1 Yes – flooding from

Billing Brook
Alwalton Yes Yes River Nene as well
(Peterborough)
as Billing Brook
A6118 Wansford River Nene Yes Yes Yes
Peterborough River Nene No No Disruption
A15
Yaxley Stanground Lode Yes Yes Yes
A361 Badby Newnham Arm Yes Yes Yes
A6116 Corby Willow Brook Yes Yes Yes

Asset Flooded
Rothwell Slade Brook Yes Yes Yes
A6
Irthlingborough River Nene Yes Yes Yes
Kettering Slade Brook Yes Yes Yes
A14
Thorpe Waterville Harveys Dyke Yes Yes Yes
A605 Haddon Billing Brook
Yes Yes Yes
(Peterborough)
Althorp Church Brampton
A428 Yes Yes Yes
Branch
A425 Daventry Daventry Reservoir Yes Yes Yes
A5 Weedon Bec Kislingbury Branch Yes Yes Yes
A5128 Wellingborough River Ise Yes Yes Yes
Various locations
Unlikely that the motorway will be flooded, though with increasing
between
M1 River Nene tributaries flood magnitude there is increased possibility that disruption will
Collingtree and
occur.
Watford Gap
Grand Union Canal,
CANALS Northampton River Nene Yes Yes Yes
Northampton Branch
RAILWAY
No railway stations at risk of flooding
STATIONS
PORTS No ports at risk of flooding
AIRPORTS No airports at risk of flooding

Biodiversity and Nature Conservation
Designated Sites
As described in Section 2.8, many sites of nature conservation interest within the catchment
are directly linked to the river and rely on a seasonal flooding regime to maintain their
ecological value. Others depend on water level management rather than flooding to maintain
their nature conservation interest. All sites are sensitive to changes in the flooding regime;
whether occurring naturally or as a result of actions taken to manage flood risk elsewhere.
Three European Sites (the Nene Washes, Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits and Orton Pit) and
a further 15 SSSIs are located within the floodplain of the River Nene and its main tributaries,
with a 10% to 0.1% average AEP of flooding. Table 3.19 provides details of these sites and
the likely effects (positive, negative or neutral) of flooding. These sites include constructed
washlands (e.g. the Nene Washes), remnants of the formerly extensive floodplain grassland
and wetland habitats (e.g. Castor Flood Meadows near Peterborough), and restored gravel
pits (Orton Pit, the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits). In addition, the estuarine system of The
Wash European Marine Site receives the discharged floodwaters of the River Nene and the
other fenland rivers and is sensitive to changes in water volumes, flood flows and water
quality.
As described in Section 2.8, none of these sites are in unfavourable condition because of the
current flooding regime and many of these sites rely on a functioning floodplain to maintain
their nature conservation interest. However, because many of these sites depend on
seasonal flooding or an appropriate water level management regime, changes to the current
flooding regime in terms of the frequency, timing and extent of flooding could be harmful or
beneficial to their nature conservation interest as described in Table 3.19. Sensitive habitats
and species within these sites could also be indirectly affected by any deterioration in water
quality through, for example, the suspension or release of contaminants elsewhere into or
within the river or increased sediment loads.
Flooding is generally beneficial to these sites, where an increase in the flood extent or more
frequent or deeper flooding presents opportunities to extend the extent of wetland habitat at
the site. This flooding may be detrimental to sites where the habitats or species affected are
‘dry’ (e.g. heathland, dry grassland) and would be adversely affected by flooding. However,
given that the sites identified as at risk within the floodplain are noted for their aquatic or
wetland features, predicted adverse effects on terrestrial features of national nature
conservation value within these sites are limited.
There is also one geological site within the floodplain, Adventurer’s Land SSSI, within the
Nene Washes. This site was designated because of its importance for studies of Flandrian
sea-level fluctuations and would be unaffected by changes in the flooding regime.
At the strategic level of this study, we did not consider potential effects on locally designated
sites within the floodplain, although due consideration will be given during any detailed plans
and studies arising from this CFMP.
Biodiversity Action Plans

Beyond the designated sites, the wider biodiversity of the catchment will be sensitive to and
affected (either positively or negatively) by flooding. As described in Section 2.8, the effects of
flooding on local BAP habitats and species will vary.
Where information is available, we calculated the proportion and extent of UK BAP priority
habitats within the catchment at risk from flooding. This analysis indicated that only a limited
proportion of the UK BAP priority habitats present within the catchment are located within the
floodplain. One notable exception is the BAP priority habitat lowland meadows as almost 40%
of the overall extent of this habitat within the catchment (at 3990ha) is located within the
floodplain. This habitat includes a variety of forms of lowland unimproved neutral grassland
that are of varying sensitivity to flooding. It is likely that the forms of grassland likely to be
located within the floodplain, for example, water meadows and floodplain grasslands, are not
adversely affected by the current flooding regime and indeed rely on seasonal flooding to

maintain their biodiversity interest. Changes to the flooding regime may, therefore, present
opportunities to increase the extent and quality of this habitat, and help contribute to its BAP
targets.
No specific information is available regarding the distribution of the local BAP species and
habitats described in Section 2.8. These features include terrestrial, aquatic and wetland
habitats and species and flooding presents both specific threats and opportunities as
described in Tables 2.6 and 2.7. Allowing natural flooding patterns to occur throughout the
floodplain is likely to be beneficial to the overall biodiversity interest of the catchment. Adverse
effects are likely to be temporary in nature, for example the direct displacement of or
disturbance to aquatic BAP species during floods, or indirect, but potentially longer term
effects, resulting from damage to bankside habitats and reductions in water quality. In
addition, terrestrial BAP habitats such as dry grasslands, woods and, heaths and terrestrial
BAP species, would be adversely affected by occasional floods and in particular, by periods
of frequent or prolonged flooding.
Historic environment
The River Nene Catchment has a wealth of historic assets
and it is likely that many of these assets have withstood
infrequent flooding throughout their history. However, if
there are changes to the natural flood regime through
human intervention there is the potential for negative
impacts to arise through more frequent flooding.
Additionally, sites that were not previously flooded may be
flooded.
A proportion of designated historic environment features may be located within close

proximity to rivers and streams as a result of their function; for example, bridges, mills, and
other associated water management structures. The CFMP objective relating to the historic
environment seeks to ‘protect and enhance significant historic environment assets and their
settings’, however it is possible that the location of some of the features discussed above
(historic bridges, mills etc) may constrain some flood risk management options.
Table 3.20 describes the number and type of historic assets currently at risk from flooding in
the Nene catchment across a range of potential floods. These include up to 51 nationally
important Scheduled Monuments comprising Roman sites, a variety of earthworks, bowl
barrows, bridges and manor houses, amongst other features. In addition, up to 18 Registered
Parks and Gardens, one Historic Battlefield and up to 43 Conservation Areas
(Northamptonshire and Peterborough only) are at risk from flooding. Only parts of these sites
are affected.
These sites are all located within the floodplain and are already subject to varying frequencies
and depths of flooding. However, flooding has the potential to cause physical damage to all
aspects of the historic environment, whether designated or not. In particular, flooding, and
flood risk management activities, can cause:
• Erosion of archaeological earthworks, buried sites and standing buildings/structures

caused by repeated floodwater or by changes in water flow.
• Erosion of parts of historic battlefield or registered parks and gardens, resulting in
damage to planting schemes, trees, designed landscape features and structures.
• Damage to the integrity of listed buildings, their construction materials, interior and
exterior decoration and significant interior features.
• Degradation of preserved organic archaeological and palaeoenvironmental evidence
resulting from changes in groundwater flow and chemistry, including pollutants.
Where ground water levels are lowered to reduce flood risk, this could cause the
deterioration of organic remains through the drying out of deposits and introduction of
oxygen leading to bacterial decay.
• Impacts on the setting of sites by construction of flood protection measures (banks,
barriers).

Table 3.19 Designated nature conservation sites within the floodplain and likely effects of flooding
Current flood risk (area (ha) within Likely
Site Relevant Likely negative
various flood extents) Current positive
Site Description Area management effects of
10% 1% 0.1% Comments condition effects of
(ha) actions flooding
flooding
European Sites
Nene Lowland grassland 1512 1428 1470 1470 Flooding of Washland used 58% Sensitive to Increased
Washes and some arable land depths up to for seasonal unfavourable changes in water flooding would
SSSI, SPA, support approx. 3.5m uptake of recovering – levels and timing of be beneficial if
SAC, internationally expected for floodwaters from all units flooding. additional wet
Ramsar site significant numbers all floods River Nene and subject to Unmanaged grassland
of wildfowl and cattle grazing in management flooding could habitat created
waders. Diverse plant summer – creates agreements result in washing
and animal life within a mosaic of rough out of bird nests
the ditch network. grassland and wet during breeding
Morton’s Leam pasture seasons or make
supports habitats less
internationally suitable for
significant population nesting. An
of spined loach increase in the use
of Morton’s Leam
for the discharge of
flood water could
have an adverse
effect on the
spined loach.
Upper Nene Fragmented site 1382 1302 1310 1335 Flooded to 100% There could be an Increased
Valley comprising washland varying extents favourable increase in the flooding could
Gravel Pits and gravel pits and depths for displacement of be beneficial
SSSI, supporting all floods golden plover from to the
potential internationally rough grassland in wintering
SPA important numbers of the pSPA to waterfowl
birds (wildfowl, farmland outside assemblage,
waders, breeding the pSPA. and could
birds) and an area of Excessive flooding potentially
wet woodland of the reedbed increase the

flooding
habitats could be quality and
detrimental to extent of
wintering bittern. fringing
wetland
habitat within
and beyond
the site
The Wash Large estuarine 63,135 N/A N/A N/A Receives the Integrated 26% Changes to No effects
SSSI, SPA, system of exceptional (SSSI) discharged management unfavourable freshwater flows anticipated
SAC, biological interest waters of the actions under the principally could change the
Ramsar site designated for the River Nene Wash and North due to freshwater/saline
diversity of intertidal Norfolk Coast depleted balance and the
and coastal habitats Marine Site shellfish sedimentary
and species and Management populations processes and
large number of Scheme and habitats of the
breeding, migrant unsustainabl estuary.
and wintering birds. e fishing
practices
Orton Pit Restored gravel pit 146 0 8.8 9.7 Small area of 100% No effects No positive
SSSI, SAC designated for its SSSI flooded favourable anticipated effects
extensive pond at all annual expected
system, which is exceedance
characterised by probabilities
alkaline water and
low levels of
nutrients, and its
associated stonewort
community. It is also
designated for its
internationally
important populations
of great crested

flooding
newts.
National Sites
Castor Flood Alluvial grassland in 42 29.3 39.1 40.1 Flooded to Traditional 91% No effects Increased
Meadows floodplain. Remnant depth of up to management for unfavourable anticipated flooding could
SSSI of the once extensive 0.8m at 10%, hay and grazing recovering potentially
species-rich alluvial 1m at 1%, and allows the floral increase the
grasslands within the 1.2m at 0.1% richness of the extent of this
floodplain of the River meadows to be habitat within
Nene and in similar maintained. and beyond
flood plain situations Variety of the site
in south, central and grassland types
eastern England largely influenced
by the water
content of the soil.
Bulwick Two adjacent 4 1.5 1.9 2.1 Approx. 50% 100% No effects Increased
Meadows meadows occupying of site flooded unfavourable anticipated flooding could
SSSI the valley side and for all floods. due to potentially
flood plain of the Max depth of inappropriate increase the
Willow Brook 0.8m for 10%, ditch extent of this
designated for their 1m at 1%, and management, habitat within
spring/high water 1.1m at 0.1% undergrazing and beyond
table/surface flooding and the site
dependent inappropriate
communities - weed control
supports a rich
assemblage of
wetland plants
including rare species
and is notable for the
variety of sedges
Carices

flooding
Aldwincle Scarce wetland 2 1.4 1.8 2.0 At 10% 100% Impacts of flooding Impacts of
Marsh SSSI habitat in the River approx. 30% of unfavourable unknown flooding
Nene floodplain. A site flooded to due to under- unknown
small area of spring- max depth of grazing
fed fen and marsh on 1.2m. At 1%
shallow peat, formed approx. 50%
by seepage along the flooded to max
junction of clay and depth of 1.5m.
limestone At 0.1% all
flooded to max
depth of 1.75m
Wollaston Neutral hay meadows 14.3 14.1 14.3 14.3 Most of 100% Increased flooding Increased
Meadows adjacent to the River meadows unfavourable could be flooding could
SSSI Nene flooded for all recovering detrimental to the potentially
floods. Up to where dry grassland plant increase the
1.2m at 10%, grassland communities within extent of wet
1.5m at 1%, management the site, although grassland
2m at 0.1% was an area of wet habitats within
previously grassland may the site
the problem benefit.
Wadenhoe Area of tall fen, base- 47 36.6 37.6 38.9 Flooded to Wet meadows 30% No effects Increased
Marsh and rich flush, alder depth of up to maintained by unfavourable anticipated flooding could
Achurch woodland and 0.5m at 10%, winter flooding due to potentially
Meadow marshy grassland 1m at 1%, and regime grassland increase the
SSSI along the River Nene. 1.4m at 0.1% management extent of
The largest and most wetland
floristically diverse habitats within
example of riparian the site
wetland in
Northamptonshire
containing more than

flooding
100 flowering plant
species. Also locally
important for
breeding waders
Southfield Groundwater 9 5.3 5.9 6.4 Approx. 20% Subject to regular 57% .No effects Increased
Marsh Farm dependent wetland of meadows winter flooding unfavourable anticipated flooding could
SSSI communities – flooded at due to potentially
includes base-rich 10%, 50% at drainage/wat restore the
and floristically 1%, and 80% er pollution – designated
diverse spring-fed at 0.1%. Depth discharge. wetland plant
mire on silty peats. up to 1.5m at communities
Located along the 1%, and 2m at within the site
River Ise, this is the 0.1%.
largest area of long-
established tall grass
washland in
Northamptonshire
River Ise Best county example 14 0.1 5.7 9.8 Meadows 54% No effects Increased
and of a lowland river on flooded up to a unfavourable anticipated flooding would
Meadows clay, fed by base-rich few metres for (meadows be beneficial
SSSI water. Channel with a all floods habitats) due to flood
variety of semi- to agricultural meadow
natural features, management habitats
species-rich flood
meadows and self-
supporting population

flooding
of grayling
Pitsford Reservoir on the 413 0 272 276 Increase in AWS pumping 100% Potential for No effects
Reservoir Brampton Branch water levels at regime favourable flooding in the
SSSI with nationally all floods but highly spring or early
important numbers of sensitive to summer to be
wildfowl – specific changes in detrimental to
species vary over AWS breeding birds
time. Important for pumping along the margins.
breeding birds on regime
reservoir and
marginal land
Bugbrooke Group of low-lying 10 7.2 7.6 10 Most of Flood in winter 54% No effects Increased
Meadows meadows alongside meadows and remain wet unfavourable anticipated flooding could
SSSI Kislingbury Branch flooded for all into growing due to potentially
with a range of damp floods. Up to season. Cut for agricultural increase the
very species-rich 0.2m at 10%, hay/silage in management extent of
grassland 0.3m at 1%, summer/ autumn wetland
communities which 0.5m at 0.1% habitats within
have escaped the site
drainage and
improvement
Sutton Site contains two 17 0.0 2.7 3.2 100% No effects Area at risk of
Heath & Bog main types of unfavourable anticipated flooding is
SSSI grassland recovering relatively
communities - where small, and
calcareous grassland grazing consequences
of the Jurassic regime was of flooding
limestone type and previously unlikely to
neutral grassland of the problem have any
the base-poor marsh significant
type. impacts on
either

flooding
community.
Titchmarsh Small poorly-drained 2 0.0 1.4 1.5 Flooded to 100% No effects Increased
Meadow field alongside a depth of up to unfavourable anticipated flooding would
SSSI stream with base rich 0.9m at 10%, due to be beneficial
marsh communities 1.2m at 1% inappropriate to the marsh
of high botanical and 1.4m at weed control communities.
interest with some 0.1%
calcareous clay and
loam pastures. The
communities present
are now rare in
Northamptonshire
and Great Britain.
Adventurer’s A geologically 10.1 7 7 8 Flooded up to Favourable No effects No effects
Land SSSI important site for a depth of 1m anticipated anticipated
studies of Flandrian
sea-level fluctuations.
Whitewater Site comprises of part 4.3 0 1 1.1 Flooded up to 94% No effects Effect of
Valley SSSI of a stream running a depth of 1m unfavourable anticipated flooding may
through Lower recovering be beneficial
Lincolnshire where scrub to wetland
Limestone, and the and fen plant
associated habitats of meadow communities
base poor marsh, tall sward
fen and willow carr. encroachmen
The marsh t were
community is of an previously
unusual type, and it the problem
supports many plant
species which are

flooding
rare in
Cambridgeshire.
West, Comprises a range of 50.4 0 1.1 1.3 Flooded up to Delay the cutting 64% No effects Increased
Abbot’s & lowland woodland a depth of 1m of wet grassland unfavourable anticipated flooding may
Lound types, including a vegetation until declining due be beneficial
Woods SSSI stand of locally after 15th July. to to wet
unique plateau Remove planted inappropriate woodland and
alderwood stands of conifers, targeted vegetation wet grassland
wet ash-wych elm, within areas of management habitats
calcareous ash-wych wet woodland.
elm woodland as well
and areas of
pendunculate oak
and wet ash-maple.
Bonemills Site contains 17.5 0 3.0 3.5 Flooded up to 81% Area at risk of No effects
Hollow SSSI calcareous grassland a depth of 1m unfavourable flooding is anticipated
of the Jurassic recovering relatively small,
limestone type, where although increased
uncommon in inappropriate flooding may be
Cambridgeshire grassland detrimental
management
was
previously
the problem

Table 3.20 Numbers and types of historic assets currently at risk of flooding
Total Current flood risk
Features number in (numbers within various flood extents and details)
catchment 10% 1% 0.1%
Scheduled 191 32 46 51
Monuments Roman sites: 14 additional sites at 5 additional sites at
• Roman Villa, risk: risk:
• Roman Fort and • Roman Villa, • Wansford Roman
Town of • Remains Of Site,
Durobrivae (The Shrunken • Site Of Manor
Castles), Medieval Village House And
• Roman Villa near near Sutton Gardens,
Castor Station, Heath, • Remains Of
• Site Of Roman • Site Revealed By Manor House And
Villa near Sibson Aerial Garden,
Hollow, Photography W • Geddington
• Roman Site In Of Sutton Heath, Cross:Eleanor
Normangate Field, • Everdon Bridge Cross And
• Roman Station, • Muscott Deserted Conduit House,
• Longthorpe Roman Medieval Village • A Late 16th
Fort And And Double Century House,
Settlement, Moated Site, Gardens and
• Roman Field • Place House Dovecote, near
System and Moat And Mill Farm,
Trackway at Fishpond,
Whittlesey • Stoke Doyle
Washes. Moated Site near
Bridges: Oundle.
• Wansford Bridge, • Calender
• Irthlingborough Monastic Grange
Bridge, at Cottesbrooke,
• Ditchford Bridge, • Remains Of A
• Ferry Bridge, Moated Monastic
• South Bridge, Retreat House,
• Roman Timber Manorial
Bridge Over Harper Courthouse And
Brook, Inn,
• Fotheringhay • Kirby Hall and
Bridge, the Remains Of
• Geddington Bridge, The Medieval
Bowl barrows: Village Of Kirby,
• Upton Bowl • Kelmarsh
Barrow, Medieval
• Raunds Bowl Settlement,
Barrow • Cistercian Abbey
• Bowl Barrow near And Medieval
Rose Farm, Settlement At
Pipewell,
• Bowl Barrow near
Woodford Mill, • Irthlingborough
Bowl Barrow
near Rutland
Water Newton Mill,
Lodge
• Medieval Cross
Oundle Lodge
Other sites/features:
• Earthworks Of
Abbot Of Ramsey's
Manor,
• Castle Earthworks
and Barn at Thorpe

Waterville,
• Lynch Farm
Complex,
• Deserted
Settlement Of West
Cotton,
• Ashton Settlement
Site,
• Site Of
Fotheringhay
Priory,
• Old Customs
House,
• Clifford Hill Motte
Castle,
• Fotheringhay Motte
and Bailey Castle,
• Mallows Cotton
Deserted Medieval
Village.
Registered 31 5 16 18
Parks and • Deene Park, 11 additional sites at 2 additional sites at
Gardens • Horton Hall, risk: risk:
• Elton Hall, • Hinwick Hall, • St Andrew's
• Wicksteed Park, • Hinwick House, Manor (Barnwell)
• Boughton House. • Althorpe, • All Saints Manor
• Boughton Hall, (Barnwell)
• Castle Ashby,
• Fawsley Hall,
• Kirby Hall,
• Brockhall Park,
• Cottesbrooke
Hall,
• Rushton Hall,
• Thorpe Hall.
Historic 2 1 1 1
Battlefields • Battle of • Battle of • Battle of
Northampton Northampton Northampton
Conservatio 118 14 41 43
n Areas • Ashton Wold: Parts of 27 Parts of 2 additional
(Northampt Ashton Green, additional CAs at CAs at risk:
onshire and • Brigstock, risk: • Oundle,
Peterborou • Bulwick, • Barnwell, • Thrapston
gh only) • Cotterstock, • Dallington,
• Fotheringhay, • Cranford,
• Geddington, • Cransley,
• Kings Cliffe, • Grafton
• Weldon, Underwood,
• Wadenhoe, • Great Oakley,
• Sudborough, • Grendon,
• Little Oakley, • Rushton,
• Kislingbury, • Polebrook,
• Grand Union • Pipewell,
Canal, • Mears Ashby,
• Pilton, • Lower Benefield,

• Everdon
• Lower
Harlestone,
• Blisworth,
• Bugbrooke,
• Denton,
• Nether Heyford,
• Yardley Hastings,
• Brockhall,
• Moulton,
• Cottesbrooke,
• Thornhaugh,
• Longthorpe,
• Peterborough
City Centre,
• Wansford,
• Sutton
Surface water quality and quantity

Flooding can affect the quality and quantity of water available in the
catchment. We identified that the River Nene and its principal
tributaries are at risk of failing to meet its environmental objectives
under the WFD because of potential issues relating to point and
diffuse sources of pollution. Flooding can exacerbate pollution from
diffuse sources, as nutrients applied to agricultural land are washed
into the river. On the other hand, floodwater could help to improve
water quality and resource issues where an increased volume of
water could dilute polluting sources or supplement reduced water
resources. Urban growth will impact on water cycle infrastructure by
increasing the demand on water supply, increasing flows to sewage treatment works and increasing the
extents of sewered catchments.
We also identified that the River Nene and its principal tributaries are at risk of failing to meet its
environmental objectives under the WFD because of its significant morphological alterations, primarily for
flood risk management purposes. Although the River Nene is likely to be designated as a heavily modified
water body (HMWB), meaning the restoration of natural conditions will not be required, it will be necessary
to ensure any flood risk management actions proposed by this CFMP are compatible with the relevant
WFD environmental objectives.
During flooding there is a significant risk that pollutants from point sources could be carried over a wide
area by floodwaters. Potential sources of pollutants within the current flood extents include areas of
contaminated land, up to three IPPC licensed sites, 12 waste management sites and 12 waste and water
treatment plants (Table 3.21). These are mainly concentrated around the main urban centres,
Northampton, Wellingborough, Peterborough, Kettering and Corby. Flooding of these sites could result in
negative effects on water quality with associated effects on human health and biodiversity.
Landscape
The flooding regime of the River Nene has shaped the present form and character of the river valley
landscape. Regular flooding of the wide floodplain is a natural feature of the character of this landscape.
Flooding could result in negative impacts on the landscape in the upper reaches of the river and its
tributaries, for example within Rockingham Forest, where the river is a less dominant feature of the
landscape, although the extent of flooded areas will be naturally limited by topography.
The fenland area of the Lower Nene is the landscape of the catchment most sensitive to the effects of
flooding. In this location, flooding would result from breaching or overtopping of the embankments that

contain the tidal River Nene and would occur across a wide and extensive area due to the flat nature of the
land. The drainage of this landscape began several centuries ago and is now sustained using an extensive
pumping system to facilitate intensive agricultural production. Any increased flooding could result in
significant landscape character and land use changes, if the existing drainage management regime were
altered.
Large scale impacts on landscape character are not considered within this CFMP given the limited
flooding-related landscape changes in the middle and upper reaches of the River Nene and the complexity
and uncertainty of potential changes in the Fens. However, local changes in landscape character and
visual amenity will need to be considered at more detailed stages of the flood risk management process.
Fisheries
Flooding presents potential hazards to the fisheries populations of the River Nene and its tributaries.
Although these are not considered at the strategic level of this CFMP, we are aware that flooding can
cause local decreases in water quality, scouring and degradation of valuable bankside and riverbed
habitats, and potential blockages of river channels preventing access to upstream spawning grounds for
migratory fish. In addition, actions taken to manage flood risk can create permanent barriers for fish
migrating along the river with the installation of cross-river flood control structures and the permanent loss
of bankside habitat with the construction of riverside defences. Therefore, any detailed studies or plans
arising from this CFMP will need to consider potential impacts on the fish populations of the River Nene
and its tributaries in recommending flood risk management actions.
Table 3.21 Numbers and types of potentially polluting sources currently at risk of flooding
Current flood risk
Type of site (numbers within various flood extents)
10% 1% 0.1%
IPPC licensed sites 1 1 3
• Flour Mill in No additional sites 2 additional sites:
Wellingborough • Brewery in
Northampton
• Bugbrooke Mill
Waste Management 2 5 14
Sites • Metal recycling site in 3 additional sites: 9 additional sites:
Wellingborough • Metal recycling • Other non
• Landfill near site in Corby hazardous waste
Wellingborough • Non-hazardous site in Kettering
waste transfer • 3 non hazardous
station in waste transfer
Northampton stations and 2 metal
Outer recycling sites in
• Metal recycling Northampton
site in Kislingbury. (defended areas)
• A metal recycling
site and non
hazardous waste
transfer station in
Northampton Outer.
• 1 non hazardous
waste transfer
station in Rushden.
Sewage Treatment 7 10 12
Plants (STW) • Great Billing STW 3 additional sites: 2 additional sites:
• Broadholme STW • Yardley Hastings • Bugbrooke STW
• Islip STW STW • Raunds STW
• Stibbington STW • Brixworth STW
• Weedon STW • Wittering STW
• Corby STW
• Newnham STW

Navigation, tourism and recreation
Flooding has temporary but negative effects on recreational activities within the catchment. Disruption of
navigation as a result of flooding is the main issue relating to recreation on the River Nene. Flooding may
have temporary negative effects on the navigable sections of the river and the Grand Union Canal. The
level of disruption may vary depending on the extent of flooding. Where flooding results in the need for
repairs or alterations to structures, there may also be extended closure of some sections of water.
Disruption is also likely during flooding to the use of footpaths, bridleways, cycle ways and other amenities
within the floodplain or on top of flood defence embankments.
We considered Issues relating to navigation, recreation and tourism as high-level constraints and
opportunities during the development of the River Nene CFMP. These aspects will inform the
implementation of the CFMP. However, we considered no locally specific risks or impacts given the
strategic nature of the plan.
3.6 Summary of Flood Risk

Table 3.22 summarises the issues revealed by our investigation of current flood risk. The table has an
overall assessment of flood risk in a number of locations around the catchment. The categories of flood
risk are the relative assessment of the combined risks to social, economic and environmental receptors
with prominence given to people at risk, particularly risk to life.

Table 3.22 Current flood risk issues
Pathway and
Location Current flood risk and scale of disruption Flood risk management in place
flooding source
Northampton Fluvial flooding Flood defences prevent frequent flooding from 0.5% AEP flood standard defences in Northampton.
(defended areas) from the River occurring. Significant flooding only occurs at the 0.1% These prevent flooding up to and including the 0.5%
Nene. Overtopping AEP flood when defences are overtopped. If defences AEP flood.
or breach of are breached the impact of flooding is potentially very The Northampton Washlands provide protection for
defences. severe, with high velocities and depths posing a risk to areas downstream of Northampton.
life. The following flood warning areas cover this location:
• River Nene and tributaries in Northampton,
Due to defences no properties or people will be including low-lying areas adjacent to the river
flooded at the 1% AEP flood, and hence no damages • Nene and Tributaries from Daventry to
accrued. No annual average damages. Kislingbury
• River Nene and tributaries in the St James area
Flood defences prevent significant disruption to critical of Northampton
and transport infrastructure. For floods with a lower • River Nene and tributaries in the Far Cotton Area
frequency than the standard of protection afforded by of Northampton
the defences the disruption could be extremely severe. • River Nene and tributaries in the Tanner Street
area of Northampton
Part of the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SSSI lies • River Nene and tributaries in the St Peters Way
within this area and is prone to flooding in a 1% AEP and Victoria Promenade areas of Northampton
flood, although there are no negative impacts. • River Nene and tributaries in the Dallington Brook
area of Northampton
Overall flood risk is assessed as LOW
• River Nene and tributaries from Billing to
Thrapston
Northampton Fluvial flooding Serious flooding relatively infrequent, though number Areas on the River Nene east of the centre of
(Outer areas) from the River of commercial properties at risk in a 10% AEP flood, as Northampton benefit from the operation of the
Nene, Brampton are a number of transport links. Northampton Washlands. The standard of protection
Branch, Dallington provided is estimated at the 12% AEP flood in this
Brook and Billing Approx. 360 people and 250 properties affected at 1% area.
Brook. AEP flood. Billing Brook Flood detention ponds, Hardingstone
flood storage reservoir, and Dallington flood storage
Damages of approximately £36 million incurred for 1% reservoir provide localised protection. Standard of
AEP flood, vast majority being commercial damages. Protection of Dallington flood storage reservoir is 2%;
AAD of £5.28 million, caused by significant damages to others are unknown.

Pathway and
flooding source
commercial properties in low magnitude floods.
The following flood warning areas cover this location:
Flooding is of a moderate duration (< 24 hours), • River Nene and tributaries in Northampton,
velocities and depths unlikely to be high on the River including low-lying areas adjacent to the river.
Nene and Brampton Branch, though may be high on • River Nene and tributaries in the Dallington Brook
the Brooks. area of Northampton.
Potential for serious disruption to local, regional and Thrapston.
national transport infrastructure, including the • River Nene at Billing Aquadrome.
Northampton branch of the West Coast Mainline, A45
and A43. Risk to critical infrastructure with 10
electricity substations and 1 waste management site
affected.
Some small impact on the historic environment (one

scheduled monument and one conservation area
affected) and on BAP habitats.
Overall flood risk is assessed as HIGH

Wellingborough Fluvial flooding Serious flooding occurs relatively infrequently, with Areas of Wellingborough which flood from the River
from River Ise, limited impact at the 10% AEP flood, but significant Nene benefit from the operation of the Northampton
River Nene, impact at 1% AEP flood. Washlands upstream. Standard of protection at this
Harrowden Brook location is unknown.
and Swanspool Approx. 300 people and 200 properties affected at 1% Wellingborough benefits from the following flood
Brook AEP flood. In comparison with the rest of the storage schemes:
catchment, a significant number of commercial • Harrowden flood storage area provides localised
properties are affected. benefits to areas at risk on the Harrowden Brook.
Standard of Protection estimated at 2%.
Damages of up to £30 million occur at 1% AEP flood, • Wilby flood storage area benefits areas at risk on
the vast majority being commercial damages. AAD of the Swanspool Brook. Standard of protection
£1.16 million, caused by significant damages to estimated at 2%.
commercial properties in low magnitude floods.

Pathway and
flooding source
Flooding is of relatively long duration (up to 48 hours), • River Nene and tributaries from Billing to
depths and velocities likely to be low. Thrapston.
• River Ise and tributaries from Clipston to
Local, regional and national disruptions at the 1% AEP, Wellingborough.
with damage to transport infrastructure including the
Midland Mainline and locally important roads. Risk to
critical infrastructure, including 4 electricity substations,
one waste management site and one IPPC site.
Minor risk to BAP habitats, although impacts of

flooding are not thought to be negative.
Overall flood risk is assessed as MODERATE - HIGH

Kettering Fluvial flooding Relatively frequent flooding with over 50 properties The Kettering Leisure Village flood storage area
from River Ise and affected at > 10% AEP. provides localised protection to areas at risk on the
Slade Brook. Slade Brook. Standard of protection estimated at the
Approx. 450 – 500 people and 200 properties affected 2% AEP flood.
at 1% AEP flood.
The following flood warning areas cover these
Damages of up to £7M at 1% AEP flood, with roughly locations:
equal split between commercial and residential • Slade Brook in the Venture Park area of Kettering
properties. AAD of £0.33 million. • River Ise and tributaries from Clipston to
Wellingborough
Duration of flooding short – moderate (< 18 hours),
depths potentially high, velocities likely to be moderate.
Severe local, regional and national disruptions at the
1% AEP, with flooding of regional and local transport
infrastructure including the Midland Mainline, A14 trunk
road and a number of other locally and regionally
important roads. 4 electricity substations affected by
flooding.
Flooding of Southfield Farm Marsh SSSI, with likely

Pathway and
flooding source
positive impacts. Some risk to BAP habitats, with
varied impacts. One park and garden affected by
flooding.

Corby Fluvial flooding Frequent flooding of a large number of properties Corby benefits from the flooding storage schemes:
from Harpers Brook occurs, over 150 properties affected at the 10% AEP
and Willow Brook. flood. • Weldon flood storage reservoir on the Willow
Surface water Brook. Standard of protection estimated at the
flooding can occur. Approx. 800 - 850 people and 350 – 400 properties 2% AEP flood.
affected at the 1% AEP flood. • Gretton Brook flood storage reservoir on the
Gretton Brook. Standard of protection estimated
Damages of up to £20 million occurs at the 1% AEP at the 10% AEP flood.
flood, with approx. £14 million of this coming from • Crucible Road flood storage reservoir. Standard
commercial properties. AAD of £1.11 million. of protection unknown.
Duration of flooding likely to be short (< 12 hours) The following flood warning areas cover this location:
though possibility of significant duration in parts. Depth • River Nene tributaries between Thrapston and
and velocity of flooding unlikely to constitute a the Dog-in-a-Doublet sluice in Peterborough
significant risk. • Willow Brook in Weldon and Kings Cliffe
Duration of flooding is expected to be moderate (up to
24 hours) with moderate velocities and low depths.
Local and regional disruptions to transport
infrastructure at the 1% AEP flood, with disruption to a
number of locally and regionally important roads,
including the A427. Some risk to critical infrastructure
with 1 electricity substation, 1 sewage treatment work,
1 waste management site and 1 care home affected by
flooding.
Some impact on the historic environment, with two

conservation areas at risk of flooding. Minor risk to

Pathway and
flooding source
some BAP habitats, but impact is not thought to be
negative.

Peterborough Fluvial flooding A small number of properties (approx. 25) at risk of Peterborough benefits from the operation of the
from River Nene frequent flooding, serious flooding occurs relatively Northampton Washlands. Standard of protection at
and Stanground infrequently though (1% AEP flood). this location unknown.
Lode
Approx. 400 people and 170 properties affected at 1% The Nene Washes provide protection to
AEP flood. Peterborough during periods of tide-locking.
Relatively modest damages of less than £2 million Thorpe Drain flood storage area provides localised
expected at 1% AEP flood. Majority of damages comes benefits to areas at risk in Thorpe Meadows.
from residential properties. AAD of £0.12 million. Standard of protection unknown.
Duration of flooding very long (typically 48 – 96 hours), The following flood warning area covers this location:
depths and velocities generally low.
• River Nene between Thrapston and the Dog-in-a-
Local and regional disruptions to transport Doublet sluice to the east of Peterborough
infrastructure at the 1% AEP flood, with disruption to • North Bank Road alongside the River Nene, east
the A15, and other locally important roads. 1 electricity of Peterborough and west of Dog-in-a-Doublet
substation at risk of flooding in a 1% AEP flood. Sluice
• River Nene between Wansford and the Dog-in-a-
Moderate risk to the historic environment, including risk Doublet sluice to the east of Peterborough
to two conservation areas, a designated park and
garden and a scheduled monument. Orton Pit SSSI
and SAC is affected by flooding, but the effect of
flooding is not thought to be negative. The Nene
Washes, an internationally designated ecological site,
is just downstream of Peterborough and is at risk of
flooding. There are both positive and negative effects
of flooding.

Pathway and
flooding source
Rushden Fluvial flooding Relatively frequent flooding of a handful of properties No formal defences.
from Skew Bridge (approx. 15 at 10% AEP flood). The following flood warning area covers this location:
Dyke • River Nene and tributaries from Billing to
Approx. 80 people and 40 properties affected at 1% Thrapston.
AEP flood.
Damages of up to £5 million occur at 1% AEP flood,

mainly accrued from commercial properties. AAD of
£0.20 million.
Duration of flooding likely to be moderate (< 24 hours),

potential from high velocities, and for depths of up to
1.5m.
Disruption at the 1% AEP flood to locally and regionally

important roads, including the A45 and a number of
key roads in the centre of Rushden. Rushden Hospital
is at risk of flooding in a 1% AEP flood.
Overall flood risk is assessed as LOW - MODERATE

Raunds Fluvial flooding Relatively frequent flooding (> 10% AEP) of about 40 No formal defences.
from Raunds Hog properties. Serious flooding occurs relatively The following flood warning area covers this location:
Dyke infrequently. • River Nene and tributaries from Billing to
Thrapston.
Approx. 250-300 people and 130 properties affected at
1% AEP flood.
Damages of up to £7 million occurs at 1% AEP flood.

Significant damages for both commercial and
residential properties occur. AAD of £0.26 million.

Pathway and
flooding source
1.5m.
Disruption at the 1% AEP flood to locally important

roads within Raunds. Raunds ambulance station floods
in a 1% AEP flood.
Overall flood risk is assessed as MODERATE

Thrapston Fluvial flooding Recently constructed defences prevent frequent Thrapston is defended by recently constructed flood
from the River flooding from occurring. Significant flooding only defences, which protect the town up to and including
Nene. Overtopping occurs at the 0.1% AEP flood when defences are the 0.5% AEP flood.
or breach of overtopped.
defences. The following flood warning areas cover this location:
Due to defences no properties or people will be • River Nene between Thrapston and Castor
flooded at the 1% AEP flood, and hence no damages including low lying mill properties
accrued. No annual average damages. • River Nene between Thrapston and the Dog-in-a-
Doublet sluice to the east of Peterborough
Flood defences prevent significant disruption to key
transport and critical infrastructure.

River Nene from Fluvial flooding Significant flooding can occur for 10% AEP flood, with No formal defences.
Oundle to Water from River Nene. up to 70 properties affected.
Newton People and The following flood warning areas cover this location:
property in Approx. 400 people and 200 properties affected for 1% • River Nene between Thrapston and the Dog-in-a-
floodplain AEP flood. Those affected spread along river, but Doublet sluice to the east of Peterborough
found in Oundle, Elton and Wansford notably. • River Nene between Wansford and the Dog-in-a-
Damages of up to £5 million for the 1% AEP flood, • River Nene between Thrapston and Castor
mainly commercial damages. AAD of approximately including low lying mill properties
£0.30 million.
Flooding is of long duration (up to four days in

Pathway and
flooding source
duration) meaning the impact of flooding is likely to be
prolonged, especially as a number of major roads are
prone to flooding in the area. Velocities and depths of
flooding are unlikely to be high.
Local, regional and national disruption to key roads

links at the 1% AEP flood, including the A1 at
Wansford and Water Newton, and a number of key
strategic river crossings. Stibbington STW is flooded in
a 1% AEP flood.
Large number of historic environment features are at

risk of flooding, including 16 scheduled monuments
and 5 conservation areas. Castor Flood Meadows
SSSI is affected, though impact of flooding is positive.

Harpers Brook Fluvial flooding Subject to relatively frequent flooding with approx. 20 Brigstock, Sudborough and other settlements along
from Harpers properties flooded frequently (> 10% AEP flood). No the Harpers Brook are protected by Great Oakley
Brook. significant growth in the number of properties affected flood storage area. Standard of protection estimated
for 1% and 0.1% AEP floods. at the 4% AEP flood.
Approx. 70 people and 30 properties affected for 1% The following flood warning areas cover this location:
AEP flood. Those affected are primarily residential • River Nene between Thrapston and the Dog-in-a-
properties found in Brigstock and Sudborough. Doublet sluice to the east of Peterborough
• River Nene tributaries between Thrapston and
Damages of up to £1 million for 1% AEP flood. AAD of the Dog-in-a-Doublet sluice to the east of
£0.07 million. Peterborough
• Harpers Brook in Sudborough
Flooding is of short duration (< 12 hours), with large
depths in parts of up 2m, and potential for moderate
velocities.

Pathway and
flooding source
Disruption to locally important transport network at 1%
AEP flood. No critical infrastructure affected in a 1%
AEP flood.
Two conservation areas (Brigstock and Sudborough)

are affected by flooding.

Wootton Fluvial flooding Flooding of approx. 35 properties can occur frequently No formal defences.
from Wootton (> 10% AEP). Increase in the number of properties
Brook affected up to the 1% AEP flood is not dramatic. The following flood warning areas cover this location:
• Wootton Brook in the Collingtree Park Area of
Approx. 180 people and 70 properties affected for the Northampton
1% AEP flood. Those affected mainly found in Wootton
along the southern edge of Northampton.
Damages of approx. £1 million occur at 1% AEP flood,

mainly arising from residential properties. AAD of
£0.08 million.
Flooding is of moderate duration (up to 24 hours), and

velocities likely to be low. Depths in general are low,
though there are a few locations where very high
depths may occur.
Disruption to locally, regionally and nationally important

transport links at the 1% AEP flood, including the
Northampton branch of the West Coast mainline and
the A508. Also potential for disruption to the M1. No
critical infrastructure affected in a 1% AEP flood.

Kislingbury Branch Fluvial flooding Up to 30 properties are at risk of frequent flooding (> 0.5% AEP flood standard defences have recently

Pathway and
flooding source
from Kislingbury 10% AEP flood). been installed in Kislingbury. These prevent flooding
Branch of Nene, Serious flooding does not begin to occur until the 0.1% in the village of Kislingbury up to and including the
and minor AEP when defences in Kislingbury and upstream of 0.5% AEP flood.
upstream tribs. Weedon are overwhelmed. Weedon Flood Storage Scheme protects Weedon up
to the 1% AEP flood.
Approx. 100 people and 60 properties affected at the
1% AEP flood. The majority of those affected are in Flood storage is under construction between
Bugbrooke and not in the defended towns of Kislingbury and Northampton which will provide
Kislingbury and Weedon. benefit to Northampton and areas further
downstream, as well as compensating for
Damages of up to £4.5 million occur at 1% AEP flood, development in the Upper Nene.
mainly arising from a handful of commercial properties.
AAD of £0.69 million. The following flood warning areas cover this location:
• River Nene in Kislingbury and at Bugbrooke Mill
Flooding is of moderate duration (24-36 hours), with • River Nene and Tributaries from Daventry to
low depths in most parts and moderate velocities. Kislingbury
Potential for large depths and large velocities should • River Nene in Weedon
defences become overwhelmed.

transport links for the 1% AEP. Transport infrastructure
affected includes the West Coast Mainline, A5, and a
number of strategic river crossings of local importance.
There is also the possibility of disruption to the M1.
Weedon STW and 1 waste management site are
affected by flooding.
Three conservation areas (Bugbrooke, Kislingbury and

Nether Heyford) and one scheduled monument (Upton
Bowl Barrow) are affected by flooding. Bugbrooke
Meadows SSSI floods in a 1% AEP flood, with the
impact of flooding thought to be positive.

Pathway and
flooding source
Barnwell Fluvial flooding Barnwell flood storage area protects all properties up Barnwell Flood Storage Area provides benefits to
from Barnwell to and including the 1% flood flood. Significant flooding Barnwell. Standard of protection estimated at the 1%
Brook only occurs for flood floods less frequent than this. AEP flood.
Due to defences no properties or people will be The following flood warning areas cover this location:
flooded at the 1% AEP flood, and hence no damages • River Nene between Thrapston and the Dog-in-a-
accrued. No annual average damages. Doublet sluice to the east of Peterborough
No transport or critical infrastructure affected by

flooding.
A small part of Barnwell conservation area is affected

by flooding.

Yarley Hastings, Fluvial flooding Approx. 20 properties are at risk of frequent flooding (> The villages on the Grendon Brook benefit from the
Bozeat and from Grendon 10% AEP). The number of properties at the 1% and flooding storage schemes:
Grendon Brook system of 0.15 floods is not significantly higher than at the 10%
streams AEP flood. • Yardley Hastings flood storage reservoirs.
Standard of protection of the North reservoir
110 - 120 people and 50 properties are affected at the estimated at the 2% AEP flood. Standard of
1% AEP flood. protection of the East and West reservoirs
estimated at the 4% AEP flood.
Damages of approx. £4.5 million occur at the 1% AEP • Denton flood storage reservoir on the Gretton
flood, a substantial increase on the damages at the Brook. Standard of protection estimated at the
10% AEP flood, despite the relatively small increase in 4% AEP flood.
the number of properties affected. AAD of £0.29 • Bozeat flood storage reservoir. Standard of
million. protection estimated at the 2% AEP flood.
Duration of flooding is expected to be moderate (up to The following flood warning areas cover this location:
24 hours) with moderate velocities and low depths. • River Nene and tributaries from Billing to
Thrapston
Disruption to locally important transport infrastructure.

Pathway and
flooding source
Yardley Hastings STW is affected by flooding in a 1%
AEP flood.
Three conservation areas (Grendon, Yardley Hastings

and Denton), one park and garden (Castle Ashby) and
one scheduled monument are affected by flooding at
the 1% AEP flood

Blisworth Fluvial flooding Relatively frequent flooding (> 10% AEP) of approx. 30 No formal defences.
from Milton Malsor properties.
Brook Blisworth is not covered by a flood warning area.
Approx. 100 people and 60 properties are affected at
the 1% AEP flood.
Damages of approx. £4.5 million occur at the 1% AEP

flood, largely caused by flooding of commercial
properties. AAD of £0.29 million.

Disruption to locally important transport links at the 1%

AEP flood. No critical infrastructure affected at the 1%
AEP flood.
Blisworth conservation area is flooded in a 1% AEP

flood.

The Fens Fluvial flooding Flood defences prevent frequent flooding from Pumped storage allows drainage of the Fens, and
from the Nene, tidal occurring. Significant flooding only occurs for floods of prevents many areas becoming permanently under
flooding from the 0.5% AEP or less frequent. If defences are breached water.

Pathway and
flooding source
sea, flooding from or overtopped the impact of flooding is potentially very Flood defences up to a standard of 0.5% line the
pump failure. severe, with high velocities and depths posing a risk to River Nene preventing inundation.
Inundation from life.
River Nene would The following flood warning areas cover this location:
occur if defences Less than 10 properties affected for 1% AEP flood. If • B1040 Thorney to Whittlesey Road to the South
were overtopped or breach were to occur, or very high magnitude flood of the River Nene
breached. potential for large number of people and properties to • Tidal Nene including Sutton Bridge and Wisbech
be affected, • Wash frontage from Frampton to Admiralty Point
especially in the towns alongside the Nene: Sutton and the Tidal Nene up to Dog in a Doublet
Bridge and Wisbech. Greater than 10,000 people • River Delph Flood Defences
assessed as at serious risk of flooding as a result of a • Twenty Foot River, River Nene (Old Course)
breach. • Bevills Leam, Twenty Foot River, River Nene (Old
Course), Whittlesey Dyke
Damages of < £0.5M at 1% AEP flood. AAD of £0.08 • Bevills Leam, Twenty Foot River, Whittlesey
million. Dyke.
• River Nene between Thrapston and the Dog-in-a-
Although flooding is unlikely, depth and velocity
potentially very high if breaching occurs.
• North Bank Road alongside the River Nene, east
of Peterborough and west of Dog-in-a-Doublet
No impact on transport and critical infrastructure in a
Sluice
1% AEP flood, however, if a breach of defences were
to occur then severe regional and local disruption • River Nene between Wansford and the Dog-in-a-
would occur. Doublet sluice to the east of Peterborough
• River Nene in the Yarwell Headland and West
Adventurers Land SSSI within this policy unit is Delph areas of Whittlesey.
affected by flooding. Prolonged flooding likely to have • River Welland from Stamford to Spalding and
a negative impact. The Wash SSSI, SPA and Ramsar seepage in areas of Stamford, the Deepings and
site is adjacent to the policy unit and is impacted on by Spalding.
high flows from the River Nene.

Main Nene and Fluvial flooding Relatively frequent flooding of a small number of No formal defences.
minor tribs from Nene and properties, notably between Wellingborough and

Pathway and
flooding source
(excluding minor tributaries Northampton. The following flood warning areas cover this location:
Wellingborough, • River Nene tributaries between Thrapston and
Rushden, Raunds, Approx. 200 people and 100 properties affected for 1% the Dog-in-a-Doublet sluice to the east of
Thrapston and AEP flood. Properties affected spread throughout the Peterborough
Oundle – Water area, with properties flooded typically isolated, though • River Nene between Thrapston and the Dog-in-a-
Newton) there are small rural clusters of damages. Doublet sluice to the east of Peterborough
• River Nene between Thrapston and Castor
Damages of approx. £5.5 million at 1% AEP flood. including low lying mill properties.
Damages spread along the Nene, with contributions • River Nene between Wansford and the Dog-in-a-
from commercial and residential properties. AAD of Doublet sluice to the east of Peterborough
£0.48 million. • River Nene and tributaries from Billing to
Thrapston.
Duration of flooding is potentially long (between 48 and
96 hours). Most properties affected on the fringes of
flood extent so expect low depth and velocities.
Disruption to locally and regionally important transport

infrastructure at the 1% AEP flood, including a number
of A roads and strategic river crossings of local
importance along the river. Risk to critical infrastructure
including Great Billing, Broadholme, Wittering and Islip
STWs.
Significant number of scheduled monuments

(approximately 17) and conservation areas
(approximately 7) are affected by flooding. 9 SSSIs are
at risk of flooding, with both positive and negative
impacts of flooding.

Willow Brook and Fluvial flooding Limited number of properties flooded for all floods Great Oakley flood storage area provides protection
Upper Harpers from Willow Brook considered. to Brigstock and Sudborough on the Harpers Brook.
Brook and Harpers Brook Less than 15 people and less than 10 properties likely Standard of protection estimated at the 4% AEP

Pathway and
flooding source
to be affected by 1% AEP. flood.
Very small damages of approx. £20,000 likely to be The following flood warning areas cover this location:
accrued at the 1% AEP flood. AAD of less than £1000. • River Nene tributaries between Thrapston and
the Dog-in-a-Doublet sluice to the east of
Duration, depth and velocity not considered to present Peterborough
significant risk along the reach. • Willow Brook in Weldon and Kings Cliffe.
Disruption to locally important road links at the 1%

AEP flood and a number of key strategic river
crossings. No critical infrastructure affected in a 1%
AEP flood.
Moderate impact on the historic environment, with four

conservation areas (Pipewell, Little Oakley, Bulwick
and Kings Cliffe) and five scheduled monuments at risk
of flooding at the 1% AEP flood. Bulwick Meadows
SSSI is affected by flooding, with positive impact.
Overall flood risk is assessed as VERY LOW

River Ise Fluvial flooding Relatively limited number of properties flooded for all The following defences benefit areas on the River Ise:
(excluding from River Ise floods considered, with less than five properties • Geddington flood relief channel protects areas of
Kettering and considered to be at risk for frequent floods (> 10% Geddington. Standard of protection estimated at
Wellingborough) AEP). the 1% AEP flood.
• Clipston flood storage area provides localised
Approx. 30 properties and 65 people affected for the protection to areas on the River Ise. Standard of
1% AEP flood. Most of those affected are found in protection unknown.
Geddington.
Damages of less than £1.5 million likely to be accrued • River Ise and tributaries from Clipston to
at the 1% AEP flood. AAD of £0.02 million. Wellingborough.
Duration, depth and velocity not expected to present a
significant risk along the reach.

Pathway and
flooding source

road and rail links at the 1% AEP flood, including the
Midland Mainline, a number of A roads, and a number
of locally important river crossings. No critical
infrastructure affected by flooding in a 1% AEP flood.
Moderate impact on the historic environment, with

three conservation areas (Cransley, Geddington and
Rushton) and two scheduled monuments. River Ise
and Meadows SSSI is affected by flooding, with likely
positive effects.

Upper Nene Fluvial flooding Limited number of properties affected for high No formal defences.
(excluding from upstream frequency floods (> 10% AEP flood). Relatively low
settlements tributaries of the number of properties affected at 1% AEP flood given The following flood warning areas cover this location:
between Nene the area covered. • River Nene and tributaries in Northampton,
Kislingbury and including low lying areas adjacent to the river.
Weedon) Approx. 130 people and 60 properties affected for 1% • River Nene and tributaries from Daventry to
AEP flood. Properties affected spread throughout the Kislingbury.
area, with a number of small clusters and isolated
properties. Majority of properties are residential
Damages of approx. £2.5 million at 1% AEP flood.

Roughly even split between commercial and residential
damages. AAD of £0.36 million.
Duration of flooding expected to be short given the

upstream nature of the area. Depth likely to be low,
with potential for moderate – high velocities.

Pathway and
flooding source
transport links for the 1% AEP. Key infrastructure
affected includes the West Coast Mainline, and a
Brixworth and Newnham STWs are affected by
flooding.
Moderate impact on the historic environment, with 6

conservation areas and 3 scheduled monuments
flooded in a 1% AEP flood. Pitsford Reservoir SSSI is
affected by flooding, with variable impacts.

4 Future Flood Risk
4.1 Introduction
In order to manage flood risk, we must predict what flood
risk could be under future conditions as far ahead as the
100-year planning horizon of the CFMP. The future
condition of the catchment is very uncertain but we can
derive credible scenarios of future conditions by predicting
changes in the drivers of flood risk.
Many drivers of flood risk were investigated for the OST

Foresight project, reported in ‘Future Flooding’. The project
introduced a wide-ranging view of the uncertainty of the
future and considered states of governance which are unlikely to foster CFMP policies.
Considering such a wide range of uncertainty is accordingly inappropriate for CFMPs. Instead
we adopt CFMP scenarios in which we aim to sample a narrower range of uncertainty. For
this CFMP, we consider only the following main drivers of flood risk:
• rural land use change

• urban growth
• climate change
In this section, we evaluate likely changes in these drivers, then show how we combine them
to yield scenarios of future conditions. In the next section, we investigate flood risk under one
of the scenarios.
Drivers of change to flood risk

Rural land use change
The intense agricultural activity of the River Nene catchment owes much to the extensive field
drainage in the natural catchment and to the pumped drainage of the Fens. At present
agriculture is supported by subsidy and, in the Fens, drainage is supported by a levy paid to
the IDBs.
It is reasonable to expect that agricultural activity will continue to be influenced by economic

incentives and disincentives but, whilst current policies for them are known, we cannot expect
the policies to continue as they are to our planning horizon of 100 years. Generalising,
agricultural activity might change in the following ways:
• more intense arable agriculture

• the decline of arable agriculture and its replacement with other land uses such as
pasture and horticulture.
More intense agriculture could happen due to introducing high yielding crops, which may
demand more extensive and efficient drainage and by other, new, agricultural practices. The
result is likely to be the more rapid response of the natural catchments to storm rainfall,
making flood risk worse.
If arable agriculture declined, we envisage that it might no longer be economic to maintain

drainage to support agriculture. In the Fens, the IDBs’ investment in pumped drainage might
continue to be weighted according to their sources of income. Depending upon those
sources, the protection pumped drainage provides to agricultural land might be lowered but
be maintained for fenland properties. Protection for property is becoming an increasingly
prominent requirement of fenland drainage; recent years have seen the ratio of the IDBs’
investment in flood protection to agriculture and to property shift from 75%: 25% to 44%: 56%
respectively.

Other relevant land use changes might happen due to:
• the expansion of the area protected by environmental designations; for example

floodplain mineral workings, washlands;
• implementing strategies; for example the Fens Waterways Link;
• soils being unable to maintain intense levels of agriculture;
• changes to agricultural subsidy.
Changes to agricultural subsidy are already happening; the European Union Common
Agricultural Policy no longer subsidises agricultural production but subsidises farmers
according to the area of land they farm. This change gives farmers the freedom to consider
using the land in other ways, for example to enhance the environment.
Table 4.1 summarises what these possible changes might mean for future flood risk
management.
Table 4.1 Implications of rural land use changes

Rural land use change Implications
Agriculture
Intensification Potential for soil compaction, faster drainage and faster
surface runoff.
Maintain No change; maintain existing drainage.
Decline Slower surface runoff; possibly abandoning drainage
systems.
Environmental designations
Designation of mineral workings Opportunities for diversifying habitats by extending flood
in floodplains storage.
Designation of washlands
Strategy implementation
Fenland Waterways Link Using floodwater stored in the Fens to support
navigation, to meet other demands for water resources in
the summer and to support a range of recreational uses
For the consideration of the Fens in this CFMP, we assume that the current rural land use
and system of pumped drainage will continue unchanged for at least the five to six year
period until the review of the CFMP.
Urban growth
The CFMP requires that we forecast urban growth beyond the normal planning horizons of
10, 20 or even 30 years to the CFMP horizon of 100 years. To forecast urban growth this far
ahead, we could, in accordance with the CFMP Guidelines, assume that future growth will
follow the trend of past growth. But our investigations showed that future growth is likely to
outstrip past trends in urban growth in the River Nene catchment. We accordingly based our
estimates of growth to 2020 on current planning documents then estimated growth to 2100 by
referring to planning studies for other development sectors, particularly transportation. From
these studies, we identified the centres of future growth and the distribution of growth around
the catchment. We took account of this distribution in estimating how future changes in flood
risk could vary around the catchment.
Development to 2020 will be influenced by the existing planning framework which includes
proposals for significant growth to 2021 as well as current planning policy guidance which
sets urban areas as a focus for development and growth and which emphasises the efficient
use of urban land including higher densities and the re-use of brownfield sites.
The Government’s Sustainable Communities Plan (launched in 2003) sets out a programme
of action for delivering housing and associated development within four growth areas to 2031.
Two of these growth areas, the Milton Keynes-South Midlands area and the London-
Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough area, are partly located within the River Nene catchment

and will profoundly affect rates of the development within the catchment in the short to
medium term.
For estimating growth to 2020, we took account of the Regional Spatial Strategies for East
Midlands and the East of England. The first incorporates proposals which are set out in the
Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub-regional Study. The Study identifies Northampton,
Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby as potential foci for future growth. The role of
Northampton as a major population and employment centre is to be fostered by new transport
infrastructure and facilities. The Regional Spatial Strategies promotes Strategic
Developments Areas at locations which include Daventry and Wellingborough. Peterborough
forms part of the London-Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough growth area and is recognised
as a regional focus of growth.
For development to 2100, we applied growth factors, projected from transport planning, to
estimate the growth in households and employment and from these we estimated future land
requirements. Within our estimates, we took account of the constraints on development that
might be imposed by, for example, transport infrastructure.
We can up-date our estimates and plans in future reviews of the CFMP as the course of
development emerges. Changing the estimates and the location of urban growth will affect
our estimation of future flood risk.
Table 4.2 lists the centres of urban growth and the estimates of the land requirement for
residential and employment to 2020 and 2100. The current urban area increases by about
30% to 2020 and by about 116% to 2100. The derivation of the entries in the table is
explained in Appendix D which also has figures showing the possible locations of the growth
areas around the urban centres. Up to 2020 the land requirement is based on current
planning but beyond 2020 the estimation is more uncertain so we ranged our estimates to
high and low values by adding and deducting 25% respectively as advised in the CFMP
Guidelines.
Climate change
Introduction
We believe that climate change is happening and will lead to changes in flooding however
quickly we act. Climate change causes changes in rainfall patterns and sea levels. Changes
in rainfall patterns could result in more storms. Changes in sea level can result in changes to
the tide locking of watercourses draining to the sea and in coastal and tidal flooding. In ‘The
Climate is Changing: Time to get Ready’ – our first national report on climate change – we
explain our role in limiting the scale of climate change and its impact.
River flooding
To understand the impact of climate change on the catchment, we need to interpret the
research carried out to date that describes the predicted changes in rainfall and flooding for
different parts of England and Wales.
For the Foresight project, work was done to find out the impact climate change has on flood
frequency regionally. The work was based on the UKCIP02 climate change scenarios which
were current at that time. In a joint Defra/Environment Agency report (April 2005) we
investigated regionalisation further, developing climate change scenarios which supersede
the UKCIP02 scenarios. The results show a large regional variation which does not appear to
support the variation adopted for the Foresight project. The report confirms an increase of
20% in flood flows by 2050 as an appropriate precaution, despite the fact that the results of
the study show that the impacts of climate change on flood flows are generally lower than
those previously determined.
It is reasonable for this first generation of CFMPs to adopt the increase of 20% to 2050 as a
precautionary upper limit and the lesser values, shown in Table 4.3, to give us a suitable
range of estimates. We extend the upper limit of 20% from 2050 to 2100 and believe that the
other values in Table 4.2 reasonably interpret the findings of the Foresight project and the
Defra/Environment Agency research.

Table 4.2 Urban growth and land requirements
Urban area Existing Increases to 2020, ha Increases from 2021 to Total increases from 2021to
area, ha 2100, ha 2100, ha
Residential Employment Total Residential Employment Low Medium High

growth growth growth
Daventry 540 174 28 202 456 118 431 574 718
Northampton 4640 400 161 561 2668 944 2709 3612 4515
Corby 1650 600 90 690 713 206 689 919 1149
Wellingborough 1167 505 133 638 1015 451 1100 1466 1833
Kettering 1123 524 122 645 1090 283 1030 1373 1716
East 804 120 20 140 804 168 729 972 1215

Northamptonshire
(inc. Rushden,
Thrapston &
Oundle)
Peterborough 2312 512 336 848 1194 457 1238 1651 2064
Fenland towns 958 114 60 179 584 222 605 806 1008
(inc Wisbech,
Long Sutton &
Sutton Bridge)
Totals 13194 2949 950 3903 8524 2849 8531 11373 14216

Table 4.3 Impact of climate change on peak river flow in England and Wales
% increase
Present to 2019 2020 to 2049 2050 to 2100
in peak flow
High 10 15 20
Medium 5 10 15
Low 0 5 10
Coastal flooding
The extremes of sea level - storm surges – are the main cause of coastal flood risk. Storm
surges are temporary increases in sea level, above the normal tidal range, which are caused
by low atmospheric pressure and strong winds. The UKCIP02 technical report contains
predicted changes in the 2% AEP storm surge height in UK coastal waters for three emission
scenarios: low, medium-high and high emissions. The changes were predicted by combining
the Hadley Centre’s regional model with the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory (POL)
30km resolution shelf seas model. We use the range of results predicted for the three
emission scenarios to predict increases in the height of storm surges for each CFMP with
coastal flood risk.
The UKCIP02 increases in storm surge height allow for the increase in mean sea level and
vertical land movement.
Table 4.4 shows the UKCIP02 ranges and interprets them for use in CFMPs. We apply the
UKCIP02 values, which come from surges of a 2% AEP, to all the CFMP annual exceedance
probabilities. The UKCIP02 ranges shown in Table 4.4 are for the East Anglian region.
Table 4.4 Increases in height of storm surges due to climate change

Increase in storm surge height, m
Values adopted for River Nene CFMP UKCIP02 range
Present to 2019 2020 to 2049 2050 to 2100 2070 to 2100
High 0.3 0.7 1.4 +0.8 to 1.4
Medium 0.2 0.4 0.8 +0.5 to 1.2
Low 0.0 0.1 0.2 +0.2 to 0.9
‘Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk’ (PPS25, December 2006),
published during the preparation of this CFMP, has more recent estimates of climate change
and the allowances to be made for it. PPS25 embodies advice published in FCDPAG3
‘Economic Appraisal’ (1999) and is supported by a supplementary note to FCDPAG3
(‘Supplementary Note to Operating Authorities – Climate Change Impacts’, October 2006).
PPS25 advises the adoption of a 20% increase in peak river flow to 2115, beyond the
planning horizon of the CFMP, which corresponds to the high value shown in Table 4.3. For
sea level rise, PPS25, advises the adoption of approximately 1.2m to 2115 for the area which
includes the River Nene catchment. This estimate is close to the high value shown in Table
4.4. The Supplementary Note introduces the idea of the sensitivity testing of investment
strategies for a range of estimates of the increase in peak river flow up to 20% for 2115. The
adice on the estimation of sea level rise is, however, regarded as precautionary.
Of the three drivers, climate change has the greatest effect on river flow and its impact is
uniform across the catchment. The effect of rural land use change tends to be greater in
headwater catchments than it is at the larger catchment scale. The effect of urban growth
tends to be greater immediately downstream of the growth areas than it is at the larger
catchment scale. Its effect will depend upon the locations of the centres of urban growth and
the timing of the growth through to the planning horizon.
4.2 Future Scenarios

We combined the three drivers in three different ways to give different scenarios of future
conditions. As seen in Table 4.5:
• The high scenario combines the driver values which would yield a high increase in
flood risk

• The medium scenario combines the driver values which would yield a medium
increase in flood risk
• The low scenario combines the driver values which would yield a low increase, or
even a reduction, in flood risk
The reduction of flood risk in the low scenario could come about in some upper parts of the
catchment where a decline of agricultural practice, or afforestation, could cause the detention
of floodwater to the extent that it overcomes the effects of the other drivers.
We do not ascribe any probabilities to the combinations of drivers but suggest that the high
and low scenarios are relatively unlikely because they combine drivers at the upper or lower,
respectively, limits of their ranges. For a more likely future scenario, we accordingly adopt the
medium scenario in the analysis of future flood risk that follows. The high, medium and low
drivers are determined separately for the broad-scale model and for the rivers beyond the
boundaries of the model.
For the modelled rivers, inflows are generated by the catchment models using the
rainfall/runoff method of the Flood Estimation Handbook. The drivers are determined by
adjusting the parameters of the catchment models as shown in Table 4.6. The percentage
increases in peak flow shown in Table 4.3 were in practice applied to the entire hydrograph of
river flow as indicated in Table 4.6, having the effect of increasing flood volume by the
percentage amount. For the non-modelled rivers, the effects of the drivers were determined
by the method of transposing from the modelled reaches as described in Section 3.5.2 and
applying a method of shifting the Flood Zones to represent future conditions which made use
of information obtained from the NaFRA (National Flood Risk Assessment) project. The urban
growth driver assumes the distribution of growth centres explained in Appendix D.
We do not report flood risk under the high and low scenarios but are aware that differences
from the medium scenario can vary around the catchment and can be significant. The higher
value (20%) of climate change causes a fairly uniform increase in flow throughout the
catchment, but the effects of rural land use change and urban growth tend to be more
localised. As noted above, the low scenario could lead to a reduction in flood risk in some
upper parts of the catchment.
Table 4.5 CFMP scenarios

Driver Low scenario Medium scenario High scenario
Urban growth Low Medium High
Decline in Intensification of
Change in rural land
agricultural practice; No change agriculture; drainage
use and management
afforestation improvements
UKCIP global emissions
and impact on peak Low Medium High
river flow and sea level
We represent the drivers in the model as shown in Table 4.6 for the period 2050 to 2100.
Table 4.6 Adjustments to drivers for period 2050 to 2100

Scenario
Catchment model parameter
Low Medium High
Growth factor applied to
Urban growth 75% 100% 125%
urbanisation index
Runoff factor 1.0
-15% +15%
Change in
rural land use Response time 0
+2h -2h
River flow +15%
+10% +20%
Climate
change Storm surge height +0.8m
+0.2m +1.4m

As well as investigating flood risk under the medium scenario, we need to be aware of how
sensitive flood risk is to changes such as the following:
• changes in the distribution of urban growth around the catchment;

• changes in development on the floodplain
The first issue is addressed below.

The second issue acknowledges the possibility that future regulatory practice might not resist
development on the floodplain. Floodplain development could account for a significant part of
any increase in flood risk.
As time progresses, we can expect to see a shift in the relative impacts of the drivers. For
example, the impact of rapid urban growth in the early years is likely to be eclipsed by the
impact of climate change in later years.
The River Nene catchment to Peterborough

We investigated the future response of the catchment as we did for the current condition of
the catchment.
Our investigations reveal that our current flood risk management would allow flooding to
increase throughout the catchment. Along the main River Nene, the accumulation of flood
flow in the medium scenario to 2100 could increase as shown in Figure 4.1. There is an
overall increase in flood peak at Peterborough of about 20% for the flood of 1% average AEP.
The increase is mainly due to climate change. The peaks occur earlier because of urban
growth. Urban growth and climate change have a marked effect on the Upper Nene’s
contribution. The Upper Nene hydrographs are influenced by the Northampton Washlands.
Through Peterborough, the increase in peak flood flow causes an increase in peak water level
of about 250mm. The consequent increase in flood extent through Peterborough would be
very variable.
The distribution of urban growth around the catchment might be very different from that which
we assumed. A different distribution is likely to lead to a different accumulation of flood flow
along the River Nene and, possibly, a different flood risk to Peterborough. Figure 4.2 shows
the slight increase in flooding in Peterborough if the growth of Northampton happened instead
in the catchment of the River Ise.
The River Nene across the Fens

In the future, draining the increased flood volume across the Fens to The Wash will have to
cope with raised sea levels. The consequence will be increases in the volume of floodwater
stored in the Nene Washes.
We estimate that the freeboard which exists in the Nene Washes for the flood of 1% average
AEP will become negligible by about 2100 and that the River Nene embankments across the
Fens would spill in some local areas during the 0.5% AEP storm surge by about 2100.

Figure 4.1 The future accumulation of flood flow along the River Nene

Figure 4.2 Flood flow through Peterborough
4.3 Assessment of future flood risk

4.3.1. Introduction
If we continue to manage flood risk as we are now, the risk of flooding will increase
throughout the CFMP area in the future, as a result of climate change and urban development
causing increases in peak river flows and tidal levels.
The impact and magnitude of flooding as described in Section 3.5 is likely to change in the
future. In sections 4.3 and 4.4 the impact and magnitude of flooding expected in the future will
be described, and in section 4.5 the future impact of flooding will be compared to the current
impact of flooding.
4.3.2 Flood risks to people

In the future there will be increased flood risk to people because of increased frequency and
magnitude of flooding. Significant urban development is planned for the River Nene
catchment over the next 100 years. We assume, for the purposes of this analysis, that there
will be no development on the future floodplain. If development does take place in areas at
risk of flooding, this could seriously increase the risk to people in the River Nene catchment.
Table 4.7 lists the expected number of people at risk from flooding in the future for different
magnitude floods.
Table 4.7 Number of people affected by flooding at key locations for the future scenario
Location 10% AEP 0.1% AEP
1% AEP flood
flood flood
Weedon and Bugbrooke 56 160 565
Kislingbury 5 5 200
Wootton Brook 98 200 470
Blisworth 56 130 130
Northampton (central area) 0 0 6190
Northampton (outer) 555 740 1733
Yardley Hastings, Bozeat and Grendon 71 165 190

Location 10% AEP 0.1% AEP
1% AEP flood
flood flood
Geddington 15 58 128
Kettering 293 688 1120
Rushden 25 140 255
Raunds 65 368 418
Thrapston 0 0 385
Brigstock and Sudborough 63 80 108
Oundle 64 170 233
Barnwell 0 153 158
Corby and Weldon 1553 3828 4070
Elton, Cotterstock and Tansor 65 95 150
Southwick and Kings Cliffe 38 73 100
Wansford, Stibbington and Water
Newton 43 170 218
Peterborough 105 639 1877
Other Areas 368 622 713
CATCHMENT TOTAL 3657 9014 20214
The number of people at risk from flooding during a 1% AEP flood in the future is very high.
As with the analysis of current conditions, the people at risk are concentrated in 6 urban
areas: Northampton, Wellingborough, Kettering, Corby, Raunds and Peterborough. These
account for nearly three quarters of the people at risk in the catchment. Of particular note in
the future is the emergence of Corby as the major area of risk in the catchment; alone it
accounts for 40% of those affected. This may be in part due to the uncertainty of the results
for the unmodelled reaches on which Corby stands. Nevertheless the figure is still significant,
and if a 1% AEP flood did occur in Corby it would have serious implications for those at risk in
the town. Other significant concentrations of risk to people
occur in Wootton, the villages on the Grendon Brook
(Yardley Hastings, Bozeat and Grendon), and the
settlements on the River Nene between Oundle and
Peterborough. Although not shown in this table, it should be
noted that the future deterioration in the standard of
protection of defences in Northampton, Thrapston and
Kislingbury means that there is a much higher risk of
breaching at the 1% AEP flood than at present. Breaching
in these locations, in particular Northampton, would lead to
a large increase in the number of people affected.
At the 10% AEP flood there is about a third the number at risk as at the 1% AEP flood. Corby
again dominates the key locations, accounting for about 40% of those at risk in the
catchment. The other locations which stand out as having a significant risk to people at the
10% AEP flood are the undefended areas of Northampton and Kettering. These three
locations account for about 60% of the risk at the 10% AEP flood. All other key locations have
moderate to significant numbers at risk. Outside of the key areas identified in Table 4.7 there
are over 400 people at risk of flooding in localised clusters and isolated dwellings, indicating
the rural nature of the flood risk in this catchment as well.
A substantial increase in the number of people at risk occurs between the 1% and 0.1% AEP
floods. This is largely a result of the overtopping of the defences in Northampton, Kislingbury
and Thrapston. Away from these defended areas there is a large increase in risk to people in
Weedon, Geddington and Peterborough. This is partly due to flood flows exceeding the
capacity of upstream storage areas in the cases of Weedon and Peterborough, and
exceeding the design standard of the flood relief channel in Geddington. In Corby, where
there are significant risks to people estimated at the 1% AEP flood, there is only a small
percentage rise in the number of people at risk between the 1% and 0.1% AEP floods. The

urban areas dominate the figures, with about 80% of those at risk are concentrated in the
following six urban areas: Northampton, Wellingborough, Kettering, Corby, Raunds and
Peterborough.
Figure 4.3 Numbers of people at risk in a current and future flood for key locations
Figure 4.3 compares the risk to people for the 1% AEP current and future floods. For the
entire catchment there is a 113% increase in the number of people at risk from the 1% current
to the 1% future. The increase in risk is not uniform though, with the most significant increase
in risk occurs in Corby. The estimated number of people at risk in Corby in the future is nearly
5 times as high as the number of people at risk at present for the 1% AEP flood. Accounting
for about 20% of the risk to people across the catchment for the current 1% AEP flood, in the
future this figure is expected to rise to 40%. This is obviously a very significant increase and,
in terms of risk to people at least, makes Corby the major risk area in the catchment.
In comparison with Corby the increases in risk that occur elsewhere in the catchment are
much less dramatic, though that does not make them unsubstantial. Increases in the number
of people affected by flooding of greater than 100% occur in the outer parts of Northampton,
and of greater than 80% in Rushden, Geddington and Weedon and Bugbrooke. With the
exception of Corby, those locations on the Willow and Harpers Brooks and on the River Nene
between Oundle and Water Newton tend to have a relatively minor increase in risk to people
in the future.
Although not shown in this figure significant increases in risk at the 10% AEP flood also occur
in the future. The location which sees the largest increase in risk at the 10% AEP flood is
Corby, which sees an increase in risk similar to that at the 1% AEP flood. Increases in the
level of risk at the 0.1% are not so significant between the current and the future, largely
because of the relatively small percentage increase in risk in Northampton which dominates
the risk to people at the 0.1% AEP flood.
Our main concern is to minimise the risk to life from flooding. This risk can be particularly high
if flood water rises rapidly, water is deep or fast, or the response time is short. An increase in
depth of flooding is likely to occur in the future, meaning an increased risk to life. Figure 4.4
shows the depth of flooding at key locations in the catchment and Table 4.8 gives the
approximate depth of flooding at key locations, both for the 1% AEP flood. Figure 4.5 provides
a comparison between the depth of flooding for the current and future 1% AEP floods. The
depths shown in Figure 4.5 are the maximum expected at each location, and the majority of
properties would not be expected to flood to this level.

Figure 4.4 Future flood depths at key locations

Table 4.8 Future change in flood depth
Location Change in depth of flooding
Weedon and Significant increase in depth of flooding in Weedon due to reduction in the
Bugbrooke standard of protection of the flood storage area, however, all properties
flooded to depths of less than 0.75m. All properties in Bugbrooke flooded
to depths of less than 1m, with most flooded to depths of less than 0.5m.
Kislingbury Most properties defended. Those residential properties that are not
defended are flooded to depths of less than 0.5m.
Wootton Most properties flooded to depths of less than 1m, though approximately
10 flooded to depths of greater than 1m, and a couple to very high depths.
Blisworth Depth of flooding less than 0.75m for all properties, and less than 0.5m for
majority of properties.
Northampton No properties flooded.

(central areas)
Northampton Vast majority of residential properties flooded to depths of less than 0.5m
(outer areas) from the River Nene and Brampton Branch. Depth of flooding from the
Dallington Brook and Billing Brook up to 1.25m in some cases, though
typically less than 1m.
Yardley Hastings, Majority of properties flooded to depths of less than 0.5m. Highest depth of
Bozeat and flooding in Yardley Hastings with depths of up to 1m.
Grendon
Wellingborough Depth of flooding < 0.5m for all residential properties flooded from the
River Nene. Small number of properties flooded on the Swanspool Brook
may be flooded to greater depth.
Geddington Depth of flooding < 0.5m for all properties. Increase in depth of flooding
minimal.
Kettering Most properties flooded to depths less than 1m. Increase in the number of
properties flooded to depths of greater than 1m – between 10 and 20 in
the future.
Rushden Most properties flooded to depth of less than 1m. Approximately 10

properties flooded to depths of greater than 1m.
Raunds Most properties flooded to depth of less than 1m. Between 20 and 30
Thrapston No properties flooded.
Brigstock and Most properties flooded to depth of less than 0.5m. Approx. 5 properties in
Sudborough Brigstock flooded to depth of between 1m and 2.25m.
Oundle Increase of 0.25m for most of Oundle, though some areas to the south of
the river by up to 0.5m. Depth of flooding in Oundle typically less than
0.5m, though up to 2.5m at Oundle Marina to the south of the river.
Barnwell Influence of Barnwell flood storage area likely to prevent flooding to a

significant depth. Estimated that the majority of properties will be flooded
to depths of less than 0.5m.

Location Change in depth of flooding
Corby and Weldon Majority of properties are flooded to depths of less than 0.5m. Small
cluster of properties are predicted to flood to depths of up to 1.5m from the
upper Harpers Brook and upper Willow Brook south.
Elton, Cotterstock Flooding typically less than 0.5m. Increase in depth of flooding in future
and Tansor less than 0.25m.
Southwick and Flooding typically less than 0.5m. Increase in depth of flooding in future
Kings Cliffe less than 0.25m.
Wansford, Flooding typically less than 0.5m, though about 8 properties in Wansford
Stibbington and experience flooding of over 1m. Parts of Wansford see increases of up to
Water Newton 0.5m
Peterborough Flooding typically less than 0.5m. Less than 10 properties flooded to
depths of up to 1.25m.
Figure 4.5 Future change in flood depth at key locations
Across the catchment there is a typical increase in the depth of flooding of between 0.25m
and 0.5m. In general there is a smaller increase in the depth of flooding on the River Nene
with Wellingborough and settlements downstream to Peterborough (with the exception of
Wansford) experiencing increases in the depth of flooding of less than 0.25m. On the smaller
tributaries there are generally larger increases in the depth of flooding, though in some cases
this may be due to the uncertainty in the modelling approach in these areas. Notably, in
Rushden and Raunds, on the Grendon Brook, on the Wootton Brook and on the Slade Brook
in Kettering there are larger increases in the depth of flooding.
In the future there is an increased risk of breaching at the 1% AEP flood in Northampton,
Kislingbury, and Thrapston. This would lead to high depths and velocities posing a serious
risk to life. It is also estimated that overtopping of defences would occur during a lower
magnitude flood than at present. At present the defences protect up to and including the 0.5%

AEP flood, however in the future it is expected that the standard of protection will decrease to
between the 1% and 0.5% AEP floods.
In the tidal reaches of the river defences would be overtopped in a 1% AEP flood at a number
of locations between Guyhirn and Sutton Bridge. The impact of this overtopping is limited as
the volume overtopping is small. A more serious risk is posed by the increased risk of
defences being breached during the 1% AEP flood, posing a risk to people due to rapid
flooding to high depths and high velocities. Sutton Bridge, Wisbech and other settlements that
flank the tidal River Nene are at particular risk of flooding in this way, though the residual risk
of breaching exists across the Fens.
Flooding in the River Nene is not normally characterised by a rapid response time and rate of
water rising. Along the River Nene most locations see a gradual onset of flooding, however, in
some of the urbanised, upstream catchments there can be a rapid onset of flooding.
Urbanised catchments such as the Dallington Brook and Billing Brook in Northampton, and
the Skew Bridge Dyke in Rushden can see relatively rapid response times.
It is also important to consider how velocity will change in the future, as fast flowing water can
be a major risk to human life. It is especially difficult to determine the change in the velocity of
flooding using the broad-scale method adopted for this CFMP. Analysis of the modelling
results shows that it is likely that the velocity of flow will increase in the future. This is
particularly true in smaller upstream and urban tributaries. More detailed analysis of model
results at particular locations are given in Table 4.9. Changes in the response time to flooding
and the rate of onset are unlikely to change significantly from the current scenario. The
exception to this may be areas that currently benefit from flood storage schemes, but in the
future will see flows exceed the capacity of the storage area, and urbanised upstream
catchments. These include Weedon, Barnwell, settlements on the Grendon Brook, areas
immediately downstream of the Northampton Washlands and areas downstream of other
more localised storage areas.
We must also consider the vulnerability classifications of areas that could fall within the
increased flood extents under the future scenarios. The Social Flood Vulnerability Index
(SFVI) gives a measure of the vulnerability of different sections of the population to flooding.
The areas of the catchment which have a higher than average SFVI are Northampton,
Kettering, Raunds and Corby. An increase in flood extent, depth, duration and velocity in
these locations is likely to have a disproportionately negative impact in comparison with other
locations.
Table 4.9 gives an overview of the likely impact of

flooding in the future, and compares this to the current
impact of flooding. The table considers the approximate
number of residents affected, and some idea of the key
impacts of flooding at each location, including the speed
of onset, velocity of flow, duration of flood and social
impact. Finally the table has an estimate of the scale of
disruption that flooding in the future would cause.
The locations which see the most significant change in

scale of disruption between current and future tend to be those areas which have the largest
change in the number of people at risk. Corby, which sees the most significant increase in risk
to people was already characterised as having a high scale of disruption during a 1% AEP
flood at present. Other areas which see a large increase in the number of people affected,
and which have a corresponding increase in the scale of disruption, are Weedon and
Bugbrooke, Peterborough, Wellingborough, Wootton and Raunds.

Table 4.9 Overview of the impacts of flooding at key locations in the catchment for the future
Speed of onset
Location of flooding and Velocity of flow Depth Social impact
mechanism
More than Minimal Scale of
Speed of onset Relatively small
double the increase in disruption
likely to be Minor increases changes in the
number of Increase in duration of increases or
unchanged in velocity extent of flooding
Catchment people depth varies flooding remains
compared with expected in the in the future mean
overview affected in depending on anticipated in unchanged
present future compared that social impact
the future location future compared with
scenario in with present unlikely to change
compared compared with current
most cases at each location
with present present condition
Weedon and 160 Flooding from Moderate. Valley Significant 24 – 36 hours Moderate – Mostly
Bugbrooke upstream quite narrow, increase in depth at Weedon. SFVI category 3.
tributaries of the gradient quite of flooding in
Nene. Valleys steep implying Weedon due to
are steep, so high velocities. reduction in the
onset of flooding Railway standard of
likely to be rapid, embankment protection of the
though storage downstream of flood storage
area upstream of Weedon likely to area, however,
Weedon reduces act as barrier all properties
MODERATE
response time. reducing flow flooded to depths
through town. of less than
0.75m. All
properties in
Bugbrooke
flooded to depths
of less than 1m,
with most flooded
to depths of less
than 0.5m.
Kislingbury 5 Flooding from Low – moderate. Most properties 24 – 36 hours, Low – SFVI
the Kislingbury Valley quite wide, defended. Those though may be category 2. LOW
branch of the though does residential longer if water

Speed of onset
mechanism
river Nene. narrow at properties that gets trapped
Potential for Kislingbury. Slope are not defended behind
sudden flooding moderate. Though are flooded to defences.
as a result of unlikely, if breach depths of less
breach of did occur could than 0.5m.
defences, lead to high
though unlikely. velocities.
Wootton 200 Flooding from Moderate. Valley Most properties Up to 24 hours. Low. Most of
the Wootton narrow in places, flooded to depths properties are in
Brook. Speed of gradient of less than 1m, areas given SFVI
onset gradual / moderate, and the though category of 1 or 2.
moderate taking response time is approximately 10 MODERATE -
over 24 hours. reasonably short. flooded to depths HIGH
of greater than
1m, and a couple
to very high
depths.
Blisworth 130 Flooding from Moderate. Valley Depth of flooding Up to 24 hours Low – Moderate.
the Milton Malsor quite narrow and less than 0.75m SFVI categories 2
Brook. gradient relatively for all properties, and 3.
Repsonse time steep. and less than
likely to be 0.5m for majority LOW –
relatively rapid of properties. MODERATE
due to steep
gradient and
upstream nature
of catchment
Northampton 0 Much of Potential for very No properties Duration of Areas that benefit
(central areas) Northampton high velocities in flooded. If breach peak up to 24 from defences have
defended by the centre of were to occur hours on the high SFVI – LOW
defences of Northampton if potential for high Nene, however typically categories
0.5% AEP defences are depths defences 4 and 5.

Speed of onset
mechanism
standard, which breached. immediately prevent
if breached could behind defences. properties
lead to sudden flooding. If
flooding, though defences
this is unlikely. breached
duration may
be longer if
water trapped
behind
defences.
Northampton 740 Flooding from Low in areas Vast majority of Up to 24 hours Varied. Low on the
(outer areas) the River Nene, flooded by the residential on Nene, and River Nene to the
the Dallington River Nene. Likely properties Brampton east of the centre,
Brook and Billing to be higher on flooded to depths Branch. Less with SFVI of 2 High
Brook. River the Dallington and of less than 0.5m on Billing and on the Billing Brook
Nene has a Billing Brook, as from the River Dallington and Dallington
relatively rapid steep urban Nene and Brook. Brook, typically
response at watercourses with Brampton category 4.
Northampton, narrow valley. Branch. Depth of
however speed flooding from the
of response Dallington Brook
HIGH
reduced by and Billing Brook
upstream up to 1.25m in
storage areas. some cases,
Response from though typically
Billing and less than 1m.
Dallington
Brooks likely to
be rapid due to
urbanised
catchments and
steep

Speed of onset
mechanism
catchments.
Yardley Hastings, 165 Flooding from Moderate. Majority of Up to 24 hours Low – Moderate.
Bozeat and the Grendon Gradient is properties SFVI categories 2
Grendon Brook. Grendon moderate / steep flooded to depths and 3.
Brook catchment and floodplain is of less than
is in middle narrow in places 0.5m. Highest
reaches of indicating high depth of flooding
MODERATE
catchment, and velocities in in Yardley
gradient is places, though Hastings with
relatively steep generally depths of up to
indicating velocities likely to 1m.
moderate be moderate
response time.
Wellingborough 530 Flooding from Low from the Depth of flooding Up to 48 hours Moderate. Most of
the River Nene, Nene and Ise. < 0.5m for all from the Ise properties fall under
River Ise, Properties at risk residential and Nene. SFVI category 3.
Harrowden are on the edge of properties
Brook and the floodplain, with flooded from the
Swanspool numerous River Nene.
HIGH
Brook obstacles to Small number of
reduce velocity. properties
Smaller tributaries flooded on the
in Wellingborough Swanspool Brook
may give higher may be flooded
velocities. to greater depth.
Geddington 58 Flooding from Low. Properties Depth of flooding Up to 24 hours Low – Moderate.
the River Ise. flooded in < 0.5m for all SFVI categories 2
Onset of flooding Geddington are on properties. and 3.
likely to be the edge of the Increase in depth LOW
moderate due to flood extent, of flooding
where velocities minimal.
will be low.

Speed of onset
mechanism
Kettering 688 Flooding Moderate. Most properties 6 – 18 hours on Moderate – High.
primarily from Catchment is flooded to depths the Slade SFVI category 3 is
the Slade Brook, moderately steep less than 1m. Brook predominant,
not from the and valley of the Increase in the though there is a
River Ise. Speed Slade Brook is number of significant area of
of onset is narrow. Quick run properties category 4.
moderate, off from urban flooded to depths Increase in
typically around areas likely to lead of greater than duration, velocity HIGH
12 hours. to high velocities 1m – between 10 and depth of
in parts. and 20 in the flooding likely to
future. impact on
vulnerable groups
disproportionately
more than other
groups.
Rushden 140 Flooding from Moderate – High. Most properties Up to 24 hours Moderate – SFVI
the Skew Bridge Catchment is flooded to depth category 3
Dyke. moderately steep of less than 1m.
Watercourse is and valley is quite Approximately 10
quite steep and narrow. Quick run properties MODERATE
urbanised, so off from urban flooded to depths
would expect a areas likely to lead of greater than
moderate to fast to high velocities 1m.
response time. in parts.
Raunds 368 Flooding from Moderate – High. Most properties Up to 24 hours Moderate – High.
the Raunds Hog Catchment is flooded to depth SFVI category 3 is
Dyke. moderately steep of less than 1m. predominant,
Watercourse is and valley is quite Between 20 and though there is a MODERATE -
quite steep and narrow. Quick run 30 properties significant area of HIGH
urbanised, so off from urban flooded to depths category 4.
would expect a areas likely to lead of greater than Increase in
moderate to fast to high velocities 1m. duration, velocity

Speed of onset
mechanism
response time. in parts. and depth of
flooding likely to
impact on
vulnerable groups
disproportionately
more than other
groups.
Thrapston 0 Flooding from Low – moderate. No properties Duration of Moderate – SFVI
the River Nene. Valley relatively flooded. flood long (48- category 3
Flooding likely to wide, onset of 72 hours),
occur over 48 flooding relatively though no
hours after slow. Potential for properties
rainfall, and high velocities flooded.
LOW
onset likely to be resulting from
slow, unless sudden breach of
defences defences.
breached over
overtopped,
which is unlikely.
Brigstock and 80 Flooding from Moderate. Valley Most properties Approx. 12 Low – Moderate.
Sudborough the Harper’s floor is relatively flooded to depth hours SFVI categories 2
Brook. Peak of narrow, and of less than and 3.
flooding likely to gradient is 0.5m. Approx. 5
occur within 12 moderate. Onset properties in LOW
hours of rainfall. of flooding is Brigstock flooded
Onset of flooding rapid. to depth of
likely to be between 1m and
relatively rapid. 1.5m.
Oundle 170 Flooding from Low. Wide valley, Increase of 48 – 96 hours Moderate – SFVI
the River Nene and shallow river 0.25m for most of category 3
MODERATE
has a gradual gradient. Oundle, though
onset due to Properties some areas to

Speed of onset
mechanism
storage along affected are on the south of the
the length of the the edge of the river by up to
River Nene. flood extent. 0.5m. Depth of
Flooding likely to flooding in
occur 48 – 72 Oundle typically
hours after less than 0.5m,
rainfall. though up to
2.5m at Oundle
Marina to the
south of the river.
Barnwell 153 Flooding from Moderate. Steep, Influence of Up to 24 hours Moderate – SFVI
the Barnwell narrow Barnwell flood category 3
Brook. watercourse so storage area
Watercourse is would expect likely to prevent
quite steep and moderate flooding to a
narrow so would velocities at least. significant depth.
MODERATE
expect relatively Estimated that
rapid onset of the majority of
flooding. properties will be
flooded to depths
of less than
0.5m.
Corby and Weldon 3828 Flooding from Low – moderate. Majority of Approx. 12 Moderate – High.
the upstream Wide valley properties are hours Typically SFVI
tributaries of the bottom and low flooded to depths categories 3 and 4.
Harper’s and depth of flooding of less than Increase in
Willow Brook. is broadly 0.5m. Small duration, velocity
HIGH
Flooding likely to suggestive of low cluster of and depth of
occur relatively velocities. Urban properties are flooding likely to
quickly after nature of the predicted to flood impact on
rainfall, upstream to depths of up to vulnerable groups
especially due to catchment means 1.5m from the disproportionately

Speed of onset
mechanism
urban drainage that there is the upper Harpers more than other
problems in possibility of Brook and upper groups.
Corby. Onset higher velocities Willow Brook
likely to be as a result of south.
moderately fast surface runoffin
given the wide some areas.
valley floor.
Elton, Cotterstock 95 Flooding from Low. Wide valley, Flooding typically 48 – 96 hours Moderate – SFVI
and Tansor the River Nene and shallow river less than 0.5m. category 3
has a gradual gradient. Increase in depth
onset due to Properties of flooding in
storage along affected are on future less than
the length of the the edge of the 0.25m. LOW
River Nene. flood extent.
Flooding likely to
occur 48 – 72
hours after
rainfall.
Southwick and 73 Flooding from Moderate. Flooding typically Approx. 12 hrs Low – Moderate.
Kings Cliffe the Willow Brook Relatively steep, less than 0.5m. SFVI categories 2
and the narrow water Increase in depth and 3.
Southwick course, and onset of flooding in
Brook. Flooding is relatively rapid. future less than
LOW
likely to occur Therefore would 0.25m.
within 12 hours expect at least
of rainfall, with moderate
relatively rapid velocities.
onset of flooding.
Wansford, 170 Flooding from Low. Wide valley, Flooding typically 48 – 96 hours Moderate - typically
Stibbington and the River Nene and shallow river less than 0.5m, SFVI category 3 LOW -
Water Newton has a gradual gradient. though about 8 MODERATE
onset due to Properties properties in

Speed of onset
mechanism
storage along affected are on Wansford
the length of the the edge of the experience
River Nene. flood extent. flooding of over
Flood peak likely 1m. Parts of
to occur 72 - 96 Wansford see
hours after increases of up
rainfall. to 0.5m
Peterborough 639 Flooding from Low – wide valley, Flooding typically 48 – 96 hours. Moderate - typically
the River Nene and shallow river less than 0.5m. Lower in a SFVI category 3
and Stanground gradient. Less than 10 number of
Lode. Gradual Properties properties areas only
onset from the affected are on flooded to depths inundated for
River Nene due the edge of the of up to 1.25m. peak.
to upstream flood extent. Due
storage, with to the shallow
HIGH
flood peak likely gradient and wide
to occur 72 - 96 river valley low
hours after velocities
rainfall. Onset expected on the
likely to be more Stanground Lode
rapid from the as well.
Stanground
Lode.

4.3.3 Flood Risk to property and infrastructure
Property
Table 4.10 shows the expected number of commercial and residential properties at risk in the
future 10%, 1% and 0.1% floods.
As with the current 1% flood, the majority of properties are concentrated in the six key
locations that also see concentrations of people at risk: Northampton, Wellingborough,
Kettering, Corby, Raunds and Peterborough. These locations account for 70% of the
properties at risk in the catchment, with Corby alone accounting for close to 40% of the
number of properties at risk. As with the risk to people Corby dominates the risk to property,
particularly residential, in the future; there are five times more residential properties at risk in
Corby than the location with the next highest risk. Outside of these key urban areas during a
1% flood in the future there would be a significant number of properties at risk, with each of
the key locations listed having at least moderate numbers of properties at risk.
Over 80% of the properties at risk throughout the

catchment are residential at the 1% AEP flood.
Commercial properties are at risk across the catchment
in urban and rural areas, though significant
concentrations of commercial properties are only found
in Northampton, Corby and Wellingborough.
Commercial properties make up a more significant

proportion of the properties at risk at the 10% AEP
flood. Most of the commercial properties at risk in
Corby, Wellingborough and Northampton are also at risk at the 10% AEP flood. This is
caused by the industrial areas in the Nene Valley in Wellingborough and Northampton, and in
Corby by the large area of industry to the east of the town which is at risk in the future. Large
numbers of residential properties are at risk in Kettering, Corby and Northampton at the 10%
AEP flood, with each of these locations experiencing a large increase in risk from the present
condition. Such frequent flooding of such a large number of properties has serious social and
economic implications for these towns.
For the 0.1% AEP flood it is estimated that there would be approximately 120% more
properties affected than for the 1% AEP flood in the future. Significant increases in risk to
property occur in those locations where defences are overtopped: Northampton, Thrapston
and Kislingbury. Large increases in risk at the 0.1% AEP flood also occur in Peterborough
and Weedon. The increase in risk in Corby, which accounts for a large proportion of the
properties at risk at the 1% AEP flood, at the 0.1% AEP flood is relatively small compared
with other areas. As with the current scenario, commercial properties make up a smaller
proportion of those properties affected in the 0.1% flood flood.
Figure 4.6 compares the number of properties flooded in a current 1% AEP flood, and a future
1% AEP flood. Catchment wide the number of properties affected at the 1% flood increases
by 100% between the current and future. The increased risk is mainly located in Corby, as
seen in the graph, where the number of properties at risk is over four times as high in the
future as in the present. This increase is a result of flooding from the Willow Brook and
Harpers Brook spilling, to quite shallow depths, across large residential areas that were not
previously flooded.
Aside from Corby the increase in the number of properties at risk at the 1% AEP flood from
the current to the future is more moderate. Peterborough, Weedon, and Wootton all see
relatively large increases in the number of properties at risk (though all less than 100%
increase). Relatively small increases in the number of properties at risk occur in settlements
along the Harpers Brook, Willow Brook (with the exception of Corby) and River Nene between
Oundle and Water Newton.
The increase in risk in Peterborough in the future for the 1% AEP flood, and the fact that for
both the current and future scenarios there is a large increase in risk at the 0.1% AEP flood,
suggests that Peterborough is very sensitive to floods slightly greater in magnitude than the

current 1% AEP flood. This is probably due to flood water being on the verge of spilling into
areas not at risk at present.
A significant increase in flood risk also occurs at the 10% AEP flood. This is also largely due
to an increase in the number of properties at risk in Corby, though as mentioned previously,
large increases in the number of properties at risk in Kettering and Northampton also occur.
There is a more modest increase in the number of properties affected at the 0.1% AEP flood
of about 35%. This is due to only a small increase in the number of properties at risk from the
current to the future in the central defended areas of Northampton.
The increase in risk in the future is largely due to increases in the number of residential
properties at risk, rather than increases in the number of commercial properties at risk. At the
1% AEP flood there is approximately a 50% increase in the number of commercial properties
at risk from the current to the future, while for residential properties the increase is greater
than 100%.
Figure 4.6 Comparison of the number of properties at risk during a current and future
flood in key locations.
Economic Risk
Table 4.11 gives the economic property damages expected in the future for key locations, and
Figure 4.7 shows the location of property damages for the 1% AEP flood in the future.
As with the current conditions, just under half of the AAD for the catchment is accrued in
Northampton. Aside from Northampton, there are also significant AADs in Wellingborough
and Corby and Weldon, with the rest of the damages spread throughout the catchment.
Though the breakdown of AAD is similar for the present and for the future, the total AAD for
the catchment is more than double in the future.
At the 1% AEP flood two thirds of the total damages for the catchment are found in Corby,
Wellingborough and Northampton. In total there are five locations with damages which
exceed £10m. Alongside Corby, Wellingborough and Kettering, Blisworth and Kettering also
have significant damages.

Table 4.10 Future numbers of properties affected at key locations
Properties at risk with defences

Location Source of flooding
10% 1% 0.1%
Res Comm Total Res Comm Total Res Comm Total
Weedon Branch of the River Nene,
Weedon and Bugbrooke and Bugbrooke Brook 23 3 26 64 13 77 226 24 250
Kislingbury Branch of the River
Kislingbury Nene 2 7 9 2 7 9 80 16 96
Wootton Brook Wootton Brook 39 2 41 80 3 83 188 5 193
Blisworth Milton Malsor Brook 22 11 33 52 25 77 52 25 77
Northampton (central area) River Nene and Brampton Branch 0 0 0 0 0 0 2476 609 3085
River Nene, Brampton Branch,
Northampton (outer) Dallington Brook and Billing Brook 222 154 376 296 132 428 693 216 909
Yardley Hastings, Bozeat and Grendon Grendon Brook 28 4 32 66 7 73 76 7 83
River Ise, River Nene, Harrowden
Wellingborough Brook, Swanspool Brook 48 71 119 212 94 306 321 125 446
Geddington River Ise 6 2 8 23 4 27 51 5 56
Kettering River Ise, Slade Brook 117 12 129 275 36 311 448 49 497
Rushden Skew Bridge Dyke 10 14 24 56 18 74 102 19 121
Raunds Raunds Hogs Dyke 26 28 54 147 21 168 167 24 191
Thrapston River Nene 0 0 0 0 0 0 154 52 206
Brigstock and Sudborough Harper’s Brook 25 3 28 32 7 39 43 8 51
Oundle River Nene 25 5 30 68 12 80 93 24 117
Barnwell Barnwell Brook 0 0 0 61 3 64 63 3 66
Corby and Weldon Harper’s Brook, Willow Brook 621 96 717 1531 163 1694 1628 157 1785
Elton, Cotterstock and Tansor River Nene 26 5 31 38 5 43 60 6 66
Southwick and Kings Cliffe Willow Brook and Southwick Brook 15 1 16 29 2 31 40 2 42
Wansford, Stibbington and Water Newton River Nene 17 13 30 68 17 85 87 19 106
Peterborough River Nene, Stanground Lode 42 11 53 256 24 280 751 37 788
Other Areas River Nene and tributaries 149 36 185 250 55 305 286 69 355
CATCHMENT TOTAL 1463 478 1941 3606 648 4254 8085 1501 9586

Damages at these locations are dominated by commercial
damages, with the exception of Corby, where residential
and commercial damages are similar. In particular, large
commercial damages in Wellingborough and Northampton
are associated with increased flooding of industrial sites in
the River Nene valley, and in Corby with increased flooding
of industrial sites to the east of the town.
As highlighted by Blisworth, there are a number of rural

areas which accrue significant damages at the 1% AEP
flood in the future. These large damages, in places like
Blisworth and the villages on the Grendon Brook where large damages would not be
expected, may be attributed to uncertainties in the flood extents used to determine economic
damages.
As with the current situation, at the 10% AEP flood most locations have limited economic
damages of less than £1m. Catchment wide the economic damages are estimated at £83m,
with about 75% of these damages being accounted for by significant commercial damages in
Corby, Wellingborough and Northampton (Outer). These large damages are caused by
flooding at the same industrial sites affected at the 1% AEP flood, which suffer from frequent
flooding to levels above the property threshold. The only locations where significant
residential damages occur at the 10% AEP flood are Northampton (Outer), Kettering and
Corby.
At the 0.1% AEP flood, damages are dominated by the defended areas of Northampton
where defences are overtopped at the 0.1% AEP flood. Damages here account for over 50%
of the damages in the catchment. Major increases in economic damages also occur in
Thrapston and Kislingbury, where defences would be overtopped at the 0.1% AEP flood, and
in Peterborough, Kettering and Weedon. These large increases in economic damages in
Weedon and Peterborough are associated with large increases in properties at risk from the
1% AEP flood to the 0.1% AEP flood, partly due to flood flows exceeding the capacity of
upstream flood storage areas.
Figure 4.8 shows the increase in damages for the 1% AEP flood at a number of locations for
the current and future. Overall the increase in damages between the present condition and
the future is 122%. As can be seen from the graph, the largest increase in damages is in
Corby, as for people and property affected, where there is a four fold increase in damages.
This substantial increase in damages in Corby is as a result of a very significant increase in
the number of commercial and residential properties affected.

Table 4.11 Future economic damages at key locations
Economic damages with current defences (£m)

Location 10% AEP flood 1% AEP flood 0.1% AEP flood
AAD Res Comm Total Res Comm Total Res Comm Total
Weedon and Bugbrooke 0.25 0.36 0.62 0.98 1.29 0.92 2.21 6.36 4.64 11.00
Kislingbury 0.57 0.00 2.71 2.71 0.43 3.07 3.50 2.31 5.93 8.24
Wootton Brook 0.12 0.34 0.02 0.36 1.16 0.17 1.33 4.04 0.58 4.62
Blisworth 0.65 0.22 1.26 1.48 1.46 8.81 10.27 1.68 9.37 11.05
Northampton (central) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 107.20 489.06 596.26
Northampton (outer) 8.39 5.44 35.34 40.78 6.77 53.77 60.54 16.19 151.28 167.47
Yardley Hastings, Bozeat and
Grendon 0.60 0.27 1.09 1.37 1.84 7.64 9.48 2.29 8.89 11.18
Wellingborough 2.75 0.11 12.45 12.56 2.58 48.86 51.43 6.65 88.96 95.61
Geddington 0.03 0.11 0.02 0.13 0.22 0.13 0.35 1.30 0.46 1.76
Kettering 0.72 1.20 0.11 1.31 5.04 12.52 17.56 13.05 30.43 43.48
Rushden 0.23 0.06 0.07 0.13 2.51 4.60 7.11 4.98 4.69 9.67
Raunds 0.29 0.12 0.05 0.17 4.66 4.00 8.66 5.06 4.00 9.06
Thrapston 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.82 12.87 16.69
Brigstock and Sudborough 0.12 0.26 0.19 0.45 0.74 0.51 1.25 1.12 0.70 1.82
Oundle 0.12 0.14 0.28 0.42 0.66 0.74 1.40 2.25 6.87 9.12
Barnwell 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.16 0.68 2.84 2.28 0.53 2.81
Corby and Weldon 5.64 1.84 8.76 10.60 42.64 60.10 102.74 44.34 62.76 107.10
Elton, Cotterstock and Tansor 0.14 0.07 0.53 0.60 0.29 0.82 1.11 0.80 1.15 1.95
Southwick and Kings Cliffe 0.06 0.17 0.03 0.21 0.90 0.02 0.92 0.94 0.03 0.97
Wansford, Stibbington and Water
Newton 0.20 0.25 0.87 1.12 1.33 2.34 3.67 2.95 4.41 7.36
Peterborough 0.31 0.40 0.28 0.67 2.60 3.34 5.93 13.99 11.29 25.28
Other Areas 1.62 1.81 4.93 6.74 4.91 10.42 15.32 6.48 15.29 21.78
CATCHMENT TOTAL 23.04 13.18 69.62 82.79 84.17 223.45 307.62 250.07 914.20 1164.27

Figure 4.7 Future property damages

Figure 4.8 Comparison of economic damages for a current and future flood at key
locations.
Aside from Corby the only other areas to experience a significant increase in damages in the
future are Kettering, Peterborough and the villages on the Grendon Brook. Other areas have
a lower than average increase in damages accrued. Relatively small increases in damages
occur in a numbers of locations in the catchment, including the River Nene between Oundle
and Water Newton, in Rushden and Raunds and on the lower Harpers and Willow Brooks.
At the 1% AEP flood the increase in residential damages is more significant than the increase
in commercial damages. This is as a result of the large increase in residential damages in
Corby. Commercial damages still remain much higher than residential damages, in spite of
there being more residential properties at risk.
The increase in damages at the 0.1% AEP flood is much lower than at the 1% AEP flood. An
increase of only 32% occurs between the current and future. This is due to a relatively small
increase in the damages in Northampton Central, which dominates the damages at the 1%
AEP flood. The increase in damages from the present to the future at the 10% AEP flood is
similar in size to the increase in the damages for the 1%. At the 10% AEP flood increases in
damages are largest in Northampton and Wellingborough, in the industrial areas already
identified as being a big cause of commercial damages.
Table 4.12 shows the agricultural damages in the upper, middle and lower catchment. As with
the current condition, the middle Nene accounts for the majority of the damages, and has the
highest damage per hectare. The agricultural AAD remains about one tenth of the AAD to
property, and approximately double the damages are incurred for the future scenario as for
the current. Figure 4.9 shows the distribution of the agricultural damages around the
catchment.
Table 4.12 Future agricultural damages

Location Agricultural AAD (£k)
Upper Nene 469
Middle Nene 1,555
Lower Nene 187
CATCHMENT TOTAL 2,209

Figure 4.9 Future agricultural damages

Critical Infrastructure
Table 4.13 shows the key buildings and services affected within the catchment.
Figure 4.10 shows the increase in risk to different critical assets in the future. There is a
significant risk to critical infrastructure predicted for the future in the River Nene catchment.
There is an increase in the number of electricity substations at risk in the future of 28, largely
as a result of Corby, where the number increases by 17. The consequences of 50 electricity
substations flooding at the 1% AEP flood would be very severe, affecting thousands of people
beyond those directly affected by flooding.
A more minor increase in the number of sewage

treatement works (STWs) affected occurs, with 4 more
at risk of flooding. The depth of flooding at those
already at risk would increase in the future, increasing
the number unable to operate.
Significant increases in the number of waste

management, IPPC sites, schools and emergency
response centres affected occur in the future. Five
emergency response centres (compared with one at
present) become affected, and two schools become
affected at the 1% AEP flood.
Particularly important to note from Table 4.13 is the level of risk to critical infrastructure at risk
in Corby - 18 electricity substations, one STW, four waste management sites, two IPPC sites,
one school and a care home. This level of risk to critical infrastructure and community
facilities is clearly going to have a significant and long lasting effect on the inhabitants of the
town.
Figure 4.10 Critical infrastructure at risk.
Transport Infrastructure
It is unlikely that there will be a significant increase the number of transport links affected in
the future. Most of the transport links which are affected are links which cross the floodplain,
rather than run parallel to the floodplain. Thus, most will already be at risk.
Although there is no increase in the number of links affected, in the future there is likely to be
an increase in the magnitude of impact on transport infrastructure. Longer duration of flooding

means that key transport links will be closed for longer, and a higher depth of flooding will
reduce the ability of vehicles to pass. Small increases in flood extent are likely to increase the
length of road that will be affected by flooding, however, this is unlikely to significantly affect
the overall impact.
The M1 traverses a number of the upstream tributaries of the River Nene, which we did not
model. Therefore it is difficult to tell whether or not the motorway would be affected. In the
future the risk of the M1 flooding is increased, with disruption and flooding more likely at the
10% and 1% AEP floods than at present.
The risk to the stability of embankments, noted in Section 3.5.4, is likely to increase in future
flooding.
There is also an increased risk of disruption to the railway lines in the future. Increase in peak
water levels and durations of flooding will increase the risk of flooding and disruption at the
1% AEP flood.
Table 4.14 shows the key transport links at risk from flooding in the future.
4.3.4 Flood risk to the environment

Introduction
In Section 3, we identified the risks from flooding to the built and natural environment of the
Nene catchment at the present time. This section identifies whether, and if so how, these
risks could change in the future. As in Section 3, this assessment is limited to environmental
receptors within the floodplain of the modelled reaches of the River Nene and its principal
tributaries and the assessment identifies environmental features with a 10%, 1% and 0.1%
AEP of being subject to flooding.
As described in Section 4.2, in the future the frequency, duration and extent of flooding are
expected to increase. As current ways of managing flood risk become less effective, features
currently exposed to flooding will be subject to prolonged and more frequent flooding, and
some features currently outside the floodplain will become subject to flooding.
Nature conservation and biodiversity
Designated sites
An assessment of future changes in flood risk for the
designated nature conservation sites within the catchment
has identified that two additional SSSIs (in addition to the
18 sites described in Table 3.19) will in the future be
potentially affected, albeit to a very limited degree, by
flooding during floods with a less than 1% AEP flood.
These sites are Bozeat Meadows SSSI and Wansford
Pasture SSSI.
Bozeat Meadows SSSI comprises an area of species rich

and agriculturally improved neutral grassland lying over well drained calcareous clay and
loam soils. The site has a marked ridge and furrow formation, and contains common
knapweed – crested dog’s tail community and false oat grasslands. Wansford Pasture SSSI
comprises of two grassland types; calcareous limestone grassland and a species-rich flush.
Only a very limited area of both sites would be affected by future floods (see Table 4.15 for
details); approximately 3% of the total area during floods with a 1% or 0.1% AEP flood.
Therefore, although the terrestrial grassland communities present are sensitive to increased
flooding, the impacts on these grasslands are unlikely to be significant due to the limited
areas affected.

Table 4.13 Critical infrastructure affected in the future
Asset flooded
Asset Location Source of flooding 10% AEP 0.1% AEP
1% AEP flood
flood flood
Total 9 50 93
Peterborough River Nene, Stanground Lode 0 2 6
Corby Willow Brook, Harpers Brook 0 18 20
Electricity sub- River Ise, River Nene, Swanspool
stations Wellingborough 2 5 10
Brook, Harrowden Brook
Wootton Wootton Brook 0 2 3
Northampton (defended) River Nene, Brampton Branch 0 0 23
River Nene, Brampton Branch, Billing
Northampton (Outer) 5 11 14
Brook, Dallington Brook
Sewage Treatment
Total 7 15 15
Works
Stibbington River Nene 1 1 1
Weedon Kislingbury Branch 1 1 1
Bugbrooke Bugbrooke Brook 0 1 1
Yardley Hastings Grendon Brook 0 1 1
Bozeat Grendon Brook 0 1 1
Wittering Unnamed tributary 1 1 1
Newnham Newnham Arm 0 1 1
Evironment Agency 219

Asset flooded
1% AEP flood
flood flood
Whilton Whilton Branch 0 1 1
Brixworth Brampton Branch 0 1 1

Hollowell Hollowell Arm 0 1 1
Great Billing River Nene 1 1 1

Broadholme River Nene 1 1 1
Islip River Nene 1 1 1
Total 4 11 23
River Ise, River Nene, Swanspool
Waste Management
Sites Northampton (defended) River Nene, Brampton Branch 0 0 10
River Nene, Brampton Branch, Billing
Northampton (Outer) 1 2 4
Brook, Dallington Brook
Total 1 4 5
IPPC Sites Wellingborough 1 1 1
Northampton (defended) River Nene, Brampton Branch 0 0 1
Bugbrooke Kislingbury Branch 0 1 1
Schools Total 0 2 4

Asset flooded
1% AEP flood
flood flood

Peterborough Stanground Lode 0 0 1
Total 0 1 5
Care Homes
Kettering Slade Brook 0 0 1
Peterborough River Nene 0 0 1
Total 0 5 6
Emergency Response Wellingborough 0 2 2
Brook
Centres
Peterborough River Nene 0 0 1
Watford Gap Welton Grange Arm 0 1 1
Total 0 1 1
Hospitals

Table 4.14 Key transport links at risk of flooding in the future.
Asset flooded
Peterborough Increased risk of
flooding and
East Coast Mainline River Nene No No disruption – line
may flood,
disruption likely
Burton Latimer River Ise No Yes Yes
Midland Mainline
Kettering Slade Brook No No Yes
RAILWAYS Various locations

Increased risk of flooding and disruption –
West Coast Mainline between Kilby River Nene tributaries No
line may flood, disruption likely
and Blisworth
Increased risk of flooding and disruption –
Wootton Wootton Brook No
West Coast Mainline line may flood, disruption likely
Northampton Branch Northampton River Nene,
No Yes Yes
Brampton Branch
Peterborough – Ely Peterborough
River Nene No No Yes
Railway
West
ROADS River Nene Yes Yes Yes
Northampton
East
A45 River Nene Yes Yes Yes
Northampton
Wellingborough River Nene Yes Yes Yes
Higham Ferrers River Nene Yes Yes Yes
A5123 Northampton River Nene Protected by defences Yes
A508 Northampton River Nene Protected by defences Yes
Chapel Brampton Brampton Branch Yes Yes Yes
A5199
Spratton Spratton Brook Yes Yes Yes
A43 Northampton Brampton Branch No Yes Yes
A508 Wootton Wootton Brook Yes Yes Yes

Asset flooded
Wellingborough Increased risk od
A510 River Ise No No
disruption
A5193 Wellingborough River Nene No No Yes
Oundle Increased risk of
A427 River Nene No Yes
disruption
Wansford Increased risk of
River Nene No No
disruption
A1 Yes – flooding from
Billing Brook
Alwalton Yes Yes River Nene as well
(Peterborough)
as Billing Brook
A6118 Wansford River Nene Yes Yes Yes
Peterborough Increased risk of
River Nene No No
A15 disruption
Yaxley Stanground Lode Yes Yes Yes
A361 Badby Newnham Arm Yes Yes Yes
A6
Irthlingborough River Nene Yes Yes Yes
Kettering Slade Brook Yes Yes Yes
A14
A605 Thorpe Waterville Harveys Dyke Yes Yes Yes

Asset flooded
Haddon Billing Brook
Yes Yes Yes
(Peterborough)
Althorp Church Brampton
A428 Yes Yes Yes
Branch
A425 Daventry Daventry Reservoir Yes Yes Yes
A5 Weedon Bec Kislingbury Branch Yes Yes Yes
A5128 Wellingborough River Ise Yes Yes Yes
Various locations
Increase in chance of motorway flooding, particularly for higher
between
M1 River Nene tributaries magnitude floods. Significant risk fo disruption ofr higher
Collingtree and
magnitude floods.
Watford Gap
Grand Union Canal,
CANALS Northampton River Nene Yes Yes Yes
Northampton Branch
RAILWAY
No railway stations at risk of flooding
STATIONS
PORTS No ports at risk of flooding
AIRPORTS No airports at risk of flooding

Table 4.15 identifies the predicted changes from the current situation for the remaining 18
sites within the floodplain. This highlights that increased flooding in the future is likely to have
both beneficial and adverse effects, depending on the sensitivity of the site to flooding and the
timing and magnitude of future flooding. For example, although increased flooding could
potentially increase the extent of wetland habitat in the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits
SSSI/potential SPA and Wadenhoe Marsh and Achurch Meadow SSSI to the benefit of these
sites; the timing of flooding is critical, as flooding in spring or early summer could be
detrimental to breeding birds.
For the majority of sites, the predicted increase in flood extent is minimal. Significant
increases in flood risk are predicted, relative to the current situation, for a limited number of
sites such as Orton Pit SAC and the River Ise and Meadows SSSI. Figure 4.11 illustrates an
aspect of the change in flood risk which a riverine SSSI such as the Upper Nene Valley
Gravel Pits could experience during floods with a 1% AEP of occurring.
Increased flooding will have varying effects on sensitive internationally important sites such as
the Nene Washes (and within this the geological site of Adventurer’s Land SSSI) where water
levels are carefully managed to maintain the current nature conservation interest features
(see Section 3.5.5 for details). Increases in the volume of floodwater flowing downstream and
any requirements for the storage of floodwater for longer periods due to rising sea level could
have further negative effects depending on the timing and volume of floodwaters. However,
this assessment has indicated that as flooding of the site with salt water from the tidal river is
unlikely in the future, no significant additional adverse impacts are anticipated. No additional
adverse impacts are anticipated on the geological features of Adventurer’s Land SSSI.
The Wash (designated as a Ramsar site, SAC, SPA and

SSSI) is immediately adjacent to the catchment
boundary and receives the waters of the River Nene.
The aquatic and intertidal features of this estuary are
sensitive to changes in salinity, water quality, sediment
volumes, and flood flows from the River Nene. The
impact of future floods will depend on the frequency and
depth of flooding. Changes in freshwater flows could
change the freshwater/saline balance and of the
sedimentary processes in the intertidal habitats.
Increased flooding is likely to be of benefit to or have a neutral impact on the remaining SSSIs
within the floodplain as many of these rely on a seasonal flooding regime to maintain their
ecological value. Increased flooding could increase the extent of wetland and wet grassland
habitats within these sites.
Biodiversity Action Plans

Increased flooding presents further opportunities to improve the quality, extent and
connectivity of riparian and wetland habitats and associated species within the catchment,
including those targeted for action under the UK BAP at both a national and local level. As
described in Section 3.5.5, the effects of flooding on local BAP habitats and species will vary.
Flooding will provide opportunities for the expansion and improvement of wetland and wet
grassland habitats and associated species throughout the floodplain. However, terrestrial
BAP habitats such as dry grasslands, woodlands, heathlands and species would be adversely
affected by occasional floods and in particular, by periods of frequent or prolonged flooding.
The extent of flooding of the lowland meadows BAP priority habitat (the most widespread
BAP habitat within the catchment) will slightly increase in the future, relative to the current
situation. This may present further opportunities to increase the extent and quality of this
habitat, and help contribute to its BAP target as described in Section 3.5.5.

Table 4.15 Future changes in flood risk to designated nature conservation sites.
Area of site (ha) at risk in % change in area of site at
Designation Area the future risk (compared to current Implication of future changes Effect
(ha) situation)
10% 1% 0.1% 10% 1% 0.1%
Nene Washes The entire site is subject to flooding at present. Future changes Variable
SSSI, SPA, will result in more frequent, deeper and more prolonged
1512 1433 1470 1490 +0.3% 0% +0.1%
SAC, Ramsar flooding. This could be beneficial or detrimental, depending on
site the timing and nature of this flooding.
Upper Nene The entire site is subject to flooding at present. Future changes Variable
Valley Gravel will results in more frequent, deeper and more prolonged
Pits SSSI, 1382 1302 1320 1342 0% +0.7% +0.5% flooding. This could be beneficial or detrimental, depending on
potential SPA the timing and nature of this flooding. Increased flooding could
beneficially increase the extent of associated wetland habitat.
The Wash Future impacts will depend on future frequency and depth of Unknown –
63,135
SSSI, SPA, flooding. Increased freshwater flows could disrupt the potentially
(SSSI N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
SAC, Ramsar freshwater/saline balance and cause potential scouring of negative
only)
site intertidal habitats.
Orton Pit SSSI, As the present habitat is characterised by a low level of Variable
SAC nutrients, flooding by nutrient-rich flood waters could result in an
146 0 38 40 0 +20% +21%
irreversible change. No adverse impact on the great crested
newt population is expected.
National Sites
Castor Flood Predicted increase in flood extent may have a positive impact on Positive
Meadows SSSI 42 32 39 40 +7% +0.6% +0.4% the wet grassland habitat.
Bulwick Predicted increase in flood extent may have a positive impact Positive
Meadows SSSI 4 1.5 2 2.2 +1.6% +1.9% +1.5% upon the meadow habitat by potentially increasing the extent of
the habitat within and beyond the site.
Aldwincle Marsh Predicted increase in flood extent may have a positive impact on Positive
2 1.7 1.8 2 +13% - +0.7%
SSSI the wetland habitat.
Wollaston 14 14 14 14 - - - No significant change from current situation Neutral

(ha) situation)
10% 1% 0.1% 10% 1% 0.1%
Meadows SSSI
Wadenhoe Increased flooding could potentially increase the extent of Variable
Marsh and wetland habitats within the site, but could be detrimental to the
47 36.7 38.5 39.5 +0.2% +1.9% +1.1%
Achurch breeding waders if it occurs in the spring or early summer.
Meadow SSSI
Southfield 9 5.4 5.9 6.5 Increased flooding may potentially restore designated wetland Positive
Marsh Farm plant communities within the site.
SSSI +1% +0.8% +2%
River Ise and 14 0 10.2 10.4 Increased flooding would be beneficial to flood meadow Positive
Meadows SSSI - +33% +5% habitats.
Pitsford 413 0 285 289 Increased flooding at this site is assessed as having a neutral Variable
Reservoir SSSI impact. However, the potential for flooding in the spring or early
summer could be detrimental to breeding birds along the
- +3% +3.2% margins.
Sutton and 17 0 2.9 3.4 - +1.5% +1% Area at risk of flooding is relatively small, and the consequences Neutral
Heath Bog SSSI of flooding are unlikely to have any significant impacts.
Titchmarsh 2 0 1.59 1.62 - +10% +5% Increased flooding would be beneficial to the marsh Positive
Meadow SSSI communities.
Bozeat 3 0 0.08 0.08 - +2.9% +3% Very limited area affected. Terrestrial grassland communities Negative
Meadows SSSI present are sensitive to flooding
Wansford 3 0 0.10 0.11 - +2.6% +2.2% Very limited area affected. A small amount/duration of flooding Neutral/
Pasture SSSI could be beneficial to the site.
Positive
Adventurers 10.1 7.10 7.04 7.65 +0.8% +1.2% +0.9% No positive or negative effects anticipated Neutral
Land SSSI
West, Abbot’s & 50.4 0 1.5 1.7 - +0.82% +0.76% Increased flooding may be beneficial to wet woodland and wet Positive
Lound Woods grassland habitats

(ha) situation)
10% 1% 0.1% 10% 1% 0.1%
SSSI
Bonemills 17.5 0 4.1 4.6 - +6.3% +6.2% Effect is potentially positive, marsh plant communities may Positive
Hollow SSSI benefit from increase in flooding
Whitewater 4.3 0 1.3 1.4 - +10% +8% Effect of flooding may be positive to wetland plant communities Positive
Valley SSSI
Bugbrooke 10 7.2 10.0 10.0 0% +32% 0% Increased flooding could potentially increase the extent of Positive
Meadows SSSI wetland habitats within the site. Results of modelling show
variable results.

Figure 4.11 Upper Nene Gravel Pits SSSI

Historic environment
Flood risk to the historic environmental features of the catchment will increase, and flooding is likely to be
more frequent and prolonged. Table 4.16 provides details of the future changes in flood risk to historic
environment features (Scheduled Monuments, Parks and Gardens, Historic Battlefields, Conservation
Areas) within the catchment. The nature of the impacts on these features is likely to be unchanged
although the magnitude could be greater because of the increased volume of floodwater. For the purposes
of this CFMP, it is assumed that increased flooding would have a negative effect on their condition.
In the future, an additional two Scheduled Monuments will become at risk during a flood with a 0.1% AEP
flood: Peterborough Cathedral Precincts; and, Saxon Palace Complex and Saxon and Medieval Urban
Deposits in Northampton. The remaining 51 Scheduled Monuments currently at risk would be subject to
more frequent and prolonged flooding across a larger proportion of their area in the future. More
information will be required to assess the potential impacts of flooding on these sites during any more
detailed studies that follow this CFMP.
Parts of two additional Registered Park and Gardens, Peterborough Minster Precincts and Milton Hall, will
become at risk during a flood with a 0.1% AEP of occurring. It is likely that those sites currently affected will
be subject to prolonged and more frequent flooding in the future. Larger areas of the battle of Northampton
site would be affected by flooding in the future.
In the future, parts of six additional Conservation Areas will be affected during a flood with an AEP of 0.1%
and five additional Conservation Areas will be affected during a flood with an AEP of 1% respectively. In
addition, Conservation Areas currently at risk may incur more frequent and prolonged flooding, and
flooding may cover a greater proportion of their area.
Table 4.16 Future changes in flood risk to historic environment features

number (numbers within various flood extents and details, brackets
Features in compared with present)
catchm
10% 1% 0.1%
ent
Scheduled 191 36 (+4) 49 (+3) 53 (+2)
Monuments 4 additional sites at 3 additional sites at risk: 2 additional sites at
risk: • Site Of Manor House risk:
• Roman Villa near And Gardens, • Peterborough
Doddington Mill, Cathedral
• Remains Of Manor Precincts
• Roman Villa, House And Garden,
• Saxon Palace
• Remains of Manor • A Late 16th Century Complex and
House and House, Gardens And Saxon and
Gardens Dovecote, 300m Medieval Urban
West Of Mill Farm Deposits,
• Irthlingborough
Bowl Barrow near Northampton,
Rutland Lodge
Registered 31 5 (+0) 18 (+2) 20 (+2)
Parks and No change Parts of 2 additional Parts of 2
Gardens sites at risk: additional sites at
• Milton Hall risk:
• Peterborough
• All Saints Manor Minster
(Barnwell) Precincts
• Milton Hall
Historic 2 1 (+0) 1 (+0) 1 (+0)
Battlefields No change No change No change
Conservation 118 14 (+0) 46 (+5) 49 (+6)
Areas No additional sites at Parts of 5 additional Parts of 1
(Northampto risk. CAs at risk: additional CA at
nshire and risk:

number (numbers within various flood extents and details, brackets
Features in compared with present)
catchm
10% 1% 0.1%
ent
Peterborough • Queens Road • Milton Malsor
only)
• Stanground • Queens Road
• Fotheringhay • Stanground
• Warkton • Fotheringhay
• Southorpe • Warkton
• Southorpe
Surface water quality and quantity

As described in Section 3.5.5, flooding can affect the quality and quantity of water available in the
catchment. More frequent and widespread flooding in the future could increase the risk that pollutants are
carried over a wider area by floodwaters, resulting in adverse impacts on water quality with associated
effects on human health and biodiversity.
We identified that the River Nene and its principal tributaries are at risk of failing to meet its environmental
objectives under the WFD, and identified a range of potentially polluting sources within the floodplain.
Table 4.17 identifies the changes in risk to these sites in the future from the current situation and confirms
that although the risks to several sites will increase, only one additional site, a waste management site in
Northampton, will be at risk in the future during a 0.1% AEP flood.
As discussed in Section 3.5.5 given the designation of the River Nene as a heavily modified water body
(HMWB), it will be necessary to ensure any flood risk management actions proposed by this CFMP are
compatible with the relevant WFD environmental objectives.
Table 4.17 Numbers and types of potentially polluting sources at risk of flooding in the future
Current flood risk
Type of site (numbers within various flood extents, brackets compared with present)
10% 1% 0.1%
IPPC licensed sites 1 (+0) 4 (+3) 5 (+2)
No additional sites at 3 additional sites at risk: Power Station and
risk o Power Station, Corby Flour Mill in Corby at
o Flour Mill, Corby risk further to the 3
o Bugbrooke Mill. sites at risk at present.
Waste 4 (+3) 11 (+6) 23 (+9)
Management Sites 2 additional sites at 6 additional sites at risk: 9 additional sites at risk
risk: • Corby (x3) compared with present:
• Kislingbury • Kettering • Corby (x3)
• Other areas (x1) • Northampton Outer • Northampton Central
• Northampton Outer • Other areas (x1) (x4)
• Northampton Outer
• Other areas (x1)
Sewage Treatment 7(+0) 15 (+5) 15 (+3)
Plants (STW)
No additional sites at 5 additional sites at risk: 3 additional sites at

risk Hollowell STW risk:
Bugbrooke STW • Hollowell STW
Raunds STW • Bozeat STW
Bozeat STW • Whilton (Daventry)
Whilton (Daventry) STW
STW

Landscape
The nature of the impacts on landscape character within the catchment are likely to be unchanged from
those described in Section 3.5.5, although the increased risk of flooding in the Fens may result in more
significant landscape changes if a large breach in the existing flood embankments were to occur.
Fisheries
The risks to the fisheries in the Nene and its tributaries from flooding will remain in the future. The nature of
the potential impacts on fisheries are similar to those described in Section 3.5.5, but the magnitude of
these impacts may increase over time. Management of these potential issues will be required to ensure
fish populations and the associated ecological health of the catchment’s rivers are sustained into the
future.
Navigation, tourism and recreation

In the future, disruption to users of the navigation and riverside facilities, including the towpath, is likely to
become more frequent and prolonged with increased flooding. Other recreational assets, such as
footpaths, bridleways and cycle paths which lie within floodplains will be less available for use and the
wider floodplains will put more of these facilities at risk.
4.4 Summary of future flood risk

We showed that, if we continue with our current flood management
practice, standards of protection will fall and the average annual
damage to property could approximately double under the medium
scenario by 2100. It could be much greater under the high scenario.
More people will also be affected and the number of communities
which will be disrupted will increase. The increase in flood damage
is marked at Wellingborough and Peterborough where there are
commercial and industrial areas at risk and at Oundle where
residential properties are at risk. Flood risk will also increase in
Kettering and in Northampton, although the Northampton flood
defences will continue to be effective.
In our calculations, we assume that the development of the future floodplain will be prevented. If it cannot,
the increase in average annual damage to property and the effects on people will be much greater than we
predict.
Table 4.18 summarises the issues revealed by our investigation of future flood risk. As for Table 3.22,
Table 4.18 has an overall assessment of flood risk in a number of locations around the catchment. The
categories of flood risk are the relative assessment of the combined risks to social, economic and
environmental receptors with prominence given to people at risk, particularly risk to life.

Table 4.18 Summary of future flood risk
Pathway and source of
Location Future flood risk and scale of disruption Flood risk management in place
flooding
Northampton Fluvial flooding from the Recently constructed defences prevent frequent 0.5% AEP flood standard defences in
(defended areas) River Nene. Overtopping flooding from occurring. Significant flooding occurs at Northampton. These prevent flooding up to and
or breach of defences. the 0.5% AEP flood when defences are overtopped including the 0.5% AEP flood.
and breaching may occur. The Northampton Washlands provide protection
for areas downstream of Northampton.
Due to defences no properties or people will be The following flood warning areas cover this
flooded at the 1% AEP flood, and hence no damages location:
accrued. No annual average damages. • River Nene and tributaries in Northampton,
including low-lying areas adjacent to the river
Flood defences prevent significant disruption to key • Nene and Tributaries from Daventry to
transport Kislingbury
infrastructure at 1% AEP flood. For floods with a higher • River Nene and tributaries in the St James
magnitude than the standard of protection of the area of Northampton
defences the disruption could be extremely severe. • River Nene and tributaries in the Far Cotton
There would be serious disruption to local, regional Area of Northampton
and national transport infrastructure, including the • River Nene and tributaries in the Tanner
Northampton branch of the West Coast Mainline, A45, Street area of Northampton
and locally important roads throughout the town. • River Nene and tributaries in the St Peters
Way and Victoria Promenade areas of
Part of the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SSSI lies Northampton
within this area and is prone to flooding in a 1% AEP • River Nene and tributaries in the Dallington
flood, although there are no negative impacts. Brook area of Northampton
Thrapston
Northampton Fluvial flooding from the Serious flooding relatively infrequent, though number Areas on the River Nene east of the centre of
(outer areas) River Nene, Dallington of commercial properties at risk in a 10% AEP flood as Northampton benefit from the operation of the
Brook and Billing Brook. are a number of transport links. Northampton Washlands. The standard of
protection provided is estimated at the 12% AEP
Approx. 750 people and 425 properties affected at 1% flood in this area.
AEP flood. Billing Brook Flood detention ponds,
Damages of approximately £60 million incurred for 1% Hardingstone flood storage reservoir, and
AEP flood. The vast majority of these damages are to Dallington flood storage reservoir provide
commercial properties. AAD of £8.39 million caused by localised protection. Standard of Protection
significant damages to commercial properties in low unknown.
magnitude floods. The following flood warning areas cover this
location:
Flooding is of a moderate duration (< 24 hours), • River Nene and tributaries in Northampton,
flooding
velocities and depths. Likely to see a small increase in including low-lying areas adjacent to the
duration, depth and velocity of flooding in the future river.
compared with present. • River Nene and tributaries in the Dallington
Brook area of Northampton.
Potential for serious disruption to local, regional and • River Nene and tributaries from Billing to
national transport infrastructure, including the Thrapston.
Northampton branch of the West Coast Mainline, A45, • River Nene at Billing Aquadrome.
and locally important roads throughout the town. Risk
to critical infrastructure including 11 electricity
substations and 2 waste management sites.
Some small impact on the historic environment (one

scheduled monument and one conservation area
affected) and on BAP habitats.

Wellingborough Fluvial flooding from River Serious flooding occurs relatively infrequently, with Areas of Wellingborough which flood from the
Ise, River Nene, limited impact at the 10% AEP flood, but significant River Nene benefit from the operation of the
Harrowden Brook and impact at 1% AEP flood. Northampton Washlands upstream. Standard of
Swanspool Brook protection at this location is unknown.
Approx. 530 people and 300 properties affected at 1% Wellingborough benefits from the following flood
AEP flood. In comparison with the rest of the storage schemes:
catchment, a significant number of commercial • Harrowden flood storage area provides
properties affected. localised benefits to areas at risk on the
Harrowden Brook. Standard of Protection
Damages of up to £50 million occur at 1% AEP flood, estimated at 2%.
the vast majority being commercial damages. AAD of • Wilby flood storage area benefits areas at
£2.75 million caused by significant damages to risk on the Swanspool Brook. Standard of
commercial properties in low magnitude floods. protection estimated at 2%.
The following flood warning areas cover this
Flooding is of relatively long duration (up to 48 hours), location:
depths and velocities likely to be low. Likely to see a • River Nene and tributaries from Billing to
small increase in duration, depth and velocity of Thrapston.
flooding in the future compared with present. • River Ise and tributaries from Clipston to
Wellingborough.
Local, regional and national disruptions at the 1% AEP,
Midland Mainline and locally important roads. Flooding

flooding
at transport infrastructure likely to see a small increase
in duration, depth and velocity of flooding in the future
compared with present. Risk to critical infrastructure
including 5 electricity substations, 1 IPPC site, 1 waste
management centre, and 1 school.


Kettering Fluvial flooding from River Relatively frequent flooding with up to 130 properties The Kettering Leisure Village flood storage area
Ise and Slade Brook. affected at 10% AEP. provides localised protection to areas at risk on
the Slade Brook. Standard of protection
Approx. 700 people and 300 properties affected at 1% estimated at the 2% AEP flood.
AEP flood. The following flood warning areas cover these
locations:
Damages of up to £18 million at 1% AEP flood, with • Slade Brook in the Venture Park area of
roughly equal split between commercial and residential Kettering
properties. AAD of £0.72 million. • River Ise and tributaries from Clipston to
Wellingborough
Duration of flooding short – moderate (< 18 hours),
depths potentially high, velocities likely to be moderate.
Likely to see a small increase in duration, depth and
velocity of flooding in the future compared with
present.
Severe local, regional and national disruptions at the

1% AEP, with flooding of regional and local transport
important roads. Flooding at transport infrastructure
likely to see a small increase in duration, depth and
present. Risk to critical infrastructure including 5
electricity substations and 1 waste management site.

flooding
flooding.

Corby Fluvial flooding from Frequent flooding of a large number of properties Corby benefits from the flooding storage
Harpers Brook and Willow occurs, with approx. 700 properties affected at the schemes:
Brook. Surface water 10% AEP flood. • Weldon flood storage reservoir on the Willow
flooding can occur. Brook. Standard of protection estimated at
3,800 – 3,850 people and approximately 1,700 the 2% AEP flood.
properties affected at the 1% AEP flood. • Gretton Brook flood storage reservoir on the
Gretton Brook. Standard of protection
Damages of approx. £100 million occur at the 1% AEP estimated at the 10% AEP flood.
flood, with approx. £60 million of this coming from • Crucible Road flood storage reservoir.
commercial properties. AAD of £5.64 million. Standard of protection unknown.
Duration of flooding likely to be short (< 12 hours) The following flood warning areas cover this
though possibility of significant duration in parts. Depth location:
and velocity of flooding unlikely to constitute a • River Nene tributaries between Thrapston
significant risk. and the Dog-in-a-Doublet sluice in
Peterborough
Duration of flooding is expected to be moderate (up to • Willow Brook in Weldon and Kings Cliffe
present.
Local and regional disruptions to transport

infrastructure at the 1% AEP flood, with disruption to a
number of locally and regionally important roads,
including the A427. Flooding at transport infrastructure
likely to see a small increase in duration, depth and
present. Significant risk to critical infrastructure, with 18
electricity substations, 1 sewage treatment works, 4
waste management sites, 1 IPPC site, 1 school and 1
care home affected by flooding.

flooding
negative.

Peterborough Fluvial flooding from River Approx. 50 properties at risk of frequent flooding Peterborough benefits from the operation of the
Nene and Stanground (10%). Serious flooding occurs relatively infrequently Northampton Washlands. Standard of protection
Lode (1% AEP flood). at this location unknown.
Approx. 650 people and 280 properties affected at 1% The Nene Washes provide protection to
AEP flood. Peterborough during periods of tide-locking.
Damages of approx. £6 million expected at 1% AEP Thorpe Drain flood storage area proviedes
flood. This constitutes relatively small damages localised benefits to areas at risk in Thorpe
compared with the number of properties affected. In Meadows. Standard of protection unknown.
contrast with the damages estimated for the current
condition, the majority of these damages come from The following flood warning area covers this
commercial properties. AAD of £0.31 million. location:
• River Nene between Thrapston and the Dog-
Duration of flooding very long (typically 48 – 96 hours), in-a-Doublet sluice to the east of
depths and velocities generally low. Likely to see a Peterborough
small increase in duration, depth and velocity of • North Bank Road alongside the River Nene,
flooding in the future compared with present. east of Peterborough and west of Dog-in-a-
Doublet Sluice
Local and regional disruption to transport infrastructure
at the 1% AEP flood, with disruption to the A15, and River Nene between Wansford and the Dog-in-a-
other locally important roads. Flooding of transport Doublet sluice to the east of Peterborough
infrastructure likely to see a small increase in duration,
depth and velocity of flooding in the future compared
with present. Small risk to critical infrastructure at the
1% AEP flood, with 2 electricity substations at risk of
flooding.
Moderate risk to the historic environment, including risk

to four conservation areas, a designated park and
flooding
of flooding.

Rushden Fluvial flooding from Skew Relatively frequent flooding of a handful of properties No formal defences.
Bridge Dyke (approx. 25 at 10% AEP flood). The following flood warning area covers this
location:
Approx. 140 people and 75 properties affected at 1% • River Nene and tributaries from Billing to
AEP flood. Thrapston.
Damages of up to £6M occur at 1% AEP flood, mainly

accrued from commercial properties. AAD of £0.23
million.

1.5m. Likely to see a small increase in duration, depth
and velocity of flooding in the future compared with
present.
Disruption at the 1% AEP flood to locally and regionally

key roads in the centre of Rushden. Flooding of
transport infrastructure likely to see a small increase in
duration, depth and velocity of flooding in the future
compared with present. 2 electricity substations are
flooded in a 1% AEP flood.

Raunds Fluvial flooding from Relatively frequent flooding (10% AEP) of about 50 No formal defences.
Raunds Hog Dyke properties. Serious flooding occurs relatively The following flood warning area covers this
infrequently. location:
Approx. 370 people and 170 properties affected at 1% Thrapston.
AEP flood.
Damages of up to £7.5M occurs at 1% AEP event.

flooding
Significant damages for both commercial and
residential properties occur. AAD of £0.29 million

1.5m. Likely to see a small increase in duration, depth
present.

roads within Raunds. Flooding of transport
with present. Raunds STW is affected in a 1% AEP
flood.

Thrapston Fluvial flooding from the Recently constructed defences prevent frequent Thrapston is defended by recently constructed
River Nene. Overtopping flooding from occurring. Significant flooding only flood defences, which protect the town up to and
or breach of defences. occurs at the 0.5% AEP flood when defences are including the 0.5% AEP flood.
overtopped. The following flood warning areas cover this
location:
Due to defences no properties or people will be • River Nene between Thrapston and Castor
flooded at the 1% AEP flood, and hence no damages including low lying mill properties
accrued. No annual average damages. • River Nene between Thrapston and the Dog-
in-a-Doublet sluice to the east of
Flood defences prevent significant disruption to Peterborough
transport and critical infrastructure in a 1% AEP flood.
Disruption of locally and regionally important transport
links occurs at 0.5% AEP flood.

Nene from Oundle Fluvial flooding from River Significant flooding can occur for 10% AEP flood, with No formal defences.
to Water Newton Nene. People and approx. 80 properties affected.
property in floodplain The following flood warning areas cover this
Approx. 450 people and 200 properties affected for 1% location:
AEP flood. Those affected spread along river, but • River Nene between Thrapston and the Dog-
found in Oundle, Elton and Wansford notably. in-a-Doublet sluice to the east of
flooding
Peterborough
Damages of approx. £7 million for 1% AEP flood, • River Nene between Wansford and the Dog-
mainly commercial damages. AAD of £0.50 million. in-a-Doublet sluice to the east of
Peterborough
Flooding is of long duration (up to 4 days in duration) • River Nene between Thrapston and Castor
meaning the impact of flooding is likely to be including low lying mill properties
prolonged, especially as a number of major roads are
prone to flooding in the area. Velocities and depths of
flooding are unlikely to be high, though likely to see a
small increase in duration, depth and velocity of
flooding in the future compared with present.

links at the 1% AEP flood, including the A1 at
Wansford and Water Newton, and a number of key
strategic river crossings. Flooding of transport
with present. Increase in impact of flooding at
Stibbington STW.

risk of flooding, including 17 scheduled monuments
Wansford Pasture SSSI becomes affected in a future
1% AEP flood, with the impact expected to be neutral
or positive.

Harpers Brook Fluvial flooding from Subject to relatively frequent flooding with approx. 25 Brigstock, Sudborough and other settlements
Harpers Brook. properties flooded frequently (> 10% AEP). No along the Harpers Brook are protected by Great
significant growth in the number of properties affected Oakley flood storage area. Standard of protection
for 1% and 0.1% AEP floods. estimated at the 4% AEP flood.
Approx. 75 people and 35 properties affected for 1% The following flood warning areas cover this
AEP flood. Those affected are primarily residential location:
properties found in Brigstock and Sudborough. • River Nene between Thrapston and the Dog-

flooding
Damages of approx. £1.25M for 1% AEP flood. AAD of Peterborough
£0.12 million. • River Nene tributaries between Thrapston
and the Dog-in-a-Doublet sluice to the east of
Flooding is of short duration (< 12 hours), with large Peterborough
depths in parts of up to 2.25m, and potential for • Harpers Brook in Sudborough
moderate velocities. Likely to see a small increase in
compared with present.
Disruption to locally important transport network at 1%

AEP flood. Flooding of transport infrastructure likely to
see a small increase in duration, depth and velocity of
flooding in the future compared with present. No critical
infrastructure affected in a 1% AEP flood.


Wootton Fluvial flooding from Flooding of approx. 40 properties can occur frequently No formal defences.
Wootton Brook (> 10% AEP). Increase in the number of properties The following flood warning areas cover this
affected up to the 1% AEP flood is not dramatic. location:
• Wootton Brook in the Collingtree Park Area
Approx. 200 people and 80 properties affected for the of Northampton
1% AEP flood. Those affected mainly found in Wootton
along the southern edge of Northampton.
Damages of approx. £1.33 million occur at 1% AEP

flood, mainly arising from residential properties. AAD of
£0.12 million.
Flooding is of moderate duration (up to 24 hours), and

velocities likely to be low. Depths in general are low,
though there are a few locations where very high
depths may occur. Likely to see a small increase in
flooding

Northampton branch of the West Coast mainline and
the A508. Also potential for disruption to the M1.
Flooding of transport infrastructure likely to see a small
increase in duration, depth and velocity of flooding in
the future compared with present. 2 electricity
substations are affected by flooding at the 1% AEP
flood.

Kislingbury Fluvial flooding from Up to 35 properties are at risk of frequent flooding (> 0.5% AEP flood standard defences have recently
Branch Kislingbury Branch of 10% AEP flood). Serious flooding does not begin to been installed in Kislingbury. These prevent
Nene, and minor occur until the 0.1% AEP when defences in Kislingbury flooding in the village of Kislingbury up to and
upstream tribs. and upstream of Weedon are overwhelmed. including the 0.5% AEP flood.
Weedon Flood Storage Scheme protects
Approx. 175 people and 85 properties affected at the Weedon up to the 1% AEP flood.
1% AEP flood. The majority of those affected are in
Bugbrooke and not in the defended towns of Flood storage is under construction between
Kislingbury and Weedon. Kislingbury and Northampton which will provide
benefit to Northampton and areas further
Damages of up to £6M occur at 1% AEP flood, mainly downstream, as well as compensating for
arising from a handful of commercial properties. AAD development in the Upper Nene.
of £0.83 million.
Flooding is of moderate duration (24-36 hours), with location:
low depths in most parts and moderate velocities. • River Nene in Kislingbury and at Bugbrooke
Potential for large depths and large velocities should Mill
defences become overwhelmed. • River Nene and Tributaries from Daventry to
Kislingbury
Disruption to locally, regionally and nationally important • River Nene in Weedon
transport links for the 1% AEP. Transport infrastructure
affected includes the West Coast Mainline, A5, and a
Weedon STW and Bugbrooke STW are affected by
flooding, along with 1 waste management site and 1

flooding
IPPC site.

Nether Heyford) and one scheduled monument (Upton
Bowl Barrow) are affected by flooding. Bugbrooke
Meadows SSSI floods in a 1% AEP flood, with the

Barnwell Fluvial flooding from Capacity of Barnwell flood storage area is Barnwell Flood Storage Area provides benefits to
overwhelmed in the future, though Barnwell is still Barnwell. Standard of protection estimated at the
Barnwell Brook protected in a 10% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood.
Approx. 150 people and 60 properties are affected at The following flood warning areas cover this
the 1% AEP flood. location:
Damages of approx. £2.75M occur for 1% AEP, mainly in-a-Doublet sluice to the east of
arising from residential properties. AAD of £0.20 Peterborough
million.
Flooding is of moderate duration (up to 24 hours) with

moderate velocities expected and large depths in parts
up to 2.5m, though typically much less than this as the
flood storage area will continue to provide some
benefit. Likely to see a small increase in duration,
with present.

infrastructure is affected by flooding in a 1% AEP flood.
A small part of Barnwell conservation area and All

Saints Manor (Barnwell) park and garden are affected
by flooding.
flooding
Overall flood risk is assessed as LOW – MODERATE

Yarley Hastings, Fluvial flooding from Approx. 30 properties are at risk of frequent flooding The villages on the Grendon Brook benefit from
Bozeat and Grendon Brook system of (10% AEP). The number of properties at the 1% and the flooding storage schemes:
Grendon streams 0.1% floods is not significantly higher than at the 10% • Yardley Hastings flood storage reservoirs.
AEP flood. Standard of protection of the North reservoir
estimated at the 2% AEP flood. Standard of
Approx. 170 people and 70 properties are affected at protection of the East and West reservoirs
the 1% AEP flood. estimated at the 4% AEP flood.
• Denton flood storage reservoir on the Gretton
Damages of approx. £9.5 million occur at the 1% AEP Brook. Standard of protection estimated at
flood, a substantial increase on the damages at the the 4% AEP flood.
10% AEP flood, despite the relatively small increase in • Bozeat flood storage reservoir. Standard of
the number of properties affected. AAD of £0.60 protection estimated at the 2% AEP flood.
million. The following flood warning areas cover this
location:
Duration of flooding is expected to be River Nene and tributaries from Billing to
moderate (up to 24 hours) with moderate velocities Thrapston
and low depths. Likely to see a small increase in
Disruption to locally important transport infrastructure

at the 1% AEP flood. Flooding of transport
with present. Yardley Hastings and Bozeat STWs are
affected by flooding in a 1% AEP flood.

the 1% AEP flood. Bozeat Meadows SSSI becomes
affected by flooding in a 1% AEP in the future, with
likely negative impacts of flooding.

Blisworth Fluvial flooding from Relatively frequent flooding (> 10% AEP) of approx. 35 No formal defences.

flooding
Milton Mansor Brook properties. Blisworth is not covered by a flood warning area.
Approx. 130 people and 75 properties are affected at

the 1% AEP flood.
Damages of approx. £10.25M occur at the 1% AEP

flood, largely caused by flooding of commercial
properties. AAD of £0.65 million.

present.

infrastructure affected at the 1% AEP flood.

flood.

The Fens Fluvial flooding from the Flood defences prevent frequent flooding from Pumped storage allows drainage of the Fens,
Nene, tidal flooding from occurring. Significant flooding only occurs when the and prevents many areas becoming permanently
the sea, flooding from flood defences are breached or overtopped. In the under water.
pump failure. Inundation future overtopping of defences occurs in a number of Flood defences up to a standard of 0.5% line the
from River Nene would locations in a 1% AEP flood. River Nene preventing inundation.
occur if defences were
overtopped or breached. 20 people and approx. 10 properties are affected in a The following flood warning areas cover this
1% AEP flood. If a breach of the flood defences were location:
to occur then the impact of flooding could be very • B1040 Thorney to Whittlesey Road to the
severe, with high velocities and depths posing a risk to South of the River Nene
life. Greater than 10,000 people are assessed as being • Tidal Nene including Sutton Bridge and
at significant risk if a breach occurs. A reduction in the Wisbech
standard of protection of defences in the future • Wash frontage from Frampton to Admiralty
flooding
significantly increases the likelihood of a breach Point and the Tidal Nene up to Dog in a
occurring. Doublet
• River Delph Flood Defences
Damages of approximately £1 million at 1% AEP flood. • Twenty Foot River, River Nene (Old Course)
AAD of £0.08 million. • Bevills Leam, Twenty Foot River, River Nene
(Old Course), Whittlesey Dyke
Although flooding is unlikely, depth and velocity • Bevills Leam, Twenty Foot River, Whittlesey
potentially very high if breaching occurs. Dyke.
No impact on transport and critical infrastructure in a in-a-Doublet sluice to the east of
1% AEP flood, however, if a breach of defences were Peterborough
to occur then severe regional and local disruption • North Bank Road alongside the River Nene,
would occur. east of Peterborough and west of Dog-in-a-
Doublet Sluice
Adventurers Land SSSI within this policy unit is • River Nene between Wansford and the Dog-
affected by flooding. Prolonged flooding likely to have in-a-Doublet sluice to the east of
a negative impact. The Wash SSSI, SPA and Ramsar Peterborough
site is adjacent to the policy unit and may be impacted
• River Nene in the Yarwell Headland and
on by increased flows from the River Nene in the
West Delph areas of Whittlesey.
future.
River Welland from Stamford to Spalding and
seepage in areas of Stamford, the Deepings and
Spalding.
Main Nene and Fluvial flooding from Nene Relatively frequent flooding of a small number of No formal defences.
minor tribs and minor tributaries properties, notably between Wellingborough and
(excluding Northampton. The following flood warning areas cover this
Wellingborough, location:
Rushden, Approx. 300 people and 150 properties affected for 1% • River Nene tributaries between Thrapston
Raunds, AEP flood. Properties affected spread throughout the and the Dog-in-a-Doublet sluice to the east of
Thrapston and area, with properties flooded typically isolated, though Peterborough
Oundle – Water there are small rural clusters of damages. • River Nene between Thrapston and the Dog-
Newton) in-a-Doublet sluice to the east of
Damages of approx. £6.5 million at 1% AEP flood. Peterborough
Damages spread along the Nene, with contributions • River Nene between Thrapston and Castor
from commercial and residential properties. AAD of including low lying mill properties.
£0.75 million. • River Nene between Wansford and the Dog-
Duration of flooding is potentially long (between 48 and Peterborough

flooding
96 hours). Most properties affected on the fringes of River Nene and tributaries from Billing to
flood extent so expect low depth and velocities. Thrapston.
Disruption to locally and regionally important transport

infrastructure at the 1% AEP flood, including a number
of A roads and strategic river crossings of local
importance along the river. Risk to critical infrastructure
including Great Billing, Broadholme, Wittering and Islip
STWs.
Significant number of scheduled monuments

(approximately 17) and conservation areas
(approximately 8) are affected by flooding. 9 SSSIs are
at risk of flooding, with both positive and negative
impacts of flooding.

Willow Brook and Fluvial flooding from Limited number of properties flooded for all floods Great Oakley flood storage area provides
Upper Harpers Willow Brook and Harpers considered. protection to Brigstock and Sudborough on the
Brook Brook Harpers Brook. Standard of protection estimated
Less than 15 people and less than 10 properties likely at the 4% AEP flood.
to be affected by 1% AEP. The following flood warning areas cover this
location:
Very small damages of approx. £50k likely to be • River Nene tributaries between Thrapston
accrued at the 1% AEP flood. AAD of approx. £1800. and the Dog-in-a-Doublet sluice to the east of
Peterborough
Duration, depth and velocity not considered to present • Willow Brook in Weldon and Kings Cliffe.
Disruption to locally important road links at the 1%

AEP flood and a number of key strategic river
crossings. No critical infrastructure at risk at the 1%
AEP flood.
Moderate impact on the historic environment, with four

conservation areas (Pipewell, Little Oakley, Bulwick
and Kings Cliffe) and five scheduled monuments at risk
of flooding at the 1% AEP flood. Bulwick Meadows
flooding
SSSI is affected by flooding, with positive impact.

River Ise Fluvial flooding from River Relatively limited number of properties flooded for all The following defences benefit areas on the River
(excluding Ise floods considered, with less than 20 properties Ise:
Kettering and considered to be at risk for frequent floods (> 10% • Geddington flood relief channel protects
Wellingborough) AEP). areas of Geddington. Standard of protection
estimated at the 1% AEP flood.
Approx. 60-70 properties and 150 people affected for • Clipston flood storage area provides localised
the 1% AEP flood. Most of those affected are found in protection to areas on the River Ise. Standard
Geddington. of protection unknown.
Damages of less than £2 million likely to be accrued at location:
the 1% AEP flood. AAD of £0.08 million. • River Ise and tributaries from Clipston to
Wellingborough.
Duration, depth and velocity not expected to present a

road and rail links at the 1% AEP flood, including the
Midland Mainline, a number of A roads, and a number
of locally important river crossings. No critical
infrastructure affected by flooding in a 1% AEP flood.
Moderate impact on the historic environment, with

three conservation areas (Cransley, Geddington and
Rushton) and four scheduled monuments. River Ise
and Meadows SSSI is affected by flooding, with likely
positive effects.

Upper Nene Fluvial flooding from Limited number of properties affected for high No formal defences.
(excluding upstream tributaries of the frequency floods (> 10% AEP flood). Relatively low The following flood warning areas cover this
settlements Nene number of properties affected at 1% AEP flood given location:
between the area covered. • River Nene and tributaries in Northampton,
Kislingbury and including low lying areas adjacent to the river.
Weedon) Approx. 160 people and 80 properties affected for 1% • River Nene and tributaries from Daventry to
AEP flood. Properties affected spread throughout the Kislingbury.

flooding
area, with a number of small clusters and isolated
properties. Majority of properties are residential
Damages of approx. £5.5 million at 1% AEP flood.

Roughly even split between commercial and residential
damages. AAD of £0.83 million.
Duration of flooding expected to be short given the

upstream nature of the area. Depth likely to be low,
with potential for moderate – high velocities.

transport links for the 1% AEP. Key infrastructure
affected includes the West Coast Mainline, and a
Brixworth, Newnham and Whilton STWs are affected
by flooding.
Moderate impact on the historic environment, with 6

conservation areas and 3 scheduled monuments
flooded in a 1% AEP flood. Pitsford Reservoir SSSI is
affected by flooding, with variable impacts.

4.5 Comparison of current and future flood risk
Future flood risk changes significantly for the majority of the catchment and there are some areas where
flood risk change is highly significant. However, there are some areas where future flood risk is not notably
different from the current situation.
The main increase in flood risk in the future is in Corby, with large
increases also at Northampton and Wellingborough.
There is also a moderate increase in flood risk for the future situation
in Peterborough, Kettering, Rushden, Barnwell, Blisworth, Grendon
Villages, the Fens and along the Wootton Brook and River Ise
corridor.
As described earlier, the increased risk from groundwater flooding in

the future is unknown and the potential for increases associated with
surface water drainage and sewer systems cannot easily be
quantified at present, though future national initiatives should see the understanding of these flood sources
improve significantly over the next few years.
As noted in Section 4.4 above, the assessment assumes that the development of the future floodplain will
be prevented, thus avoiding potentially much larger increases in damage and effects on people.
Current and future flood risks are compared in Table 4.19

Table 4.19 Comparison of current and future flood risk
Scale of difference
between current
Location Current flood risk Future flood risk
and future flood
risk
Northampton Flood defences prevent frequent flooding from Recently constructed defences prevent frequent SMALL INCREASE
(defended areas) occurring. Significant flooding only occurs at the 0.1% flooding from occurring. Significant flooding occurs at – No increase in risk
AEP flood when defences are overtopped. If defences the 0.5% AEP flood when defences are overtopped for 1% AEP. For
are breached the impact of flooding is potentially very and breaching may occur. higher magnitude
severe, with high velocities and depths posing a risk to floods there will be
life. Due to defences no properties or people will be more people and
flooded at the 1% AEP flood, and hence no damages properties affected
Due to defences no properties or people will be accrued. No annual average damages. and more damages
flooded at the 1% AEP flood, and hence no damages in the future.
accrued. No annual average damages. Flood defences prevent significant disruption to key Increased risk of
transport flood defences
Flood defences prevent significant disruption to critical infrastructure at 1% AEP flood. For floods with a higher breaching at the 1%
and transport infrastructure. For floods with a lower magnitude than the standard of protection of the AEP flood.
frequency than the standard of protection afforded by defences the disruption could be extremely severe.
the defences the disruption could be extremely severe. There would be serious disruption to local, regional
and national transport infrastructure, including the
Part of the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SSSI lies Northampton branch of the West Coast Mainline, A45,
within this area and is prone to flooding in a 1% AEP and locally important roads throughout the town.
flood, although there are no negative impacts.
Part of the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SSSI lies
Overall flood risk is assessed as LOW within this area and is prone to flooding in a 1% AEP
flood, although there are no negative impacts.

Northampton Serious flooding relatively infrequent, though number Serious flooding relatively infrequent, though number LARGE INCREASE
(outer areas) of commercial properties at risk for floods in a 10% of commercial properties at risk in a 10% AEP flood, as – Damages, number
AEP flood, as are a number of transport links. are a number of transport links. of people and
number of properties
Approx. 360 people and 250 properties affected at 1% Approx. 750 people and 425 properties affected at 1% affected increase by
AEP flood. AEP flood. approx. 100%.
Damages of approximately £60 million incurred for 1%
Damages of approximately £36 million incurred for 1% AEP flood. The vast majority of these damages are to
AEP flood, vast majority being commercial damages. commercial properties. AAD of £8.39 million caused by
AAD of £5.28 million, caused by significant damages to significant damages to commercial properties in low
commercial properties in low magnitude floods. magnitude floods.
Scale of difference
between current
and future flood
risk
Flooding is of a moderate duration (< 24 hours), Flooding is of a moderate duration (< 24 hours),
velocities and depths unlikely to be high on the River velocities and depths. Likely to see a small increase in
Nene and Brampton Branch, though may be high on duration, depth and velocity of flooding in the future
the Brooks. compared with present.
Potential for serious disruption to local, regional and Potential for serious disruption to local, regional and
national transport infrastructure, including the national transport infrastructure, including the
Northampton branch of the West Coast Mainline, A45 Northampton branch of the West Coast Mainline, A45,
and A43. Risk to critical infrastructure with 10 and locally important roads throughout the town. Risk
electricity substations and 1 waste management site to critical infrastructure including 11 electricity
affected. substations and 2 waste management sites.
Some small impact on the historic environment (one Some small impact on the historic environment (one
scheduled monument and one conservation area scheduled monument and one conservation area
affected) and on BAP habitats. affected) and on BAP habitats.
Overall flood risk is assessed as HIGH Overall flood risk is assessed as HIGH
Wellingborough Serious flooding occurs relatively infrequently, with Serious flooding occurs relatively infrequently, with LARGE INCREASE
limited impact at the 10% AEP flood, but significant limited impact at the 10% AEP flood, but significant – Increase in
impact at 1% AEP flood. impact at 1% AEP flood. damages and
number of people
Approx. 300 people and 200 properties affected at 1% Approx. 530 people and 300 properties affected at 1% and properties
AEP flood. In comparison with the rest of the AEP flood. In comparison with the rest of the affected of about
catchment, a significant number of commercial catchment, a significant number of commercial 75%.
properties are affected. properties affected.
Damages of up to £30 million occur at 1% AEP flood, Damages of up to £50 million occur at 1% AEP flood,
the vast majority being commercial damages. AAD of the vast majority being commercial damages. AAD of
£1.16 million, caused by significant damages to £2.75 million caused by significant damages to
commercial properties in low magnitude floods. commercial properties in low magnitude floods.
Flooding is of relatively long duration (up to 48 hours), Flooding is of relatively long duration (up to 48 hours),
depths and velocities likely to be low. depths and velocities likely to be low. Likely to see a
small increase in duration, depth and velocity of
Local, regional and national disruptions at the 1% AEP, flooding in the future compared with present.

Scale of difference
between current
and future flood
risk
Midland Mainline and locally important roads. Risk to Local, regional and national disruptions at the 1% AEP,
critical infrastructure, including 4 electricity substations, with damage to transport infrastructure including the
one waste management site and one IPPC site. Midland Mainline and locally important roads. Flooding
at transport infrastructure likely to see a small increase
Minor risk to BAP habitats, although impacts of in duration, depth and velocity of flooding in the future
flooding are not thought to be negative. compared with present. Risk to critical infrastructure
including 5 electricity substations, 1 IPPC site, 1 waste
Overall flood risk is assessed as MODERATE - HIGH management centre, and 1 school.


Kettering Relatively frequent flooding with over 50 properties Relatively frequent flooding with up to 130 properties MODERATE
affected at > 10% AEP. affected at 10% AEP. INCREASE –
Increase in the
Approx. 450 – 500 people and 200 properties affected Approx. 700 people and 300 properties affected at 1% number of people
at 1% AEP flood. AEP flood. and properties
affected of about
Damages of up to £7M at 1% AEP flood, with roughly Damages of up to £18 million at 1% AEP flood, with 50%. Increase in
equal split between commercial and residential roughly equal split between commercial and residential damages of about
properties. AAD of £0.33 million. properties. AAD of £0.72 million. 50%.
Duration of flooding short – moderate (< 18 hours), Duration of flooding short – moderate (< 18 hours),
depths potentially high, velocities likely to be moderate. depths potentially high, velocities likely to be moderate.
Severe local, regional and national disruptions at the Likely to see a small increase in duration, depth and
1% AEP, with flooding of regional and local transport velocity of flooding in the future compared with
infrastructure including the Midland Mainline, A14 trunk present.
important roads. 4 electricity substations affected by Severe local, regional and national disruptions at the
flooding. 1% AEP, with flooding of regional and local transport
Flooding of Southfield Farm Marsh SSSI, with likely road and a number of other locally and regionally
positive impacts. Some risk to BAP habitats, with important roads. Flooding at transport infrastructure
varied impacts. One park and garden affected by likely to see a small increase in duration, depth and
Scale of difference
between current
and future flood
risk
flooding. velocity of flooding in the future compared with
present. Risk to critical infrastructure including 5
Overall flood risk is assessed as HIGH electricity substations and 1 waste management site.

flooding.

Corby Frequent flooding of a large number of properties Frequent flooding of a large number of properties VERY LARGE
occurs, over 150 properties affected at the 10% AEP occurs, with approx. 700 properties affected at the INCREASE –
flood. 10% AEP flood. Increase in the
number of people
Approx. 800 - 850 people and 350 – 400 properties 3,800 – 3,850 people and approximately 1,700 and properties
affected at the 1% AEP flood. properties affected at the 1% AEP flood. affected of between
300 and 400%.
Damages of up to £20 million occurs at the 1% AEP Damages of approx. £100 million occur at the 1% AEP Increase in
flood, with approx. £14 million of this coming from flood, with approx. £60 million of this coming from damages of about
commercial properties. AAD of £1.11 million. commercial properties. AAD of £5.64 million. the same order of
magnitude.
Duration of flooding likely to be short (< 12 hours) Duration of flooding likely to be short (< 12 hours)
though possibility of significant duration in parts. Depth though possibility of significant duration in parts. Depth
and velocity of flooding unlikely to constitute a and velocity of flooding unlikely to constitute a
significant risk. significant risk.
Duration of flooding is expected to be moderate (up to Duration of flooding is expected to be moderate (up to
24 hours) with moderate velocities and low depths. 24 hours) with moderate velocities and low depths.
Local and regional disruptions to transport Likely to see a small increase in duration, depth and
infrastructure at the 1% AEP flood, with disruption to a velocity of flooding in the future compared with
number of locally and regionally important roads, present.
including the A427. Some risk to critical infrastructure
with 1 electricity substation, 1 sewage treatment work, Local and regional disruptions to transport
1 waste management site and 1 care home affected by infrastructure at the 1% AEP flood, with disruption to a
flooding. number of locally and regionally important roads,
including the A427. Flooding at transport infrastructure

Scale of difference
between current
and future flood
risk
Some impact on the historic environment, with two likely to see a small increase in duration, depth and
conservation areas at risk of flooding. Minor risk to velocity of flooding in the future compared with
some BAP habitats, but impact is not thought to be present. Significant risk to critical infrastructure, with 18
negative. electricity substations, 1 sewage treatment works, 4
waste management sites, 1 IPPC site, 1 school and 1
Overall flood risk is assessed as HIGH care home affected by flooding.

negative.

Peterborough A small number of properties (approx. 25) at risk of Approx. 50 properties at risk of frequent flooding MODERATE
frequent flooding, serious flooding occurs relatively (10%). Serious flooding occurs relatively infrequently INCREASE –
infrequently though (1% AEP flood). (1% AEP flood). Increase in the
number of people
Approx. 400 people and 170 properties affected at 1% Approx. 650 people and 280 properties affected at 1% and properties
AEP flood. AEP flood. affected of about
50%. More
Relatively modest damages of less than £2 million Damages of approx. £6 million expected at 1% AEP significant increase
expected at 1% AEP flood. Majority of damages comes flood. This constitutes relatively small damages in damages of
from residential properties. AAD of £0.12 million. compared with the number of properties affected. In approx. 200%.
contrast with the damages estimated for the current
Duration of flooding very long (typically 48 – 96 hours), condition, the majority of these damages come from
depths and velocities generally low. commercial properties. AAD of £0.31 million.
Local and regional disruptions to transport Duration of flooding very long (typically 48 – 96 hours),
infrastructure at the 1% AEP flood, with disruption to depths and velocities generally low. Likely to see a
the A15, and other locally important roads. 1 electricity small increase in duration, depth and velocity of
substation at risk of flooding in a 1% AEP flood. flooding in the future compared with present.
Moderate risk to the historic environment, including risk Local and regional disruption to transport infrastructure
to two conservation areas, a designated park and at the 1% AEP flood, with disruption to the A15, and
garden and a scheduled monument. Orton Pit SSSI other locally important roads. Flooding of transport
and SAC is affected by flooding, but the effect of infrastructure likely to see a small increase in duration,
Scale of difference
between current
and future flood
risk
flooding is not thought to be negative. The Nene depth and velocity of flooding in the future compared
Washes, an internationally designated ecological site, with present. Small risk to critical infrastructure at the
is just downstream of Peterborough and is at risk of 1% AEP flood, with 2 electricity substations at risk of
flooding. There are both positive and negative effects flooding.
of flooding.
Moderate risk to the historic environment, including risk
Overall flood risk is assessed as MODERATE - HIGH to four conservation areas, a designated park and
of flooding.

Rushden Relatively frequent flooding of a handful of properties Relatively frequent flooding of a handful of properties MODERATE
(approx. 15 at 10% AEP flood). (approx. 25 at 10% AEP flood). INCREASE –
Increase in the
Approx. 80 people and 40 properties affected at 1% Approx. 140 people and 75 properties affected at 1% number of people
AEP flood. AEP flood. and properties
affected of
Damages of up to £5 million occur at 1% AEP flood, Damages of up to £6M occur at 1% AEP flood, mainly approximately 75%.
mainly accrued from commercial properties. AAD of accrued from commercial properties. AAD of £0.23 Smaller increase in
£0.20 million. million. damages
Duration of flooding likely to be moderate (< 24 hours), Duration of flooding likely to be moderate (< 24 hours),
potential from high velocities, and for depths of up to potential from high velocities, and for depths of up to
1.5m. 1.5m. Likely to see a small increase in duration, depth
Disruption at the 1% AEP flood to locally and regionally present.
key roads in the centre of Rushden. Rushden Hospital Disruption at the 1% AEP flood to locally and regionally
is at risk of flooding in a 1% AEP flood. important roads, including the A45 and a number of
key roads in the centre of Rushden. Flooding of
Overall flood risk is assessed as LOW - MODERATE transport infrastructure likely to see a small increase in

Scale of difference
between current
and future flood
risk
compared with present. 2 electricity substations are
flooded in a 1% AEP flood.

Raunds Relatively frequent flooding (> 10% AEP) of about 40 Relatively frequent flooding (10% AEP) of about 50 SMALL INCREASE
properties. Serious flooding occurs relatively properties. Serious flooding occurs relatively – Increase in the
infrequently. infrequently. number of people
and properties
Approx. 250-300 people and 130 properties affected at Approx. 370 people and 170 properties affected at 1% affected of about
1% AEP flood. AEP flood. one third. Smaller
Damages of up to £7.5M occurs at 1% AEP flood. increase in
Damages of up to £7 million occurs at 1% AEP flood. Significant damages for both commercial and damages.
Significant damages for both commercial and residential properties occur. AAD of £0.29 million
residential properties occur. AAD of £0.26 million.
Duration of flooding likely to be moderate (< 24 hours), potential from high velocities, and for depths of up to
potential from high velocities, and for depths of up to 1.5m. Likely to see a small increase in duration, depth
1.5m. and velocity of flooding in the future compared with
present.
roads within Raunds. Raunds ambulance station floods Disruption at the 1% AEP flood to locally important
in a 1% AEP flood. roads within Raunds. Flooding of transport
Overall flood risk is assessed as MODERATE depth and velocity of flooding in the future compared
with present. Raunds STW is affected in a 1% AEP
flood.

Thrapston Recently constructed defences prflood frequent Recently constructed defences prevent frequent SMALL INCREASE
flooding from occurring. Significant flooding only flooding from occurring. Significant flooding only – No increase in risk
occurs at the 0.1% AEP flood when defences are occurs at the 0.5% AEP flood when defences are for 1% AEP. For
overtopped. overtopped. higher magnitude
floods there will be
Due to defences no properties or people will be Due to defences no properties or people will be more people and
flooded at the 1% AEP flood, and hence no damages flooded at the 1% AEP flood, and hence no damages properties affected
Scale of difference
between current
and future flood
risk
accrued. No annual average damages. accrued. No annual average damages. and more damages
in the future.
Flood defences prevent significant disruption to key Flood defences prevent significant disruption to Increased risk of
transport and critical infrastructure. transport and critical infrastructure in a 1% AEP flood. flood defences
Disruption of locally and regionally important transport breaching at the 1%
Overall flood risk is assessed as LOW links occurs at 0.5% AEP flood. AEP flood.

Nene from Oundle Significant flooding can occur for 10% AEP flood, with Significant flooding can occur for 10% AEP flood, with SMALL INCREASE
to Water Newton up to 70 properties affected. approx. 80 properties affected. – Increase of 25% in
the number of
Approx. 400 people and 200 properties affected for 1% Approx. 450 people and 200 properties affected for 1% properties affected
AEP flood. Those affected spread along river, but AEP flood. Those affected spread along river, but with a smaller
found in Oundle, Elton and Wansford notably. found in Oundle, Elton and Wansford notably. increase in the
number of people
Damages of up to £5 million for the 1% AEP flood, Damages of approx. £7 million for 1% AEP flood, affected. Damages
mainly commercial damages. AAD of approximately mainly commercial damages. AAD of £0.50 million. increase by approx.
£0.30 million. 60%.
Flooding is of long duration (up to 4 days in duration)
Flooding is of long duration (up to four days in meaning the impact of flooding is likely to be
duration) meaning the impact of flooding is likely to be prolonged, especially as a number of major roads are
prolonged, especially as a number of major roads are prone to flooding in the area. Velocities and depths of
prone to flooding in the area. Velocities and depths of flooding are unlikely to be high, though likely to see a
flooding are unlikely to be high. small increase in duration, depth and velocity of
flooding in the future compared with present.
links at the 1% AEP flood, including the A1 at Local, regional and national disruption to key roads
Wansford and Water Newton, and a number of key links at the 1% AEP flood, including the A1 at
strategic river crossings. Stibbington STW is flooded in Wansford and Water Newton, and a number of key
a 1% AEP flood. strategic river crossings. Flooding of transport
Large number of historic environment features are at depth and velocity of flooding in the future compared
risk of flooding, including 16 scheduled monuments with present. Increase in impact of flooding at
and 5 conservation areas. Castor Flood Meadows Stibbington STW.

Scale of difference
between current
and future flood
risk
Overall flood risk is assessed as MODERATE risk of flooding, including 17 scheduled monuments
Wansford Pasture SSSI becomes affected in a future
1% AEP flood, with the impact expected to be neutral
or positive.

Harpers Brook Subject to relatively frequent flooding with approx. 20 Subject to relatively frequent flooding with approx. 25 SMALL INCREASE
properties flooded frequently (> 10% AEP flood). No properties flooded frequently (> 10% AEP). No – Increase in the
significant growth in the number of properties affected significant growth in the number of properties affected number of people
for 1% and 0.1% AEP floods. for 1% and 0.1% AEP floods. and properties, and
the damages of less
Approx. 70 people and 30 properties affected for 1% Approx. 75 people and 35 properties affected for 1% than 25%.
AEP flood. Those affected are primarily residential AEP flood. Those affected are primarily residential
properties found in Brigstock and Sudborough. properties found in Brigstock and Sudborough.
Damages of up to £1 million for 1% AEP flood. AAD of Damages of approx. £1.25M for 1% AEP flood. AAD of
£0.07 million. £0.12 million.
Flooding is of short duration (< 12 hours), with large Flooding is of short duration (< 12 hours), with large
depths in parts of up 2m, and potential for moderate depths in parts of up to 2.25m, and potential for
velocities. moderate velocities. Likely to see a small increase in
Disruption to locally important transport network at 1% compared with present.
AEP flood. No critical infrastructure affected in a 1%
AEP flood. Disruption to locally important transport network at 1%
Two conservation areas (Brigstock and Sudborough) see a small increase in duration, depth and velocity of
are affected by flooding. flooding in the future compared with present. No critical
infrastructure affected in a 1% AEP flood.

Scale of difference
between current
and future flood
risk
Wootton Brook Flooding of approx. 35 properties can occur frequently Flooding of approx. 40 properties can occur frequently MODERATE
(> 10% AEP). Increase in the number of properties (> 10% AEP). Increase in the number of properties INCREASE –
affected up to the 1% AEP flood is not dramatic. affected up to the 1% AEP flood is not dramatic. Increase in the
number of people
Approx. 180 people and 70 properties affected for the Approx. 200 people and 80 properties affected for the and properties
1% AEP flood. Those affected mainly found in Wootton 1% AEP flood. Those affected mainly found in Wootton affected of about
along the southern edge of Northampton. along the southern edge of Northampton. 100%. Larger
increase in damages
Damages of approx. £1 million occur at 1% AEP flood, Damages of approx. £1.33 million occur at 1% AEP of about 125%.
mainly arising from residential properties. AAD of flood, mainly arising from residential properties. AAD of
Flooding is of moderate duration (up to 24 hours), and Flooding is of moderate duration (up to 24 hours), and
velocities likely to be low. Depths in general are low, velocities likely to be low. Depths in general are low,
though there are a few locations where very high though there are a few locations where very high
depths may occur. depths may occur. Likely to see a small increase in
Disruption to locally, regionally and nationally important compared with present.
Northampton branch of the West Coast mainline and Disruption to locally, regionally and nationally important
the A508. Also potential for disruption to the M1. No transport links at the 1% AEP flood, including the
critical infrastructure affected in a 1% AEP flood. Northampton branch of the West Coast mainline and
the A508. Also potential for disruption to the M1.
Overall flood risk is assessed as MODERATE Flooding of transport infrastructure likely to see a small
increase in duration, depth and velocity of flooding in
the future compared with present. 2 electricity
substations are affected by flooding at the 1% AEP
flood.

Kislingbury Up to 30 properties are at risk of frequent flooding (> Up to 35 properties are at risk of frequent flooding (> MODERATE
Branch 10% AEP flood). 10% AEP flood). Serious flooding does not begin to INCREASE –
Serious flooding does not begin to occur until the 0.1% occur until the 0.1% AEP when defences in Kislingbury Increase in the
AEP when defences in Kislingbury and upstream of and upstream of Weedon are overwhelmed. number of people
Weedon are overwhelmed. and property
Approx. 175 people and 85 properties affected at the affected of about

Scale of difference
between current
and future flood
risk
Approx. 100 people and 60 properties affected at the 1% AEP flood. The majority of those affected are in 75%. Increase in the
1% AEP flood. The majority of those affected are in Bugbrooke and not in the defended towns of damages is 20
Bugbrooke and not in the defended towns of Kislingbury and Weedon. percent. Chance of
Kislingbury and Weedon. defences in
Damages of up to £6M occur at 1% AEP flood, mainly Kislingbury failing
Damages of up to £4.5 million occur at 1% AEP flood, arising from a handful of commercial properties. AAD increases, posing
mainly arising from a handful of commercial properties. of £0.83 million. greater risk to life.
AAD of £0.69 million.
Flooding is of moderate duration (24-36 hours), with
Flooding is of moderate duration (24-36 hours), with low depths in most parts and moderate velocities.
low depths in most parts and moderate velocities. Potential for large depths and large velocities should
Potential for large depths and large velocities should defences become overwhelmed.
defences become overwhelmed.
Disruption to locally, regionally and nationally important transport links for the 1% AEP. Transport infrastructure
transport links for the 1% AEP. Transport infrastructure affected includes the West Coast Mainline, A5, and a
affected includes the West Coast Mainline, A5, and a number of strategic river crossings of local importance.
number of strategic river crossings of local importance. There is also the possibility of disruption to the M1.
There is also the possibility of disruption to the M1. Weedon STW and Bugbrooke STW are affected by
Weedon STW and 1 waste management site are flooding, along with 1 waste management site and 1
affected by flooding. IPPC site.

Nether Heyford) and one scheduled monument (Upton Three conservation areas (Bugbrooke, Kislingbury and
Bowl Barrow) are affected by flooding. Bugbrooke Nether Heyford) and one scheduled monument (Upton
Meadows SSSI floods in a 1% AEP flood, with the Bowl Barrow) are affected by flooding. Bugbrooke
impact of flooding thought to be positive. Meadows SSSI floods in a 1% AEP flood, with the
Overall flood risk is assessed as LOW - MODERATE Overall flood risk is assessed as MODERATE - HIGH
Barnwell Barnwell flood storage area protects all properties up Capacity of Barnwell flood storage area is LARGE INCREASE
to and including the 1% flood flood. Significant flooding overwhelmed in the future, though Barnwell is still – Reduction in the
only occurs for flood floods less frequent than this. protected in a 10% AEP flood. standard of
protection afforded
Due to defences no properties or people will be Approx. 150 people and 60 properties are affected at to Barnwell sees
flooded at the 1% AEP flood, and hence no damages the 1% AEP flood. people and property
Scale of difference
between current
and future flood
risk
accrued. No annual average damages. directly affected in
Damages of approx. £2.75M occur for 1% AEP, mainly the future.
No transport or critical infrastructure affected by arising from residential properties. AAD of £0.20
flooding. million.
A small part of Barnwell conservation area is affected Flooding is of moderate duration (up to 24 hours) with
by flooding. moderate velocities expected and large depths in parts
up to 2.5m, though typically much less than this as the
Overall flood risk is assessed as LOW flood storage area will continue to provide some
benefit. Likely to see a small increase in duration,
with present.

infrastructure is affected by flooding in a 1% AEP flood.
A small part of Barnwell conservation area and All

Saints Manor (Barnwell) park and garden are affected
by flooding.

Yarley Hastings, Approx. 20 properties are at risk of frequent flooding (> Approx. 30 properties are at risk of frequent flooding MODERATE
Bozeat and 10% AEP). The number of properties at the 1% and (10% AEP). The number of properties at the 1% and INCREASE –
Grendon 0.1% floods is not significantly higher than at the 10% 0.1% floods is not significantly higher than at the 10% Increase in the
AEP flood. AEP flood. number of people
affected of about
110 - 120 people and 50 properties are affected at the Approx. 170 people and 70 properties are affected at 50%, with smaller
1% AEP flood. the 1% AEP flood. increase in the
number of properties
Damages of approx. £4.5 million occur at the 1% AEP Damages of approx. £9.5 million occur at the 1% AEP affected. Increase in
flood, a substantial increase on the damages at the flood, a substantial increase on the damages at the damages of over
10% AEP flood, despite the relatively small increase in 10% AEP flood, despite the relatively small increase in 100%.
the number of properties affected. AAD of £0.29 the number of properties affected. AAD of £0.60

Scale of difference
between current
and future flood
risk
million. million.
Duration of flooding is expected to be moderate (up to Duration of flooding is expected to be

24 hours) with moderate velocities and low depths. moderate (up to 24 hours) with moderate velocities
and low depths. Likely to see a small increase in
Disruption to locally important transport infrastructure. duration, depth and velocity of flooding in the future
Yardley Hastings STW is affected by flooding in a 1% compared with present.
AEP flood.
Disruption to locally important transport infrastructure
Three conservation areas (Grendon, Yardley Hastings at the 1% AEP flood. Flooding of transport
and Denton), one park and garden (Castle Ashby) and infrastructure likely to see a small increase in duration,
one scheduled monument are affected by flooding at depth and velocity of flooding in the future compared
the 1% AEP flood. with present. Yardley Hastings and Bozeat STWs are
affected by flooding in a 1% AEP flood.
the 1% AEP flood. Bozeat Meadows SSSI becomes
affected by flooding in a 1% AEP in the future, with
likely negative impacts of flooding.

Blisworth Relatively frequent flooding (> 10% AEP) of approx. 30 Relatively frequent flooding (> 10% AEP) of approx. 35 MODERATE
properties. properties. INCREASE –
Increase in the
Approx. 100 people and 60 properties are affected at Approx. 130 people and 75 properties are affected at number of people
the 1% AEP flood. the 1% AEP flood. and properties
affected of 30% or
Damages of approx. £4.5 million occur at the 1% AEP Damages of approx. £10.25M occur at the 1% AEP less. Increase in
flood, largely caused by flooding of commercial flood, largely caused by flooding of commercial damages of over
properties. AAD of £0.29 million. properties. AAD of £0.65 million. 100%.
Duration of flooding is expected to be moderate (up to Duration of flooding is expected to be moderate (up to
24 hours) with moderate velocities and low depths. 24 hours) with moderate velocities and low depths.
Scale of difference
between current
and future flood
risk
Disruption to locally important transport links at the 1% velocity of flooding in the future compared with
AEP flood. No critical infrastructure affected at the 1% present.
AEP flood.
Blisworth conservation area is flooded in a 1% AEP AEP flood. Flooding of transport infrastructure likely to
flood. see a small increase in duration, depth and velocity of
Overall flood risk is assessed as LOW - MODERATE infrastructure affected at the 1% AEP flood.

flood.

The Fens Flood defences prevent frequent flooding from Flood defences prevent frequent flooding from MODERATE
occurring. Significant flooding only occurs for floods of occurring. Significant flooding only occurs when the INCREASE – Small
0.5% AEP or less frequent. If defences are breached flood defences are breached or overtopped. In the increase in the
or overtopped the impact of flooding is potentially very future overtopping of defences occurs in a number of number of people
severe, with high velocities and depths posing a risk to locations in a 1% AEP flood. and properties
life. affected, however a
20 people and approx. 10 properties are affected in a significant increase
Less than 10 properties affected for 1% AEP flood. If 1% AEP flood. If a breach of the flood defences were in the risk of
breach were to occur, or very high magnitude flood to occur then the impact of flooding could be very defences failing
potential for large number of people and properties to severe, with high velocities and depths posing a risk to given the increase in
be affected, life. Greater than 10,000 people are assessed as being sea level predicted
especially in the towns alongside the Nene: Sutton at significant risk if a breach occurs. A reduction in the in the future as well
Bridge and Wisbech. Greater than 10,000 people standard of protection of defences in the future as the predicted
assessed as at serious risk of flooding as a result of a significantly increases the likelihood of a breach increase in peak
breach. occurring. flows.
Damages of < £0.5M at 1% AEP flood. AAD of £0.08 Damages of approximately £1 million at 1% AEP flood.
million. AAD of £0.08 million.
Although flooding is unlikely, depth and velocity Although flooding is unlikely, depth and velocity
potentially very high if breaching occurs. potentially very high if breaching occurs.
No impact on transport and critical infrastructure in a No impact on transport and critical infrastructure in a

Scale of difference
between current
and future flood
risk
1% AEP flood, however, if a breach of defences were 1% AEP flood, however, if a breach of defences were
to occur then severe regional and local disruption to occur then severe regional and local disruption
would occur. would occur.
Adventurers Land SSSI within this policy unit is Adventurers Land SSSI within this policy unit is
affected by flooding. Prolonged flooding likely to have affected by flooding. Prolonged flooding likely to have
a negative impact. The Wash SSSI, SPA and Ramsar a negative impact. The Wash SSSI, SPA and Ramsar
site is adjacent to the policy unit and is impacted on by site is adjacent to the policy unit and may be impacted
high flows from the River Nene. on by increased flows from the River Nene in the
future.
Overall flood risk is assessed as LOW flood

Main Nene and Relatively frequent flooding of a small number of Relatively frequent flooding of a small number of SMALL INCREASE
minor tribs properties, notably between Wellingborough and properties, notably between Wellingborough and – Increase in the
(excluding Northampton. Northampton. number of people
Wellingborough, and properties
Rushden, Approx. 200 people and 100 properties affected for 1% Approx. 300 people and 150 properties affected for 1% affected of about
Raunds, AEP flood. Properties affected spread throughout the AEP event. Properties affected spread throughout the 50%. Increase in
Thrapston and area, with properties flooded typically isolated, though area, with properties flooded typically isolated, though damages of the
Oundle – Water there are small rural clusters of damages. there are small rural clusters of damages. same order.
Newton)
Damages of approx. £5.5 million at 1% AEP flood. Damages of approx. £6.5 million at 1% AEP flood.
Damages spread along the Nene, with contributions Damages spread along the Nene, with contributions
from commercial and residential properties. AAD of from commercial and residential properties. AAD of
Duration of flooding is potentially long (between 48 and Duration of flooding is potentially long (between 48 and
96 hours). Most properties affected on the fringes of 96 hours). Most properties affected on the fringes of
flood extent so expect low depth and velocities. flood extent so expect low depth and velocities.
Disruption to locally and regionally important transport Disruption to locally and regionally important transport
infrastructure at the 1% AEP flood, including a number infrastructure at the 1% AEP flood, including a number
of A roads and strategic river crossings of local of A roads and strategic river crossings of local
importance along the river. Risk to critical infrastructure importance along the river. Risk to critical infrastructure
including Great Billing, Broadholme, Wittering and Islip including Great Billing, Broadholme, Wittering and Islip
Scale of difference
between current
and future flood
risk
STWs. STWs.
Significant number of scheduled monuments Significant number of scheduled monuments

(approximately 17) and conservation areas (approximately 17) and conservation areas
(approximately 7) are affected by flooding. 9 SSSIs are (approximately 8) are affected by flooding. 9 SSSIs are
at risk of flooding, with both positive and negative at risk of flooding, with both positive and negative
impacts of flooding. impacts of flooding.
Overall flood risk is assessed as LOW Overall flood risk is assessed as MODERATE
Willow Brook and Limited number of properties flooded for all floods Limited number of properties flooded for all floods VERY SMALL
Upper Harpers considered. considered. INCREASE –
Brook Minimal increase in
Less than 15 people and less than 10 properties likely Less than 15 people and less than 10 properties likely risk in future for
to be affected by 1% AEP. to be affected by 1% AEP. people, properties or
damages.
Very small damages of approx. £20,000 likely to be Very small damages of approx. £50k likely to be
accrued at the 1% AEP flood. AAD of less than £1000. accrued at the 1% AEP flood. AAD of approx. £1800.
Duration, depth and velocity not considered to present Duration, depth and velocity not considered to present
significant risk along the reach. significant risk along the reach.
Disruption to locally important road links at the 1% Disruption to locally important road links at the 1%
AEP flood and a number of key strategic river AEP flood and a number of key strategic river
crossings. No critical infrastructure affected in a 1% crossings. No critical infrastructure at risk at the 1%
AEP flood. AEP flood.
Moderate impact on the historic environment, with four Moderate impact on the historic environment, with four
conservation areas (Pipewell, Little Oakley, Bulwick conservation areas (Pipewell, Little Oakley, Bulwick
and Kings Cliffe) and five scheduled monuments at risk and Kings Cliffe) and five scheduled monuments at risk
of flooding at the 1% AEP flood. Bulwick Meadows of flooding at the 1% AEP flood. Bulwick Meadows
SSSI is affected by flooding, with positive impact. SSSI is affected by flooding, with positive impact.
Overall flood risk is assessed as VERY LOW Overall flood risk is assessed as LOW
River Ise Relatively limited number of properties flooded for all Relatively limited number of properties flooded for all MODERATE
(excluding floods considered, with less than five properties floods considered, with less than 20 properties INCREASE –
Kettering and considered to be at risk for frequent floods (> 10% considered to be at risk for frequent floods (> 10% Increase in the

Scale of difference
between current
and future flood
risk
Wellingborough) AEP). AEP). number of people
and properties
Approx. 30 properties and 65 people affected for the Approx. 60-70 properties and 150 people affected for affected of about
1% AEP flood. Most of those affected are found in the 1% AEP flood. Most of those affected are found in 100%. Smaller
Geddington. Geddington. increase in
damages.
Damages of less than £1.5 million likely to be accrued Damages of less than £2 million likely to be accrued at
at the 1% AEP flood. AAD of £0.02 million. the 1% AEP flood. AAD of £0.08 million.
Duration, depth and velocity not expected to present a Duration, depth and velocity not expected to present a
significant risk along the reach. significant risk along the reach.
Disruption to locally, regionally and nationally important Disruption to locally, regionally and nationally important
road and rail links at the 1% AEP flood, including the road and rail links at the 1% AEP flood, including the
Midland Mainline, a number of A roads, and a number Midland Mainline, a number of A roads, and a number
of locally important river crossings. No critical of locally important river crossings. No critical
infrastructure affected by flooding in a 1% AEP event. infrastructure affected by flooding in a 1% AEP flood.
Moderate impact on the historic environment, with Moderate impact on the historic environment, with
three conservation areas (Cransley, Geddington and three conservation areas (Cransley, Geddington and
Rushton) and two scheduled monuments. River Ise Rushton) and four scheduled monuments. River Ise
and Meadows SSSI is affected by flooding, with likely and Meadows SSSI is affected by flooding, with likely
positive effects. positive effects.
Overall flood risk is assessed as LOW Overall flood risk is assessed as LOW
Upper Nene Limited number of properties affected for high Limited number of properties affected for high SMALL INCREASE
(excluding frequency floods (> 10% AEP flood). Relatively low frequency events (> 10% AEP flood). Relatively low – Increase in the
settlements number of properties affected at 1% AEP flood given number of properties affected at 1% AEP flood given number of people
between the area covered. the area covered. and properties
Kislingbury and affected of 30% or
Weedon) Approx. 130 people and 60 properties affected for 1% Approx. 160 people and 80 properties affected for 1% less. Increase in
AEP flood. Properties affected spread throughout the AEP flood. Properties affected spread throughout the damages of over
area, with a number of small clusters and isolated area, with a number of small clusters and isolated 100%.
properties. Majority of properties are residential properties. Majority of properties are residential
Damages of approx. £2.5 million at 1% AEP flood. Damages of approx. £5.5 million at 1% AEP flood.
Scale of difference
between current
and future flood
risk
Roughly even split between commercial and residential Roughly even split between commercial and residential
damages. AAD of £0.36 million. damages. AAD of £0.83 million.
Duration of flooding expected to be short given the Duration of flooding expected to be short given the
upstream nature of the area. Depth likely to be low, upstream nature of the area. Depth likely to be low,
with potential for moderate – high velocities. with potential for moderate – high velocities.
Disruption to locally, regionally and nationally important Disruption to locally, regionally and nationally important
transport links for the 1% AEP. Key infrastructure transport links for the 1% AEP. Key infrastructure
affected includes the West Coast Mainline, and a affected includes the West Coast Mainline, and a
number of strategic river crossings of local importance. number of strategic river crossings of local importance.
There is also the possibility of disruption to the M1. There is also the possibility of disruption to the M1.
Brixworth and Newnham STWs are affected by Brixworth, Newnham and Whilton STWs are affected
flooding. by flooding.
Moderate impact on the historic environment, with 6 Moderate impact on the historic environment, with 6
conservation areas and 3 scheduled monuments conservation areas and 3 scheduled monuments
flooded in a 1% AEP flood. Pitsford Reservoir SSSI is flooded in a 1% AEP flood. Pitsford Reservoir SSSI is
affected by flooding, with variable impacts. affected by flooding, with variable impacts.
Overall flood risk is assessed as LOW Overall flood risk is assessed as MODERATE

5 Catchment objectives
5.1 Introduction
A CFMP delivers policies for flood risk management which aim to be sustainable. The policies should take
into account future changes in the catchment and changes in the drivers of flood risk and lead to actions
which future generations should wish to support.
From the preceding sections, we have an understanding of flood risk in the catchment. Before we explain
how we intend to manage future flood risk, we need to introduce the objectives which we wish to attain
through our flood risk management. The objectives, explained in Section 5.2, will be developed into the
criteria by which we assess our options for flood risk management policies and decide which policy to
adopt in different parts of the catchment.
Many of our objectives enable us to exploit opportunities within the catchment. But what we do to pursue
our objectives might be constrained in some cases because of, for example, the need to conserve an
important environment. In Section 5.3, we consider the opportunities which flood risk management could
exploit and the possible constraints upon it.
For the River Nene CFMP, we set a series of objectives to manage flood risk in a sustainable way. Overall,
in setting economic, social and environmental objectives, we aim to reduce flood risk to
• people
• property and socio-economic development
• environments threatened by or dependent upon flooding.
5.2 CFMP objectives

Table 5.1 lists the objectives we developed in each category during the course of preparing the CFMP. In
our scoping report, on which we consulted, we listed a large number of quite specific catchment objectives.
For the draft consultation report, we introduced the categories of economic, social and environmental
objectives. In finalising the CFMP, we simplified the way in which we express the objectives in each
category and reduced their number.
For policy appraisal, we need the indicators and targets, shown in Table 5.1, by which we can measure
how well our policies are meeting each objective.
5.3 Catchment opportunities and constraints

In seeking to manage flood risk sustainably throughout the catchment, the CFMP presents opportunities to
improve the natural and built environment of the catchment to the benefit of all. We will consider how best
to make use of opportunities in any strategies and flood risk management projects that follow from the
CFMP. Table 5.2 identifies specific opportunities and constraints relating to the objectives set out in
Section 5.2.

Table 5.1 Summary of objectives
Category Objective Relevance Indicators/Targets
Social SOC1 To minimise flood Significant populations at risk in urban centres Number of people at risk in the 1% flood
related risks to the and rural communities: Numbers of people covered by flood
population For the current 1% AEP flood, total number at warning or emergency / evacuation plans
risk is 4200, principally:
• Northampton (outer areas) – 360 people
• Wellingborough – 300 people
• Kettering – up to 500 people
• Corby – up to 850 people
• Peterborough – 400
For the future 1% AEP flood, total number at risk
is 9000, principally:
• Northampton (outer areas) – 740 people
• Wellingborough – 530 people
• Kettering – up to 668 people
• Corby – up to 3828 people
• Peterborough – 639
Along the tidal River Nene, there are some
25260 people within 1km of the tidal
embankments who could be at risk of life in the
event of a sudden breach of the embankments
SOC2 To minimise risks to Critical infrastructure is at risk. Numbers and type of critical asset.
critical infrastructure For the current1% AEP flood: Critical infrastructure includes:
and community • Electricity sub-stations – 22, mostly in • Electricity Sub-stations/power supply
facilities Northampton • Sewage Treatment Works (STW)
• Sewage Treatment Works – 10, mostly in • Waste Treatment Works (STW)
smaller communities • Waste Management Sites
• Community facilities: • IPPC Sites
o Corby – a care home • Transport: Railway, Roads, Canals
o Raunds – an emergency response (particularly consider ability to use other
centre routes)
o Rushden – a hospital Community facilities include:
• Transport: • Hospitals
o West Coast Mainline – near • Emergency Response Centres
Northampton • Care Homes
o A45 road at several locations • Schools
o A5 road near Northampton
o A6 road at Rothwell &
Irthlingborough

o Several minor roads
For the future 1% AEP flood:
• Electricity sub-stations – 50, mostly in
Northampton and Corby
• Sewage Treatment Works – 15, mostly in
smaller communities
• Community facilities:
o Schools in Corby & Wellingborough
o Care homes in Corby
o Emergency response centres in
Raunds & Watford Gap
o Rushden – a hospital
• Transport:
o West Coast Mainline – Northampton
and elsewhere
o Midland Mainline – Burton Latimer
o A45 road at several locations
o A1 road at Alwalton
o A5 road near Northampton
o A6 road at Rothwell &
Irthlingborough
o Several minor roads
SOC3 To minimise • many properties at risk Number of properties affected in the 1%

community disruption • wide range of social vulnerability exists flood
from flooding across the catchment Areas of social vulnerability affected in the
• risk of community disruption 1% flood
Number of properties affected in the current 1% Extent of flooding
AEP flood: Total 1670 residential and 430 Duration of flooding
commercial properties. Principal areas are:
• Northampton – 145 res, 106 com.
• Wellingborough – 123 res, 84 com,
• Kettering – 194 res, 14 com.
• Raunds – 106 res, 23 com.
• Corby – 334 res, 47 com.
• Peterborough – 158 res, 7 com.
Number of properties affected in the future 1%
AEP flood: Total 3600 residential and 650

commercial properties. Principal areas are:
• Northampton – 296 res, 132 com.
• Wellingborough – 212 res, 94 com,
• Kettering – 275 res, 36 com.
• Raunds – 147 res, 21 com.
• Corby – 1531 res, 163 com.
• Peterborough – 256 res, 24 com.
Economic ECON1 To minimise economic • residential damages in large towns and Residential damages 1% flood
impacts of flooding small communities Commercial damages 1% flood
• commercial damages principally in main Agricultural damages in the 1% flood
towns Percentage area of grade 1 and 2
• agricultural damages along main River Nene agricultural land flooded during the 1% flood
For the current 1% AEP flood. Total of £30m
damages to residential and of £110m damages
to commercial properties. Principal
concentrations are:
• Northampton (outer areas) - £36m
• Wellingborough - £31m
• Corby - £21m
Agricultural damages about £1m.
For the future 1% AEP flood. Total of £84m
damages to residential and of £223m damages
to commercial properties. Principal
concentrations are:
• Northampton (outer areas) - £61m
• Wellingborough - £51m
• Kettering - £18m
• Corby - £103m
Agricultural damages about £2.2m.
ECON2 Ensure future Prospects exist for the reduction of expenditure Expenditure on all FRM activities.
investment in the through changing FRM practices
catchment is Budget for flood risk management expenditure is
proportional to the £1.64m – excludes expenditure by IDBs.
risks
Environmental ENV1 Protect and enhance The catchment contains historic environmental Numbers of:
significant historic assets including: • Scheduled Monuments
environment assets • Scheduled Monuments • Historic Parks and Gardens
and their settings • Historic Parks and Gardens • Historic Battlefields

• Historic Battlefields • Conservation Areas
• Conservation Areas adversely affected by flooding or flood risk
within the floodplain management activities
For the current 1% AEP flood, at risk are:
• SAMs – 46
• Registered parks & gardens – 16
• Historic battlefields – 1
• Conservation areas – 41
For the future 1% AEP flood, at risk are:
• SAMs – 49
• Registered parks & gardens – 18
• Historic battlefields – 1
• Conservation areas – 46
ENV2 Protect and contribute The catchment contains designated nature Area of SSSIs, SPAs, SACs and Ramsar
to the improvement of conservation sites including: sites flooded in a 1% flood
designated nature • SSSI Reported condition status of SSSIs, SPAs,
conservation sites • SPA SACs and Ramsar sites at risk from a 1%
(SSSI, SPA, SAC and • SAC flood
Ramsar) • Ramsar
within the floodplain
Examples of sites that would be affected by the
1% AEP flood (current and future) are:
European site:
• Nene Washes SSSI, SPA, SAC & Ramsar
• Upper Nene Gravel Pits SSSI, pSPA
• The Wash SSSI, SPA, SAC, Ramsar
• Orton Pit SSSI, SAC
National sites include:
• Bulwick Meadows SSSI
• Southfield Marsh Farm SSSI
• River Ise & Meadows SSSI

ENV3 Enhance the There are UK Biodiversity Action Plans priority The distribution and extent of the future UK
biodiversity of the habitats and local BAP habitats and species BAP priority habitats (for example, fens, wet
catchment by within the floodplain. woodland, reed bed, floodplain grazing
improving the quality BAP habitats at risk include lowland meadows, marsh)
of the river grasslands, heathlands, woodlands, fens and
environment and wet woodlands.
contributing to UK
Biodiversity Action
Plan targets
ENV4 Support the Water bodies within the catchment are at risk of WFD Article 5 pressures and impacts
achievement of good failure of meeting their WFD objectives and assessments results
status/potential of require measures to achieve those that could WFD ecological and chemical
surface and relate to flood risk management. status/potential of water bodies.
groundwater bodies River Nene and its main tributaries are at risk of
under the WFD infringing WFD objectives because of point and Area of contaminated or damaged land
diffuse sources of pollution. restored or protected as a result of flood risk
management activities

Table 5.2 Catchment opportunities and constraints
Category Objective Opportunities Constraints
Social SOC1 To minimise flood Enhance well-being and raise the security of Existing residential property and social
related risks to the people, communities and social institutions from institutions on floodplain and defended
population flooding. areas.
SOC2 To minimise risks to
critical infrastructure In large parts of the catchment our flood
and community warning service is dependent on people
facilities signing up for our FWD service
SOC3 To minimise
community disruption
from flooding
Economic ECON To minimise economic Reduction in the overall cost of flooding and Development pressures as detailed in the
1 impacts of flooding FRM; reduction in insurance premiums. East Midlands and East of England RSS.
ECON Ensure future Strategic approach to FRM across the Existing commercial and industrial
2 investment in the catchment properties on floodplain and defended
catchment is areas.
proportional to the Influence System Asset Management Plans to
risks ensure that flood risk management activities are Some dependency upon floodplain storage
focussed on areas most at risk coming available through the after-use of
gravel extraction and other activities
Environmental ENV1 Protect and enhance Potential to reduce flood risk to heritage features The presence of Scheduled Monuments
significant historic within urban areas at risk from flooding and other heritage features such as
environment assets Conservation Areas, historic parks and
and their settings gardens and our development proposals
for thr River Nene and Fen waterways may
constrain acceptable options and locations
throughout the river valley.
ENV2 Protect and contribute Opportunity to contribute toward achieving Designated sites may constrain flood risk
to the improvement of conservation objectives of designated sites (as management responses and activities if
designated nature detailed in Section 1.4.6). changes in the flooding regime adversely
conservation sites affect the interest features. This may
Potential to create and manage wetland habitats
(SSSI, SPA, SAC and particularly be a concern at the
to contribute to BAP targets, Natural Area
Ramsar) internationally important Nene Washes.
objectives for the restoration of the natural
floodplain, and the RSPB’s vision for the Negative impacts may be experienced on
creation of large wetlands in the Fens in existing biodiversity within the floodplain if
accordance with the ‘Wet Fens for the Future flooding is deep and prolonged in spring

Category Objective Opportunities Constraints
Project’. Our approach to these opportunities will and summer months or if flood risk
be informed by our recent work in identifying management measures isolate the river
suitable selection criteria for assessing riverine from its floodplain. Shallow flooding over a
wildlife site areas in Northamptonshire. wide area is preferred to recreate areas of
wet grassland in line with BAP targets and
ENV3 Enhance the Natural Area objectives.
biodiversity of the
catchment by Variable water levels at Southfield Farm
improving the quality Marsh may impact on its SSSI designation
of the river
environment and
contributing to UK
Biodiversity Action
Plan targets
ENV4 Support the Potential to create and manage wetland habitats Flooding of areas of contaminated land or
achievement of good to contribute to achieving good ecological potentially polluting sites will require
status/potential of status/potential through measures under the measures to manage risks.
surface and WFD
groundwater bodies
Releasing stored winter floodwaters at times of
under the WFD
low flow could address water quality issues, for
example, between Peterborough and Dog-in-a-
Doublet Sluice on the main River Nene.

In addition to the key objectives, the Nene CFMP presents strategic opportunities that do not fall within
objectives framework used to select the preferred flood risk management policies for the Nene catchment.
• Including new recreational and amenity features to

contribute to the network of Green Infrastructure
developments, such as the River Nene Regional Park,
arising from the Government’s Sustainable Communities
programme.
• Linking the River Nene to the Fen Waterways Link at
Peterborough presents opportunities for the transfer,
storage and benefit of using stored floodwaters outside
the floodplain and the catchment.
• Developing floodplain storage in areas planned for future
mineral extraction in the middle Nene with associated
benefits to biodiversity and recreation. However, such opportunities might be limited by the
protection afforded to river valleys from the effects of mineral development. The protection is a
policy of the Northamptonshire Minerals Local Plan (May 2006).
• Opportunities to work with local authorities and regional development agencies to influence
developing waterfronts and floodplains.
However, we must also consider what will constrain the selecting and implementing of sustainable flood
risk management policies. Strategic constraints are:
• Demand for increased housing provision and associated infrastructure within the Milton Keynes –
South Midlands (Northampton, Corby, Kettering, Wellingborough) and London-Stansted-
Cambridge-Peterborough (Peterborough) growth areas may come into conflict with the need to
restrict development in floodplains.
• The River Nene navigation is important to the local community and economy and may constrain
options for flood risk management.
• The existing urban fabric can physically constrain the space available for flood defences.
• Landscape character and local designations may constrain locations which are suitable for flood
• The need to maintain the separation of tributary flood flows will limit the possible locations for flood
• Future urban growth will demand will demand an increase in storage of water for public water
supply. Storing floodwater on floodplains is unlikely to contribute to meeting this requirement
because floodwater is only stored during the period of the flood and is generally released soon
after. There may be opportunities for using future water supply reservoirs to contribute to flood
management. However, floodwater stored on floodplains might be detained in small quantities and
used to increase low river flows.

6 Policy appraisal
6.1 Introduction
The CFMP addresses the following questions regarding flood risk within the River Nene catchment:
• How significant is flooding within the catchment?

• What are the challenges for flood risk management in the future?
• Can we continue with our existing approach to flood risk management?
• What changes do we need to make in the catchment?
• What actions do we need to take in the catchment?
We discussed the extent and impact of existing and future flood risk
in the previous sections, together with the type of actions we
currently undertake to manage this risk. We can use this
information, together with an understanding of how different
responses will impact on the future risks, to help us define a set of
policies that will lead to sustainable flood risk management actions
into the future.
An objective-led policy appraisal allows us to identify and quantify

the social, economic and environmental impacts of the six policy
options for the River Nene catchment. We selected our preferred
policies following the steps described below:
Step 1 – We established a catchment-wide understanding of the

mechanisms of flooding and their consequences for risk, both now
and in the future (Sections 3 and 4). The analysis included
identifying the sources and pathways of flooding, the extent of
flooding for a range of frequencies (10%, 1% and 0.1% AEP) as
and where appropriate and the consequences of flooding on the
social (people), economic and environmental receptors within the
catchment. The key findings, concentrating on the 1% flood, are
summarised in Sections 3.6 (present) and 4.4 (future), with a comparison of current and future flood risk
in Section 4.5.
Step 2 – We identified catchment specific objectives from the generic objectives outlined during the
Scoping Stage. The objectives were used during the selection of policies to address flood risk issues that
either occur now or will do in the future (Section 5). A Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA) was
done and is presented in Appendix B. The SEA ensures that policies for flood risk management are not
developed in isolation of their wider catchment objectives, such as restoring or enhancing wildlife habitats
or planning a sustainable approach to new development.
Step 3 – We divided the catchment into policy units based on areas with similar sources, pathways and
receptors of flooding, and similar levels of flood risk. We therefore defined the extents of each policy unit
area based on the following questions:
• What is at risk?
• In what way are these areas at risk?
• How large is the risk and what is the scale of the possible consequences?
• How does the unit respond to that risk?
These policy units have allowed the appraisal of six generic policies (Section 6.2), to give the policy that
is most appropriate to the areas of concern and best achieves effective and sustainable flood risk
management across the CFMP area and the wider region. A description of the policy units is given in
Table 6.1, and their location is shown in Figure 6.1.

Step 4 – For each policy unit we compared the alternative policy options and generic responses in a
consistent, systematic and transparent way. This results in the selection of one preferred policy from a
set of generic policies. The available policy options have a range of risk management approaches,
varying from reducing the present or future risk of flooding to allowing flood risk to rise into the future. The
implications from possible interactions of policies between policy units were also considered. Further
explanation of the policy appraisal process and our choice of flood risk management policy are given
below.
Step 5 – We identified the uncertainties in our analysis of flood risk. This includes gaps in our knowledge,
which may have implications on our choice of preferred policy, and which may require future actions to
put right. More information on uncertainties is given below.
Step 6 – We interpreted policy options in terms of the actions we consider should be carried out to deliver
the CFMP. These include elements of both adapting current flood risk management activities and finding
new ways to respond to future flood risk. We also identified where we need to fill gaps in our present
understanding of flood mechanisms, such as surface water and groundwater flood risk. Further details of
actions to deliver the CFMP are outlined in Section 7.
Step 7 – We identified a means by which the progress of CFMP implementation can be monitored. This
is also detailed in Section 7.
6.2 Policies for the River Nene catchment

6.2.1 Policy units
We divided the River Nene CFMP area into sixteen policy units.
These are based on clearly defined areas of the catchment which
have common sources and mechanisms of flooding and common
receptors. The scale of flood risk across each policy unit is also
similar. We chose areas with similar characteristics so that one
preferred appropriate policy can be applied across the policy unit.
In completing Sections 3 and 4, we gained a detailed understanding

of the sources of flooding across the catchment. The current flood
risk management was identified, where current flood defences or
maintenance play an important role in reducing flood risk. The scale of the risk to different receptors was
assessed across the catchment. This information was used to highlight areas of differing flood risk, and
define parts of the catchment where the flood risk is similar. For example, the fenland area is all heavily
managed so that at present the flood risk to people and properties is relatively low. However, in the
future, the greatest risk will come from failure of the flood defences causing rapid flooding behind them.
This is also true in some defended towns higher up in the River Nene catchment, while other towns that
do not presently have defences often have extremely high flood risk compared to more rural areas.
The sixteen policy units chosen for the River Nene catchment are described in Table 6.1, and are shown
in Figure 6.1.

Table 6.1 Description of policy units
Area
Policy unit Characteristics Location Sources Mechanism Receptors
(km2)
1. Upper and middle 1331 Rural with Headwaters of the Overtopping of the Isolated people and
Nene catchment scattered small River Nene and River flooding from the watercourses onto properties, historic
settlements, but tributaries, River Nene tributaries. their functional environment sites,
including the including the floodplains, with only BAP habitats, SSSIs,
medium sized major tributaries Considered to be isolated flood defences agricultural land,
towns of of: Harpers Brook, potential for across this policy unit. critical infrastructure,
Daventry, Willow Brook, groundwater flooding in and transport
Rothwell and upper River Ise, some areas, including Exceedance of the infrastructure.
Desborough. Low Brampton Branch, the Harpers Brook and capacity of flood
population and Dodford Willow Brook storage areas leading
density. Branch. catchments. to increased flooding.
2. River Nene 15 Rural with Floodplain of the Overtopping of the People and properties
(Weedon to scattered small Kislingbury watercourses onto (predominantly in the
Kislingbury) settlements. Low branch of the their functional settlements of
population River Nene, floodplains, with only Weedon, Kislingbury
density. including parts of isolated flood defences and Bugbrooke),
the lower across this policy unit. SSSIs, historic
River flooding from the
Bugbrooke Brook environment sites,
Kislingbury branch,
and lower Exceedance of the BAP habitats, critical
Weedon branch and
Weedon branch. capacity of flood infrastructure, and
Bugbrooke Brook.
Includes the storage areas leading transport
settlements of to increased flooding. infrastructure.
Flooding as a result of
Weedon,
defence failure in
Kislingbury and Overtopping or breach
Kislingbury.
Bugbrooke. of flood defences in
Kislingbury. This would
lead to rapid and
potentially life
threatening, inundation
of the areas protected
by these defences.
3. Wootton 11 Suburban areas Southern areas of River flooding from the Overtopping of the People and properties,
of south Northampton Wootton Brook. watercourse onto the critical infrastructure,
Northampton. focussed on the functional floodplain. transport
High population suburbs of Considered to be some infrastructure.
density. Wootton and potential for

Area
Policy unit 2 Characteristics Location Sources Mechanism Receptors
(km )
Collingtree Park, groundwater flooding in
that are at risk of some areas of the policy
flooding from the unit.
Wootton Brook.
4. Northampton 15 Central area of Central area of River flooding from the Overtopping or breach People and properties
Central Northampton Northampton that River Nene, Brampton of flood defences. This (significant risk to
including central is protected at Branch and Kislingbury would lead to rapid, people in this policy
business district present to a 0.5% Branch. potentially life unit for higher
and residential AEP standard. threatening, inundation magnitude floods),
areas. High social This includes the Flooding as a result of of the areas protected SSSIs, historic
vulnerability to St. James End, defence failure. by these defences. environment sites,
flooding and high Cotton, Far BAP habitats,
population Cotton and Surcharge of surface Heavy rainfall leading community facilities,
density. Brackmills areas and subsurface to local drainage critical infrastructure,
of the town. drainage systems. network being unable and transport
to cope with surface infrastructure.
runoff.
5. Northampton Outer 43 Urban and Areas of Overtopping of the People and properties,
suburban areas of Northampton watercourses onto the historic environment
Northampton. excluding those functional floodplain. sites, BAP habitats,
High population which are part of critical infrastructure,
density. the Northampton Exceedance of the and transport
Central policy capacity of flood infrastructure.
Branch, Dallington
unit. This includes storage areas leading
Brook and Billing Brook.
the Dallington to increased flooding.
Brook, Billing
Surcharge of surface
Brook, lower Heavy rainfall leading
and subsurface
reaches of the to local drainage
drainage systems.
Brampton Branch network being unable
and River Nene in to cope with surface
the Billing area of runoff.
Northampton.
6. River Nene corridor 64 Rural with Floodplain of the Overtopping of the Isolated people and
scattered small River Nene from watercourses onto the properties, historic
settlements. Low Billing to Oundle functional floodplain. environment sites,
River Nene and River
population excluding BAP habitats, SSSIs,
Ise.
density. Wellingborough agricultural land,
and Thrapston. critical infrastructure,

Area
(km )
Also includes the and transport
floodplain of the infrastructure.
River Ise from
Kettering to the
confluence with
the River Nene,
excluding
Wellingborough
as well.
7. Grendon Brook 26 Rural with Catchment of the Overtopping of the Isolated people and
villages scattered small Grendon Brook, watercourse onto the properties, historic
settlements. Low excluding the functional floodplain. environment sites,
population headwaters. BAP habitats, SSSIs,
density. Includes the River flooding from the Exceedance of the agricultural land,
villages of Grendon Brook. capacity of flood critical infrastructure,
Grendon, Yardley storage areas leading and transport
Hastings, Denton to increased flooding. infrastructure.
and Bozeat.
8. Kettering 15 Urban and Town of Kettering, Overtopping of the People and properties,
suburban areas of including the watercourse onto the SSSIs, historic
this large town. Slade Brook and functional floodplain. environment sites,
High population River Ise. BAP habitats, critical
density. River flooding from the Exceedance of the infrastructure, and
River Ise, and in capacity of flood transport
particular from the Slade storage areas leading infrastructure.
Brook. to increased flooding.
Surcharge of surface Heavy rainfall leading

and subsurface to local drainage
drainage systems. network being unable
to cope with surface
runoff.
9. Corby 26 Urban and Town of Corby River flooding from the Overtopping of the People and properties,
suburban areas of including upper upper tributaries of the watercourse onto the historic environment

Area
(km )
this large town. tributaries of the Harpers Brook and functional floodplain. sites, BAP habitats,
High population Harpers Brook Willow Brook. community facilities,
density. and Willow Brook. Exceedance of the critical infrastructure,
Surcharge of surface capacity of flood and transport
and subsurface storage areas leading infrastructure.
drainage systems. to increased flooding.
Heavy rainfall leading

to local drainage
network being unable
runoff.
10. Wellingborough 19 Urban and Town of Overtopping of the People and properties,
suburban areas of Wellingborough, watercourses onto the critical infrastructure,
this large town. including the functional floodplain. BAP habitats and
High population floodplain of the transport
density. River Nene and Exceedance of the infrastructure.
River Nene, River Ise,
River Ise. Also capacity of flood
Harrowden Brook and
includes the storage areas leading
Swanspool Brook.
Harrowden Brook to increased flooding.
and Swanspool
Surcharge of surface
Brook. Heavy rainfall leading
and subsurface
to local drainage
drainage systems.
network being unable
runoff.
11. Rushden and 21 Relatively urban, Extends along the Overtopping of the People and properties,
Raunds including the south-eastern watercourse onto the historic environment
urban areas of edge of the River River flooding from the functional floodplain. sites, critical
Rushden, Raunds Nene floodplain Raunds Hog Dyke and infrastructure, and
and Higham downstream from Skew Bridge Dyke. transport
Ferrers. Rural Wellingborough, infrastructure.
areas exist incorporating the
between these towns of Rushden

Area
(km )
settlements. and Raunds. It
Moderate to high includes the
population Raunds Hogs
density. Dyke and Skew
Bridge Dyke.
12. Thrapston 2 Small town of The town of Overtopping of the People and properties,
local importance. Thrapston and River flooding from the watercourse onto the historic environment
High population village of Islip. River Nene. functional floodplain. sites, BAP habitats,
density. Risk of flooding is critical infrastructure,
from the River Flooding as a result of and transport
Nene. defence failure. infrastructure.
13. Barnwell 2 Small village lying The floodplain of Overtopping of the People and properties,
either side of the the Barnwell watercourse onto the and historic
Barnwell Brook. Brook from functional floodplain. environment sites.
upstream of
Barnwell flood Exceedance of the
Barnwell Brook.
storage area to capacity of flood
the confluence storage areas leading
with the River to increased flooding.
Nene.
14. River Nene 47 Relatively rural The floodplain of Overtopping of the People and properties
(Oundle to Water with scattered the River Nene watercourse onto the (predominantly
Newton) small settlements, from upstream of functional floodplain. Wansford and
including the town Oundle to Oundle), historic
of Oundle. downstream of environment sties,
Flooding from the River
Relatively low Water Newton SSSIs, BAP habitats,
Nene and some small
population near agricultural land,
tributaries.
density. Peterborough. critical infrastructure,
Includes the River and transport
Nene and some infrastructure.
small tributaries.
15. Peterborough and 51 Urban and Covers the city of Flooding from the River Overtopping of the People and properties,
the Nene Washes suburban areas of Peterborough that Nene and Stanground watercourses onto the historic environment
this city, along falls in this Lode. functional floodplain. sites, SSSIs,
with the catchment and Flooding as a result of international

Area
(km )
undeveloped the Nene Surcharge of surface tide-locking. environmental
Nene Washes. Washes. Includes and subsurface designations, BAP
High population the River Nene drainage systems. Heavy rainfall leading habitats, agricultural
density, with the and Stanground to local drainage land, critical
exception of the Lode. network being unable infrastructure, and
Nene Washes. to cope with surface transport
runoff. infrastructure.
16. The Fens 590 Relatively rural The area Overtopping or breach People and properties,
with scattered downstream of of flood defences. This historic environment
small settlements, Peterborough Tidal flooding from the would lead to rapid, sites, SSSIs,
including the (excluding the tidal reach of the River potentially life international
towns of Wisbech, Nene Washes), Nene. threatening, inundation environmental
Sutton Bridge and that of the areas protected designations,
Long Sutton. predominantly is Floodwater from main by these defences. agricultural land,
Relatively low drained by River Nene catchment in critical infrastructure
population pumping. extreme floods. Overtopping of Nene and transport
density. Washes in extreme infrastructure.
Flooding from IDB floods.
drainage system caused
by tide locking or Flooding from the IDB
exceedance of pump drainage system may
capacity. occur during periods of
heavy rainfall.

Figure 6.1 Policy Units

Table 6.2 summarises which of the policy appraisal objectives were considered for each policy unit within
the appraisal process. For example, the environmental objectives were not considered in some of the
more urban policy units due to the absence of designated sites or BAP habitats.
6.2.2 Policy options

There are six pre-defined policies we can choose from to apply to
the various policy units in the CFMP area. They are:
Policy Option 1: No active intervention (including flood

warning and maintenance). Continue to monitor and advise.
We may select this policy for natural catchments where the river is
connected to its floodplains and flooding has positive effects, for
example if it is good for habitats. This policy may also be selected
where we recognise that the risk posed by flooding is not high, nor
will it be in the future. In these instances, we would not envisage
costly interventions to manage low risks.
Policy Option 2: Reduce existing flood risk management actions (accepting that flood risk will
increase with time). We may select this policy for areas where current and future risks do not warrant
the present level of intervention (for example on maintenance). In these locations, we can allow the risk
of flooding to increase naturally over time. Following this policy, where we have assets in place now, we
may look at the options and timing of withdrawing or retreating flood defences in our System Asset
Management Plans (SAMPs).
Policy Option 3: Continue with existing or alternative actions to manage flood risk at the current
level (accepting that flood risk will increase over time from this baseline). We may select this
policy where the flood risks are currently managed appropriately, and where those risks are not expected
to rise to unacceptable levels in the future. While we should be confident that the present levels of
intervention are acceptable for future needs, we may need to review whether what we are doing is
currently the best response in terms of managing flood risks in the longer term. This policy may lead to
reviewing the flood warning services, or how we manage the assets that are in place.
Policy Option 4: Take further action to sustain the current level of flood risk into the future
(responding to the potential increases in risk from urban development, land use change and
climate change). We may select this policy for areas where the risk from flooding is currently managed
appropriately, but that risk is expected to increase significantly in the future. In these circumstances we
would need to do more in the long term to offset those increases in flood risk.
Policy Option 5: Take further action to reduce flood risk (now and/or in the future). We may select
this policy for policy units where the existing flood risk, or the future predicted scale of risk, is too high. As
a result we need to take action either in the short term or long term respectively. Flood risk is unlikely to
be acceptable where:
• the risks to life are very high (say from deep, fast flowing water or the rapid onset of flooding);
• an internationally important habitat is being adversely affected; or
• the impact means that an important local economy would not be able to recover.
Policy Option 6: Take action with others to store water or manage runoff in locations that provide
overall flood risk reduction or environmental benefits locally or elsewhere in the catchment. We
can apply this policy either locally to a flooding problem, or some distance away where flooding is not a
problem. However, the principle behind policy option 6 is that we transfer flooding from problem areas to
locations where the consequences from flooding are positive. This may mean that we can restore
floodplains and improve habitats, reducing the negative impacts of flooding elsewhere within the
catchment. This may also include changing the way we use the land, such that we can hold water within
a part of the catchment for longer and therefore reduce flood risk in downstream areas. This policy will be
implemented in rural areas with the agreement of relevant interested parties and will not adversely affect
individual communities.
Policies appropriate to the type and level of current and future flood risk within each policy unit were
identified from this list through a process of policy appraisal.
6.2.3 Policy appraisal
The six generic policy options outlined above reflect several approaches to flood risk management that
can be applied in the catchment. They cover a range of management responses from accepting that
flood risk will increase through to reducing those risks, or transferring them elsewhere in the catchment.
The policy appraisal process needs to lead to sustainable policies that challenge the current way that
flood risk is managed in the River Nene catchment. Often, river corridors have been managed in a certain
way for a considerable period of time, sometimes without recent consideration of why this management
technique is being used. The CFMP aims to challenge this ‘business as usual’ approach, and the policy
appraisal process is intended to be a robust method to do this.
We undertook the policy appraisal in a series of steps, using a set of policy appraisal tables (within the
SEA in Appendix B) that allow the alternative policies to be assessed in a consistent and transparent
way. This should allow the choice of a single preferred policy for each policy unit. It is recognised that the
policy appraisal involves difficult decisions, for example in order to prioritise investment in managing our
assets in the main flood risk locations we may have to accept an increase in flood risk elsewhere.
In order to assess each policy we considered the type of flood risk management responses that are likely
to be required to implement each policy. Table 6.3 shows the generic responses that we considered in
the River Nene catchment.
We considered how the eight generic responses in Table 6.3 could in general be applied to each of the
policy options. This is shown in Table 6.4 and can be summarised as follows:
• policy options 1 and 2 are about reducing flood risk management, which will lead to increased
flood risk, but we are not going to implement a generic response that applies controls on
development less rigorously or manages rural land to cause increased surface runoff;
• policy option 3 relates to managing flood risk to the same level as at present, and therefore has
generic responses that relate to maintaining the current management responses;
• policy option 4 aims to counter the effects of climate change and urbanisation in the catchment in
order to avoid any increase in flood risk, which can be achieved through a combination of
maintaining some current practices and improving other ones;
• policy option 5 is about reducing flood risk now or in the future, through increasing the level of
flood risk management in the catchment, which can be achieved through using one or more of
the generic responses;
• policy option 6 concerns increasing flooding in some parts of the catchment in order to reduce it
elsewhere, which can be achieved using a variety of measures such as reducing channel
maintenance, set back of defences or modifying water level control structures and floodplain
pathways. It is possible that we may achieve this through land management change working in
partnership with others, while enhanced development control may be used as a way to avoid new
developments in areas designated for increased flooding. Flood warning may need to be
reviewed as a result of implementing policy option 6.
For our policy appraisal, we considered the broad responses to flood risk within the policy units and, in
Table 6.5, summarise the generic responses which we considered in each. The first five in Table 6.4,
where they are appropriate to the policy unit, were modelled (as detailed in the modelling summaries in
Annex 1 of Appendix B). The other, 'softer’, responses, which are largely carried through from the
catchment opportunities identified, were not modelled as they are difficult to quantify with any accuracy.
The policy appraisal tables are located within the SEA in Appendix B. The broad scale modelling (BSM)
tables were completed as the first stage in the appraisal process, after collating the relevant information
and data required (Form 12.5). The BSM tables assessed the impact of applying several potentially
feasible generic responses across appropriate policy units. The most appropriate single response or
combination of responses was then taken forward and used in the appraisal against the objectives in
Form 12.6.

Table 6.2 Application of objectives to policy units
1. Upper and middle Nene
14. River Nene (Oundle to

2. River Nene (Weedon to
7. Grendon Brook villages
11. Rushden and Raunds
15. Peterborough and the

4. Northampton Central
6. River Nene corridor

5. Northampton Outer
10. Wellingborough
Water Newton)
Nene Washes
12. Thrapston
16. The Fens

13. Barnwell
Kislingbury)
8. Kettering
3. Wootton
catchment
9. Corby
Generic objective
SOC1 – To minimise
flood related risks to
the population
risks to critical
X X
infrastructure and
community facilities
community

disruption from
flooding
ECON1 – To
minimise economic
impacts of flooding
ECON2 - Ensure
future investment in
the catchment is X
proportional to the
risks
ENV1 - Protect and
enhance significant
historic environment X X
assets and their
settings
ENV2 - Protect and
contribute to the
improvement of
designated nature X X X X X X X
conservation sites
(SSSI, SPA, SAC
and Ramsar)
ENV3 - Enhance the
biodiversity of the
catchment by
improving the quality
of the river X X X X X
environment and
contributing to UK
Biodiversity Action
Plan targets
ENV4 - Support the
achievement of
good status/potential

of surface and
groundwater bodies
under the WFD

Table 6.3 Definition of generic responses
Generic response Activities
Channel Maintenance of channels and structures (bridges/culverts). This may include
maintenance weed clearance/cutting, debris removal, desilting and reprofiling.
Maintenance/inspection/repair/replacement/commission of formal flood defence
Flood defences
barriers such as walls and embankments.
Maintenance/inspection/repair/replacement/commissioning/review of operating
Channel control
procedures of water level control structures such as adjustable gates/weirs, tidal
structures
gates and outfalls, pumping stations.
Flood storage - Maintenance/inspection/repair/replacement/commission of formal flood storage
strategic areas through creation of controlled washland areas.
Enhanced floodplain Creation of less formal flood storage areas on the natural floodplain through
storage control of river channel flood levels and floodplain mechanisms.
Flood warning/ Review current flood warning provision. Improve flood awareness through public
awareness relations activities.
Using existing or new policy to influence development locations, the resilience of
Controlling
properties to flood risk and control surface runoff from new developments such
development
as through the use of SUDS.
Changes in land management and use to reduce surface runoff and hence flood
Rural land
risk, including changing agricultural practices, for example cropping patterns,
management
stocking densities, fencing watercourses, ditch maintenance.
Table 6.4 Application of generic response to policy options

Policy options
Generic response
1 2 3 4 5 6
Channel Maintain/ Review/
Cease Reduce Maintain Increase
maintenance Improve reduce
Maintain/ Increase/ Setback/
Flood defences Cease Reduce Maintain
Improve improve modify
Channel control Maintain/ Increase/ Modify/
Cease Reduce Maintain
structures Improve improve remove
Flood storage - Maintain/ Increase/ Increase/
Cease Reduce Maintain
strategic Improve improve improve
Enhanced floodplain
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Improve
storage
Flood warning/ Maintain/
Review Review Maintain Improve Review
awareness Improve
Controlling Improve Improve Improve
No change No change No change
development controls controls controls
Rural land
No change No change No change Change Change Change
management
Form 12.6 records the appraisal of each of the policy options against the objectives given in Table 5.1,
using the information detailed in Sections 2 to 5 together with the BSM outputs to appraise the
performance of each of the policy options in meeting the CFMP objectives.
Form 12.7 summarises the relative gains and losses of each policy option in achieving the policy
appraisal objectives, in terms of flood risk to the key receptors and identification of opportunities and
constraints to flood risk management, also indicating the resulting preferred policy option.
Form 12.8 goes on to summarise the rationale behind the selection of the preferred policies, showing the
preferred policy and the justification for that policy. The forms are reproduced here in Tables 6.6 to 6.20,
excluding forms for the Grendon Brook policy unit which is now incorporated into the much larger Upper
and Middle Nene policy unit as it shares the same policy, P2. The preferred policy options for each policy
unit are as shown in Figure 6.2. The Grendon Brook policy unit is not shown in Figure 6.2 as the policy
unit is now incorporated into the Upper and Middle Nene policy unit.

Figure 6.2 The preferred policy options

Table 6.5 Strategic responses considered for implementation of policy options
1. Upper and middle Nene
14. River Nene (Oundle to

2. River Nene (Weedon to
7. Grendon Brook villages
11. Rushden and Raunds
15. Peterborough and the

4. Northampton Central
6. River Nene corridor

5. Northampton Outer
10. Wellingborough
Water Newton)
Nene Washes
12. Thrapston
16. The Fens

13. Barnwell
Kislingbury)
8. Kettering
3. Wootton
catchment
9. Corby
Generic response
Channel
maintenance
Flood defences
Channel control X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
structures
Flood storage - X X X X X X X
strategic
Enhanced floodplain X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
storage
Flood warning /
awareness
Controlling X
development
Rural land X X X X X X X X X X X X X
management
As part of the SEA requirements we assessed cumulative and synergistic effects across the CFMP area.
Table 6.21 sets out, for the 1% AEP flood, the significant environmental effects of the plan which we
considered in relation to each of the CFMP objectives. In Section 6.2.4 we then go on to consider
potential interactions between the CFMP policy units and the more significant uncertainties are
summarised in Section 6.2.5.
It is apparent from Table 6.21 that the selected policies do not succeed in attaining all the objectives of
the policy appraisal. Generally the policies lead to an increase in flood risk over the current level, based
on our present climate change predictions. However, the increase is significantly less than the
approximate doubling of flood risk that would occur over the next 100 years were we simply to continue
with our current flood risk management practices.
The reduced impact of flooding in the future is achieved by introducing policies which are appropriate to
the scale and nature of the future flood risk in each policy unit. Where this is significant, our policies aim
to avoid an increase or, in the case of Corby, to reduce it. In the policy units where the level of flood risk
is less significant, our policies generally allow flood risk to increase. The cumulative effect across the
catchment of changing our current policies in this way is to allow some increase in the overall flood risk
but, as noted, our revised flood risk management practices achieve significant reductions.
Table 6.6 Summary of preferred policy for policy unit: Upper and middle Nene catchment
Summary of the Preferred Policy
The Upper and Middle Nene catchment policy unit is a large and mostly rural policy
Policy Unit – unit. It covers much of the upper and middle catchment of the River Nene, including
Upper & middle the major tributaries of the Harpers Brook, Willow Brook, upper River Ise and the
Nene catchment Nene Brampton Branch above Northampton. There are a number of moderately
sized settlements in the catchment including Daventry, Rothwell and Desborough.
Problem / Risk The Upper and Middle Nene catchment policy unit covers the free-draining
catchment of the River Nene, excluding specific locations where there are areas of

concentrated flood risk. As such the level of flood risk is generally considered to be
low.
The main source of flooding is fluvial, due to high flows in the watercourses.
Records of fluvial flooding incidents include: 1947 (significant flooding on the
Harpers Brook); 1992 (moderate flooding on the upper River Ise and smaller
tributaries); 1998 (flooding in Titchmarsh and on the River Ise); 2000 (flooding on
the Harpers Brook and River Ise). Incidents of surface water flooding have also
been recorded in the past, notably in Geddington, where incidents occurred in 1973,
1980 and 1981. It is considered that there is some risk of groundwater flooding in
this policy unit, with one recorded incidence of flooding in Glapthorn.
A number of settlements in this policy unit benefit from flood protection measures:
Great Oakley flood storage reservoir provides protection to Brigstock and
Sudborough on the Harpers Brook to a 4% AEP flood standard; Geddington flood
relief channel provides protection to Geddington to a 1% AEP flood standard;
Clipston flood storage reservoir provides benefits to Clipston and downstream
areas, though the standard of protection is uncertain.
Yardley Hastings is protected by three flood storage reservoirs: the north Yardley
Hastings flood storage reservoir has a 2% AEP flood standard; the east and west
Yardley Hastings flood storage reservoirs have a 4% AEP flood standard. Denton
flood storage reservoir protects Denton to the 4% AEP flood standard. Bozeat flood
storage reservoir protects Bozeat to the 2% AEP flood standard.
Our analysis suggests that a 1% AEP flood would affect 693 people, 335 properties,
and cause property damages of £15.20 million with damages being split fairly
equally between residential and commercial properties, but with a concentration of
commercial damages in the catchment of the Grendon Brook. The policy unit
contributes 11% to the total damages across the catchment.
The main driver of increasing future flood risk is climate change which, together with
potential effects from future development, could increase peak flows by up to
approximately 20%. Our analysis suggests that a 1% AEP future flood would affect
1012 people and 483 properties (an increase of approximately 46%) causing £32.28
million property damages (an increase of approximately 112%). The future
contribution to the total damages remains at about 11%.
Policy P2 – Reduce existing flood risk management actions (accepting that flood
risk will increase over time).
Flood risk in the future in the Upper and Middle Nene catchment policy unit is
Chosen Policy considered to be moderate, given the extensive nature of this policy unit. The
increase in flood risk in the future will not worsen significantly with reduced flood risk
management, but this will allow us to achieve expenditure levels more appropriate
to the scale of flood risk across the policy unit. The current flood risk management
responses will be reviewed and modified as appropriate under this policy.
In areas covered by the broad-scale, an increase in channel and floodplain

roughness was used to simulate a reduction in maintenance. In areas where
simpler JFLOW output was used, a similar increase in the damages was assumed
Generic as on the broad-scale model reaches. Under policy P2, future climate change
Responses alongside a reduction in maintenance result in moderate increases to the present
flood risk. Maintenance of the flood protection measures presently in place will
continue, whereas reductions in maintenance levels will be found elsewhere. Flood
warning and development control will also continue close to current levels.
Adopting policy P2 here will accept some future minor losses within the Upper and
Middle Nene catchment policy unit. It will give total 1% AEP future flood risk
increases for the policy unit of approximately 72 people, 31 properties and £2.24
million, spread over the large area of this policy unit. Our flood risk management will
include the generic responses outlined above. We will reduce our existing flood risk
management actions overall, but maintain the level of those actions which we
consider are effective and sustainable, giving an appropriate level of flood risk.
Future changes in flood risk will be monitored such that further action needs can be
reviewed, and we will work in partnership to ensure that new responses are set
against future development where appropriate.
Adopting policy P2 supports economic, social and environmental sustainability by

accepting some increased future losses within the Upper and Middle Nene
catchment policy unit, allowing resources to be allocated to those areas where the
risk of flooding becomes unacceptably high in the future. The objectives which are
met by this policy (1% AEP future flood impact compared to current baseline) are:
• To minimise flood related risks to the population (391 more people at risk,
spread over a large area).
• To minimise risks to critical infrastructure and community facilities (minor
increase in flood risk to STWs, electricity sub-stations and other critical
Justification infrastructure. Bozeat STW becomes at risk).
• To minimise community disruption from flooding (176 more residential
properties at risk, spread over a large area).
• To minimise economic impacts of flooding (increase of £19.31 million
property damages, spread over a large area).
• Ensure future investment in the catchment is proportional to the risks (a
reduction in maintenance will result in relatively limited increases in the
future level of flood risk compared with other policy unit areas).
• Protect and enhance significant historic environment assets and their
settings (minor increase in flood impact at 28 conservation areas, 17
scheduled monuments and 15 parks and gardens).
• Protect and contribute to the improvement of designated nature
conservation sites (increase in flooding at 9 SSSIs – positive impact at 7 of
these sites, neutral impact at 2).
• Enhance the biodiversity of the catchment by improving the quality of the
river environment, contributing to UK Biodiversity Action Plan targets (minor
increase in area of BAP habitats affected by flooding).
• Support the achievement of good status/potential of surface and ground
water bodies under the WFD (possible minor increase in pollutants resulting
from rising flood levels).
Other policies were rejected for the Upper and Middle Nene catchment policy unit
due to (1% AEP future flood impact, compared to current baseline):
Policy P1 - no active intervention; significant risk to people and economic and social
losses, especially given the increased flooding in lower magnitude floods occurring
as a result of loss of existing flood defences (increases of 421 people, 190
properties, and £21.33 million property damages).
Policy P3 - continue with existing or alternative actions to manage flood risk at the
current level; social and economic losses (increases of 319 people, 145 properties,
Alternative and £17.07 million property damages) are moderate, however the expenditure on
policies flood risk management is not considered to be proportional to the risk relative to
considered other policy units.
Policy P4 - take further action to sustain the current level of flood risk into the future;
potential economic benefits are attractive with £16.65 million reduction in future
damages, against likely costs of £5 million. However, benefits to people and
property are relatively limited compared to other areas, and higher flood risk
priorities exist elsewhere.
Policy P5 - take further action to reduce flood risk (now and / or in the future);
potential benefits to people and property are small, and large capital costs of £30
million make it unlikely to be sustainable and affordable (116 fewer people, 67 fewer

properties, £0.45 million increase in property damages, largely to due commercial
properties outside defended areas). Higher flood risk priorities exist elsewhere.
Policy P6 – take action with others to store water or manage runoff in locations that
the catchment (which may constitute an overall flood risk reduction, for example for
habitat inundation); little scope for this policy as the majority of watercourses within
this policy unit are small upstream tributaries, with small contributory areas and
relatively low peak flows. As a result there is only a limited potential for strategic
storage which has an impact over a widespread area. There are a number of larger
tributaries within this policy unit, including the Harpers Brook, Willow Brook and
Brampton Branch of the River Nene, however storage is not considered appropriate
on these tributaries due to the relative timing of their inflows to the River Nene
downstream and preferred policies on other tributaries.
Main opportunities
• Including new recreational and amenity features to contribute to the network of
Green Infrastructure developments, such as the River Nene Regional Park,
arising from the Government’s Sustainable Communities programme.
• Creating and managing wetland habitats to contribute to BAP targets.
• Opportunities to work with local authorities and regional development agencies
to influence developing waterfronts and floodplains, fully embracing PPS25
recommendations and the ‘Making space for water’ philosophy.
Main constraints
• Demand for increased housing provision and associated infrastructure within
the Milton Keynes – South Midlands (Northampton, Corby, Kettering,
Wellingborough) growth area and London-Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough
(Peterborough) growth areas may come into conflict with the need to restrict
development in floodplains.
• Landscape character and local designations may constrain works in some
Catchment-wide
locations.
opportunities &
constraints • Designated sites may be a constraint if special interest features are sensitive to
flood levels.
• The presence of Scheduled Monuments and other heritage features such as
Conservation Areas may constrain acceptable options and locations throughout
the policy unit.
• Negative impacts may be experienced on existing biodiversity within the
floodplain if flooding is deep and prolonged in spring and summer months or if
flood risk management measures isolate the river from its floodplain.
Titchmarsh Meadow SSSI

Opportunities
Changes to the flooding regime may enable the site to support additional features of
nature conservation interest
Constraints
Changes to the flooding regime may result in a deterioration in the habitat currently
of the SSSI which is currently in favourable condition
Sutton Heath & Bog SSSI

Opportunities
Contribution to appropriate management could help restore parts of the site which
are currently in unfavourable condition.
Constraints
Changes to the flooding regime may alter the composition of the grassland
communities
Increased flooding may mean that the current management practices may be
impractical, these changes in management may also affect the grassland
composition.

Bulwick Meadows SSSI
Opportunities
Increased flooding and appropriate management could enable the extension of the
valuable grassland into adjacent fields
Constraints
communities
composition
River Ise and Meadows SSSI

Opportunities
Appropriate management of downstream and upstream reaches may enable
extension of valuable habitats and extend the range of the species for which the site
is designated
Constraints
Upstream storage may create a barrier to migration for grayling and other aquatic
fauna
Changes to the flooding regime may alter the composition of the flood meadow
communities
Pitsford Reservoir SSSI

Opportunities
Catchment-wide Increasing the flood storage within the reservoir could create additional marginal
opportunities & habitat
constraints Constraints
(cont.) Increased flood storage at the reservoir could affect the bird populations supported
there, if the marginal land is adversely affected
Scheduled Monuments
Opportunities
The reduction in flood risk to Scheduled Monument will reduce the likelihood of
flood damage and enable the long term preservation of these historical assets
Constraints
Increased flooding frequency or duration may increase the damaged to Scheduled
Monuments associated with flooding
Reduction in flood risk in some areas may result in drying of ground conditions
which may be detrimental to some buried archaeological features
Landfill sites
Opportunities
The reduction of flood risk to landfill sites will consequently reduce the water
pollution problems associated with floods
Constraints
Increasing the frequency or duration of flooding of landfill sites will consequently
increase the water pollution problems associated with floods
Discharges
Opportunities
Appropriate management of flows and storage of winter floodwaters may provide
greater dilution of the numerous discharges from trade and sewage treatment works
discharges, therefore improving water quality
Constraints
Alterations to the flooding regime may reduce the available water for dilution of
discharges during summer months if inappropriately managed
Abstractions
Opportunities
additional supplies to supplement agricultural requirements and the public water
abstractions from the various reservoirs within the catchment
Constraints
Alterations to the flooding regime may reduce the available water for abstraction if
inappropriately managed
The modelling and flood risk analysis accuracy is, by its nature, high-level for the
CFMP. Simple JFLOW model output, of reduced accuracy compared to elsewhere,
was used for most reaches in the Upper and Middle Nene catchment. Significant
uncertainty surrounds climate change effects, as well as surface water and
groundwater influence on floods; groundwater flooding could be an issue for the
policy unit. Further uncertainty surrounds the ground levels and property threshold
Risks, levels obtained from the DTM, and also the type and distribution of contaminated
Uncertainties & land within the policy unit.
Dependencies
The estimates of flood damage within this policy unit are considered sufficiently
accurate to inform the selection of the proposed policy and response.
There is uncertainty over the likely effect of policy options on water levels / quality,
siltation, frequency and duration of flooding within the designated sites of this policy
unit. The changes to wetland habitat areas that might result from different policy
options are also unclear, together with the biodiversity losses and gains that might
occur.
Table 6.7 Summary of preferred policy for policy unit: River Nene (Weedon to Kislingbury)
The River Nene (Weedon to Kislingbury) policy unit is largely rural in nature. It
Policy Unit - covers the floodplain of the River Nene on the Kislingbury branch from Weedon to
River Nene the A45 Upton Way crossing of the Nene at Northampton, as well as parts of the
(Weedon to Weedon Bec and Bugbrooke Brook tributaries. It includes the key town of
Kislingbury) Kislingbury as well as smaller settlements such as the villages of Weedon and
Bugbrooke.
The policy unit is in the upstream reaches of the River Nene to the west of
Northampton. It has a low population density and is primarily made up of grade 3
agricultural land.
Significant flooding was recorded in the catchment area during 1946 (Nov), 1947
(Mar) and more recently in 1992 (Sept) and 1998 (Apr). Groundwater and surface
Problem / Risk water flooding are not thought to pose a risk to people and properties here, though it
is presently difficult to quantify this risk accurately.
Subsequent to major flooding in April 1998, a number of defences have been

constructed: flood storage reservoir for Weedon in 2002, to 2% AEP; defences for
Kislingbury in 2003, to 0.5% AEP; flood storage linked to new development between
Kislingbury and Northampton, providing benefit to Northampton and downstream
areas, plus compensating for development in the Upper Nene.
Our analysis suggests that a 1% AEP flood would affect 105 people and 57
properties, causing £4.4 million property damages, concentrated at undefended
properties in Bugbrooke and other commercial property.
approximately 20%. In the future there is likely to be an increasing risk of
overtopping and potential breach of defences. Our analysis suggests that a 1% AEP
future flood would affect 178 people and 90 properties (a rise of over 50%), causing
£5.5 million property damages (a rise of up to 25%).
Policy P6 – Take action with others to store water or manage runoff in locations
that provide overall flood risk reduction or environmental benefits locally or
elsewhere in the catchment. (which may constitute an overall flood risk reduction,
for example for habitat inundation)
Chosen Policy The social and economic impacts within this policy unit are allowed to increase as
they would if the current flood risk management were continued, whilst there are
major social and economic gains in downstream policy units. Significant
environmental gains could occur as a result of the development of flood storage in
this policy unit.
The broad-scale model was run with increased floodplain storage on the Kislingbury
Branch of the River Nene (see modelling summary after Form 12.5). This could
comprise changes to floodplain topography, perhaps through raising or lowering
bank heights, or use of control structures, but was simply represented by reducing
and delaying the flows in the model through Northampton. This was based on
Generic
detailed modelling of similar flood storage currently under construction, the results
Responses
showing significant benefits downstream. Some local reduction in damages may be
gained depending on the storage locations selected, with continued maintenance of
the flood defences required. The new flood storage provision will require
appropriate enhancements to flood warning, development control and emergency
response planning (for example for infrastructure).
Adopting policy P6 will focus efforts on creating flood storage to the benefit of all
downstream areas (for example 1% AEP future flood risk reductions at:
Northampton Outer, 8 people, 3 properties and £10.5 million; Wellingborough 49
people, 20 properties and £5.1 million; River Nene (Oundle to Water Newton), 23
people, 9 properties and £0.6 million; Peterborough, 38 people, 15 properties and
£0.5 million). This will be achieved through the generic responses outlined above,
altering the shape and peak of the downstream flood hydrograph to help offset the
effects of future climate and development change and maximising the effectiveness
of the Northampton washlands. Implementation should continue to be largely
promoted and funded through linking the requirements to any further development
in the catchment, where this is appropriate, working in partnership with developers
and planners.
Justification
Within the River Nene (Weedon to Kislingbury) policy unit, policy P6 will allow
present actions to control flood risk to be continued (for example maintaining the
channels and defences, and flood warning). The resulting future flood risk (increase
of 73 people, 33 properties and £1.1 million property damages at 1% AEP) is
accepted as being the increase if current flood risk management were continued,
this policy unit representing approximately 2% of total future 1% AEP flood risk for
the CFMP area, and is set against the potential to reduce downstream flood
damages for this flood by up to approximately £16.7 million as set out above. This
reduces flood risk for thousands of people, as well as for critical infrastructure and
other important assets; the residual flood risk in Northampton Central and
Thrapston is also reduced.

Some local reduction in damages may be gained depending on the storage

locations selected, with continued maintenance of the flood defences required. The
new flood storage provision will require appropriate enhancements to flood warning,
development control and emergency response planning (for example for
infrastructure), together with appropriate land use planning.
Policy P6 supports economic, social and environmental sustainability by making

best use of the Nene floodplain for storage. It prioritises offsetting future impacts,
from climate and development change, in many areas with the highest flood risk.
The objectives which are met by this policy (1% AEP future flood impact compared
to current baseline; ‘future’ reduction downstream) are:
• To minimise flood related risks to the population (73 more people in PU2;
reduction of 118 people downstream).
• To minimise risks to critical infrastructure and community facilities (small
increased risk to 3 sites locally; risk reduction achieved to numerous sites
downstream).
• To minimise community disruption from flooding (increase of 29 residential
and 4 commercial properties in PU2; reduction of 47 residential, 18
commercial downstream).
• To minimise economic impacts of flooding (local increase of £1.04 million
Justification property damages).
(cont.) • Ensure future investment in the catchment is proportional to the risks
(estimated £8 million cost of works with small increase in maintenance
costs, both partially set against future development; reduction in future flood
damage of £16.7 million achieved downstream).
settings (increased flooding at 3 Conservation Areas and 1 SM; but
numerous sites downstream protected).
conservation sites (likely improvement/ expansion locally of Bugbrooke
Meadows SSSI).
river environment, contributing to UK Biodiversity Action Plan targets
(creation of ‘grassland’).
water bodies under the WFD (likely reduction in pollutants resulting from
enhanced land management).
Other policies were rejected for the River Nene (Weedon-Kislingbury) due to (1%
AEP future flood impact, compared to current baseline):
Policy P1 - no active intervention; significant economic and social losses (increases
of 225 people, 103 properties, and £3.8 million property damages) with loss of
current defences leading to high risk to public health and safety.
Policy P2 - reduce existing flood risk management actions; economic and social
losses (increases of 102 people, 45 properties, and £1.26 million property
damages), with risk to public health and safety. These are significant increases in
Alternative
flood risk without the downstream gains that policy P6 would provide.
policies
considered
current level; allowing flood risk to rise with future change as additional flood risk
management responses are unlikely to be justified locally; however the policy does
not offer the measurable benefits to policy units downstream that policy P6 would
provide.
future rises in economic and social losses are presently considered relatively
limited, and are therefore unlikely to justify additional responses across this policy
unit (potential £1 million damage reduction, costing roughly twice that amount),

though under P6 some local benefits may be achieved.
potential benefits are attractive but difficult to justify against likely costs, such that
any major response here is unlikely to be sustainable and affordable with
approximately £2 million future damage reduction, costing roughly twice that
amount; higher flood risk priorities exist elsewhere.
Main opportunities
• New recreational and amenity features to contribute to the network of Green
Infrastructure developments, such as the River Nene Regional Park, arising
from the Government’s Sustainable Communities programme.
• Use of existing or new mineral extraction sites and influencing their
reinstatement plans.
Main constraints
• Designated sites may be a constraint if special interest features are sensitive to
flood levels.
• The River Nene navigation is an important asset to the local community and
economy.
locations.
• Land availability is a constraint for responses requiring changes in land use or
management.
Bugbrooke Meadows SSSI
Catchment-wide Opportunities: Increased flooding and appropriate management could enable the
opportunities & extension of the valuable grassland into adjacent fields.
constraints Constraints: Changes to the flooding regime may alter the composition of the
grassland communities. Increased flooding may mean that the current management
practices may not be practical, these changes in management may also affect the
grassland composition.
Landfill sites
Opportunities: The reduction of flood risk to landfill sites will consequently reduce
the water pollution problems associated with floods.
Constraints: Increasing the frequency or duration of flooding of landfill sites could
potentially increase water pollution problems, requiring design of mitigation
measures.
Discharges
Opportunities: Appropriate management of flows and storage of winter floodwaters
may provide greater dilution of the numerous discharges from trade and sewage
treatment works discharges, therefore improving water quality.
Constraints: Alterations to the flooding regime may reduce the available water for
dilution of discharges during summer months if inappropriately managed.
Abstractions
may provide additional supplies to supplement agricultural requirements and public
water provision.
abstraction if inappropriately managed.

was used on the tributaries. Significant uncertainty surrounds climate change
effects, as well as surface water and groundwater influence on floods though these
are not thought to be significant. Further uncertainty surrounds the ground levels
and property threshold levels obtained from the DTM, and also the type and
distribution of contaminated land within the policy unit.
Risks,
Uncertainties & The estimates of flood damage within the River Nene (Weedon-Kislingbury) are
Dependencies considered sufficiently accurate to inform the selection of the proposed policy and
response. However, the uncertainty over present flood risk at Bugbrooke village
may need to be investigated further, and the uncertainty over the detailed
application of P6 storage needs to be investigated more at a strategic level.
siltation, frequency and duration of flooding within the designated sites of this and
downstream policy units. The changes to wetland habitat areas that might result
from different policy options are also unclear, together with the biodiversity losses
and gains that might occur.
Table 6.8 Summary of preferred policy for policy unit: Wootton

The Wootton policy unit is largely urban or semi-urban in nature. It covers a portion
of the Wootton Brook catchment, with the Wootton Brook forming the southern
Policy Unit – branch of the River Nene tributaries upstream of Northampton. It extends over the
Wootton area of Northampton to the south of the A45, from the upstream edge of the urban
area within the catchment to the southern edge of the Nene floodplain where the
river enters Northampton, just upstream of the A45 Upton Way. It includes the built
up areas of Wootton and Grange Park, bordered to the south by the M1.
The Wootton policy unit is in one of the upstream reaches of the River Nene,
covering the south of Northampton and centred on the Wootton Brook, with some
minor tributaries entering the reach. This mostly urban policy unit therefore has a
relatively high population density, containing little open land apart from some active
floodplain of the Wootton Brook.
Significant flooding was recorded in the Wootton policy unit in 1998 (Apr) and 2007
(Jun), while during earlier floods impacting Northampton such as in 1947 this area
was not yet urbanised. Groundwater flooding is not thought to pose a significant risk
to people and properties here, though it is presently difficult to quantify this risk
accurately. There is some history of surface water flooding, with a recorded event in
Problem / Risk June 2007.
With much of the development in the policy unit being relatively new, there are no
significant recent additions to the flood defences, though there have been a number
of modifications to the channels and floodplains as part of the development of the
area. This includes some online storage lakes along the Wootton Brook and other
measures linked to specific developments to compensate for their impact in terms of
increased surface runoff to the watercourses from paved areas.
properties, causing £1.15 million property damages, concentrated at residential
properties along the edge of the Wootton Brook floodplain.

200 people and 83 properties (a rise of only approximately 12%), causing £1.33
million property damages (a rise of approximately 15%). The future increase in flood
risk is relatively limited in this policy unit, changing from contributing 0.8% of the
present CFMP area total damages to a contribution of 0.4% in the future.
Policy P3 – Continue with existing or alternative actions to manage flood risk at the
current level (accepting that flood risk will increase over time from this baseline).
The future social and economic impacts within this policy unit are allowed to
Chosen Policy increase under the present level of flood risk management without significant
increases in flood risk. Modifications and enhancements to our responses will be
considered, in particular through actively influencing land use planning and the take
up of flood resilience measures.
The broad-scale model was run with various raised defences, improved flood
storage and increased maintenance responses (see modelling summary after Form
12.5) but these are not considered to be sustainable. Under policy P3, future
climate and development change result in moderate increases to the present flood
Generic
risk. Maintenance of the flood defences will continue, together with appropriate
Responses
enhancements to flood warning, development control and emergency response
planning (for example for infrastructure). Small numbers of higher risk properties
(for example those flooded in June 2007) may require a more structural response,
possibly through enhanced flood resilience.
Adopting policy P3 here will accept some future minor losses within the Wootton
policy unit. It will give 1% AEP future flood risk increases for Wootton of
approximately 22 people, 9 (residential) properties and £0.18 million. Our flood risk
management will include the generic responses outlined above, continuing and
modifying or enhancing what we do at present including actively influencing land
use planning and the take up of flood resilience measures. Future changes in flood
risk will be monitored such that further action needs can be reviewed, and we will
work in partnership to ensure that new responses are set against future
development where appropriate.

accepting some increased future losses within the Wootton policy unit, with the
current flood risk management responses considered appropriate for the level of
risk. The objectives which are met by this policy (1% AEP future flood impact
compared to current baseline) are:
• Reduce harm to people (22 more people).

Justification • Maintain critical infrastructure and community facilities (minor increase in
risk to 2 sites).
• Manage level of community disruption to acceptable level (9 more
residential properties).
• Minimise economic harm of flooding (increase of £0.18 million property
damages).
• Ensure catchment expenditure is proportional to risk (no new works and
maintenance costs continued at present level; any new responses set
against future development).
settings (no change).
conservation sites (no change).
river environment, contributing to UK Biodiversity Action Plan targets (no
change).
Justification water bodies under the WFD (possible minor increase in pollutants resulting
(cont.) from rising flood levels).
Other policies were rejected for the Wootton policy unit due to (1% AEP future flood
impact, compared to current baseline):
Policy P1 - no active intervention; particular increase to risk to people and
significant increases in damages and the number of properties at risk (increases of
87 people, 37 properties, and £0.56 million property damages), with risk to public
health and safety from urban nature of channel corridors.
Policy P2 - reduce existing flood risk management actions; particular increase to
risk to people and significant increases in damages and the number of properties at
risk (increases of 85 people, 35 properties, and £0.51 million property damages).
future rises in economic and social losses are presently considered relatively limited
and are therefore unlikely to justify additional responses on their own, with a
Alternative
potential £0.18 million damage reduction costing roughly £1 million, though some
policies
future benefits may come through measures implemented in partnership with local
considered
authorities and developers under development control.
potential benefits are attractive but difficult to justify £1.0 million reduction in future
property damages against likely costs of £4 million (105 fewer people, 43 fewer
properties, and £0.83 million damage reduction), such that any major response here
is unlikely to be sustainable and affordable; higher flood risk priorities exist
elsewhere.
Policy P6 - take action with others to store water or manage runoff in locations that
the catchment; little scope for this policy as the area is too urban, and therefore not
assessed.
Main opportunities
Main constraints
Wellingborough) growth areas may come into conflict with the need to restrict
Catchment-wide • Designated sites may be a constraint if special interest features are sensitive to
opportunities & flood levels.
constraints • The River Nene navigation is an important asset to the local community and
economy.
locations.
Landfill sites
measures.
Discharges
Abstractions
water provision.
CFMP. Significant uncertainty surrounds climate change effects, as well as surface
water and groundwater influence on floods though these are not thought to be
significant. Further uncertainty surrounds the ground levels and property threshold
levels obtained from the DTM, and also the type and distribution of contaminated
land within the policy unit.
Risks,
Uncertainties & The estimates of flood damage within the Wootton policy unit are considered
Dependencies sufficiently accurate to inform the selection of the proposed policy and response.
However, the uncertainty over present flood risk at some isolated properties may
need to be investigated further.
Table 6.9 Summary of preferred policy for policy unit: Northampton Central
Policy Unit – The policy unit for Northampton Central is by nature largely urban. The policy unit
Northampton extends from the A45 Upton Way crossing of the Nene just upstream of
Central Northampton through the town down to the outlet gates from the Northampton
Washlands just above Billing.
Northampton Central is located at the confluence or joining point of flows from three
main upper tributaries of the Nene: the Kislingbury Branch, Brampton Branch and
Wootton Brook. The flows from these three rivers combine in Northampton, just
above a constraint to flood flow at South Bridge, before being controlled just
downstream of the town at the Northampton Washlands. The washlands consist of
an area of former gravel workings into which flood waters are diverted and stored,
up to approximately the 1% AEP flood, for controlled release after the flood peak
has passed. This mostly urban policy unit therefore has a relatively high population
density, containing little open land apart from the downstream washland and other
Problem / Risk storage reservoirs.
The main source of flooding is fluvial, arising from the high flows in the River Nene,
together with some smaller tributary watercourses and a degree of influence
backing up from the washlands as they fill. Significant flooding was recorded in
Northampton during 1947 (Mar) and more recently in 1998 (Apr) and 2003 (Jan),
with records of flooding in the town back through 1939 and 1940 to 1847. Surface
water flooding could pose some risk to people and properties here, though this risk
is difficult to quantify.
Through the centre of Northampton, the River Nene is separated from much of its

floodplain by defences constructed in 2002 to 0.5% AEP flood standard. The area
previously benefited from construction of the Northampton Washlands in the 1970s.
There are also smaller flood storage areas: Duston flood storage reservoir, defence
standard uncertain; and Hardingstone flood storage reservoir to approximately 2%
AEP flood standard. The town has more recently benefited from construction of a
flood storage reservoir for Weedon in 2002, to 2% AEP, and flood storage linked to
new development between Kislingbury and Northampton, providing benefit to
Northampton and downstream areas, plus compensating for development in the
Upper Nene.
Our analysis suggests that a 1% AEP flood would not directly affect any people or
properties, causing no property damage until in excess of a 0.5% AEP flood. The
risk rises dramatically for a 0.1% AEP flood, for which Northampton Central then
has 60% of the damages over the whole CFMP area (approximately £530 million)
with almost 3000 properties at flood risk. For this flood there would also be
widespread disruption to major infrastructure.
approximately 20%. Our analysis suggests that a 1% AEP future flood would still
not overtop the Northampton defences, though a 0.5% AEP future flood now would,
and the risk of breaching of defences would be higher with reduced freeboard on
the defence heights. Flood risk at the 0.1% AEP future flood would rise further but
not significantly (almost £600 million property damages).
Policy P4 - Take further action to sustain the current level of flood risk into the
future
The social and economic impacts within Northampton Central are sustained close to
Chosen Policy the present level, by offsetting future impacts from climate and development change
by making best use of natural storage on the River Nene upstream through
enhanced floodplain storage. Significant environmental gains could occur as a
result of flood storage creation.
The broad-scale model was run with increased floodplain storage on the River Nene
(Weedon to Kislingbury, PU2). This could comprise changes to floodplain
topography, perhaps through raising or lowering bank heights, or use of control
structures. It was simply represented by reducing and delaying the flows into the
Generic model from upstream of Northampton, based on detailed modelling of similar flood
Responses storage currently under construction (see modelling summary after Form 12.5). The
results show large benefits for Northampton Central at extreme floods, with the
present defence design standards sustained. Further reduction in damages may be
gained from other measures such as improved flood warning, development control
and emergency response planning.
Adopting policy P4 will focus efforts on creating flood storage in the natural
floodplain of the River Nene upstream (PU2) as outlined above, sustaining defence
standards at Northampton against future change. This will remove extremely high
flood risk damages of approximately £500 million that would otherwise start to occur
at the 0.5% flood, affecting approximately 600 people and 3000 properties. This will
be achieved through the generic responses outlined above, altering the shape and
peak of the flood hydrograph as it progresses through the upstream catchment to
Justification help offset the effects of future climate and development change. Additional flood
risk reductions are achieved by these actions within other policy units (see PU 2)
such that the cost is justified.
Although the Northampton defences might now accommodate the effect on river
flow of climate change, the effects of the other drivers of change in flood risk must
also be considered if the standard of defence is to be maintained. The Northampton
defences are one component of the flood protection to Northampton.

Policy P4 will allow present actions to control flood risk to be continued and
enhanced (for example maintaining the washlands and other defences, and flood
warning). The resulting future flood risk then remains at the current level as the
residual flood risk for the policy unit is sustained and avoids the serious increase in
flood risk that would occur if no further action were taken. Some further reduction in
damages may be gained from other related measures such as improved flood
warning, development control and emergency response planning. On the urban
tributaries selective local protection measures may prove feasible for offsetting
rising flood risk, but this should ideally be addressed through a sustainable planning
and development control approach.
Adopting policy P4 for Northampton Central supports economic, social and

environmental sustainability by looking to make best use of the River Nene
floodplain upstream to manage flood risk. It aims to offset future impacts, from
climate and development change. The objectives which are met by this policy (1%
Justification AEP future flood impact, compared to current baseline) are:
(cont.)
• To minimise flood related risks to the population (defence standard
maintained, 6000 people protected).
• To minimise risks to critical infrastructure and community facilities (major
assets protected).
• To minimise community disruption from flooding (3000 properties
protected).
• To minimise economic impacts of flooding (protection sustained to £500
million worth of property damage).
• Ensure future investment in the catchment expenditure is proportional to the
risks (estimated £8 million cost of works in upstream policy units, partially
set against future development, delivers £16.7 million reduction in damages
overall, with additional large residual benefits from Northampton).
change).
Other policies were rejected for Northampton Central due to (1% AEP future flood
Policy P1 - no active intervention; major economic and social losses (increases of
4730 people, 2438 properties, and £336 million property damages) with loss of
current defences leading to extremely high risk to public health and safety.
Policy P2 - reduce existing flood risk management actions; major economic and
social losses (increases of 4730 people, 2438 properties, and £336 million property
Alternative damages), with high risk to public health and safety.
policies Policy P3 - continue with existing or alternative actions to manage flood risk at the
considered current level; allowing the standard of protection currently provided to decrease
significantly. Flood risk from overtopping and breaching of defences would increase
with severe consequences.
potential benefits would be attractive for the extreme floods but difficult to justify
against likely costs of £7.5 million with flood defence standards already at the 0.5%
AEP.

assessed.
Main opportunities
• Releasing stored winter floodwaters at times of low flow could address water
quality issues.
Main constraints
flood levels.
economy.
• The existing urban fabric can physically constrain the space available for flood
defences.
locations.
Catchment-wide • Negative impacts may be experienced on existing biodiversity within the
opportunities & floodplain if flooding is deep and prolonged in spring and summer months or if
constraints flood risk management measures isolate the river from its floodplain.
Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SSSI

Opportunities
Appropriate management could extend the area of designation by improving the
adjacent areas.
Constraints
Further flooding might result in an increase in the displacement of golden plover, in
the winter, from rough grassland to surrounding agricultural land outside the
designated area. If excessive flooding of reedbeds were to occur, this could be
detrimental to wintering bittern.
Scheduled Monuments
Opportunities
Reduced flood risk will reduce likelihood of damage and enable long term
preservation of assets.
Constraints
Increased flood frequency or duration may increase damage to Scheduled
Monuments. Reduced flood risk could be detrimental to some buried archaeological
features if ground conditions dry out.
Discharges

Abstractions
water provision.
water and groundwater influence on floods; surface water flooding could be an
issue for Northampton. Further uncertainty surrounds the ground levels and
property threshold levels obtained from the DTM, and also the type and distribution
of contaminated land within the policy unit.
Risks, The estimates of flood damage within Northampton Central are considered
Uncertainties & sufficiently accurate to inform the selection of the proposed policy and response,
Dependencies although the assumptions made in simulating the generic responses do not enable
the damages under policy options P1 and P2 to be distinguished. The uncertainty
over present flood risk on some of the urban tributaries may need to be investigated
more locally in the future.
occur.
Table 6.10 Summary of preferred policy for policy uni: Northampton Outer
The policy unit for Northampton Outer is by nature largely urban. The policy unit
Policy Unit – extends from north of the River Nene Kislingbury Branch floodplain just upstream of
Northampton Northampton around the urban fringes of the town, including Dallington Brook, to
Outer cross the River Nene Brampton Branch upstream of St. Andrew’s Mill and continue
to follow the northern and eastern edge of the town down to Billing Aquadrome.
Northampton Outer is located across the north of the town, centred on the River
Nene Brampton Branch, and sitting above the Kislingbury Branch, but including the
River Nene from the Northampton Washlands to Billing Aquadrome and the related
tributaries to the north such as the Billing Brook. Reference should be made to
Northampton Central (PU4) for a description of how the three main branches of the
Nene combine before being controlled just downstream of the town at the
Northampton Washlands. This mostly urban policy unit therefore has a relatively
high population density, containing little open land apart from some active floodplain
of the River Nene.
Problem / Risk
The main source of flooding is fluvial, arising from the high flows in the River Nene,
together with some smaller tributary watercourses. Significant flooding was
recorded in Northampton during 1947 (Mar) and more recently in 1998 (Apr) and
2003 (Jan), with records of flooding in the town back through 1939 and 1940 to
1847. Surface water flooding could pose some risk to people and properties here,
though this risk is difficult to quantify.
The defences through the centre of Northampton on the River Nene continue
upstream on the Brampton Branch for some distance, with the Dallington Brook

flood walls built adjacent to the River Nene in 2002 continuing to provide a 0.5%
AEP defence standard. Upstream on the Dallington Brook the Dallington flood
storage area provides a 2% AEP flood standard. The River Nene area downstream
at Billing benefits from a flood detention pond on the Billing Brook, as well as the
Northampton Washlands and the smaller flood storage areas at Duston and
Hardingstone (PU4), and more recently the Weedon flood storage reservoir
together with flood storage linked to new development between Kislingbury and
Northampton (PU2).
properties, causing £36 million property damages, with significant flood risk on the
Dallington and Billing Brooks as well as the River Nene and a large number of
commercial properties such as at Billing. This policy unit has the largest flood
damages under the present day baseline, also rising significantly for a 0.1% AEP
flood (£91 million flood damages), with widespread disruption to major
infrastructure.
approximately 20%. A 1% AEP future flood would still not overtop many of the
Northampton defences, though a 0.5% AEP future flood now would, and the risk of
breaching of defences would be higher with reduced freeboard on the defence
heights. Our analysis suggests that a 1% AEP future flood would affect 740 people
and 428 properties (a rise of over 70%, concentrated more on residential
properties), causing £60.5 million property damages (a rise of nearly 70%). The
policy unit now has the second largest flood damages, rising to £167 million flood
damages for a 0.1% AEP flood.
future
The social and economic impacts within Northampton Outer are sustained close to
Chosen Policy the present high but satisfactory level, by looking to offset future impacts from
climate and development change through relocation of high value commercial sites
and increasing the flood resilience of the properties or the appropriateness of the
land use. The Billing area will also benefit from enhanced floodplain storage
indicated elsewhere for the River Nene Kislingbury Branch upstream (PU2).
The broad-scale model was run with increased floodplain storage on the River Nene
(Weedon to Kislingbury, PU2). This could comprise changes to floodplain
topography, perhaps through raising or lowering bank heights, or use of control
structures. It was simply represented by reducing and delaying the flows into the
model from upstream of Northampton, based on detailed modelling of similar flood
Generic storage currently under construction (see modelling summary after Form 12.5). The
Responses results show significant benefits for Northampton Outer, with damages under the
future 1.0% AEP flood back close to the present day values. Further reduction in
damages may be gained from other measures such as improved flood warning,
development control and emergency response planning, plus active land use
planning to ensure that property at flood risk is appropriate to such locations and
takes on appropriate flood resilience measures.
Justification Adopting policy P4 will focus efforts on creating flood storage in the natural
floodplain of the River Nene upstream (PU2) as outlined above, but also
considering how to change the urban fabric to be less impacted by floods and to
recover more quickly. It will give 1% AEP future flood risk reductions for
Northampton Outer of approximately 357 people, 156 properties and £19.2 million.
This will be achieved through the generic responses outlined above, offsetting the
effects of future climate and development change partly by working to reduce flood
peaks and partly through actively influencing land use planning and the take up of
flood resilience measures.
enhanced (for example maintaining the washlands and other defences, and flood
warning). The resulting future flood risk then remains at the current level, avoiding
the increase in risk, particularly to people, that would occur if no further action were
taken. On the urban tributaries selective local protection measures may prove
feasible for offsetting rising flood risk, but this should ideally be addressed through a
sustainable planning and development control approach.
Adopting policy P4 for Northampton Outer supports economic, social and
environmental sustainability by looking to make best use of the River Nene
floodplain upstream to manage flood risk. It aims to offset future impacts, from
climate and development change. The objectives which are met by this policy (1%
AEP future flood impact, compared to current baseline) are:
• To minimise flood related risks to the population (up to 20 more people).
• To minimise risks to critical infrastructure and community facilities (marginal
Justification change to 11 sites).
(cont.) • To minimise community disruption from flooding (up to 8 more residential
and 13 more commercial properties).
residential damages and £5.18 million commercial damages).
risks (estimated £2 million cost of works in Northampton Outer, partially set
against future development and with further work in PU2, delivers £19.2
million reduction in damages in Northampton Outer).
change).
Other policies were rejected for Northampton Outer due to (1% AEP future flood
Policy P1 - no active intervention; large economic and social losses (increases of
441 people, 208 properties, and £32.3 million property damages) with high risk to
public health and safety.
Policy P2 - reduce existing flood risk management actions; large economic and
social losses (increases of 421 people, 197 properties, and £28.9 million property
damages) and high risk.
Alternative current level; allowing flood risk to rise with future change would lead to significant
policies increases in risk on the same scale as for policies P1 and P2, particularly due to
considered high extreme flood damages and risks to people.
potential benefits would be attractive with £48.4 million reduction in future property
damages and likely costs of £7.5 million (223 fewerpeople, 171 fewerproperties and
£23.9 million damage reduction), but defences are largely inappropriate as many of
the properties lie in the active floodplain.
assessed.

Main opportunities
quality issues.
Main constraints
flood levels.
economy.
defences.
Catchment-wide locations.
opportunities & • Negative impacts may be experienced on existing biodiversity within the
constraints floodplain if flooding is deep and prolonged in spring and summer months or if
Scheduled Monuments
Opportunities
Constraints
Discharges
Abstractions
water provision.
Risks, effects, as well as surface water and groundwater influence on floods; surface water
Uncertainties & flooding could be an issue for Northampton. Further uncertainty surrounds the
Dependencies ground levels and property threshold levels obtained from the DTM, and also the
type and distribution of contaminated land within the policy unit.
The estimates of flood damage within Northampton Outer are considered
sufficiently accurate to inform the selection of the proposed policy and response,
though the uncertainty over present flood risk on some of the urban tributaries may
need to be investigated more locally in the future.
occur.
Table 6.11 Summary of preferred policy for policy unit: River Nene corridor
The River Nene corridor policy unit is largely rural in nature. It covers the middle
reach of River Nene floodplain downstream of Northampton from east of Billing
Policy Unit – Aquadrome to just upstream of Oundle, together with the River Ise corridor
River Nene upstream from the Nene then continuing along the Slade Brook upstream
corridor catchments to above Kettering. It excludes the more urban areas within
Wellingborough (PU10), Kettering (PU8) and Thrapston (PU12) but includes a
number of smaller villages.
The River Nene corridor downstream from Northampton flows east and then north-
east, heading towards Oundle (PU14) and then to Peterborough (PU15). Flows
from three main upper tributaries of the Nene: the Kislingbury Branch, Brampton
Branch and Wootton Brook, combine in Northampton before being controlled at the
Northampton Washlands just upstream from Billing. This restricts flood flows
passing downstream through this policy unit up to approximately the 1% AEP flood,
by which time it is likely to be full to its design capacity. The policy unit has a low
population density and is primarily made up of grade 3 agricultural land.
The main source of flooding is fluvial, due to high flows in the River Nene.
Significant flooding was recorded in the policy unit area during 1947 (Mar) and more
recently in 1998 (Apr) and 2003 (Jan). Groundwater and surface water flooding are
not thought to pose a risk to people and properties here, though it is presently
Problem / Risk
difficult to quantify this risk accurately. The area benefited from construction of the
Northampton Washlands in the 1970s, and to a lesser extent from more recent
storage schemes further upstream at Weedon and Kislingbury.
properties, causing £3.49 million property damages, concentrated at undefended
properties in Bugbrooke and other commercial property.
75 people and 52 properties (a rise of up to 10%), causing £4.29 million property
damages (a rise of over 20%).
Policy P6 – Take action with others to store water or manage runoff in locations
that provide overall flood risk reduction or environmental benefits locally or
elsewhere in the catchment (which may constitute an overall flood risk reduction, for
example for habitat inundation).
Chosen Policy
The social and economic impacts within this policy unit are maintained at the
current level and lead to major social and economic gains in downstream policy
units. Significant environmental gains could occur as a result of the development of
flood storage in this policy unit.
Generic The broad-scale model was run with increased floodplain storage at three locations
Responses along the River Nene and one (split between two possible sites) on the River Ise.
This could comprise changes to floodplain topography, perhaps through raising or

lowering bank heights, or use of control structures. It was simply represented by
reducing and delaying the flows into the model from the River Ise, based on detailed
modelling of similar flood storage currently under construction, with the addition of
flood storage reservoirs into the model for the sites along the River Nene (see
modelling summary after Form 12.5). The results show significant benefits for towns
through the modelled area and downstream. Some further reduction in damages
may be gained from other related enhancements measures to flood warning,
development control and emergency response planning (for example for
infrastructure), while locally some defences may be required as mitigation for the
flood storage works.
Adopting policy P6 will focus efforts on creating flood storage to the benefit of
downstream areas (for example 1% AEP future flood risk reductions at: Kettering,
200 people, 87 properties and £10.5 million; Wellingborough 99 people, 50
properties and £10.3 million; River Nene (Oundle to Water Newton), 92 people, 42
properties and £2.29 million; Peterborough, 150 people, 63 properties and £1.92
million). It will give 1% AEP future flood risk reductions for the River Nene corridor
of 7 people, 4 properties and £1.74 million. The above will be achieved through the
generic responses outlined above, altering the shape and peak of the downstream
flood hydrograph to help offset the effects of future climate and development
change. Implementation should continue to be largely promoted and funded through
linking the requirements to any further development in the catchment, where this is
appropriate, working in partnership with developers and planners.
Within the River Nene corridor policy unit, policy P6 will allow present actions to
control flood risk to be continued (for example maintaining the channels, and flood
warning). The resulting future flood risk (reduction of 0 people, 1 property and £0.94
million property damages at 1% AEP) is not a significant change, this policy unit
representing less than 2% of total future 1% AEP flood risk for the CFMP area, and
is set against the potential to reduce downstream flood damages for this flood by up
Justification to approximately £25 million as set out above. This reduces flood risk for thousands
of people, as well as for critical infrastructure and other important assets; the
residual flood risk in Thrapston is also reduced.
The new flood storage provision will require appropriate enhancements to flood
warning, development control and emergency response planning (for example for
infrastructure), together with appropriate land use planning.
Policy P6 supports economic, social and environmental sustainability by making

best use of the Nene floodplain for storage. It prioritises offsetting future impacts,
from climate and development change, in many areas with the highest flood risk.
The objectives which are met by this policy (1% AEP future flood impact compared
to current baseline; ‘future’ reduction downstream) are:
• To minimise flood related risks to the population (no more people in PU6;
reduction of 541 people downstream).
increased risk to 4 sites locally; reduced risk to numerous sites
downstream).
• To minimise community disruption from flooding (1 more property in PU2;
reduction of 242 properties downstream).
• To minimise economic impacts of flooding (local increase of £1.04 million
property damages).
(estimated £32 million cost of works with small increase in maintenance
costs, both partially set against future development; reduction in future flood
damage of £25 million achieved downstream).
settings (no change)
(creation of BAP habitat).
Other policies were rejected for the River Nene corridor due to (1% AEP future flood
Policy P1 - no active intervention; significant increases in economic and social
losses (increases of 7 people, 3 properties, and £1.42 million property damages).
Policy P2 - reduce existing flood risk management actions; significant increases in
economic and social losses (increases of 7 people, 3 properties, and £1.22 million
property damages).
current level; allowing flood risk to rise with future change will not lead to significant
increases in flood risk and additional flood risk management responses are unlikely
Alternative to be justified locally; however strategically P6 is preferred as it could offer
policies measurable benefits to policy units downstream.
considered Policy P4 - take further action to sustain the current level of flood risk into the future;
future rises in economic and social losses are presently considered relatively
limited, and are therefore unlikely to justify additional responses on their own with a
potential £0.8 million damage reduction, costing roughly £8 million, though under P6
some local benefits may be achieved.
potential benefits are attractive but difficult to justify against likely costs, such that
any major response here is unlikely to be sustainable and affordable with
approximately £0.6 million future damage reduction, costing roughly £4 million;
higher flood risk priorities exist elsewhere.
Main opportunities
• Use of existing or new mineral extraction sites and influencing their
reinstatement plans.
Main constraints
Catchment-wide • Designated sites may be a constraint if special interest features are sensitive to
opportunities & flood levels.
constraints • The River Nene navigation is an important asset to the local community and
economy.
locations.
• Land availability is a constraint for responses requiring changes in land use or
management.
Wadenhoe Marsh and Achurch Meadow SSSI
Opportunities
Increased flooding and appropriate management could enable creation of new

valuable grassland.
Constraints
Changes to the flood regime or land management may alter the composition of the
grassland communities. Increased flooding may mean that management practices
need to change.
Aldwincle Marsh SSSI
Opportunities
Appropriate management of the site could be used to raise the lowering water
levels.
Constraints
communities.
Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SSSI, potential SPA
Opportunities
Increased flooding and appropriate management could lead to enlarged/improved
wetland habitat.
Constraints
Further flooding might result in an increase in the displacement of golden plover, in
winter, from rough grassland to surrounding agricultural land outside the designated
area. If excessive flooding of reedbeds were to occur, this could be detrimental to
wintering bittern.
Scheduled Monuments
Opportunities
Constraints
Landfill sites
measures.
land within the policy unit.
Risks,
Uncertainties & The estimates of flood damage within the River Nene corridor are considered
However, the uncertainty over the detailed application of P6 storage needs to be
investigated more at a strategic level.

Table 6.12 Summary of preferred policy for policy unit: Kettering
The policy unit for Kettering is by nature largely urban. The policy unit extends from
Policy Unit – north of the town on the River Ise and Slade Brook floodplains, through the urban
Kettering area to where these two main channels meet on the southern edge of the town. It
contains other minor urban streams within Kettering, draining to the two main rivers.
Kettering is located midway along the River Ise catchment, sitting between the
floodplain of this main tributary of the River Nene and one of its own tributaries, the
Slade Brook. This mostly urban policy unit therefore has a relatively high population
density, containing little open land apart from the some active floodplain which
largely lies on the River Ise.
The main source of flooding is fluvial, arising from the high flows in the River Ise
and Slade Brook, together with some smaller tributary watercourses and a degree
of tidal influence in extreme floods. Significant flooding was recorded in Kettering
during 1947 (Mar), 1981 (Jun) and more recently in 1998 (Apr), 2004 (Aug, sewer
flooding) and 2007 (Jun) when 30 properties were affected, 29 of them commercial.
Surface water flooding could pose some risk to people and properties here, though
this risk is difficult to quantify. The flooding to 5 properties in Kettering in 2004
however was mostly caused by flooding from surcharging of sewers.
There are generally only some informal/ private flood defences within Kettering
though the town, with variable defence standard, though there is some benefit
locally from Kettering Leisure Village flood storage reservoir. The town previously
Problem / Risk
benefited to a small extent from construction of the flood storage area at Clipstone,
though this is in the headwaters of the River Ise and so does not provide a
significant benefit to Kettering. The main flood risk is that from the Slade Brook
tributary.
properties (14 commercial), causing £7.05 million property damages split fairly
equally between residential and commercial properties, also causing some
disruption to major infrastructure. While property numbers affected are
approximately 10% of the CFMP total, the damages contribute only 5%.
688 people and 311 properties (a rise of nearly 50%, with 36 commercial properties
now), causing £17.56 million property damages (a rise of 150%, now dominated
more by commercial properties). The future flood risk in this policy unit represents
6-8% of that over the total CFMP area.
future
The social and economic impacts within Kettering are sustained close to the present
Chosen Policy level by offsetting future impacts from climate and development change by making
best use of natural storage on the Slade Brook and River Ise upstream through
The broad-scale model was run with increased floodplain storage upstream (PU6)
on the Slade Brook tributary, where flood damages are concentrated. This could
Generic comprise changes to floodplain topography, perhaps through raising or lowering
Responses bank heights, or use of control structures. It was simply represented by reducing
and delaying the flows into the model upstream of Kettering, based on detailed
modelling of similar flood storage currently under construction elsewhere (see
modelling summary after Form 12.5). The results show significant benefits for
Kettering, sufficient to return flood risk here to current levels. Some further reduction
in damages may be gained from other measures such as improved flood warning,
development control and emergency response planning, or potentially some
localised protection measures such as defences.
Adopting policy P4 will focus efforts on creating flood storage in other policy unit
areas, such as upstream along the Slade Brook floodplain as outlined above (giving
total 1% AEP future flood risk reductions at Kettering of 203 people, 103 properties
and £10.51 million). This will be achieved through the generic responses outlined
above, altering the shape and peak of the flood hydrograph as it progresses through
the River Ise catchment to help offset the effects of future climate and development
change. Additional flood risk reductions are achieved within other policy units (see
PU6) as a result of these actions.
Within the policy unit for Kettering, policy P4 will allow present actions to control
flood risk to be continued and enhanced (for example maintaining the defences, and
flood warning). The resulting future flood risk then remains at the current level and
avoids the significant increase in risk that would occur if no further action were
taken. In addition, some selective local protection measures may prove feasible,
particularly for the urban drainage issues (though these require further
assessment), but other reductions in future flood risk should ideally be achieved
mostly through actively influencing land use planning and the take up of flood
resilience measures.
Justification
Adopting policy P4 for Kettering supports economic, social and environmental
sustainability by looking to make best use of the floodplain upstream on the Slade
Brook, or other contributing watercourses, to manage flood risk through the town
and downstream. It aims to offset future impacts, from climate and development
change, in areas with the highest flood risk. The objectives which are met by this
policy (1% AEP future flood impact, compared to current baseline) are:
• To minimise flood related risks to the population (no change).

• To minimise risks to critical infrastructure and community facilities (no
change).
• To minimise community disruption from flooding (no change).
• To minimise economic impacts of flooding (no change).
(estimated £32 million cost of works in other policy units (PU6), partially set
against future development, delivers £25 million reduction in damages
overall, with £10.5 million of that in Peterborough).
change).
Other policies were rejected for Kettering due to (1% AEP future flood impact,
compared to current baseline):
Alternative
policies
255 people, 125 properties, and £14.55 million property damages) with loss of
considered
current defences leading to high risk to public health and safety.
Policy P2 - reduce existing flood risk management actions; significant economic and

damages).
current level; allowing flood risk to rise with future change would lead to significant
increases in risks on the same scale as for policies P1 and P2, with high flood
damages and risks to people (moderate to high social vulnerability).
potential benefits are attractive but may be difficult to justify £16 million (1% AEP
flood) future damage reduction against likely costs of £8 million (115 fewerpeople,
53 fewer properties, and £3.35 million damage reduction) as defence standard is
presently relatively high in general and any major response here is unlikely to be
sustainable and affordable in the long term; it is considered that higher flood risk
the catchment; little scope for this policy as too far downstream, and therefore not
assessed.
Main opportunities
Main constraints
flood levels.
defences.
Catchment-wide locations.
opportunities & • Negative impacts may be experienced on existing biodiversity within the
constraints floodplain if flooding is deep and prolonged in spring and summer months or if
Landfill sites
measures.
Discharges
Abstractions
water provision.

water and groundwater influence on floods; surface water flooding could be an
issue for Kettering. Further uncertainty surrounds the ground levels and property
threshold levels obtained from the DTM, and also the type and distribution of
contaminated land within the policy unit.
Risks, The estimates of flood damage within Kettering are considered sufficiently accurate
Uncertainties & to inform the selection of the proposed policy and response. However, the
Dependencies uncertainty over present flood risk from the urban drainage systems may need to be
investigated more locally and the uncertainty over the detailed application of P6
storage to benefit Kettering needs to be investigated more at a strategic level.
occur.
Table 6.13 Summary of preferred policy for policy unit: Corby

The policy unit for Corby is by nature largely urban. The policy unit extends across
Policy Unit – the full urban area of the town, from Great Oakley in the south to Weldon in the
Corby east, at the headwaters of the Harpers Brook and Willow Brook. It contains many
other minor urban streams within Corby, draining to the two main rivers.
Corby is located at the top of the Harpers Brook and Willow Brook catchments.
These two main watercourses largely drain from west to east, with Harpers Brook
passing from north of Desborough through the Great Oakley area and Willow Brook
largely emerging from the urban drains within the town. This mostly urban policy
unit therefore has a high population density, containing little open land apart from
the some active floodplain on the two rivers.
The main source of flooding is fluvial, arising from the high flows in the Harpers
Brook and Willow Brook, together with a large number of minor tributary
watercourses as well as the urban drainage that feeds to them. Significant flooding
was recorded in Corby during 1947 (Mar), 1981 (Jun), 1982 (Jul) and more recently
Problem / Risk in 1998 (Apr). Surface water flooding could pose some risk to people and properties
here, either directly due to rainfall intensity or the surcharging of drains, though this
risk is difficult to quantify.
The town of Corby benefits from flood storage reservoirs for Weldon (2% AEP
standard) on the Willow Brook, on the Gretton Brook to the north (10% AEP
standard) and at Crucible Road, near St James industrial estate west of Weldon
where the defence standard is uncertain. Elsewhere through the town there are
other informal/ private defences, with variable defence standards.
properties (47 commercial), causing £20.46 million property damages (over 60%
commercial). This flood risk is very significant, with the largest number of properties
at risk in any policy unit and representing between 15% and 20% of the total CFMP
area flood risk, also causing significant disruption to major infrastructure.
approximately 20%. Our analysis suggests a major increase in risk under a 1% AEP
future flood, that would affect 3828 people and 1694 properties (a rise of over
300%, with 163 commercial properties now), causing £102.75 million property
damages (a rise of 400%, still with more arising from commercial properties). This is
now one third of the total CFMP area damages from approximately 40% of the
properties at risk, and there would also now be widespread disruption to major
infrastructure.
Policy P5 - Take further action to reduce flood risk (now and/or in the future)
The social and economic impacts within Corby are reduced from the present level,
Chosen Policy with very significant benefits from justifiable local works. A series of local protection
measures across the flood risk areas are required, as a result of the urban
development sitting across several urban drainage systems in the catchment
headwaters.
No broad-scale model was run, but we considered where defences and other
localised protection measures may help reduce damages in areas of concentrated
flood risk (see modelling summary after Form 12.5). The results show significant
benefits for Corby, sufficient to return flood risk here to current levels or below.
Generic
Some further reduction in damages may be gained from other measures such as
Responses
improved flood warning, development control and emergency response planning
(for example for infrastructure), plus active land use planning to ensure that property
at flood risk is appropriate to such locations and takes on appropriate flood
Adopting policy P5 will focus flood risk management efforts on achieving significant
risk reductions within the Corby policy unit. It will give total 1% AEP future flood risk
reductions at Corby of 3713 people, 1562 properties and £82.17 million. This will be
achieved through the generic responses outlined above, implementing localised
flood protection measures but also considering how to change the urban fabric to be
less impacted by floods and to recover more quickly.
Within the policy unit for Corby, policy P5 will allow present actions to control flood
risk to be continued and enhanced (for example maintaining the defences, and flood
warning). The resulting future flood risk is then reduced below the present level.
Justification Various selective local protection measures may prove feasible, particularly for the
urban drainage issues, as outlined in the Water Cycle Strategy for Corby, though
they require further assessment in order to identify and develop into working
solutions. An element of additional flood storage is likely to be required, to offset
any increased flood peak downstream on the Harpers and Willow Brooks that might
result from other measures that improve flood conveyance. Other reductions in
future flood risk should ideally be achieved through actively influencing land use
planning and the take up of flood resilience measures.
Adopting policy P5 for Corby supports economic, social and environmental

sustainability by carrying out critical local flood protection works to enable the urban
infrastructure to operate effectively without the risk of losses now growing into
excessive flood losses and risks to people and the communities in which they live in
the future. This policy unit presently has the largest number of properties at risk in
the CFMP area at the 1% AEP flood, with future economic flood damages becoming
excessive if there is no increase in flood risk management. The objectives which are
met by this policy (1% AEP future flood impact, compared to current baseline) are:

• To minimise flood related risks to the population (720 fewerpeople).

• To minimise risks to critical infrastructure and community facilities (flood risk
reduced at many assets, though may increase at some undefended assets,
such as 9 electricity sub-stations).
• To minimise community disruption from flooding (up to 288 fewer residential
properties but possibly 39 more commercial properties).
• To minimise economic impacts of flooding (£5.45 million less residential
damages but possible increase of £5.57 million in commercial damages).
(estimated £29 million cost of works, partially set against future
development, delivers approximately £82 million reduction in damages in
Corby).
Justification settings (likely increased risk to conservation areas).
(cont.) • Protect and contribute to the improvement of designated nature
significant change).
Other policies were rejected for Corby due to (1% AEP future flood impact,
3435 people, 1498 properties, and £96.85 million property damages) with high risk
to public health and safety.
social losses (increases of 3311people, 1440 properties, and £90.35 million
property damages).
Alternative current level; allowing flood risk to rise with future change would exacerbate the
policies current unsatisfactory level of flood risk, leading to extremely high predicted future
considered flood damages and risks to people (increases of 2993 people with moderate to high
social vulnerability, 1321 properties, and £82.29 million property damages).
future rises in economic and social losses would occur, but present flood risk is
considered to justify further reductions beyond those required to offset future
climate and development change.
assessed.
Main opportunities
Catchment-wide • Opportunities to work with local authorities and regional development agencies
opportunities & to influence developing waterfronts and floodplains, fully embracing PPS25
constraints recommendations and the ‘Making space for water’ philosophy.
Main constraints
defences.
locations.
Landfill sites
measures.
Discharges
Abstractions
water provision.
was used on these watercourses. Significant uncertainty surrounds climate change
effects, as well as surface water and groundwater influence on floods; surface water
flooding could be an issue for Corby. Further uncertainty surrounds the ground
levels and property threshold levels obtained from the DTM, and also the type and
The estimates of flood damage within Corby are considered sufficiently accurate to
Risks,
inform the selection of the proposed policy and response. However, the uncertainty
Uncertainties &
over present flood risk from the urban drainage systems will need to be investigated
Dependencies
further to develop the understanding of the flood risk issues and their appropriate
responses. It is likely that responses will need to include an element of additional
storage within the urban drainage systems and the related river corridors, such that
downstream flood risk on the Harpers and Willow Brooks is not increased.
occur.

Table 6.14 Summary of preferred policy for policy unit: Wellingborough
The policy unit for Wellingborough is by nature largely urban. It extends around the
urban limits of the town, fringing onto the edges of the floodplain of the River Nene
Policy Unit – and River Ise and including the portion of the Swanspool Brook that passes through
Wellingborough the town and alongside the village of Wilby upstream. It contains other minor urban
streams within Wellingborough, draining to the two main rivers, including the
Harrowden Brook.
Wellingborough is located roughly midway along the River Nene catchment, sitting
between the floodplain of the River Nene and that of one of its main tributaries, the
River Ise. This mostly urban policy unit therefore has a relatively high population
density, containing little open land apart from the some active floodplain which
largely lies on the River Swanspool Brook and Harrowden Brook.
The main source of flooding is fluvial, arising from the high flows in the River Nene
and River Ise, together with the smaller tributary watercourses. Significant flooding
was recorded in Wellingborough during 1947 (Mar), 1981 (Jun) and more recently in
1998 (Apr), with records of flooding in the town back to 1940. Surface water flooding
could pose some risk to people and properties here, though this risk is difficult to
quantify.
There are generally only some relatively informal or private flood defences within
Wellingborough, with variable defence standard, though there is some benefit
locally from flood storage reservoirs at Wilby on the Swanspool Brook and on the
Harrowden Brook. The town has also previously benefited from construction of flood
Problem / Risk
storage areas upstream, particularly the Northampton Washlands which control
flows continuing down the River Nene from Northampton.
Our analysis suggests that a 1% AEP floodwould affect 308 people and 206
properties (83 commercial), causing £30.5 million property damages with a great
majority of those from commercial properties, also causing significant disruption to
major infrastructure. While property numbers affected are less than 10% of the
CFMP total, the damages contribute over 20%.
530 people and 306 properties (potential increases of 50% or more, with 94
commercial properties now), causing £51.43 million property damages (a rise of
70%, but still dominated by commercial properties). This future flood risk represents
6-7% of the total people and properties numbers for the CFMP area, but 17% of the
1% AEP future flood damages.
future
The social and economic impacts within Wellingborough are sustained close to the
Chosen Policy present level, by offsetting future impacts from climate and development change by
making best use of natural storage on the River Nene, River Ise and Slade Brook
upstream through enhanced floodplain storage. Significant environmental gains
could occur as a result of flood storage creation.
The broad-scale model was run with increased floodplain storage on the Kislingbury
Branch of the River Nene (PU2), and also along the River Nene corridor (PU6)
Generic which includes the River Ise. This could comprise changes to floodplain topography,
Responses perhaps through raising or lowering bank heights, or use of control structures. It was
simply represented by reducing and delaying the flows into the model from
Northampton and the River Ise, based on detailed modelling of similar flood storage
currently under construction, with the addition of flood storage reservoirs into the
model for the sites along the River Nene downstream of Northampton (see
modelling summary after Form 12.5). The results show significant benefits for
Wellingborough, though not fully returning flood risk here to current levels. Some
further reduction in damages may be gained from other measures such as improved
flood warning, development control and emergency response planning, or
potentially some localised protection measures such as defences.
areas upstream along the River Nene and River Ise floodplain as outlined above
(giving total 1% AEP future flood risk reductions at Wellingborough of 147 people,
75 properties and £15.42 million). This will be achieved through the generic
responses outlined above, altering the shape and peak of the flood hydrograph as it
progresses through the catchment to help offset the effects of future climate and
development change. Additional flood risk reductions are achieved within other
policy units (see PU6) as a result of these actions.
Within the policy unit for Wellingborough, policy P4 will allow present actions to
control flood risk to be continued and enhanced (for example maintaining the
defences, and flood warning). The resulting future flood risk then remains at the
current level, avoiding the increase in risk, particularly to people, that would occur if
no further action were taken. In addition, some selective local protection measures
may prove feasible, particularly for the tributaries through Wellingborough and local
urban drainage issues (though these require further assessment), but other
reductions in future flood risk should ideally be achieved mostly through actively
influencing land use planning and the take up of flood resilience measures.
Justification Adopting policy P4 for Wellingborough supports economic, social and

environmental sustainability by looking to make best use of the floodplain upstream
on the River Nene and River Ise floodplains, or other contributing watercourses, to
manage flood risk through the town and downstream. It aims to offset future
impacts, from climate and development change, in areas with the highest flood risk.
The objectives which are met by this policy (1% AEP future flood impact, compared
to current baseline) are:

change).
• To minimise community disruption from flooding (up to 30 more residential
and 5 fewercommercial properties).
(estimated £40 million cost of works in other policy units (PU2 and PU6),
partially set against future development, might deliver £40 million reduction
in future damages overall, with £15.42 million in Wellingborough).
change).

Other policies were rejected for Wellingborough due to (1% AEP future flood
310 people, 138 properties, and £29.97 million property damages) with high risk to
Policy P2 - reduce existing flood risk management actions; large economic and
damages).
Alternative increases in risks almost on the scale as for policies P1 and P2, with high flood
policies damages and risks to people (moderate social vulnerability).
considered Policy P5 - take further action to reduce flood risk (now and / or in the future);
potential benefits are attractive but may be difficult to justify up to approximately £40
million (1% AEP flood) future damage reduction against likely costs of £10 million
(128 fewerpeople, 110 fewerproperties, and £19.75 million damage reduction) as
defence standard is presently relatively high in general and any major response
here is unlikely to be sustainable and affordable in the long term; it is considered
that higher flood risk priorities exist elsewhere.
assessed.
Main opportunities
Main constraints
defences.
Catchment-wide
locations.
opportunities &
constraints • Negative impacts may be experienced on existing biodiversity within the
Landfill sites
measures.
Discharges

Abstractions
water provision.
effects, as well as surface water and groundwater influence on floods; surface water
flooding could be an issue for Wellingborough. Further uncertainty surrounds the
ground levels and property threshold levels obtained from the DTM, and also the
type and distribution of contaminated land within the policy unit.
Risks, The estimates of flood damage within Wellingborough are considered sufficiently
Uncertainties & accurate to inform the selection of the proposed policy and response. However, the
Dependencies uncertainty over present flood risk from the tributaries and urban drainage systems
may need to be investigated more locally and the uncertainty over the detailed
application of P6 storage to benefit Wellingborough needs to be investigated more
at a strategic level.
occur.
Table 6.15 Summary of preferred policy for policy unit: Rushden & Raunds
The policy unit for Rushden and Raunds is by nature largely urban, though it
includes some more open areas between the two towns. The policy unit extends
Policy Unit – along the south-eastern edge of the River Nene floodplain downstream from
Rushden and Wellingborough, from the southern edge of Rushden down to the urban fringes of
Raunds Raunds to the north. It includes the settlements of Higham Ferrers and Stanwick.
The area covers a number of small watercourses draining to the River Nene, some
of which pass through the urban areas.
Rushden and Raunds are located roughly midway along the River Nene catchment,
sitting on one side of the River Nene floodplain. This mostly urban policy unit
therefore has a relatively high population density, containing little open land apart
from some active floodplain through the towns and some open rural land each side
of Stanwick.
The main source of flooding is fluvial, arising from the high flows in the various River
Nene tributary watercourses as they pass through the towns and villages. Flooding
Problem / Risk was recorded in Rushden and Raunds during 1947 (Mar), 1998 (Apr) and in 2002
(Oct) due to a blocked drain in Rushden. Groundwater and surface water flooding
are not thought to pose a significant risk to people and properties here, though it is
presently difficult to quantify this risk accurately.
There are generally only some informal/ private flood defences within Rushden and
Raunds though the town, with variable defence standard. The main flood risk is that
from the Raunds Hogs Dyke and Skew Bridge Dyke watercourses through Rushden
and Raunds.

properties, causing £12.09 million property damages with most of that from
approximately 40 commercial properties, also causing significant disruption to major
infrastructure, potentially including a hospital. The present flood risk in the policy
unit contributes approximately 8-9% of the overall CFMP total.
508 people and 242 properties (a rise of less than 50%), causing £15.76 million
damages (a rise of only 30%) split fairly equally between residential and commercial
properties. The future flood risk in this policy unit represents 5-6% of that over the
total CFMP area.
future
The social and economic impacts within Rushden and Raunds are sustained close
Chosen Policy to the present reasonable level, by offsetting future impacts from climate and
development change by applying a range of local flood protection measures,
potentially including improved flood storage and increased levels of maintenance in
locations where benefits result. Significant environmental gains could occur as a
result of flood storage creation or stream restoration through the urban corridors.
No broad-scale model was run, but we considered where defences and other
localised protection measures may help reduce damages in areas of concentrated
flood risk (see modelling summary after Form 12.5). The results show significant
benefits for Rushden and Raunds, sufficient to return flood risk here to current
Generic
levels. Some further reduction in damages may be gained from other measures
Responses
such as improved flood warning, development control and emergency response
planning (for example for infrastructure), plus active land use planning to ensure
that property at flood risk is appropriate to such locations and takes on appropriate
flood resilience measures.
Adopting policy P4 will focus flood risk management efforts here on sustaining the
current significant level of flood risk into the future, avoiding any rise. It will give total
1% AEP future flood risk reductions at Rushden and Raunds of 166 people, 66
properties and £5.79 million. This will be achieved through the generic responses
outlined above, implementing localised flood protection measures but also
considering how to change the urban fabric to be less impacted by floods and to
recover more quickly.
Within the policy unit for Rushden and Raunds, policy P4 will allow present actions
to control flood risk to be continued and enhanced (for example maintaining the
defences, and flood warning). The resulting future flood risk then remains at the
Justification current reasonable level. Selective local protection measures may prove feasible,
particularly for the urban drainage issues, though these all require further
assessment. Opening up of the flood channel routes through the towns, to create
green corridors with associated river restoration aspects, should be considered.
This should take advantage of any urban regeneration or other land reallocation
opportunities. Other reductions in future flood risk should ideally be achieved
through actively influencing land use planning and the take up of flood resilience
measures.
Adopting policy P4 for Rushden and Raunds supports economic, social and
environmental sustainability by looking to make best use of the channels and
floodplains through the towns, to manage flood risk through the urban areas. It aims
to offset future impacts, from climate and development change, in areas with the
highest flood risk. The objectives which are met by this policy (1% AEP future flood
impact, compared to current baseline) are:

change).
Justification risks (estimated £2 million cost, partially set against future development,
(cont.) delivers £5.79 million reduction in damages in the Rushden and Raunds
policy unit).
change).
Other policies were rejected for Rushden and Raunds due to (1% AEP future flood
221 people, 88 properties, and £5.88 million property damages) with loss of current
defences leading to high risk to public health and safety.
Policy P2 - reduce existing flood risk management actions; unsatisfactorily large
economic and social losses (increases of 206 people, 82 properties, and £4.89
million property damages).
Alternative increases in risks almost on the scale as for policies P1 and P2, with high flood
policies damages and risks to people (moderate to high social vulnerability).
potential benefits are attractive but may be difficult to justify £9.68 million (1% AEP
flood) future damage reduction against likely costs of £9 million (202 fewerpeople,
104 fewer properties, and £6.00 million damage reduction) as defence standard is
presently relatively high in general and any major response here is unlikely to be
sustainable and affordable in the long term; it is considered that higher flood risk
assessed.
Main opportunities
Catchment-wide • Opportunities to work with local authorities and regional development agencies
opportunities & to influence developing waterfronts and floodplains, fully embracing PPS25
constraints recommendations and the ‘Making space for water’ philosophy.
Main constraints
development in and open up floodplains.
defences.
locations.
Landfill sites
measures.
Discharges
Abstractions
water provision.
was used on these watercourses. Significant uncertainty surrounds climate change
effects, as well as surface water and groundwater influence on floods though these
are not thought to be significant. Further uncertainty surrounds the ground levels
and property threshold levels obtained from the DTM, and also the type and
Risks,
Uncertainties & The estimates of flood damage within Rushden and Raunds are considered
However, the uncertainty over present flood risk from the urban watercourses and
drainage systems will need to be investigated more locally.
occur.
Table 6.16 Summary of preferred policy for policy unit: Thrapston

Policy Unit – The Thrapston policy unit is largely urban or semi-urban in nature. It covers the
Thrapston town of Thrapston, which sits on one side of the River Nene floodplain. It extends
over the full built up area.
Thrapston is located roughly midway along the River Nene catchment, sitting largely
Problem / Risk in the floodplain on the right bank, with some minor urban drains entering the reach.
This small but mostly urban policy unit therefore has a relatively high population
density, containing little open land apart from some active floodplain and parkland.
Significant flooding was recorded in the Thrapston policy unit in 1947 (Mar) and
1998 (Apr), and also some localised flooding in 2002 (Jul) due to a blocked culvert.
Groundwater and surface water flooding are not thought to pose a significant risk to
people and properties here, though it is presently difficult to quantify this risk
accurately.
Following the flooding in Thrapston and Islip in April 1998, a flood alleviation
scheme involving embankment and wall defences (plus a demountable defence)
was constructed in 2005 to protect Thrapston and Islip up to a 0.5% standard,
controlling flows entering the Thrapston Dyke which is a backwater channel of the
River Nene that flows through the town. There are also a few informal or private
lengths of defence. In the past the town has benefited from construction of flood
storage areas upstream, particularly the Northampton Washlands which control
flows continuing down the River Nene from Northampton.
The 1% AEP flood is defended against. However, for the 0.1% AEP flood our
analysis suggests that this would affect 350 people and 189 properties (49
commercial), causing £14.74 million property damages (approximately 75%
commercial), with the town defences assumed to be overwhelmed.
approximately 20%. Our analysis suggests that a 1% AEP future flood would still be
defended against, though with much reduced freeboard allowance on the defence
heights. For the 0.1% AEP flood our analysis suggests that this would affect 385
people and 206 properties (a rise of only approximately 10%), causing £16.69
million property damages (a rise of almost 15%). The future increase in flood risk is
therefore relatively limited in this policy unit, and at the 0.1% AEP future flood it
contributes less than 2% of the future CFMP area total damages.
Policy P3 – Continue with existing or alternative actions to manage flood risk at the
current level (accepting that flood risk will increase over time from this baseline).
Chosen Policy The future social and economic impacts within this policy unit insignificant under the
present level of flood risk management. Modifications and enhancements to our
responses will be considered, in particular through actively influencing land use
No broad-scale modelling was carried out (see modelling summary after Form
12.5). Under policy P3, future climate and development change result in moderate
Generic
increases to the present flood risk. Maintenance of the flood defences will continue,
Responses
together with appropriate enhancements to flood warning, development control and
emergency response planning (for example for infrastructure).
Adopting policy P3 here will accept some future minor losses within the Thrapston
policy unit, for floods less frequent than 0.5% AEP now, changing to roughly 1%
AEP flood in 100 years time. Our flood risk management will include the generic
responses outlined above, continuing and modifying or enhancing what we do at
Justification present including actively influencing land use planning and the take up of flood
resilience measures. Future changes in flood risk will be monitored such that further
action needs can be reviewed, and we will work in partnership to ensure that new
responses are set against future development where appropriate, but the increasing
residual risk for Thrapston is likely to be offset to a degree by the adoption of policy
P6 elsewhere (PU6).

accepting some increased future losses within the Thrapston policy unit, with the
current flood risk management responses considered appropriate for the level of
risk. The objectives which are met by this policy (1% AEP future flood impact

Justification • To minimise risks to critical infrastructure and community facilities (no
(cont.) change).
• Ensure future investment in the catchment is proportional to the risks (no
change).
change).
water bodies under the WFD (possible minor increase in pollutants resulting
from rising flood levels).
Other policies were rejected for the Thrapston policy unit due to (1% AEP future
flood impact, compared to current baseline):
Policy P1 - no active intervention; significant economic and social losses, currently
at insignificant levels (increases of 288 people, 155 properties, and £6.83 million
property damages), with risk to public health and safety from urban nature of
channel corridors.
Policy P2 - reduce existing flood risk management actions; significant economic and
social losses, currently at insignificant levels (increases of 288 people, 155
future rises in economic and social losses are presently considered relatively limited
Alternative
and are therefore unlikely to justify additional responses on their own, however the
policies
enhancement of floodplain storage under policy P6 upstream (PU2 and PU6) will
considered
actually largely offset any increase in flood risk within Thrapston anyway.
potential benefits might be attractive but very difficult to justify a further increase in
defence standard against likely costs of £1.5 million, such that any major response
here is unlikely to be sustainable and affordable; higher flood risk priorities exist
elsewhere.
assessed.
Main opportunities
Catchment-wide • Creating and managing wetland habitats to contribute to BAP targets.
opportunities & • Opportunities to work with local authorities and regional development agencies
constraints to influence developing waterfronts and floodplains, fully embracing PPS25
Main constraints
flood levels.
economy.
locations.
Landfill sites
measures.
Discharges
Abstractions
water provision.
Risks, land within the policy unit.
Uncertainties &
Dependencies The estimates of flood damage within the Thrapston policy unit are considered
sufficiently accurate to inform the selection of the proposed policy and response.
Table 6.17: Summary of preferred policy for policy unit: Barnwell

The Barnwell policy unit is a small largely rural, though partly sub-urban policy
unit, with Barnwell being the only settlement contained within it. It covers a small
Policy Unit – portion of the Barnwell Brook catchment, the Barnwell Brook forming a minor
Barnwell tributary of the River Nene which joins the river at Oundle. The policy unit covers
the brook from upstream of the Barnwell flood storage area to the confluence of
the stream with the River Nene, and extends laterally to cover the entire
floodplain.
Problem / Risk
The main source of flooding is fluvial, due to high flows in the watercourses. Minor

flooding was recorded in Barnwell policy unit in 2003 (January). There is thought
to be a potential for groundwater flooding in this policy unit, though there are no
recorded incidents of flooding from this source.
Barnwell is protected by a flood storage area upstream of the village on the

Barnwell Brook. The flood storage area protects Barnwell to a 1% AEP flood
standard.
Our analysis suggests that a 1% AEP flood would affect no people and property,
causing no property damages, because of the protection provided by Barnwell
flood storage area. For higher magnitude floods people and property become
affected, though the flood storage area continues to provide some protection.
The main driver of increasing future flood risk is climate change which, together
with potential effects from future development, could increase peak flows by up to
approximately 20%. Our analysis suggests that a 1% AEP future flood would
affect 153 people and 67 properties causing £2.84 million property damages. The
future increase in flood risk is significant, changing from contributing no damages
to the catchment total, to contributing approximately 1% of the damages. The
increase in flood risk occurs because the design standard of Barnwell flood
storage area will reduce in the future due to increases in peak flows. The future
risk given here is thought to be a conservative estimate, with the likely risk of
flooding being less than this.
Policy P3 – Continue with existing or alternative actions to manage flood risk at
the current level (accepting that flood risk will increase over time from this
baseline)The flood storage reservoir is the primary control on the level of risk in
the policy unit now and in the future. At present, maintenance within this policy
Chosen Policy unit is not centred on the flood storage reservoir, but on other activities. However,
a reduction in maintenance could impair the performance of the reservoir leading
to a significant increase in flood risk. The current flood risk management
responses will be reviewed and modified as appropriate under this policy.
No broad-scale model was run, but we considered the impact of Barnwell flood
storage area and how this may change in the future under different management
regimes (see modelling summary after Form 12.5 for further details). Under policy
Generic
P3, future changes will result in a reduction in the standard of protection provided
Responses
by Barnwell flood storage area, and thus some damages in the 1% AEP flood.
Maintenance will continue without any alternative intervention. Flood warning and
development control will also continue close to current levels.
Adopting policy P3 will accept some future minor losses within the Barnwell policy
unit. It will give total 1% AEP future flood risk increases for Barnwell of
approximately 153 people, 67 properties and £2.84 million above current values.
The current flood risk management responses will be reviewed and modified as
appropriate under this policy, maintaining those actions which we consider are
effective and sustainable to manage flood risk at the current level, giving an
appropriate level of flood risk. Future changes in flood risk will be monitored such
that further action needs can be reviewed, and we will work in partnership to
Justification ensure that new responses are set against future development where appropriate.

accepting some increased future losses within the Barnwell policy unit and
accepting that the current flood risk management responses are appropriate for
the level of risk. . The objectives which are met by this policy (1% AEP future flood
impact compared to current baseline) are:
• To minimise flood related risks to the population (153 more people at risk,
though this is considered to be a conservative estimate. Barnwell flood
storage area will continue to provide flood protection in lower magnitude
events).
Justification increase in critical infrastructure and community facilities at risk).
(cont.) • To minimise community disruption from flooding (up to 67 more residential
properties at risk, though this is considered to be a conservative estimate.
Barnwell flood storage area will continue to provide flood protection in lower
magnitude events).
• To minimise economic impacts of flooding (increase of £2.84 million property
damages, though this is considered to be a conservative estimate. Barnwell
flood storage area will continue to provide flood protection in lower magnitude
events).
• Ensure investment in the catchment is proportional to the risks
• Protect and enhance significant historic environment assets and their settings
(small risk to Barnwell conservation area).
• Protect and contribute to the improvement of designated nature conservation
sites (no sites at risk).
environment, contributing to UK Biodiversity Action Plan targets (no BAP
habitats at risk).
• Support the achievement of good status/potential of surface and ground water
bodies under the WFD (possible minor increase in pollutants resulting from
rising flood levels).
Other policies were rejected for the Barnwell policy unit due to (1% AEP future
Policy P1 - no active intervention; economic and social losses, currently at
insignificant levels (increases of 169 people, 71 properties, and £3.20 million
property damages. These figures are not considered to be conservative
estimates).
Policy P2 – reduce flood risk management actions; increase economic and social
losses (increases of 165 people, 69 properties, and £3.03 million property
damages; these figures are considered to be conservative), potentially greater if
the performance of the Barnwell flood storage reservoir were impaired by the
reduction in maintenance.
Alternative Policy P4 - take further action to sustain the current level of flood risk into the
policies future; no people or properties affected in 1% AEP flood. Maintaining the standard
considered of protection of Barnwell flood storage area would require expenditure out of
proportion to the level of risk, and higher flood risk priorities exist elsewhere.
Policy P5 - take further action to reduce flood risk (now and / or in the future); no
people or properties affected in 1% AEP flood, standard of protection afforded to
Barnwell increased beyond present level. Improving the standard of protection of
Barnwell flood storage area would require an increase in expenditure out of
proportion with the level of risk.
provide overall flood risk reduction or environmental benefits locally or elsewhere
in the catchment; little scope for this policy as the contribution of Barnwell Brook to
peak flows on the River Nene is too small to consider strategic storage.

Main opportunities
• Including new recreational and amenity features to contribute to the network
of Green Infrastructure developments, such as the River Nene Regional Park,
arising from the Government’s Sustainable Communities programme.
• Opportunities to work with local authorities and regional development
agencies to influence developing waterfronts and floodplains, fully embracing
PPS25 recommendations and the ‘Making space for water’ philosophy.
Main constraints
the London-Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough growth areas may come into
conflict with the need to restrict development in floodplains.
locations.
Catchment-wide • The presence of Scheduled Monuments and other heritage features such as
opportunities & Conservation Areas may constrain the choice of options and locations
constraints throughout the river valley.
Discharges
Abstractions
may provide additional supplies to supplement agricultural requirements and
public water provision.
CFMP. Simple JFLOW model output, of reduced accuracy compared to
elsewhere, was used on the Barnwell Brook. Significant uncertainty surrounds
climate change effects, as well as surface water and groundwater influence on
floods; groundwater flooding could be an issue for the policy unit. Further
uncertainty surrounds the ground levels and property threshold levels obtained
from the DTM, and also the type and distribution of contaminated land within the
policy unit.
Risks,
Uncertainties & The estimates of flood damage within Barnwell are considered sufficiently
Dependencies accurate to inform the selection of the proposed policy and response. However,
the uncertainty over the areas that benefit from Barnwell flood storage area now
and in the future may need to be investigated, and the amount of protection that
the flood storage area provides when its design standard is surpassed may need
to be investigated in the future.
siltation, frequency and duration of flooding within the designated sites of this
policy unit. The changes to wetland habitat areas that might result from different
policy options are also unclear, together with the biodiversity losses and gains that
might occur.

Table 6.18 Summary of preferred policy for policy unit: River Nene (Oundle to Water Newton)
Policy Unit –
River Nene The River Nene (Oundle to Water Newton) policy unit is largely rural in nature. It
(Oundle to Water covers the floodplain of the River Nene from just upstream of Oundle, past Water
Newton) Newton and Wansford, down to Orton just upstream of Peterborough.
The River Nene (Oundle to Water Newton) policy unit is located towards the lower
end of the River Nene catchment, covering the floodplain above Peterborough,
over the reach of the River Nene in which the Willow Brook tributary joins. This
mostly rural policy unit therefore has a relatively low population density, containing
largely open land apart from the fringes of smaller settlements where they impinge
of the floodplain.
Significant flooding was recorded in the River Nene (Oundle to Water Newton)
policy unit in 1947 (Mar), 1986 (May), 1998 (Mar) from surface water, 1998 (Apr),
2003 (Jan) and 2004 (Aug). Groundwater and surface water flooding may pose a
risk to people and properties here, as the March 1998 and August 2004 floods are
recorded as being due to surface water flooding, though it is presently difficult to
quantify this risk accurately.
There are generally only some relatively informal or private flood defences within
the River Nene (Oundle to Water Newton) policy unit, with variable defence
Problem / Risk standard. In the past the town has benefited from construction of flood storage
areas upstream, particularly the Northampton Washlands which control flows
continuing down the River Nene from Northampton.
properties (31 commercial), causing £4.79 million property damages with a
majority of those from commercial properties, also causing some disruption to
major infrastructure. While people and property numbers affected are
approximately 9% of the CFMP total, the damages contribute less than 4%.
affect 445 people and 213 properties (potential increases of up to 11-12%, with 35
commercial properties now), causing £6.94 million property damages (a rise of
45%, but still with more commercial damage than residential). This future flood
risk represents 5% of the total people and properties numbers for the CFMP area,
but less than 3% of the 1% AEP future flood damages.
Policy P3 – Continue with existing or alternative actions to manage flood risk at

the current level (accepting that flood risk will increase over time from this
baseline).
Chosen Policy There is a relatively low increase in the future social and economic impacts within
this policy unit if the present level of flood risk management continues.
Modifications and enhancements to our responses will be considered, in particular
through actively influencing land use planning and the take up of flood resilience
measures.
Broad-scale modelling was carried out of various storage measures and differing
maintenance regimes (see modelling summary after Form 12.5). Under policy P3,
Generic future climate and development change result in moderate increases to the
Responses present flood risk. Maintenance of the flood defences will continue, together with
appropriate enhancements to flood warning, development control and emergency
response planning (for example for infrastructure).

Adopting policy P3 here will accept some future minor losses within the River
Nene (Oundle to Water Newton) policy unit. It will potentially increase 1% AEP
flood losses in the policy unit by 45 people, 22 properties and £2.15 million. Our
flood risk management will include the generic responses outlined above,
continuing and modifying or enhancing what we do at present including actively
influencing land use planning and the take up of flood resilience measures. Future
changes in flood risk will be monitored such that further action needs can be
reviewed, and we will work in partnership to ensure that new responses are set
against future development where appropriate, but the increasing residual risk for
the River Nene (Oundle to Water Newton) policy unit is likely to be offset to a
degree by the adoption of policy P6 elsewhere (PU6).

accepting some increased future losses within the River Nene (Oundle to Water
Newton) policy unit, with the current flood risk management responses considered
Justification appropriate for the level of risk. The objectives which are met by this policy (1%
AEP future flood impact compared to current baseline) are:

change).
and 4 more commercial properties).
(estimated £40 million cost of works in other policy units (PU2 and PU6),
partially set against future development, might deliver £40 million
reduction in future damages overall, with £2.85 million in River Nene
(Oundle to Water Newton)).
settings (minor change).
conservation sites (minor change).
(minor change).
water bodies under the WFD (possible minor increase in pollutants
resulting from rising flood levels).
Other policies were rejected for the River Nene (Oundle to Water Newton) policy
unit due to (1% AEP future flood impact, compared to current baseline):
Policy P1 - no active intervention; locally significant economic and social losses
(increases of 56 people, 28 properties, and £2.75 million property damages), with
risk to public health and safety from urban nature of channel corridors.
Policy P2 - reduce existing flood risk management actions; locally significant
economic and social losses (increases of 53 people, 26 properties, and £2.21
Alternative million property damages).
policies Policy P4 - take further action to sustain the current level of flood risk into the
considered future; future rises in economic and social losses are presently considered
relatively limited and are therefore unlikely to justify additional responses on their
own, however the enhancement of floodplain storage under policy P6 upstream
(PU2 and PU6) will actually largely offset any increase in flood risk within River
Nene (Oundle to Water Newton) policy unit anyway.
potential benefits might be relatively attractive but very difficult to justify up to
approximately £3.82 million (1% AEP flood) future damage reduction against likely
costs of £4 million (262 fewerpeople, 120 fewer properties, and £1.67 million
damage reduction) as defence standard is presently relatively high in general and
any major response here is unlikely to be sustainable and affordable in the long
term; it is considered that higher flood risk priorities exist elsewhere.
in the catchment. Investigation with the broad-scale model showed how storage in
this policy unit would detain floods arriving from the Harper’s and Willow Brooks,
bringing those floods nearly into coincidence with the main flood arriving from the
River Nene and combining to exacerbate flooding downstream.
Main opportunities
Main constraints
the London-Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough (Peterborough) growth areas
may come into conflict with the need to restrict development in floodplains.
• Designated sites may be a constraint if special interest features are sensitive
to flood levels.
economy.
locations.
Castor Flood Meadows SSSI
Opportunities
Increased flooding and appropriate management could enable the extension of
the valuable grassland into adjacent fields.
Catchment-wide Constraints
opportunities & Changes to the flooding regime may alter the composition of the grassland
constraints communities
composition.
Scheduled Monuments
Opportunities
Constraints
Monuments. Reduced flood risk could be detrimental to some buried
archaeological features if ground conditions dry out.
Landfill sites
measures.
Discharges
Abstractions
may provide additional supplies to supplement agricultural requirements and
public water provision.
CFMP. Significant uncertainty surrounds climate change effects, as well as
surface water and groundwater influence on floods though these are not thought
to be significant. Further uncertainty surrounds the ground levels and property
threshold levels obtained from the DTM, and also the type and distribution of
Risks, contaminated land within the policy unit.
Uncertainties &
The estimates of flood damage within the River Nene (Oundle to Water Newton)
Dependencies
policy unit are considered sufficiently accurate to inform the selection of the
proposed policy and response.
Table 6.19 Summary of preferred policy for policy unit: Peterborough and the Nene Washes
The policy unit for Peterborough and the Nene Washes is by nature largely urban.
Policy Unit – It covers the town area, including the River Nene floodplain and a number of
Peterborough smaller urban drains which pass into the River Nene. As the name implies, it also
and the Nene includes the Nene Washes downstream, which is a rural managed washland that
Washes allows flood flows to pass from Peterborough into storage during high tide
conditions. The policy unit ends at the outlet gates for the washland at Ring’s End
Sluice.
Peterborough and the Nene Washes are located at the downstream end of the
River Nene fluvial catchment, at the limit of tidal influence. This mostly urban
policy unit therefore has a relatively high population density, containing little open
land apart from the downstream washland.
The main source of flooding is fluvial, arising from the high flows in the River
Nene, together with some smaller tributary watercourses and a degree of tidal
influence in extreme floods. Significant flooding was recorded in Peterborough
during 1947 (Mar) and more recently in 1986 (May) and 1998 (Apr) with records of
flooding in the town back to 1847. Surface water flooding could pose some risk to
Problem / Risk people and properties here, though this risk is difficult to quantify. The flooding to
293 properties in Peterborough in 1986 however was caused by flooding from
surcharging of sewers and pumping stations due to combined fluvial and sewer
flooding conditions.
There are generally only some informal/ private flood defences within
Peterborough though the town benefits from the Whittlesey (Nene) Washes
downstream for flood storage at high tide conditions and the Thorpe Drain storage
area. The defence standards are uncertain. The town has more recently benefited
from construction of the Northampton Washlands in the 1970s.

properties, causing £1.76 million property damages concentrated at residential
properties in Peterborough, though numbers of properties affected rise
dramatically by over three times for a 0.1% AEP flood with damages rising tenfold,
also causing widespread disruption to major infrastructure.
affect 639 people and 280 properties (a rise of 60-70%), causing £5.94 million
property damages (a rise of 240%).
future
The social and economic impacts within Peterborough are sustained close to the
Chosen Policy present level, by offsetting future impacts from climate and development change
by making best use of natural storage on the River Nene upstream through
The broad-scale model was run with increased floodplain storage on the
Kislingbury Branch of the River Nene (PU2), and also along the River Nene
corridor (PU6) which includes the River Ise. This could comprise changes to
floodplain topography, perhaps through raising or lowering bank heights, or use of
control structures. It was simply represented by reducing and delaying the flows
into the model from Northampton and the River Ise, based on detailed modelling
Generic
of similar flood storage currently under construction, with the addition of flood
Responses
storage reservoirs into the model for the sites along the River Nene downstream
of Northampton (see modelling summary after Form 12.5). The results show
significant benefits for Peterborough, though not fully returning flood risk here to
current levels. Some further reduction in damages may be gained from other
measures such as improved flood warning, development control and emergency
response planning, or potentially some local defences.
areas upstream along the River Nene floodplain as outlined above (giving total 1%
AEP future flood risk reductions at Peterborough of 187 people, 79 properties and
£2.42 million). This will be achieved through the generic responses outlined
above, altering the shape and peak of the flood hydrograph as it progresses
through the catchment to help offset the effects of future climate and development
change. Additional flood risk reductions are achieved within other policy units (see
Within the policy unit for Peterborough and the Nene Washes, policy P4 will allow
present actions to control flood risk to be continued and enhanced (for example
maintaining the washlands and other defences, and flood warning). The resulting
Justification future flood risk (increase of up to 56 people, 36 properties and £1.77 million
property damages) is relatively low as, while the predicted future 1% AEP flood
risk for the policy unit represents only approximately 2% of the total for the whole
CFMP area, the risks rise dramatically at the 0.1% AEP flood and therefore justify
avoiding significant increases.
Some further reduction in damages may be gained from other related measures
planning. Also at Thorpe Meadows local protection measures may prove feasible.
Adopting policy P4 for Peterborough and the Nene Washes supports economic,
social and environmental sustainability by looking to make best use of the River

Nene floodplain upstream to manage flood risk through the catchment. It aims to
offset future impacts, from climate and development change, in areas with the
highest flood risk. The objectives which are met by this policy (1% AEP future
flood impact, compared to current baseline) are:

increased risk to 1 site).
Justification and 13 more commercial properties).
(cont.) • To minimise economic impacts of flooding (increase of £0.54 million
(estimated £40 million cost of works in upstream policy units (PU2 and
PU6), partially set against future development, delivers some £40 million
reduction in future damages overall, with £2.42 million of that in
Peterborough).
settings (minor increase in flooding possible at 2 Conservation Areas, 2
SMs and 1 park and garden).
conservation sites (minor increase in flooding possible to 2 designated
sites, negligible impacts).
change).
Other policies were rejected for Peterborough and the Nene Washes due to (1%
Policy P1 - no active intervention; significant economic and social losses
(increases of 301 people, 138 properties, and £4.87 million property damages)
with loss of current defences leading to high risk to public health and safety.
Policy P2 - reduce existing flood risk management actions; significant economic
and social losses (increases of 275 people, 128 properties, and £4.55 million
property damages), with risk to public health and safety.
current level; allowing flood risk to rise with future change is presently considered
Alternative significant, particularly due to very high extreme flood damages and risks to
policies people.
potential benefits are attractive but difficult to justify £2.8 million future damage
reduction against likely costs of £7 million (194 fewerpeople, 77 fewerproperties,
and £1.38 million damage reduction), such that any major response here is
unlikely to be sustainable and affordable; higher flood risk priorities exist
elsewhere.
in the catchment; little scope for this policy as too far downstream, and therefore
not assessed.

Main opportunities
• Linking the River Nene to the Fen Waterways Link at Peterborough presents
opportunities for the transfer, storage and benefit of using stored floodwaters
outside the floodplain.
quality issues, for example between Peterborough and Dog-in-a-Doublet
Sluice on the main River Nene.
Main constraints
to flood levels. This is a concern at the internationally important Nene
Washes.
economy.
Catchment-wide defences.
opportunities & • Landscape character and local designations may constrain works in some
constraints locations.
Nene Washes SSSI, SPA and Ramsar

Opportunities
Creation of additional flood storage areas adjacent to the Nene Washes could
increase the extent of the valuable habitat used by the bird populations.
Constraints
Alterations to the water level management regime may reduce the areas of
suitable habitat for the support of the wildfowl and waders as well as potentially
affecting the habitat of spined loach in Morton’s Leam.
Orton Pits SSSI and SAC

Opportunities
Appropriate management could extend the area of designation by improving the
adjacent areas.
Constraints
Increased flooding may adversely affect the water quality of the rainwater fed
waterbodies and the associated great crested newt population and stonewort
community.
CFMP. Simple JFLOW model output, of reduced accuracy compared to
elsewhere, was used on the tributaries. Significant uncertainty surrounds climate
change effects, as well as surface water and groundwater influence on floods;
Risks, surface water flooding could be an issue for Peterborough. Further uncertainty
Uncertainties & surrounds the ground levels and property threshold levels obtained from the DTM,
Dependencies and also the type and distribution of contaminated land within the policy unit.
The estimates of flood damage within Peterborough and the Nene Washes are
considered sufficiently accurate to inform the selection of the proposed policy and
response. However, the uncertainty over present flood risk at Thorpe Meadows
may need to be investigated more locally and the uncertainty over the detailed

application of P6 storage to benefit Peterborough needs to be investigated more
at a strategic level.
might occur.
Table 6.20 Summary of preferred policy for policy unit: The Fens
The Fens policy unit covers the flat expansive area downstream of Peterborough
that is largely drained by pumped drainage. The policy unit extends from
Whittlesey in the south to the Wash in the north, and from Wisbech in the east
Policy Unit – The nearly as far as Spalding in the west. It excludes the Nene Washes. The
Fens catchment boundary is not defined by the watershed with neighbouring
catchments, rather it is defined by the administrative and internal boundaries of
the internal drainage boards. A small area of the policy unit freely drains into the
River Nene from slightly higher land around Sutton Bridge.
The tidal reach is contained between embankments which carry the River Nene
above the level of the fenland. The tidal limit is at the Dog-in-a-Doublet Sluice. The
embankments currently protect the Fens from flooding up to the 0.5% AEP surge
tide. The main source of the flooding of the Fens is tidal, arising from the
overtopping of the tidal embankments in a surge tide and from the breaching of
the embankments. The Fens are at risk from all the fenland rivers, not from the
River Nene alone. Other sources of flooding from within the area of the CFMP are:
1) a flood in the River Nene through Peterborough which overtops or
breaches the embankment of the Nene Washes
2) storm rainfall on the Fens which overwhelms the pumped drainage
system, possibly in conjunction with pump failure.
3) tidally controlled gravity drainage from certain areas of the Fens and from
urban areas along the embankments being impeded by high tides. This
detention of drainage is sometimes recorded as tidal flooding. Incidents of
tidal flooding have occurred in Wisbech and Sutton Bridge.
Problem / Risk Our analysis indicates that a 1% AEP flood would affect 10 people and 5
properties, causing property damages of £0.46 million. The risk rises dramatically
for a 0.1% AEP flood, when defences between the Dog-in-a-Doublet sluice and
the West Lighthouse become overtopped. There is a risk of defences being
breached in a 1% AEP flood, and although this is unlikely the implication of this
sort of flooding could be very severe, given the low lying nature of the land
compared with peak tidal levels. If defences were breached there could be a
serious risk to life as a result of high depths and velocities.
approximately 20%, and see sea level rise in the region of 1 metre. Our analysis
indicates that a 1% AEP future surge would see localised overtopping at a few
locations between Guyhirn and Sutton Bridge. 20 people and 11 properties would
be affected, causing property damages of £1.03 million. The risk of breaching
caused by defence failure in a 1% AEP flood would be much higher in the future
than at present. The breaching of defences would pose a serious risk to life,
particularly in the 1km margins either side of the tidal embankments.

future
The social and economic impacts within the Fens are sustained close to the
Chosen Policy present level. The increased risk of defence breaching in the future would lead to
the significant risk to life presented by high depths and velocities. A P4 is likely to
be achieved in the Fens by locally increasing defence crest levels to reduce the
risk of defence failure.
The broad-scale model was run with a revised tidal boundary to take into account
sea level rise. The effect of rising sea level and increased flows were then
investigated along with a number of generic responses including increasing
Generic defence crest level and removing defences. The results showed significant
Responses benefits to The Fens when the standard of protection was maintained at the
present level. Further reduction in damages may be gained from other measures
planning.
Policy P4 is adopted for the short term to the next CFMP review and the
completion of a flood risk management strategy for the Fens. There is a serious
risk to life in the future as a result of large flood depths and velocities. This policy
will remove the significant risk of defence breaching and overtopping during a
future surge tide.
enhanced (for example maintaining defences and flood warning) avoiding an
increase in the serious residual risks arising from defence failure. Some further
reduction in damages may be gained from other related measures such as
improved flood warning, development control and emergency response planning.
It is envisaged that a cross-catchment approach to find the most suitable way of
sustaining the high level of flood defence will be most appropriate.
Adopting policy P4 for The Fens supports economic, social and environmental
sustainability by sustaining the high standard of protection. It aims to offset future
Justification impacts, from climate and development change. The objectives which are met by
this policy (1% AEP future flood impact, compared to current baseline) are:
• To minimise flood related risks to the population (defence standard

maintained, no change in people at risk).
• To minimise risks to critical infrastructure and community facilities (major
assets protected).
• To minimise community disruption from flooding (defence standard
maintained, no change in properties at risk).
• To minimise economic impacts of flooding (no change in property
damages).
(estimated £4 million cost of works, reduction in property damages likely
to be accrued as a result of breaching).
change).

Other policies were rejected for The Fens due to (1% AEP future flood impact,
33,398 people, 13,358 properties, and £807 million property damages) with loss of
current defences leading to extremely high risk to public health and safety.
social losses (increases of 27,990 people, 11,190 properties, and £669 million
property damages), with high risk to public health and safety.
current level; moderate increases in recorded social and economic impact
Alternative (increases of 10 people, 6 properties, and £0.57 million property damages).
policies Significant increase in risk of breaching at 1% AEP flood, and large scale
considered overtopping for more extreme floods leading to a serious increase in the risk to life
as well as an increase in the risk to property.
potential benefits would be attractive for the extreme floods but difficult to justify
against likely costs of £40 million with flood defence standards already at the 0.5%
AEP.
in the catchment; little scope for this policy as the area is not at risk of fluvial
flooding primarily; no downstream areas to benefit.
Main opportunities
quality issues.
Main constraints
Catchment-wide
opportunities &
constraints
to flood levels. This is particularly relevant to the Wash which is sensitive to
flow of water draining from the River Nene.
defences.
locations.
Adventurers Land SSSI
Opportunities
The reduction in flood risk to Adventurers Land SSSI will consequently reduce
current adverse impacts from flooding on the site and its features
Catchment-wide
opportunities &
Constraints
constraints
Increased flooding frequency or duration may cause additional adverse effects on
(cont.)
The Wash SSSI, SPA, SAC, Ramsar site

Opportunities

Sustaining current flood risk may maintain the baseline river flow plume from the
River Nene into the Wash
Constraints
The Wash (Ramsar, SPA, SSSI) is adjacent to, but outside of, the northern
boundary of the Fens policy unit, however there is potential for changes resulting
from the implementation of policies in the catchment
Reducing or increasing flood risk may result in potential changes in the river flow
plume from the River Nene, and cause a negative effect on intertidal habitats (i.e.
turbidity, siltation, changes to water quality) which in turn could affect birds of
coastal habitats and birds of estuarine habitats in the Wash
Increased freshwater flows could disrupt the freshwater/saline balance and cause
potential scouring of intertidal habitats
Scheduled Monuments
Opportunities
The reduction in flood risk to Scheduled Monument will reduce the likelihood of
flood damage and enable the long term preservation of these historical assets
Constraints
Monuments associated with flooding.
Reduction in flood risk in some areas may result in drying of ground conditions
which may be detrimental to some buried archaeological features
Landfill sites
Opportunities
The reduction of flood risk to landfill sites will consequently reduce the water
pollution problems associated with floods
Constraints
Increasing the frequency or duration of flooding of landfill sites will consequently
increase the water pollution problems associated with floods
Discharges
Opportunities
greater dilution of the numerous discharges from trade and sewage treatment
works discharges, therefore improving water quality
Constraints
Alterations to the flooding regime may reduce the available water for dilution of
discharges during summer months if inappropriately managed
Abstractions
Opportunities
additional supplies to supplement agricultural requirements and the public water
abstractions from the various reservoirs within the catchment
Constraints
CFMP. Significant uncertainty surrounds climate change effects, as well as
Risks, surface water and groundwater influence on floods; surface water flooding could
Uncertainties & be an issue for the Fens. Further uncertainty surrounds the ground levels and
Dependencies property threshold levels obtained from the DTM, and also the type and
The estimates of flood damage within The Fens are considered sufficiently
accurate to inform the selection of the proposed policy and response, though the
uncertainty over present flood risk from embankment failure may need to be
investigated more in the future. In a future analysis, we would make use of more
information about the fenland catchments. We would obtain the information from
the IDBs.
might occur.

Table 6.21 Summary of cumulative effects
Objective Cumulative effects across the whole plan area Interaction of CFMP with relevant Policies, Plans and Programmes
(sum of Policy Unit impacts)
To minimise flood People affected: baseline = 4183, future scenario = 4298. This Potential effects of further development, particularly on the
related risks to the represents a 3% increase if CFMP policies are implemented in the floodplain in the Upper and Middle Nene catchment and the River
population future (including allowing for climate change). Nene (Weedon to Kislingbury) Policy Units. Need to consult with the
Local Authorities.
The number of people at risk from flooding will slightly increase in
the future in most Policy Units. The most significant increases will The Regional Spatial Strategy for the East Midlands, the East of
result where flood risk will be allowed to increase, for example, in England Plan and Local Development Documents have policies to
the Upper and Middle Nene catchment Policy Unit (including prohibit/restrict development in areas at risk of flooding and for
Grendon Brook Villages); where the number of people affected will development to take flood risk management issues into account.
increase by 391. The River Nene (Weedon to Kislingbury) Policy
Unit will see an increase of 73 people affected by flooding. In
Corby, where the preferred policy is to reduce flood risk, the
number of people at risk from flooding will decrease by 86% (720
people).
To minimise risks to Critical infrastructure affected by flooding (1% AEP): Potential effects of increase in critical infrastructure associated with
critical infrastructure further development, particularly on the floodplain in the Upper and
and community Electricity substations: baseline = 22, future scenarios = 38. This Middle Nene catchment, and the River Nene (Weedon to
facilities represents a 73% increase if CFMP polices are implemented in the Kislingbury) Policy Units. Need to consult with the Local Authorities.
future (including allowing for climate change). Where flood risk will
be allowed to increase, for example, in the Upper and Middle Nene The Regional Spatial Strategy for the East Midlands, the East of
(including Grendon Brook Villages), the number of substations England Plan and Local Development Documents have policies to
affected will increase by 4. In Corby, where the preferred policy is to prohibit/restrict development in areas at risk of flooding and for
reduce flood risk, the number of substations affected will increase development to take flood defence issues into account.
by 9.
Water and sewage treatment plants: baseline = 10, future scenarios
= 14. This represents a 40% increase if CFMP policies are
implemented in the future (including allowing for climate change).
Where flood risk will be allowed to increase in the Upper and Middle
Nene catchment Policy Unit (including Grendon Brook Village), the
number of sites affected will increase by 3.
Waste Management Sites: baseline = 5, future scenarios = 6. This
represents one additional site at risk from flooding if CFMP
policies are implemented in the future (including allowing for climate
change). Flood risk to a site in Corby is reduced if the CFMP
policies are implemented. However, where flood risk will be allowed

to increase in the Upper and Middle Nene Policy Unit (including
Grendon Brook Villages), an additional site will become at risk.
Integrated Pollution Prevention Control (IPPC) sites: baseline = 1,
future scenarios = 2. This represents a 100% increase if CFMP
policies are implemented in the future (including allowing for climate
change). In the River Nene (Weedon to Kislingbury) Policy Unit
there will be an additional IPPC site at risk.
Transport infrastructure affected by flooding (1% AEP):
Main roads: baseline = 25 roads, future scenarios = 21 roads. This
represents a 16% decrease if CFMP policies are implemented in
the future (including allowing for climate change). In Corby, where
the preferred policy is to reduce flood risk, the A6116, A6086, A427
and A6014 will no longer be at risk from flooding if the CFMP
policies are implemented.
Railways: At both the current and future risk 4 railway lines will be
Canal: At both the current and future risk the Grand Union Canal
will be at risk from flooding in the River Nene (Weedon to
Kislingbury) and the Upper and Middle Nene catchment Policy
Units.
Community facilities affected by flooding (1% AEP): baseline = 1

hospital, 1 care home, and 1 emergency response centre are at
risk, future scenarios = 1 hospital, 1 care home, and 2 emergency
response centres.
To minimise Total Properties affected by flooding (1% AEP event): baseline = Potential effects of further development, particularly on the
community disruption 2100 future scenarios = 2236. This represents a 6% increase if floodplain in the Upper and Middle Nene catchment Policy Unit.
from flooding CFMP policies are implemented in the future (including allowing for Need to consult with the Local Authorities.
climate change). These figures included both commercial and
residential properties. The Regional Spatial Strategy for the East Midlands, the East of
England Plan and Local Development Documents have policies to
Residential Properties affected by flooding (1% AEP event): prohibit/restrict development in areas at risk of flooding and for
baseline = 1672 future scenarios = 1718. This represents a 3% development to take flood defence issues into account.
increase if CFMP policies are implemented in the future (including

allowing for climate change).
Commercial Properties affected by flooding (1% AEP event):
baseline = 428 future scenarios = 518. This represents a 21%
increase if CFMP policies are implemented in the future (including
Most of the Policy Units see a small increase in the amount of
commercial and residential properties affected by flooding in the
future. For example, in the Upper and Middle Nene catchment
Policy Unit (including Grendon Brook Villages) the total number of
properties affected will increase by 53% (176 properties) where the
preferred policy is to allow flood risk to increase.
There will be small decreases in the number of total properties
affected Corby (65% or 249 properties), and River Nene Corridor
(2% or 1 property) Policy Units.

To minimise economic Total damages (1% AEP event): baseline = £138.7M, future Potential effects of further development, particularly on the
impacts of flooding scenarios = £172.5M. This represents a 24% increase in damages floodplain in the Upper and Middle Nene catchment Policy Unit.
if CFMP policies are implemented (including allowing for climate Need to consult with the Local Authorities.
change). These figures include both residential and commercial
damages. The Regional Spatial Strategy for the East Midlands, the East of
England Plan and Local Development Documents have policies to
Residential damages (1% AEP event): baseline = £30.1M, future prohibit/restrict development in areas at risk of flooding and for
scenario = £38.7M. This represents a 28% increase if CFMP development to take flood risk management issues into account.
policies are implemented (including allowing for climate change)
Commercial damages (1% AEP event): baseline = £108.6M, future
scenario = £133.8M. This represents a 23% increase if CFMP
policies are implemented (including allowing for climate change)
Most of the Policy Units see a small increase in the amount of
damages to commercial and residential properties as a result of
flooding in the future. For example, in the Upper and Middle Nene
Catchment (including Grendon Brook Villages) the level of damages
will increase by 62% (£9M) where the preferred policy is to allow
flood risk to increase.
There will be small decreases in the amount of damages in The
Fens (76% or £1M), Rushden and Raunds (18% or £2M), and River
Nene Corridor (27% or £1M) Policy Units.
Area of Grade 1 Agricultural Land affected by flooding (1% AEP
event): baseline = 12ha, future scenarios = 12ha. This represents
no change in the area affected if CFMP policies are implemented
(including allowing for climate change).
Area of Grade 2 Agricultural Land affected by flooding (1% AEP
event): baseline = 823ha, future scenarios 923ha. This represents a
12% increase in the area of land affected if CFMP policies are
implemented (including allowing for climate change).
Where flood risk will be allowed to increase, for example, in the
Upper and Middle Nene catchment Policy Unit (including Grendon
Brook Villages) the area of Grade 2 agricultural land affected by
flooding will increase by 54ha.The River Nene (Oundle to Water
Newton) Policy Unit will see an increase of 10% (43ha) of the area

of Grade 2 agricultural land affected by flooding.
There will be small increases in the area of grade 2 land affected by
flooding in Wooton (100% or 2ha), and River Nene (Weedon to
Kislingbury) (100% or 1ha) Policy Units.
Ensure future Overall, EA expenditure would increase due to cost of constructing
investment in the additional flood defences, and flood storage.
catchment is
proportional to the
risks
Protect and enhance Overall, there is likely to be a small increase in the number of Potential interaction between the CFMP and the Regional Spatial
significant historic Registered Parks and Gardens, Scheduled Monuments, and Strategy for the East Midlands, the East of England Plan, and Local
environment assets Conservation Areas affected by flooding if the CFMP policies are Development Documents. Need to consult with Statutory
and their settings implemented (including allowing for climate change). These Authorities.
increases are concentrated in the Upper and Middle Nene
catchment Policy Unit (including Grendon Brook Villages), where
flood risk will be allowed to increase.
Protect and contribute An assessment of future changes in flood risk for the designated Potential interaction between the CFMP and the Regional Spatial
to the improvement of nature conservation sites within the catchment has identified that Strategy for the East Midlands, the East of England Plan, Local
designated nature two additional SSSIs (in addition to the 18 sites currently affected) Development Documents, Abstraction management Strategies,
conservation sites will in the future be potentially affected, albeit to a very limited Water Cycle Strategies, Water Level Management Plans, SSSI,
(SSSI, SPA, SAC and degree, by flooding during events with a less than 1% annual SPA, SAC and Ramsar management plans. Need to consult with
Ramsar) probability of occurring. These sites are Bozeat Meadows SSSI (3% Statutory Authorities.
of the area would be affected in the future) and Wansford Pasture
SSSI (3% of the area would be affected in the future). There is a potential for in-combination effects on The Wash
European site as a result of interaction between the CFMPs for the
For the majority of designated sites, the predicted increase in flood River Nene, the Great Ouse, the River Welland and the River
extent is minimal. Significant increases in flood risk are predicted, Witham.
relative to the current situation, for a limited number of sites such as
Orton Pit SAC and the River Ise and Meadows SSSI.
Increased flooding in the future is likely to have both beneficial and
adverse effects, depending on the sensitivity of the site to flooding
and the timing and magnitude of future flooding events. For
example, although increased flooding could potentially increase the
extent of wetland habitat in the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits
SSSI/potential SPA and Wadenhoe Marsh and Achurch Meadow

SSSI to the benefit of these sites; the timing of flooding is critical, as
flooding in spring or early summer could be detrimental to breeding
birds.
Potential future changes to the flow patterns of the River Nene
could have effects on The Wash European site through changes in
the pattern of freshwater input to the estuary.
Enhance the Increased flooding presents further opportunities to improve the Potential interaction between the CFMP and Local Biodiversity
biodiversity of the quality, extent and connectivity of riparian and wetland habitats and Action Plans for Northamptonshire, Cambridgeshire, Lincolnshire
catchment by associated species within the catchment, including those targeted and Norfolk, and Habitat Action Plans. Need to consult with
improving the quality for action under the UK BAP at both a national and local level. Statutory Authorities.
of the river Flooding will provide opportunities for the expansion and
environment and improvement of wetland and wet grassland habitats and associated
contributing to UK species throughout the floodplain. However, terrestrial BAP habitats
Biodiversity Action such as dry grasslands, woodlands, heathlands and species would
Plan targets be adversely affected by occasional flood events and in particular,
by periods of frequent or prolonged flooding.
Support the Most of the Policy Units are currently assessed as being at risk of Potential interaction between the CFMP and the Regional Spatial
achievement of good not meeting the WFD objectives. Increases in the frequency and Strategy for the East Midlands, the East of England Plan, and Local
status/potential of extent of flooding in the future may increase the levels of pollutants Development Documents. Need to consult with Statutory
surface and from urban areas and adjacent agricultural land. However, Authorities.
groundwater bodies sustaining or reducing flood risk may prevent potential adverse
under the WFD effects on water quality from point and diffuse sources. This could
provide environmental improvements helping to achieve WFD
objectives.

6.2.4 Potential interaction between policy units
The actions leading from the selected policy for each policy unit can affect policy units downstream; there
is an interaction among the policy units which was not taken into account during policy appraisal. Table
6.22 summarises actions which have the potential to impact areas beyond the boundary of the policy unit
for which they were derived.
In general, not many of the chosen policies and subsequent actions have the potential to impact other
parts of the catchment. Most of the actions that are being proposed to benefit flood risk management
within the policy unit have either no impact or a positive benefit downstream. The exceptions are
Kettering (PU 8) and Corby (PU 9).
At Kettering a policy P4 is preferred. Potential actions either to improve conveyance through increased
maintenance or to carry out works to channels or defences to improve defence standards have the
potential to impact negatively on downstream parts of the catchment. This results from reduced storage
within the channels or on their floodplains, due to lower water levels or raised defences, causing a rise in
flood peaks downstream. The flood peaks may also occur earlier. However, these works are likely to be
concentrated on the Slade Brook tributary and the effects would be relatively minor downstream from this
point in the catchment, especially once flood flows have joined with the River Ise. Any effect should be
offset through the development of enhanced floodplain storage in the River Nene corridor policy unit (PU
6), as described below, which includes the intention to create flood storage up the River Ise catchment
and along the Slade Brook to upstream of Kettering.
At Corby a policy P5 is preferred. Potential actions similar to Kettering, to carry out works to improve
channel conveyance or raise defences, have the potential to impact negatively on downstream parts of
the catchment. This again results from reduced storage within the channels or on their floodplains,
causing higher and earlier flood peaks downstream. The works at Corby would be at the upstream end of
the Harpers Brook and Willow Brook catchments, and are therefore likely to have more significant
downstream effects in this case. This is especially true as the flood risks, and therefore their related flood
risk management responses, are widespread through much of the town. The works that are put forward
for Corby should include additional flood storage within the urban drainage system and river corridors
sufficient to offset any potential negative downstream effects, though earlier inflow to the River Nene may
be beneficial as noted below.
Two of the most favourable impacts elsewhere are concerned with

creation of additional flood storage through enhanced use of the
floodplain. This is within the River Nene (Weedon to Kislingbury) and
River Nene corridor policy units, where a policy P6 is preferred. This
will reduce the risk of flooding downstream by attenuating the flood
peak flows, lowering and delaying them. The broad-scale modelling
indicates that the effect will extend to the policy units along the River
Nene right down to Peterborough, with minor benefits possible even in
the Fens. The modelling shows that this response has the potential to
provide much of the flood flow reduction required to achieve a policy
P4 at the receiving policy units downstream (as listed in Table 6.22).
Reducing maintenance in the Upper and middle Nene catchment policy unit (PU 1) will serve to decrease
flows downstream as channels revert to a more natural state and floodplains are activated more
frequently. Reducing debris clearance and weed cutting will mean that water does not pass through the
catchment as quickly, delaying the surface runoff response and potentially reducing flood risk
downstream. Over time this will allow channels to revert to a more natural shape, and in areas where
they have been deepened or widened they will start to reconnect with the floodplain. This will enhance
the geomorphological and ecological interest of the rivers, whilst potentially reducing flood risk
downstream.
River flows from two significant tributaries, the Harpers Brook and Willow Brook, enter the River Nene
near Oundle prior to the flood peak from the upstream half of the catchment (see Section 2.7). The upper
River Nene, as controlled through Northampton by the Northampton washlands, and the River Ise flows
are delayed by comparison, taking considerable time to travel through the catchment. This can produce a
‘double peak’ effect downstream through Wansford to Peterborough. The hydrology of the catchment
means that the urban systems in the upper catchment of the River Nene to Northampton and the higher

reaches of the main tributaries (River Ise and Slade Brook, Harpers Brook and Willow Brook) are likely to
experience flooding prior to the settlements along the middle reaches and lower reaches of the River
Nene floodplain corridor. This also indicates that flood risk management should work towards separating
the two flood peaks, with either earlier Harpers and Willow Brook flows or later flows from the River Nene
and River Ise. The separation of the peaks of flood flow through Peterborough is also influenced by how
the P2 actions are distributed around the upper and middle Nene policy unit. These aspects require more
detailed study to fully understand the variability of the catchment hydrology and flood flow interactions,
and the related flood risk management potential.
Changes in land use and land management were shown to have beneficial effects in reducing surface
runoff from catchments on a local scale (typically areas less than 10 square kilometers). Whilst evidence
has yet to be found of similar effects at a larger catchment scale this does not preclude a possible
incremental effect (positive or negative) to downstream areas. For example, such changes in land use
and land management may have wider benefits if promoted across the Upper and middle Nene
catchment policy unit, by delaying the natural speed of flood response.
An improvement in flood forecasting along the River Nene downsteam from Northampton, based on good
telemetry data for the upstream reaches of the Nene and its main tributaries, will allow us to use the flood
storage reservoirs on the system in conjunction with developing additional natural storage to their best
potential. This should also improve our understanding of the likely interactions of flood flows down the
River Nene system and allow us to achieve increases in flood storage where it can be most effective.

Table 6.22 Interaction between policies of different units
Unit(s) Type of Scale of
Policy Unit Policy Action in the unit Potential effects elsewhere
affected Impact Impact
1. Upper and P2 Reduce channel maintenance where Increased storage within channels and on their All Positive Minor
middle Nene possible across the policy unit. floodplains, due to naturally higher water levels,
catchment
will reduce and delay flood peaks downstream.
2. River Nene P6 Create/develop additional flood storage Increased storage within channels and on their PUs 4, 5, 6, Positive Medium
(Weedon to through enhanced use of the floodplain. floodplains, due to designed higher water levels, 10, 12, 14,
Kislingbury)
will reduce and delay flood peaks downstream. 15, 16
3. Wootton P3 Continue with current flood risk None None None None
management.
4. Northampton P4 Continue with current flood risk None (see PU 2) None None None
Central management (but benefit from additional
storage in PU 2).
5. Northampton P4 Continue with current flood risk None (see PU 2) None None None
Outer management (but benefit from additional
storage in PU 2).
Influence land use change through the None None None None
development control process.
6. River Nene P6 Create/develop additional flood storage Increased storage within channels and on their PUs 10, 12, Positive Medium
corridor through enhanced use of the floodplain. floodplains, due to designed higher water levels, 14, 15, 16
will reduce and delay flood peaks downstream.
7. Grendon Brook P2 Reduce channel maintenance where None (This PU now merged into the Upper & None None None
villages possible across policy unit. Middle Nene PU)
8. Kettering P4 Increase channel maintenance where Reduced storage within channels and on their PUs 6, 10, Negative Minor
possible within the policy unit. floodplains, due to naturally lower water levels, 12, 14, 15,
will raise and bring forward flood peaks 16
downstream.
Increase localised protection measures Reduced storage on the channel floodplains, PUs 6, 10, Negative Minor
to improve defences or conveyance due to raised defences, will raise and bring 12, 14, 15,
within the policy unit. forward flood peaks downstream. 16
Continue with current flood risk None (see PU 6) None None None
management (but benefit from additional
storage in PU 6).

9. Corby P5 Increase localised protection measures Reduced storage within channels and on their PUs 1, 14, Negative Medium
to improve defences or conveyance floodplains, due to naturally lower water levels, 15, 16
within the policy unit. will raise and bring forward flood peaks
downstream.
Increase localised protection measures Increased storage within flood storage areas will PUs 1, 14, Positive Medium
by creating additional flood storage in reduce and delay flood peaks downstream. 15, 16
the urban system.
Influence land use change through the None None None None
development control process.
10. Wellingborough P4 Continue with current flood risk None (see PUs 2 and 6) None None None
management (but benefit from additional
storage in PUs 2 and 6).
11. Rushden and P4 Increase channel maintenance where None (local flood has different timing from a None None None
Raunds possible across the policy unit. Nene flood)
Increase localised protection measures None (local flood has different timing from a None None None
to improve defences or conveyance Nene flood)
within the policy unit.
Increase localised protection measures Increased storage within flood storage areas will PUs 6, 12, Positive Minor
by creating additional flood storage reduce and delay flood peaks downstream 14, 15, 16
upstream. (some potential for minor benefit if flows are
controlled).
12. Thrapston P3 Continue with current flood risk None None None None
management (but note it will also benefit
from P6 policies upstream).
13. Barnwell P3 Continue with current flood risk None None None None
management
14. River Nene P3 Continue with current flood risk None None None None
(Oundle to Water management (but note it will also benefit
Newton)
from P6 policies upstream).

15. Peterborough P4 Continue with current flood risk None (see PUs 2 and 6) None None None
and the Nene management (but benefit from additional
Washes
storage in PUs 2 and 6).
16. The Fens P4 Improve defences, conveyance, pump None None None None
capacities, storage

6.2.5 Uncertainties
During the collation and analysis of information a number of uncertainties and gaps in our knowledge of
the River Nene CFMP catchment came to light. It will therefore be necessary to implement actions to
improve our understanding of these issues and incorporate the findings into the CFMP as information
becomes available.
Current gaps and uncertainties noted in our knowledge of the River Nene CFMP area include:
• There is uncertainty in the assumption that future

development will not take place on floodplains;
• The use of broad-scale modelling of the rivers and floodplain
means that flood extents and depths are not always reliable,
especially for linear features such as roads raised on an
embankment, and property threshold level data is generally
not available;
• In some areas (for example Corby, Rushden and Raunds,
Upper and middle Nene catchment) a less accurate elevation
grid was used resulting in greater uncertainties;
• Flood risk from minor rivers with no detailed model was calculated using JFLOW data (for
example for Upper and middle Nene catchment, River Nene (Weedon to Kislingbury), Grendon
Brook, Corby and parts of Northampton Outer, Wellingborough, Rushden and Raunds, Barnwell
and Peterborough), a less detailed approach, which may cause the likely overestimation of flood
risk;
• The nature of the modelling means that velocities are difficult to quantify;
• There is uncertainty in the generation of the hydrographs of the 1% AEP flood;
• There are uncertainties in the modelling of the generic responses, for example the amount and
influence of P6 floodplain storage which was assumed;
• The location and scale of any flood risk associated with surface water and sewer drainage
problems in urban areas are uncertain;
• The potential nature and location of risks associated with groundwater flooding in the catchment
are uncertain, though this is thought to be a relatively low risk;
• Uncertainties surround the choice of the future scenario; it is difficult to predict how sea level and
flows will respond to climate change, the extent of urbanisation and future land use and
management;
• There is uncertainty in the costs assumed for future flood risk management;
• There is uncertainty in the influence of sediment erosion and deposition;
• A major risk to flooding in defended areas (for example Northampton, Thrapston and the Fens) is
the breaching of the embankments or other defences. The location, timing and probability of such
breaching is not predicted easily without further detailed work and is therefore difficult to quantify;
• The flood risk from IDB drains in the fenland area was not studied. The flood risk associated with
breaching is more significant. A comprehensive strategy for managing flood risk within the fens is
being planned;
• Tidal flood risk was calculated with simplifying assumptions about the volume of water that could
overtop and assumed that, in the event of overtopping, the erosion of defences would not be
severe;
• The impacts of flooding on environmental receptors, such as designated sites, could be complex.
It is accordingly difficult to classify both the magnitude and direction of the effects;
• The effectiveness of land use and land management change as a flood risk management
response is very uncertain on the catchment scale.

7 Action Plan
7.1 Introduction
The River Nene CFMP will help us to prioritise our flood risk management activities, focus our resources
in the locations with the greatest need, and determine what responses we need to consider further. It will
feed into our long term investment plans to maximise our funding of flood risk management activity. Our
responses to flood risk will be broader than traditionally used for flood defence. We will select from a
range of delivery plans (including Strategy Plans, projects and actions) to manage flood risk in a
sustainable way in a policy unit. This approach is shown in Figure 7.1. This will be the most streamlined,
cost effective and focused approach to delivering our CFMP policies and objectives.
The Action Plan is the way we and our partners deliver the CFMP policies. To produce the Action Plan,
we have used the results from policy appraisal and looked at a range of possible measures to manage
flood risk in a policy unit. The Action Plan should set clear, specific and measurable actions for the next
100 years.
We cannot reduce flood risk alone, so our aim is to use our resources and influence, to work in
partnership with others (such as Local Planning Authorities and Water Companies) to encourage them to
take action to reduce flood risk. Working with others in this strategic planning stage is the first step in the
process.
National flood risk National policy

assessment (NaFRA)
Policy planning
CFMPs and SMPs;
action plans define requirement for delivery
plans, projects and actions.
Flags… Directs…
Delivery planning Projects and actions (see Note 2)

Plans (see Note 1) required to deliver Develop and deliver actions to manage
policies effectively. For example: flood risk:
influence spatial planning to reduce limited funding prioritised to ensure
risk and restore floodplains; the optimum balance of actions;
prepare for and manage floods prioritisation focused on delivery of
(including local FW plans); outcome measures.
managing assets to reduce probability
of flooding (including system asset
management plans – SAMPs);
water level management plans;
land management and habitat creation;
surface water management plans.
Sustainable, best value flood risk outcomes outcomes
Monitor outcomes and review
Figure 7.1 The flood risk management planning framework
Note:
1. Some plans may not be led by us – we may identify the need and encourage their development
2. Subject to appraisal, and streamlined delivery process

7.2 Action plan
The action plans for the fifteen policy units are in Tables 7.1 to 7.15.

Table 7.1 Action Plan for Policy Unit: Upper and Middle Nene Catchment
POLICY UNIT: Upper and Middle Nene Catchment

Our selected policy is policy 2 to reduce existing flood risk management actions (accepting that flood risk will increase with time).
Policy unit summary:

This policy unit is a large and mostly rural policy unit. It covers much of the upper and middle catchment of the
River Nene, including the major tributaries of the Harpers Brook, Willow Brook, upper River Ise and the Nene
Brampton Branch above Northampton. There are a number of moderately sized settlements in the catchment
including Daventry, Rothwell and Desborough. Current flood risk management includes flood warning with our
flood warnings direct as the main dissemination method. This policy unit benefits from storage schemes
upstream along the River Ise, Harpers Brook and Swanspool Brook, including Great Oakley flood storage
reservoir, Geddington flood relief channel and Clipston flood storage reservoir. Maintenance activities include
obstruction removal, structure/channel/bank maintenance and asset inspections.
Current flood risk:

For the current 1% AEP event, there are 693 people and 335 properties at risk (277 residential, 58 commercial).
Depths and velocities vary, though depths are generally low. There area local, regional and national disruptions
to transport infrastructure. The West Coast Mainline (London to Birmingham), the Grand Union Canal
Northampton Branch, the A6003, A43, A6, A508, A14, A5199, A428, A425, A5, A361, A509, A45, A605 are
affected by flooding at the 1% event probability. There is a risk of the M1 flooding at a number of locations
between Collingtree and Watford Gap in the 1% AEP event. Five Sewage Treatment Works and 1 electricity
sub-station are at risk in the current 1% AEP event. Economic damages are estimated at £7.09 million
residential and £8.12 million commercial. The area of grade 2 agricultural land affected is 1.1%. 25
Conservation Areas, 8 SSSIs, 15 Scheduled Monuments, 13 Registered Parks and Gardens and 8 BAP habitats
are at risk in the current 1% AEP event.
Future flood risk:

In the future 1% AEP event, 1012 people and 481 properties (405 residential, 75 commercial) are at risk of
flooding. In the future there will be small increases in the depth, duration and velocity of flooding from the
tributaries of the River Nene in the upper and middle catchment. No other transport infrastructure is at risk. Six
electricity sub-stations, 6 STWs and 1 waste management site and Watford Gap Police Outstation are at risk in
the future 1% AEP event. Economic damages for the future 1% AEP event are estimated at £9.07 million
residential, £22.79 million commercial. The area of grade 2 agricultural land affected is 1.5%. A small area of 3
additional Conservation Areas and an additional 1 BAP habitat are also affected in the future 1% probability
event. Two further Scheduled Monuments and 1 further Registered Park and Garden are affected in the future
1% probability event.

Opportunities and constraints:
There is an opportunity to create and manage wetland habitats to contribute to BAP targets. Releasing
stored winter floodwaters at times of low flow could address water quality issues. Demand for increased
housing provision and associated infrastructure within the Milton Keynes – South Midlands (Northampton,
Corby, Kettering, Wellingborough) growth areas may come into conflict with the need to restrict development
in floodplains. Designated sites may be a constraint if special interest features are sensitive to flood levels.
The River Nene navigation is an important asset to the local community and economy. The existing urban
fabric can physically constrain the space available for flood defences.
Proposed response:
To analyse the impact of this policy to people, property and the environment we considered the outcome if
we maintain flood warning but reduced maintenance in areas where it was deemed appropriate. This did not
cause a significant increase in flood risk.
Action and mechanism Partners Timescale Objective(s) Indicators(s)

Develop a System Asset • Environment Agency 2008 to 2011.This Ensure future investment in • Expenditure on all flood
Management Plans (SAMP) Asset System action should be the catchment is proportional risk management
to reduce flood risk Management Team done immediately to to the risks activities.
management activities within (lead partner) target the resources
this policy unit, The plans • Natural England elsewhere in the
should also look at changes • Environment Agency catchment.
in land use and the Fisheries Recreation and
development of sustainable Biodiversity Team
practices to mitigate an
increase in flooding over time
and to reduce diffuse
pollution. To respond to this,
farmers can use agri-
environmental schemes as
an opportunity to alter land
management practices and
increase bio-diversity.
Reducing maintenance can

be linked to enhancing the
natural environment through
improvements in floodplain

connectivity, improvements
to geomorphology and
habitat.
Develop a System Asset • Environment Agency 2008 to 2011 To minimise flood • Number of people at risk
Management Plan to Asset System related risks to the in the 1% flood event
investigate how we can Management Team population • Number of people
continue the current level of (lead partner) covered by flood warning
maintenance activities • Natural England or emergency /
through Grendon Brook • Environment Agency evacuation plans
villages, to Clipston and Fisheries Recreation and To minimise community • Number of properties
Great Oakley flood storage Biodiversity Team disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
reservoirs and Geddington event
flood relief channel. • Category of social
vulnerability areas
affected in the 1% flood
event
• Extent of disruption
• Duration of disruption
To minimise economic • Residential damages in
impacts of flooding the 1% flood event
• Commercial damages in
the 1% flood event
• Percentage area of
grade 1 and 2
agricultural land flooded
during the 1% flood
event
Flood Forecasting and • Environment Agency 2008 to 2100 To minimise flood related • Number of people at risk
Warning delivery plan to Flood Forecasting risks to the population in the 1% flood event
maintain the current level of Team (lead partner) • Number of people
flood forecasting/warning • Environment Agency covered by flood warning
service. This should include Flood Incident or emergency /
the maintenance of flow Management Team evacuation plans
gauging stations and rain • Environment Agency To minimise community • Number of properties
gauges located within this Field Monitoring and disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
policy unit. Data Management Team event
• Category of social

vulnerability areas
event
the 1% flood event
grade 1 and 2
during the 1% flood
event
Develop an Emergency • Private Owners (lead 2008 to 2011 To minimise risks to critical • Number and type of
Response Plan for the 5 partners) infrastructure and community critical infrastructure at
electricity sub-stations, 6 • Emergency Services facilities risk in a 1% flood event
Sewage Treatment Works, 1 • Environment Agency
Waste Management Site, the Flood Risk Mapping and
Watford Gap Police Data Management
Outstation, the West Coast • Environment Agency
railway line, the Grand Union Regional Incident and
Canal Northampton Branch, Emergency Planning
the M1between Collingtree • Environment Agency
and Watford Gap and the A Flood Incident
roads at risk of flooding in Management
this policy unit. • Highways Agency
Also councils:
• Daventry District Council
• Borough Council of
Wellingborough
• Kettering Borough
Council
• Corby Borough Council
• East Northamptonshire
Council
• Peterborough City
Council

• Huntingdonshire District
Council
• South Northamptonshire
District Council
• Bedford Borough Council
Put in place policies within Led by councils 2008 to 2100 To minimise flood related • Number of people at risk
the • Daventry District Council risks to the population in the 1% flood event
Local Development • Borough Council of • Number of people
Framework for no Wellingborough covered by flood warning
inappropriate development in • Kettering Borough or emergency /
the floodplain. Any new Council evacuation plans
development should be • Corby Borough Council To minimise community • Number of properties
located in the areas of lowest • East Northamptonshire disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
flood risk and must not Council event
increase risk to existing • Peterborough City • Category of social
development. For the upper Council vulnerability areas
Nene catchment, surface • Huntingdonshire District affected in the 1% flood
water attenuation should be Council event
provided up to the 0.5% AEP Extent of disruption
• South Northamptonshire •
design standard plus climate Duration of disruption
District Council •
change allowance to
• Bedford Borough Council To minimise economic • Residential damages in
safeguard defences through impacts of flooding
• Environment Agency the 1% flood event
Northampton which have a
0.5% AEP standard of Development Control • Commercial damages in
protection. Developers Team the 1% flood event
should incorporate river • Environment Agency • Percentage area of
naturalisation and Planning Liaison Team grade 1 and 2
environmental enhancement agricultural land flooded
into new developments. during the 1% flood
event
To minimise risks to critical • Number and type of
infrastructure and community critical infrastructure at
facilities risk in a 1% flood event
Protect and contribute to the • Area of SSSIs, SPAs,
improvement of designated SACs and Ramsar sites
nature conservation sites flooded in a 1% flood
(SSSI, SPA, SAC and event
Ramsar) • Reported condition
status of SSSIs, SPAs,

SACs and Ramsar sites
at risk from a 1% event
Put in place policies within Led by councils 2008 to 2100 this action is a To minimise flood related • Number of people at risk
the • Daventry District Council priority for this policy unit to risks to the population in the 1% flood event
Local Development • Borough Council of help maintain the current • Number of people
Framework to link flood risk Wellingborough level of risk into the future by covered by flood warning
management planning with • Kettering Borough using more sustainable flood or emergency /
the regeneration and Council risk management activities. evacuation plans
redevelopment of • Corby Borough Council To minimise community • Number of properties
commercial sites. The • East Northamptonshire disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
location, layout and design of Council event
commercial developments • Peterborough City • Category of social
can help to reduce flood risk. Council vulnerability areas
PPS25 sets out a range of • Huntingdonshire District affected in the 1% flood
measures that can reduce Council event
the impacts of flood risk, • Extent of disruption
such as making buildings • Duration of disruption
District Council
resilient to flooding.
• Bedford Borough Council To minimise economic • Residential damages in
• Environment Agency impacts of flooding the 1% flood event
Development Control • Commercial damages in
Team the 1% flood event
• Environment Agency • Percentage area of
Planning Liaison Team grade 1 and 2
during the 1% flood
event
Develop a Land • Environment Agency 2009 to 2012 this is an To minimise economic • Residential damages in
Management Plan to Strategic opportunity linked to flood impacts of flooding the 1% flood event
explore changes in land use Environmental storage and reduction of • Commercial damages in
and develop sustainable land Planning Team (lead maintenance in the policy the 1% flood event
management practices. partner) unit. Therefore, it should • Percentage area of
Overtime flooding may • Environment Agency be carried out in grade 1 and 2
increase, farmers can use Habitat Creation conjunction with the flood agricultural land flooded
agri-environmental schemes Manager storage study and SAMPs during the 1% flood
as an opportunity to alter • England Catchment to reduce maintenance. event

land management practices Sensitive Farming Protect and contribute to the • Area of SSSIs, SPAs,
to respond to this and Delivery Initiative improvement of designated SACs and Ramsar sites
increase biodiversity. This • National Farmers Union nature conservation sites flooded in a 1% flood
also provides an opportunity • Farming Wildlife Advisory (SSSI, SPA, SAC and event
to reduce diffuse pollution Group Ramsar) • Reported condition
and work towards achieving • Countryside Land status of SSSIs, SPAs,
our Water Framework Association SACs and Ramsar sites
objectives. at risk from a 1% event
Enhance the biodiversity of • The distribution and
the catchment by improving extent of the future UK
the quality of the river BAP priority habitats (for
environment and contributing example, fens, wet
to UK Biodiversity Action woodland, reed bed,
Plan targets floodplain grazing
marsh)
Support the achievement of • WFD Article 5 pressures
good status/potential of and impacts
surface and groundwater assessments results
bodies under the WFD • WFD ecological and
chemical status/potential
of water bodies.
• Area of contaminated or
damaged land restored
or protected as a result
of flood risk management
activities
Environmental • Natural England (lead 2009-2012 this is an Protect and • Area of SSSIs, SPAs,
Enhancement partner) opportunity linked to contribute to the SACs and Ramsar sites
Project to improve the • Environment Agency the reduction of improvement of flooded in a 1% flood
natural state of the river and Fisheries Recreation and maintenance in the designated nature event
its habitat. Reducing Biodiversity Team policy unit. Therefore, conservation sites • Reported condition
maintenance activities • Environment Agency it should be carried out (SSSI, SPA, SAC status of SSSIs, SPAs,
provides the opportunity to Habitat Creation in conjunction with the and Ramsar) SACs and Ramsar sites
improve floodplain SAMPs to reduce at risk from a 1% event
connectivity, in stream maintenance. Enhance the biodiversity of • The distribution and
geomorphology and aquatic the catchment by improving extent of the future UK
habitats. the quality of the river BAP priority habitats
environment and contributing (for example, fens, wet

Plan targets floodplain grazing
marsh)
Resilience and resistance • Natural England (lead 2011 to 2015 Protect and contribute to the • Area of SSSIs, SPAs,
project for the SSSIs and partner) improvement of designated SACs and Ramsar sites
BAP habitats at risk in this • Environment Agency nature conservation sites flooded in a 1% flood
policy unit. The project Fisheries Recreation and (SSSI, SPA, SAC and event
should investigate the extent Biodiversity Ramsar) • Reported condition
and impact of flooding in the • Environment Agency status of SSSIs, SPAs,
current and future 1% AEP Habitat Creation SACs and Ramsar sites
event to these sites. The Manager at risk from a 1% event
study should also investigate Enhance the biodiversity of • The distribution and
whether mitigation measures the catchment by improving extent of the future UK
are needed. the quality of the river BAP priority habitats (for
Plan targets floodplain grazing marsh)
Resilience and resistance • Private owners/English 2011 to 2015 Protect and enhance Numbers of:
project for the 17 Scheduled Heritage (lead partners) significant historic • Scheduled Monuments
Monuments at risk in this • Environment Agency environment assets and their • Historic Parks and
policy unit. The project Flood Risk Mapping and settings Gardens
should investigate the extent Data Management Team • Historic Battlefields
and impact of flooding in the • Environment Agency • Conservation Areas
current and future 1% AEP Fisheries Recreation and adversely affected by
event to these sites. The Biodiversity flooding or flood risk
study should also investigate management activities
whether local
protection/resilience
measures are needed.

Table 7.2 Action Plan for Policy Unit: River Nene (Weedon to Kislingbury)
POLICY UNIT: River Nene (Weedon to Kislingbury)

Our selected policy is policy 6 to take action with others to store water or manage runoff in locations that provide overall flood risk reduction
or environmental benefits locally or elsewhere in the catchment.
This rural policy unit covers the floodplain of the River Nene on the Kislingbury branch from Weedon to the A45
Upton Way crossing of the Nene at Northampton, as well as parts of the Weedon Bec and Bugbrooke Brook
tributaries. It includes the town of Kislingbury as well as smaller settlements such as the villages of Weedon and
Bugbrooke.
Current flood risk management includes flood warning with our flood warnings direct as the main dissemination
method. This policy unit benefits from a number of flood defence schemes including Weedon flood storage
reservoir and Kislingbury flood walls and banks (including one demountable wall section). Flood storage is
under construction between Kislingbury and Northampton which will provide benefit to Northampton and areas
further downstream, as well as compensating for development in the Upper Nene. Maintenance activities
include obstruction removal, structure maintenance, grass cutting, weed control and asset inspections.
Current flood risk:

Currently, 105 people and 57 properties are at risk of flooding from the 1% AEP event. The depth of flooding is
generally low (less than 0.5 metres) however, some of the valleys are quite narrow and steep in gradient
indicating moderate velocities are possible. The West Coast mainline (London – Birmingham) at Weedon, the
Grand Union Canal at Weedon, the A5 at Weedon Bec and the M1 near Kislingbury are all at risk of flooding in
the current 1% AEP event. One STW and 1 waste management site are at risk of flooding in the current 1%
AEP event. There are economic damages of £840,000 residential and £3.59 million commercial in the current
1% AEP event. The area of grade 2 agricultural land affected is 1.1%. There is 1 Scheduled Monument, 3
Conservation Areas and Bugbrooke Meadows SSSI and 1 BAP Habitat at risk in the current 1% AEP event.
Future flood risk:

In the future 1% AEP event, 178 people and 90 properties are at risk of flooding in the 1% AEP event. There are
likely to be small increases in the depth and velocity of flooding. No other transport infrastructure is affected in
the future 1% AEP event. Two Sewage Treatment Works and 1 IPPC site are at risk in the future 1% AEP event
with a minor increase in depth at the waste mangement site. Economic damages of £1.38 million residential and
£4.09 million commercial are estimated for the future 1% AEP event. The area of grade 2 agricultural land
affected is 1.8%. No other environmental sites are at risk in the future 1% AEP event.

There are opportunities to create new recreational and amenity features to contribute to the network of Green
Infrastructure developments, use of existing or new mineral extraction sites and influencing their reinstatement
plans and create and manage wetland habitats to contribute to BAP targets.
Designated sites may be a constraint if special interest features are sensitive to flood levels. The River Nene
navigation is an important asset to the local community and economy. Negative impacts may be experienced
on existing biodiversity within the floodplain if flooding is deep and prolonged in spring and summer months or if
flood risk management measures isolate the river from its floodplain. Landscape character and local
designations may constrain works in some locations. Land availability is a constraint for responses requiring
changes in land use or management.
Proposed response:
To analyse the impact of this policy to people, property and the environment we considered the outcome if we
created storage reservoirs on the Kislingbury Branch of the River Nene. This showed a significant reduction in
the impact of flooding in downstream policy units.

Develop a Flood Storage • Environment Agency 2008 to 2011 this To minimise flood related risks • Number of people at risk
Study to investigate Asset System action is a priority for to the population in the 1% flood event
creating/developing storage Management Team this policy unit as it • Number of people
on the River Nene (Weedon (lead partner) will help create covered by flood warning
to Kislingbury) policy unit. • Environment Agency sustainable flood risk or emergency /
This will mitigate future flood Sustainable Development management by evacuation plans
risk to the Northamptonshire Delivery Team mitigating future To minimise community • Number of properties
Central policy unit and • English Partnerships flood risk to several disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
commercial areas of the • Natural England key towns, working event
Northampton Outer policy • Environment Agency with natural • Category of social
unit. The study should Fisheries Recreation and processes and vulnerability areas
consider the flood defence Biodiversity Team making space for affected in the 1% flood
measures constructed at • Daventry District Council water. event
Upton. • South Northamptonshire • Extent of disruption
District Council • Duration of disruption
The study should determine To minimise economic impacts • Residential damages in
• Northampton Borough
the possible location of
Council of flooding the 1% flood event
storage and combination of
river restoration and

engineered flood storage. the 1% flood event
Where possible the study • Percentage area of grade
should enhance the 1 and 2 agricultural land
environment by improving the flooded during the 1%
natural state of the river and flood event
its habitat. Ensure future investment in • Expenditure on all flood
the catchment is proportional risk management activities
to the risks
Ramsar) • Reported condition status
of SSSIs, SPAs, SACs
and Ramsar sites at risk
from a 1% event
Enhance the biodiversity of the • The distribution and extent
catchment by improving the of the future UK BAP
quality of the river environment priority habitats (for
and contributing to UK example, fens, wet
Biodiversity Action Plan woodland, reed bed,
targets floodplain grazing marsh)
Develop a System Asset • Environment Agency 2008-2011 To minimise flood related • Number of people at risk
Management Plan (SAMP) Asset System risks to the population in the 1% flood event
to investigate how we can Management Team • Number of people
continue with the current level (lead partner) covered by flood warning
of flood risk management • Natural England or emergency /
throughout all systems in this • Environment Agency evacuation plans
policy unit. The SAMP should Fisheries, Recreation and
also investigate where we Biodiversity
can create more natural river
channels.

To minimise community • Number of properties
disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
event
vulnerability areas
event
To minimise economic impacts • Residential damages in
of flooding the 1% flood event
the 1% flood event
• Percentage area of grade
1 and 2 agricultural land
flooded during the 1%
flood event
Enhance the biodiversity of the • The distribution and extent
catchment by improving the of the future UK BAP
quality of the river environment priority habitats (for
and contributing to UK example, fens, wet
Biodiversity Action Plan woodland, reed bed,
gauges located within this Field Monitoring and Data disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
policy unit. Management Team event
vulnerability areas
event
the 1% flood event
flood event
Develop an Emergency • Private Owners (lead 2008 to 2011 To minimise risks to critical Number and type of critical
Response Plan for the 2 partner) infrastructure and community infrastructure at risk in a 1%
Sewage Treatment Works • Emergency Services facilities flood event
and the IPPC site at risk of • Environment Agency
flooding. Flood Risk Mapping and
Data Management
• Environment Agency
Regional Incident and
Emergency Planning
Flood Incident
Management
District Council
the Local Development • Daventry District Council risks to the population in the 1% flood event
Framework for no • South Northamptonshire • Number of people
inappropriate development in District Council covered by flood warning
the floodplain. Any new • Environment Agency or emergency /
development should be Development Control evacuation plans
located in the areas of lowest Team To minimise community • Number of properties
flood risk and must not • Environment Agency disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
increase risk to existing Planning Liaison Team event
development. For this policy • Category of social
unit, surface water vulnerability areas
attenuation should be affected in the 1% flood
provided up to the 0.5% AEP event
design standard plus climate • Extent of disruption
change allowance to • Duration of disruption

safeguard defences through To minimise economic • Residential damages in
Northampton which have a impacts of flooding the 1% flood event
0.5% AEP standard of • Commercial damages in
protection. Developers should the 1% flood event
incorporate river • Percentage area of grade
naturalisation and 1 and 2 agricultural land
environmental enhancement flooded during the 1%
into new developments. flood event
Enhance the biodiversity of The distribution and extent of
the catchment by improving the future UK BAP priority
the quality of the river habitats (for example, fens,
environment and contributing wet woodland, reed bed,
to UK Biodiversity Action Plan floodplain grazing marsh)
targets
Environmental • Natural England (lead 2009 to 2012 Protect and contribute to the • Area of SSSIs, SPAs,
Enhancement Project at partner) improvement of designated SACs and Ramsar sites
Bugbooke Meadows SSSI to • Environment Agency nature conservation sites flooded in a 1% flood
investigate changes in Fisheries Recreation and (SSSI, SPA, SAC and event
condition of the site and Biodiversity Ramsar) • Reported condition status
recommend any changes in • Environment Agency of SSSIs, SPAs, SACs
management. Habitat Creation Manager and Ramsar sites at risk
from a 1% event
Resilience and resistance • Natural England (lead 2011 to 2015 Enhance the biodiversity of • The distribution and
project for the BAP habitat in partner) the catchment by improving extent of the future UK
this policy unit. The project • Environment Agency the quality of the river BAP priority habitats (for
should investigate the extent Fisheries Recreation and environment and contributing example, fens, wet
and impact of flooding in the Biodiversity to UK Biodiversity Action Plan woodland, reed bed,
current and future 1% AEP • Environment Agency targets floodplain grazing marsh)
event to this site. The study Habitat Creation Manager
should also investigate
whether mitigation measures
are needed.

Resilience and resistance • Private owner/English 2011 to 2015 Protect and enhance Numbers of:
project for the 1 Scheduled Heritage (lead partner) significant historic Scheduled Monuments
Monument at risk in this • Environment Agency environment assets and their Historic Parks and Gardens
policy unit. The project Flood Risk Mapping and settings Historic Battlefields
should investigate the extent Data Management Team Conservation Areas adversely
and impact of flooding in the • Environment Agency affected by flooding or flood
current and future 1% AEP Fisheries Recreation and risk management activities
event to this site. The study Biodiversity
should also investigate
whether local
Response Plan for the 2 partner) infrastructure and community critical infrastructure at
Sewage Treatment Works • Emergency Services facilities risk in a 1% flood event
and the IPPC site at risk of • Environment Agency
flooding. Flood Risk Mapping and
Data Management
Emergency Planning
Flood Incident
Management

Table 7.3 Action Plan for Policy Unit: Wootton
POLICY UNIT: Wootton

Our selected policy is policy 3 to continue with existing and alternative actions to manage flood risk at the current level
(accepting that flood risk will increase over time from the baseline).
This policy unit is largely urban. It covers a portion of the Wootton Brook catchment, with the Wootton Brook
forming the southern branch of the River Nene tributaries upstream of Northampton. It extends over the area of
Northampton to the south of the A45, from the upstream edge of the urban area within the catchment to the
southern edge of the Nene floodplain where the river enters Northampton, just upstream of the A45 Upton Way.
It includes the built up areas of Wootton and Grange Park, bordered to the south by the M1. Current flood risk
management includes flood warning with our flood warnings direct as the main dissemination method. There
are no formal defences within this policy unit, although there may be some informal/private defences.
Maintenance activities include obstruction removal and structure/bank/channel maintenance.
Current flood risk:

For the current 1% AEP event, there are 178 people and 74 properties (71 residential and 3 commercial) at risk.
Depths and velocities are generally moderate. The West Coast Mainline (Northampton Branch) and the A508 at
Wootton are at risk of flooding in the 1% AEP event. Economic damages are estimated at £990,000 residential
and £160,000 commercial. There is no grade 1 or grade 2 agricultural land affected. There are no
environmental sites at risk of flooding in the current 1% AEP event. Surface water may cause a risk in this policy
unit.
Future flood risk:

In the future, 200 people and 83 properties (80 residential, 3 commercial) are at risk in the 1% AEP event. The
West Coast mainline (Northampton Branch) and A508 at Wootton are at an increased risk of flooding in the
future 1% AEP event. There are 2 electricity sub-stations at risk in the future 1% AEP event. Economic damages
of £1.16 million residential and £170,000 commercial are estimated in the future 1% AEP event. The area of
grade 1 agricultural land is 1.2% and grade 2 agricultural land affected is 2%. There are no environmental sites
at risk in the future 1% AEP event.

There is the opportunity to create new recreational and amenity features to contribute to the network of Green
Infrastructure developments, such as the River Nene Regional. Constraints include the demand for increased
housing provision and associated infrastructure within the Milton Keynes – South Midlands (Northampton,
Corby, Kettering, Wellingborough) growth areas may come into conflict with the need to restrict development in
floodplains.

navigation is an important asset to the local community and economy. Landscape character and local
designations may constrain works in some locations.
Proposed response:
maintained the current level of flood risk management. This maintains flood risk at the current level and in the
future the flood risk would not increase significantly from the base case.

Develop a System Asset • Environment Agency 2008 to 2011 To minimise flood related • Number of people at risk
to investigate how we can Management Team • Number of people covered
continue with the current (lead partner) by flood warning or
level of flood risk • Natural England emergency / evacuation
management throughout all • Environment Agency plans
systems in this policy unit. Fisheries Recreation and To minimise community • Number of properties
The SAMP should also Biodiversity Team disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
investigate where we can event
create more natural river • Category of social
channels. vulnerability areas affected
in the 1% flood event
the 1% flood event
flood event
Enhance the biodiversity of • The distribution and extent
the catchment by improving of the future UK BAP
the quality of the river priority habitats (for

maintain the current level of Team (lead partner) • Number of people covered
flood forecasting/warning • Environment Agency by flood warning or
service. This should include Flood Incident emergency / evacuation
the maintenance of flow Management Team plans
vulnerability areas affected
in the 1% flood event
the 1% flood event
flood event
Develop a Flood • Environment Agency 2008 to 2100 this action is a To minimise flood related • Number of people at risk
Awareness Plan Flood Incident priority for this policy unit to risks to the population in the 1% flood event
to encourage people to sign Management (lead help maintain the current • Number of people covered
up to and respond to flood partner) level of risk into the future by by flood warning or
warnings as well as using • General Public using more sustainable flood emergency / evacuation
self-help methods to protect • National Flood Forum risk plans
their properties. This management activities. To minimise community • Number of properties
supports the disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
recommendation of the event
Wootton pre-feasibility study. • Category of social
vulnerability areas
event


the 1% flood event
flood event
the Local Development • Northampton Borough risks to the population in the 1% flood event
Framework for no Council • Number of people covered
inappropriate development in • South Northamptonshire by flood warning or
the floodplain. Any new District Council emergency / evacuation
development should be • Environment Agency plans
located in the areas of lowest Development Control To minimise community • Number of properties
flood risk and must not Team disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
increase risk to existing • Environment Agency event
development. For this policy Planning Liaison Team • Category of social
unit, surface water vulnerability areas affected
attenuation should be in the 1% flood event
provided up to the 0.5% AEP • Extent of disruption
design standard plus climate • Duration of disruption
change allowance to To minimise economic • Residential damages in
safeguard defences through impacts of flooding the 1% flood event
Northampton which have a
0.5% AEP standard of • Commercial damages in
the 1% flood event
protection. Developers
should incorporate river • Percentage area of grade
naturalisation and 1 and 2 agricultural land
environmental enhancement flooded during the 1%
into new developments. flood event

Develop a Surface Water • Anglian Water (lead 2008 to 2011 To minimise flood related • Number of people at risk
Management Plan for partner) risks to the population in the 1% flood event
Collingtree. This plan • Northampton Borough • Number of people covered
should investigate the risk Council by flood warning or
from surface water flooding. • South Northamptonshire emergency / evacuation
District Council plans
• Environment Agency To minimise community • Number of properties
Development Control disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
• Environment Agency event
Planning Liaison • Category of social
• Environment Agency vulnerability areas affected
Sustainable in the 1% flood event
Development Team • Extent of disruption
the 1% flood event
flood event
Develop an Emergency • Private Owners (lead 2008 to 2011 To minimise risks to critical • Number and type of critical
Response Plan for the 2 partner) infrastructure and infrastructure at risk in a
electricity sub-stations, the • Rail Company community facilities 1% flood event
A508 at Wootton and • Emergency Services
Northampton Branch railway • Environment Agency
line at risk of flooding. Flood Risk Mapping and
Data Management
Emergency Planning

Flood Incident
Management
• Highways Agency and
councils:
Council
District Council

Table 7.4 Action Plan for Policy Unit: Northampton Central
POLICY UNIT: Northampton Central

Our selected policy is policy 4 to take further action to sustain the current scale of flood risk into the future (responding to the potential
increases in flood risk from urban development, land use change and climate change).
The Northampton Central policy unit is a largely urban policy unit which has a high population density. The
policy unit extends from the A45 Upton Way crossing the River Nene just upstream of Northampton through the
town down to the outlet gates from the Northampton Washlands just above Billing.
Current flood risk management includes flood warning with our flood warnings direct and sirens as the main
dissemination methods. This policy unit benefits from extensive flood defence and storage including flood walls
and banks, Duston and Hardingstone flood storage reservoirs and Northampton Washlands flood storage
reservoir. Maintenance activities include obstruction removal, structure/channel/bank maintenance, asset
inspections and vermin control.
Current flood risk:

For the current 1% AEP event, there are no people and property at risk, due to the presence of the defences.
The West Coast mainline (Northampton branch) is at risk of flooding and the A45 road at West Northampton
would be closed at the 1% AEP event. There is no other critical infrastructure is at risk. There are no economic
damages in the current 1% AEP event. The area of grade 2 agricultural land affected is 0.3%. The Upper Nene
Valley Gravel pits SSSI/pSPA/Ramsar site is affected by flooding in the current 1% AEP event, but this is not
expected to have negative impacts. Surface water flooding may cause a risk in this policy unit.
Future flood risk:

In the future, there is no change in the 1% AEP event. However, if defences are breached the impact of flooding
is potentially very severe, with high velocities and depths of flooding. The future risk rises dramatically for a
0.1% AEP flood.

There is an opportunity to create and manage wetland habitats to contribute to BAP targets. Releasing stored
winter floodwaters at times of low flow could address water quality issues. Demand for increased housing
provision and associated infrastructure within the Milton Keynes – South Midlands (Northampton, Corby,
Kettering, Wellingborough) growth areas may come into conflict with the need to restrict development in
floodplains. Designated sites may be a constraint if special interest features are sensitive to flood levels. The
River Nene navigation is an important asset to the local community and economy. The existing urban
framework can physically constrain the space available for flood defences.

Proposed response:
maintained the standard of protection of defences already in place and developed storage upstream of this
policy unit. This maintained flood risk at the current level and offset future changes.

Develop a Flood Storage • Environment Agency 2008 to 2011 this To minimise flood related • Number of people at risk in
Study to investigate Asset System action is a priority risks to the population the 1% flood event
creating/developing storage Management Team for this policy unit • Number of people covered by
on the River Nene (Weedon (lead partner) as it will help flood warning or emergency /
to Kislingbury) policy unit. • Environment Agency create sustainable evacuation plans
This will mitigate future flood Sustainable Development flood risk To minimise community • Number of properties affected
risk to the Northamptonshire Delivery Team management by disruption from flooding in the 1% flood event
Central policy unit and • English Partnerships mitigating future • Category of social
commercial areas of the • Natural England flood risk to vulnerability areas affected in
Northampton Outer policy • Environment Agency several key towns, the 1% flood event
unit. The study should Fisheries Recreation and working with • Extent of disruption
consider the flood defence Biodiversity Team natural processes • Duration of disruption
measures constructed at • Daventry District Council and making space
To minimise economic • Residential damages in the
Upton and the protection of • South Northamptonshire for water.
impacts of flooding 1% flood event
the Upper Nene Valley District Council • Commercial damages in the
Gravel Pits
• Northampton Borough 1% flood event
SSSI/pSPA/Ramsar site.
Council • Percentage area of grade 1
The study should determine and 2 agricultural land
the possible location of flooded during the 1% flood
storage and combination of event
river restoration and Ensure future investment in • Expenditure on all flood risk
engineered flood storage. the catchment is management activities
Where possible the study proportional to the risks
should enhance the Protect and contribute to the • Area of SSSIs, SPAs, SACs
environment by improving the improvement of designated and Ramsar sites flooded in a
natural state of the river and nature conservation sites 1% flood event
its habitat. (SSSI, SPA, SAC and • Reported condition status of
Ramsar) SSSIs, SPAs, SACs and
Ramsar sites at risk from a
1% event

Enhance the biodiversity of • The distribution and extent of
environment and wet woodland, reed bed,
contributing to UK floodplain grazing marsh)
Biodiversity Action Plan
targets
Develop a System Asset • Environment Agency 2008 to 2011 To minimise flood related • Number of people at risk in
Management Plan (SAMP) Asset System risks to the population the 1% flood event
to investigate how we can Management Team • Number of people covered by
continue with the current (lead partner) flood warning or emergency /
level of flood risk • Natural England evacuation plans
management throughout all • Environment Agency
systems in this policy unit. Fisheries, Recreation and
Biodiversity
To minimise community • Number of properties affected
disruption from flooding in the 1% flood event
vulnerability areas affected in
the 1% flood event
• Commercial damages in the
1% flood event
• Percentage area of grade 1
and 2 agricultural land flooded
during the 1% flood event
Flood Forecasting and • Environment Agency 2008 to 2100 To minimise flood related • Number of people at risk in
Warning delivery plan to Flood Forecasting risks to the population the 1% flood event
maintain the current level of Team (lead partner) • Number of people covered by
flood forecasting/warning • Environment Agency flood warning or emergency /
service. This should include Flood Incident evacuation plans
the maintenance of flow Management Team To minimise community • Number of properties affected
gauging stations and rain • Environment Agency disruption from flooding in the 1% flood event
gauges located within this Field Monitoring and Data • Category of social
policy unit. Management Team vulnerability areas affected in

the 1% flood event
1% flood event
and 2 agricultural land
flooded during the 1% flood
event
Develop a Flood Awareness • Environment Agency 2008 to 2100 this action is To minimise flood related • Number of people at risk in
Plan to encourage people to Flood Incident a priority for this policy unit risks to the population the 1% flood event
sign up to and respond to Management (lead to help maintain the current • Number of people covered by
flood warnings as well as partner) level of risk into the future flood warning or emergency /
using self-help methods to • General Public by using more sustainable evacuation plans
protect their properties. • National Flood Forum flood risk management To minimise community • Number of properties affected
activities. disruption from flooding in the 1% flood event
vulnerability areas affected in
the 1% flood event
1% flood event
event
Develop an Emergency • Private owners (lead 2008 to 2011 To minimise flood related • Number of people at risk in
Response Plan to mitigate partners) risks to the population the 1% flood event
flood risk in Northampton • Northampton Borough • Number of people covered by
from the risk of the defences Council flood warning or emergency /
breaching. • Emergency Services evacuation plans

• Environment Agency To minimise community • Number of properties affected
Flood Risk Mapping and disruption from flooding in the 1% flood event
Data Management • Category of social
• Environment Agency vulnerability areas affected in
Regional Incident and the 1% flood event
Emergency Planning • Extent of disruption
• Environment Agency • Duration of disruption
Flood Incident To minimise economic • Residential damages in the
Management impacts of flooding 1% flood event
1% flood event
event
To minimise risks to critical • Number and type of critical
infrastructure and infrastructure at risk in a 1%
community facilities flood event
Put in place policies within Led by councils 2008 to 2100 To minimise flood related • Number of people at risk in
the Local Development • Northampton Borough risks to the population the 1% flood event
Framework for no Council • Number of people covered by
inappropriate development in • Environment Agency flood warning or emergency /
the floodplain using methods Development Control evacuation plans
in PPS25. Any new Team To minimise community • Number of properties affected
development should be • Environment Agency disruption from flooding in the 1% flood event
located in the areas of lowest Planning Liaison Team • Category of social
flood risk, targeted to vulnerability areas affected in
previously developed land the 1% flood event
and must not increase risk to • Extent of disruption
existing development. For • Duration of disruption
this policy unit, surface water
attenuation should be
provided up to the 0.5% AEP
design standard plus climate • Commercial damages in the
1% flood event
change allowance to
safeguard defences through • Percentage area of grade 1
Northampton which have a and 2 agricultural land
0.5% AEP standard of flooded during the 1% flood
event
protection. Developers To minimise risks to critical • Number and type of critical
should incorporate river infrastructure and infrastructure at risk in a 1%
naturalisation and community facilities flood event
environmental enhancement Enhance the biodiversity of • The distribution and extent of
into new developments. the catchment by improving the future UK BAP priority
environment and wet woodland, reed bed,
contributing to UK floodplain grazing marsh)
targets
Environmental • Natural England (lead 2009 to 2012 Protect and contribute to • Area of SSSIs, SPAs, SACs
Enhancement Project at the partner) the improvement of and Ramsar sites flooded in a
Upper Nene Valley Gravel • Environment Agency designated nature 1% flood event
pits SSSI/pSAP/Ramsar site Fisheries Recreation and conservation sites (SSSI, • Reported condition status of
to investigate changes in Biodiversity SPA, SAC and Ramsar) SSSIs, SPAs, SACs and
condition of the site and • Environment Agency Ramsar sites at risk from a
recommend any changes in Habitat Creation Manager 1% event
management.
Develop a Surface Water • Anglian Water (lead 2008 to 2011 To minimise flood related • Number of people at risk in
Management Plan for partner) risks to the population the 1% flood event
Northampton. This plan • Northampton Borough • Number of people covered by
should investigate the risk Council flood warning or emergency /
from surface water flooding. • South Northamptonshire evacuation plans
District Council To minimise community • Number of properties affected
• Environment Agency disruption from flooding in the 1% flood event
Development Control • Category of social
• Environment Agency vulnerability areas affected in
Planning Liaison the 1% flood event
• Environment Agency • Extent of disruption
Sustainable Development • Duration of disruption
Team To minimise economic • Residential damages in the
1% flood event
event

Table 7.5 Action Plan for Policy Unit: Northampton Outer
POLICY UNIT: Northampton Outer

increases in flood risk from urban development, land use change and climate change).
This urban policy unit extends from north of the River Nene Kislingbury Branch floodplain just upstream of
Northampton around the urban fringes of the town, including Dallington Brook, to cross the River Nene
Brampton Branch upstream of St. Andrew’s Mill and continue to follow the northern and eastern edge of the
town down to Billing Aquadrome. Current flood risk management includes flood warning with our flood warnings
direct and sirens as the main dissemination methods. This policy unit benefits from a number of flood storage
and flood defence schemes including Dallington Brook flood wall and banks, Billing Brook flood detention ponds
and Dallington flood storage reservoir. Maintenance activities include obstruction removal, structure and
channel/bank maintenance.
Current flood risk:

363 people and 251 properties (145 residential, 106 commercial) are at risk in the current 1% AEP event. The
velocities and depths unlikely to be high on the River Nene and Brampton Branch, though they may be high on
the Dallington and Billing Brook. The West Coast mainline (Northampton branch), the A45 and A43 are at risk of
flooding at the current 1% AEP event. Ten electricity substations and 1 waste management site are currently at
risk in the 1% AEP event. Current economic damages are estimated at £3.01 million residential and £33.03
million commercial. The area of grade 2 agricultural land affected is 19.7%. One Scheduled Monument, 1
Conservation Area and 2 BAP habitats are at risk in the current 1% AEP event.
Future flood risk:

In the future, 704 people and 428 properties (296 residential, 132 commercial) are at risk of flooding in the future
1% AEP event. No other transport infrastructure is affected in the future 1% AEP event. One extra electricity
sub-and one extra waste management site are at risk in the future 1% AEP event. Economic damages in the
future 1% AEP are £6.77 million residential, £53.77 million commercial. The area of grade 2 agricultural land
affected is 23.3%.

There are the opportunities to create and manage wetland habitats to contribute to BAP targets. Releasing
stored winter floodwaters at times of low flow could address water quality issues. New recreational and amenity
features to contribute to the network of Green Infrastructure developments. Demand for increased housing
provision and associated infrastructure within the Milton Keynes – South Midlands (Northampton, Corby,
Kettering, Wellingborough) growth areas may come into conflict with the need to restrict development in
floodplains.

navigation is an important asset to the local community and economy. The existing urban fabric can physically
constrain the space available for flood defences. Landscape character and local designations may constrain
works in some locations. Negative impacts may be experienced on existing biodiversity within the floodplain if
flooding is deep and prolonged in spring and summer months or if flood risk management measures isolate
the river from its floodplain.
Proposed response:
maintained the standard of protection of defences already in place and increased localised protection
measures on the River Nene. This maintained flood risk at the current level and offset future changes.

on the River Nene (Weedon (lead partner) will help create covered by flood warning
to Kislingbury) policy unit. • Environment Agency sustainable flood risk or emergency /
This will mitigate future flood Sustainable management by evacuation plans
risk to the Northamptonshire Development Delivery mitigating future To minimise community • Number of properties
Central policy unit and Team flood risk to several disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
commercial areas of the • English Partnerships key towns, working event
Northampton Outer policy • Natural England with natural • Category of social
unit. The study should • Environment Agency processes and vulnerability areas
consider the flood defence Fisheries Recreation and making space for affected in the 1% flood
measures constructed at Biodiversity Team water. event
Upton. • Daventry District Council • Extent of disruption
• Northampton Borough • Duration of disruption
The study should determine Council To minimise economic • Residential damages in
the possible location of impacts of flooding the 1% flood event
river restoration and • Commercial damages in
the 1% flood event
engineered flood storage.
Where possible the study • Percentage area of
should enhance the grade 1 and 2
environment by improving agricultural land flooded
the natural state of the river during the 1% flood

and its habitat. event
Ensure future investment in • Expenditure on all flood

the catchment is proportional risk management
to the risks activities
to UK Biodiversity Action Plan woodland, reed bed,
Develop a System Asset • Environment Agency 2008-2011 To minimise flood related • Number of people at risk
continue with the current (lead partner) covered by flood warning
level of flood risk • Natural England or emergency /
management throughout all • Environment Agency evacuation plans
systems in this policy unit. Fisheries, Recreation
The SAMP should also and Biodiversity
investigate where we can
create more natural river
channels.
event
vulnerability areas
event

the 1% flood event
grade 1 and 2
during the 1% flood
event
vulnerability areas
event
the 1% flood event
grade 1 and 2
during the 1% flood

event
Awareness Plan Flood Incident priority for this policy unit to risks to the population in the 1% flood event
to encourage people to sign Management (lead help maintain the current • Number of people
up to partner) level of risk into the future by covered by flood warning
and respond to flood • Private owners using more sustainable flood or emergency /
warnings as well as using • National Flood Forum risk evacuation plans
self-help methods to protect management activities. To minimise community • Number of properties
their properties. disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
event
vulnerability areas
event
the 1% flood event
grade 1 and 2
during the 1% flood
event
Develop a Flood Risk Study • Private Owners (lead 2008 to 2011 To minimise risks to critical Number and type of critical
for the 11 electricity sub- partners) infrastructure and community infrastructure at risk in a 1%
stations at risk in the current • Emergency Services facilities flood event
and future 1% events, to • Environment Agency
investigate what extent and Flood Risk Mapping and
depth each sub-station is at Data Management
risk of flooding. The study • Environment Agency
should also investigate Regional Incident and
whether an emergency Emergency Planning
response plan is needed. • Environment Agency
Flood Incident
Management

Develop an Emergency • Private Owners (lead 2008 to 2011 To minimise risks to critical Number and type of critical
Response Plan for the 2 partners) infrastructure and community infrastructure at risk in a 1%
waste management sites at • Rail Company facilities flood event
risk of flooding, the A45, A43 • Emergency Services
and Northampton Branch • Environment Agency
railway line at risk of Flood Risk Mapping and
flooding. Data Management
Emergency Planning
Flood Incident
Management
councils:
Council
the Local Development • Northampton Borough risks to the population in the 1% flood event
Framework for no Council • Number of people
inappropriate development in • Daventry District Council covered by flood warning
the floodplain. Any new • Environment Agency or emergency /
development should be Development Control evacuation plans
located in the areas of lowest Team To minimise community • Number of properties
flood risk and must not • Environment Agency disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
increase risk to existing Planning Liaison Team event
development. For this policy • Category of social
unit, surface water vulnerability areas
attenuation should be affected in the 1% flood
provided up to the 0.5% AEP event
design standard plus climate • Extent of disruption
change allowance to • Duration of disruption
safeguard defences through To minimise economic • Residential damages in
Northampton which have a impacts of flooding the 1% flood event
0.5% AEP standard of
protection. Developers • Commercial damages in
the 1% flood event
should incorporate river
naturalisation and grade 1 and 2
environmental enhancement agricultural land flooded
into new developments. during the 1% flood
event
to UK Biodiversity Action floodplain grazing marsh)
Plan targets
the Local Development • Northampton Borough priority for this policy unit to risks to the population in the 1% flood event
Framework to link flood risk Council help maintain the current • Number of people
management planning with • Daventry District Council level of risk into the future by covered by flood warning
the regeneration and • Environment Agency using more sustainable flood or emergency /
Redevelopment of Development Control risk management activities. evacuation plans
commercial sites. The Team To minimise community • Number of properties
location, layout and design of • Environment Agency disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
commercial developments Planning Liaison Team event
can help to reduce flood risk. • Category of social
PPS25 sets out a range of vulnerability areas
measures that can reduce affected in the 1% flood
the impacts of flood risk, event
such as making buildings • Extent of disruption
resilient to flooding. • Duration of disruption

the 1% flood event
grade 1 and 2
during the 1% flood
event

project for the 2 BAP partner) the catchment by improving extent of the future UK
habitats in this policy unit. • Environment Agency the quality of the river BAP priority habitats (for
The project should Fisheries Recreation and environment and contributing example, fens, wet
investigate the extent and Biodiversity to UK Biodiversity Action woodland, reed bed,
impact of flooding in the • Environment Agency Plan targets floodplain grazing marsh)
current and future 1% AEP Habitat Creation
event to these sites. The Manager
study should also investigate
are needed.
project for the 1 Scheduled Heritage (lead partner) significant historic • Scheduled Monuments
Monument at risk in this • Environment Agency environment assets and their • Historic Parks and
event to this site. The study Biodiversity flooding or flood risk
should also investigate management activities
whether local

Table 7.6 Action Plan for Policy Unit: River Nene Corridor
POLICY UNIT: River Nene Corridor

Our selected policy is policy 6 to take action with others to store water or manage runoff in locations that provide overall flood risk reduction
or environmental benefits locally or elsewhere in the catchment.
The River Nene corridor policy unit is largely rural. It covers the middle reach of River Nene floodplain
downstream of Northampton from east of Billing Aquadrome to just upstream of Oundle, together with the River
Ise corridor upstream from the Nene then continuing along the Slade Brook upstream catchments to above
Kettering. It excludes Wellingborough, Kettering and Thrapston but includes a number of smaller villages.
Current flood risk management includes flood warning with our flood warnings direct as the main dissemination
method. There are no formal defences within this policy unit, although there may be some informal/private
defences. Maintenance activities include obstruction removal, structure/channel/bank maintenance and asset
inspections.
Current flood risk:

Currently, 49 properties (27 residential, 22 commercial) and 68 people are affected by flooding (which is
potentially for a long duration) in the 1% AEP event. Depths are generally moderate, less than 1metre, although
a few properties (less than 5) between Billing and Wellingborough flood to depths of up to 2 metres. The wide
floodplain and generally moderate depths indicate that velocities are likely to be low in general. The A45, A6,
A14, A509 and A605 are all affected by flooding at the 1% AEP event. A number of locally important river
crossings along the River Nene are also affected at the 1% event, as is the Midland mainline railway at Burton
Latimer. One landfill site and 3 Sewage Treatment Works (STW) at Great Billing, Islip and Broadholme are at
risk in the 1% AEP event. There are £720,000 residential and £2.77 million commercial damages. The area of
grade 2 agricultural land affected is 19.9%. Two Conservation Areas, 10 Scheduled Monuments, 4 SSSIs
(including the potential SPA Upper Nene Gravel Pits SSSI/pSPA/Ramsar site) and 3 UK BAP habitat types are
affected by flooding in the current 1% AEP event.
Future flood risk:

In the future there are likely to be small increases in the depth (less than 0.25m), duration, frequency and
velocity of flooding. 75 people and 52 properties are affected by flooding in the future 1% AEP event. The critical
infrastructure at risk does not change in the future 1% AEP event. Economic damages increase in the future to
£760,000 residential, £3.53 million for commercial. The area of grade 2 agricultural land affected is 24.7%.

There are opportunities for new recreational and amenity features to contribute to the network of Green
Infrastructure developments, such as the River Nene Regional Park, arising from the Government’s Sustainable
Communities programme. Also, the use of existing or new mineral extraction sites and influencing their
reinstatement plans, creating and managing wetland habitats to contribute to BAP targets are other

opportunities. Designated sites may be a constraint if special interest features are sensitive to flood levels and
the River Nene navigation is an important asset to the local community and economy. Negative impacts may be
experienced on existing biodiversity within the floodplain if flooding is deep and prolonged in spring and summer
months or if flood risk management measures isolate the river from its floodplain. Landscape character and local
designations may constrain works in some locations. Land availability is a constraint for responses requiring
changes in land use or management.
Proposed response:
created storage reservoirs along the River Nene and the River Ise and four broad areas where floodplain
storage was considered feasible were identified in this policy unit.

on the River Nene Corridor (lead partner) will help create covered by flood warning
policy unit. This will mitigate • Natural England sustainable flood risk or emergency /
future flood risk to • Environment Agency management by evacuation plans
Wellingborough, Kettering, Fisheries Recreation and mitigating future To minimise community • Number of properties
Thrapston, River Nene Biodiversity Team flood risk to several disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
(Oundle to Water Newton) • Peterborough City key towns, working event
and Peterborough and the Council with natural • Category of social
Nene Washes policy units. • Kettering Borough processes and vulnerability areas
Council making space for affected in the 1% flood
The study should determine • Borough Council of water. event
the possible location of Wellingborough • Extent of disruption
storage and combination of • East Northamptonshire • Duration of disruption
river restoration and Council To minimise economic • Residential damages in
engineered flood storage. impacts of flooding the 1% flood event
The study should investigate
the use of abandoned gravel
the 1% flood event
pits in association with the
policies outlined in the • Percentage area of
Northamptonshire Minerals grade 1 and 2
Local Plan and the need to agricultural land flooded
protect the Upper Nene during the 1% flood
Gravel Pits event
SSSI/pSPA/Ramsar site. Ensure future investment in • Expenditure on all flood
Where possible the study the catchment is proportional risk management activities

should enhance the to the risks
environment by improving the
natural state of the river and
its habitat.
from a 1% event
Develop a System Asset • Environment Agency 2008 to 2011 this action is Ensure future investment in • Expenditure on all flood
Management Plans (SAMP) Asset System high priority and should be the catchment is proportional risk management
for all systems within this Management Team done to the risks activities.
policy unit to consider where (lead partner) immediately to target the
and how we can reduce flood • Natural England resources
risk maintenance activities • Environment Agency elsewhere in the River
where storage cannot be Fisheries, Recreation Nene catchment.
carried out. This action will and Biodiversity
also enhance the
environment by helping to
improve the natural state of
the river and its habitat. The
SAMPs should ensure that
navigation is not disrupted.

vulnerability areas
event
the 1% flood event
flood event
Sewage Treatment Works, • Rail Company facilities risk in a 1% flood event
A45, A6, A14, A509, A605, • Highways Agency
and railway line at Burton • Kettering Borough
Latimer at risk of flooding. Council
Wellingborough
Council
• Emergency Services
Flood Risk Mapping and
Data Management
Emergency Planning
Flood Incident
Management

the Local Development • Kettering Borough risks to the population in the 1% flood event
development in this policy • Borough Council of covered by flood warning
unit. We consider this policy Wellingborough or emergency /
unit to be functional • East Northamptonshire evacuation plans
floodplain. We want to Council To minimise community • Number of properties
maintain the functioning • Environment Agency disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
floodplain as an asset to Development Control event
make space for water. Team • Category of social
• Environment Agency vulnerability areas
Planning Liaison Team affected in the 1% flood
event
the 1% flood event
flood event
Framework to link flood risk Council • Number of people
management planning with • Borough Council of covered by flood warning
the regeneration and Wellingborough or emergency/evacuation
redevelopment of commercial

sites. The location, layout • East Northamptonshire plans
and design of commercial Council To minimise community • Number of properties
developments can help to • Environment Agency disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
reduce flood risk. PPS25 sets Development Control event
out a range of measures that Team • Category of social
can reduce the impacts of • Environment Agency vulnerability areas
flood risk, such as making Planning Liaison Team affected in the 1% flood
buildings resilient to flooding. event
the 1% flood event
flood event
Resilience and resistance • Natural England (lead 2011 to 2015 Protect and contribute to the • Area of SSSIs, SPAs,
project for the SSSIs and partner) improvement of designated SACs and Ramsar sites
BAP habitats in this policy • Environment Agency nature conservation sites flooded in a 1% flood
unit, including the Upper Fisheries Recreation and (SSSI, SPA, SAC and event
Nene Gravel Pits Biodiversity Ramsar) • Reported condition status
SSSI/pSPA/Ramsar site. • Environment Agency of SSSIs, SPAs, SACs
The project should Habitat Creation and Ramsar sites at risk
investigate the extent and Manager from a 1% event
impact of flooding in the Enhance the biodiversity of • The distribution and
current and future 1% AEP the catchment by improving extent of the future UK
event to these sites and the the quality of the river BAP priority habitats (for
protection of the Upper Nene environment and contributing example, fens, wet
Gravel Pits to UK Biodiversity Action woodland, reed bed,
SSSI/pSPA/Ramsar site. The Plan targets floodplain grazing marsh)
study should also investigate
are needed.

current and future 1% AEP Fisheries Recreation and adversely affected by flooding
event to these sites. The Biodiversity or flood risk management
study should also investigate activities
whether local

Table 7.7 Action Plan for Policy Unit: Kettering
POLICY UNIT: KETTERING

increase in flood risk from urban development, land use change and climate change).
The policy unit for Kettering is mainly urban with a relatively high population density. The River Ise and Slade
Brook flow through this policy unit.
Current flood risk management includes flood warning with our flood warnings direct service as the main
dissemination method. Kettering benefits from the Kettering Leisure Village flood storage reservoir on the Slade
Brook, which provides an estimated standard of protection to a 1% AEP. Maintenance activities include
obstruction removal and bank/channel maintenance.
Current flood risk:

Currently, 485 people are at risk of flooding from the 1% AEP event. The velocity of floodwater is moderate to
high and depths are generally less than 0.5 metres, but this increases to up to 2 metres in some areas. There
are 208 properties at risk from the 1% AEP event, comprising of 194 residential and 14 commercial. There are 4
electricity sub-stations, the A14 at Kettering and the Midland Mainline at risk in the 1% AEP event. The estimate
of economic damages is £7.05 million and the area of grade 2 agricultural land affected is 3.3%. Wicksteed
Park, 5.9 hectares of Southfield Farm Marsh SSSI and 3 BAP habitats are at risk in the 1% AEP event. Fluvial,
surface water and sewer flooding may cause a risk in this policy unit.
Future flood risk:

In the future 1% AEP event, the risk will increase to 688 people and 275 residential and 36 commercial
properties. There are 5 electricity sub-stations, 1 waste management site, the A14 at Kettering and the Midland
Mainline at risk in the future 1% AEP event. The economic damages increase in the future to £17.56 million
(£5.04 million residential and £12.52 million commercial) and percentage of grade 2 agricultural land affected is
5.9%.

Communities programme. Also, creating and managing wetland habitats to contribute to BAP targets.

Demand for increased housing provision and associated infrastructure within the Milton Keynes – South
Midlands (Northampton, Corby, Kettering, Wellingborough) growth areas may come into conflict with the
need to restrict development in floodplains. Designated sites may be a constraint if special interest features
are sensitive to flood levels. Landscape character and local designations may constrain works in some
locations. Negative impacts may be experienced on existing biodiversity within the floodplain if flooding is
deep and prolonged in spring and summer months or if flood risk management measures isolate the river
from its floodplain.
Proposed response:
we maintain flood warning, maintain channel maintenance, maintain/increase upstream storage and
maintain and improve defences. This maintains flood risk at the current level and offsets future changes.

policy unit. This will mitigate • Natural England sustainable flood or emergency /
future flood risk to • Environment Agency risk management by evacuation plans
(Oundle to Water Newton) • Kettering Borough key towns, working event
Nene Washes policy units. • Borough Council of processes and vulnerability areas
Wellingborough making space for affected in the 1% flood
The study should determine • East Northamptonshire water. event
the possible location of Council • Extent of disruption
storage and combination of • Duration of disruption
river restoration and To minimise economic • Residential damages in
the use of abandoned gravel
the 1% flood event
Local Plan. Where possible agricultural land flooded

the study should enhance the during the 1% flood
environment by improving the event
natural state of the river and
its habitat.
the catchment is proportional risk management activities
to the risks
systems in this policy unit. Fisheries Recreation and To minimise • Number of properties
The SAMP should also Biodiversity Team community affected in the 1% flood
investigate where we can disruption from event
create more natural river flooding • Category of social
channels. vulnerability areas
event
To minimise • Residential damages in
economic impacts of the 1% flood event
flooding • Commercial damages in
the 1% flood event
grade 1 and 2
during the 1% flood
event
Enhance the biodiversity of • The distribution
the catchment by improving and extent of the
the quality of the river future UK BAP
environment and contributing priority habitats
to UK Biodiversity Action (for example,
Plan targets fens, wet
woodland, reed
bed, floodplain
grazing marsh)
vulnerability areas
event
the 1% flood event
flood event
Develop a Flood Awareness • Environment Agency 2008 to 2100 this action is a To minimise flood related • Number of people at risk
Plan Flood Incident priority for this policy unit to risks to the population in the 1% flood event
to encourage people to sign Management (lead help maintain the current • Number of people
up to partner) level of risk into the future by covered by flood warning
and respond to flood • General Public using more sustainable flood or emergency /
warnings as well as using • National Flood Forum risk management activities. evacuation plans
self-help methods to protect To minimise community • Number of properties
their properties. disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
event

vulnerability areas
event
the 1% flood event
flood event
waste management site, the • Environment Agency
A14 at Kettering and the Flood Risk Mapping and
Midland Mainline at risk of Data Management
flooding. • Environment Agency
Emergency Planning
Flood Incident
Management
councils:
• Kettering Borough
Council
Wellingborough
Council

inappropriate development in • Environment Agency covered by flood warning
the floodplain using methods Development Control or emergency /
in PPS25. Any new Team evacuation plans
development should be • Environment Agency To minimise community • Number of properties
located in the areas of lowest Planning Liaison Team disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
flood risk, targeted to event
previously developed land • Category of social
and must not increase risk to vulnerability areas
existing development. affected in the 1% flood
Developers should event
incorporate river • Extent of disruption
naturalisation and • Duration of disruption
environmental enhancement
into new developments. impacts of flooding the 1% flood event
the 1% flood event
flood event
from a 1% event

the Local Development • Kettering Borough priority for this policy unit to risks to the population in the 1% flood event
Framework to link flood risk Council help maintain the current • Number of people
management planning with • Environment Agency level of risk into the future by covered by flood warning
regeneration and Development Control using more sustainable flood or emergency /
redevelopment of commercial Team risk management activities. evacuation plans
sites. The location, layout • Environment Agency To minimise community • Number of properties
and design of commercial Planning Liaison Team disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
developments can help to event
reduce flood risk. PPS25 sets • Category of social
out a range of measures than vulnerability areas
can reduce the impacts of affected in the 1% flood
flood risk, such as making event
buildings resilient to flooding. • Extent of disruption
the 1% flood event
flood event
Implement the • North 2008 to 2011 To minimise flood related • Number of people at risk
recommendations from the Northamptonshire risks to the population in the 1% flood event
North Northamptonshire Development Company • Number of people
Water Cycle Strategy for the (lead partner) covered by flood warning
increased risk to the drainage • Anglian Water or emergency /
system from future • Kettering Borough evacuation plans
development proposed for Council To minimise community • Number of properties
Kettering. • Environment Agency disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
Development Control event
• Environment Agency • Category of social
Planning Liaison vulnerability areas
• Environment Agency affected in the 1% flood
Sustainable Development event
Delivery Team • Extent of disruption

the 1% flood event
flood event
Southfield Farm Marsh SSSI • Environment Agency nature conservation sites flooded in a 1% flood
to investigate changes in Fisheries Recreation and (SSSI, SPA, SAC and event
management. Habitat Creation and Ramsar sites at risk
Manager from a 1% event
The project should Fisheries Recreation and environment and contributing example, fens, wet
investigate the extent and Biodiversity to UK Biodiversity Action woodland, reed bed,
impact of flooding in the • Environment Agency Plan targets floodplain grazing marsh)
current 1% AEP event to Habitat Creation
these sites. The study should Manager
also investigate whether
mitigation measures are
needed.

Table 7.8 Action Plan for Policy Unit: Corby
POLICY UNIT: CORBY

Our selected policy is policy 5 to take further action to reduce the flood risk (now and/or in the future).
The policy unit for Corby is mainly urban with a high population density. This policy unit extends across the full
urban area of the town, from Great Oakley in the south to Weldon in the east, at the headwaters of the Harpers
Brook and Willow Brook. It contains many other minor urban streams within Corby, draining to the two main
rivers.
dissemination method. Corby benefits from flood storage reservoirs: Weldon flood storage reservoir on Willow
Brook; Gretton Brook flood storage reservoir and Crucible Road flood storage reservoir. Maintenance activities
include obstruction removal and channel/bank maintenance.
Current flood risk:

Currently, 835 people are at risk of flooding from the 1% AEP event. The depth of flooding and velocity of
floodwater are low, although high velocities from surface run-off may occur in some areas. There are 381
properties at risk from the 1% event, comprising of 334 residential and 47 commercial. For the 1% AEP event, 1
electricity sub-station, Corby STW, 1 metal recycling site, the A6116, A6086, A427, A6014 and 1 care home
would be affected. The estimate of economic damages is £20.46 million (£6.45 million residential and £14.01
million commercial). There is no grade 1 or 2 agricultural land affected. There are 2 Conservation Areas and 1
BAP habitat at risk in the current 1% AEP event. Fluvial, surface water and sewer flooding may cause a risk in
this policy unit.
Future flood risk:

properties. In the future, there are 18 electricity sub-stations, Corby STW, 1 metal recycling site, 2 Waste
Transfer Stations and 2 IPPC sites affected. The A6116, A6086, A427, A6014, 1 care home and 1 school are
affected in the future 1% event. The future economic damages increase to £102.75 million (£42.64 million
residential and £60.11 million commercial). There is 1 additional BAP habitat at risk in the future.

Communities programme. Also, creating and managing wetland habitats to contribute to BAP targets.

Midlands (Northampton, Corby, Kettering, Wellingborough) growth areas may come into conflict with the need
to restrict development in floodplains. The existing urban framework can constrain the space available for
flood defences. Landscape character and local designations may constrain works in some locations.
Negative impacts may be experienced on existing biodiversity within the floodplain if flooding is deep and
prolonged in spring and summer months or if flood risk management measures isolate the river from its
floodplain.
Proposed response:
maintain flood warning, maintain channel maintenance and create/develop upstream storage. This maintains
flood risk at the current level and offsets future changes.

recommendations of the Northamptonshire risks to the population in the 1% flood event
Corby Water Cycle Strategy Development Company
with the purpose of reducing (lead partner) Number of people
the current flood risk and • Anglian Water covered by flood
preventing its future increase. • Corby Borough Council warning or
• Environment Agency emergency /
Development Control evacuation plans
Planning Liaison To minimise community • Number of properties
• Environment Agency disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
Sustainable event
Development Delivery
Team
vulnerability areas
event
Duration of disruption

the 1% flood event
Percentage area of grade 1
event
throughout all systems in this Environment Agency evacuation plans
policy unit. The SAMP should Fisheries Recreation and To minimise community • Number of properties
also investigate where we Biodiversity Team disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
can create more natural river event
channels. • Category of social
vulnerability areas
event
• Extent of disruption.
the 1% flood event
Percentage area of grade 1
event
Plan targets

vulnerability areas
event
the 1% flood event
flood event
Plan to encourage people to Flood Incident priority for this policy unit to risks to the population in the 1% flood event
sign up to and respond to Management (lead help maintain the current • Number of people
flood warnings as well as partner) level of risk into the future by covered by flood warning
using self-help methods to • General Public using more sustainable flood or emergency /
protect their properties. • National Flood Forum risk management activities. evacuation plans
event
vulnerability areas
event

the 1% flood event
flood event
electricity sub-stations, Corby • Emergency Services facilities risk in a 1% flood event
STW, 2 Waste Transfer • Environment Agency
Stations, 2 IPPC sites, Flood Risk Mapping and
A6116, A6086, A427, A6014, Data Management
1 care home and 1 school at • Environment Agency
risk of flooding. Regional Incident and
Emergency Planning
Flood Incident
Management
• Corby Borough Council
the Local Development • Corby Borough Council risks to the population in the 1% flood event
Framework for no • Environment Agency • Number of people
inappropriate development in Development Control covered by flood warning
the floodplain. Any new Team or emergency /
development should be • Environment Agency evacuation plans
located in the areas of lowest Planning Liaison Team To minimise community • Number of properties
flood risk and must not disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
increase risk to existing event
development. Developers • Category of social
should incorporate river vulnerability areas
naturalisation and affected in the 1% flood
environmental enhancement event
into new developments.

the 1% flood event
flood event
the Local Development • Corby Borough Council priority for this policy unit to risks to the population in the 1% flood event
Framework to link flood risk • Environment Agency help maintain the current • Number of people
management planning with Development Control level of risk into the future by covered by flood warning
regeneration and Team using more sustainable flood or emergency /
redevelopment of commercial • Environment Agency risk management activities. evacuation plans
sites. The location, layout and Planning Liaison Team To minimise community • Number of properties
design of commercial disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
developments can help to event
reduce flood risk. PPS25 sets • Category of social
out a range of measures that vulnerability areas
can reduce the impacts of affected in the 1% flood
flood risk, such as making event
buildings resilient to flooding. • Extent of disruption
the 1% flood event

flood event
The project should investigate Fisheries Recreation and environment and contributing example, fens, wet
the extent and impact of Biodiversity to UK Biodiversity Action woodland, reed bed,
flooding in the current and • Environment Agency Plan targets floodplain grazing marsh)
future 1% AEP event to these Habitat Creation
sites. The study should also Manager
investigate whether mitigation
Develop a study for Corby • Environment Agency 2008 to 2011 To minimise flood related • Number of people at risk
to investigate how flood Asset System risks to the population in the 1% flood event
risk in the town should be Management Team • Number of people
managed. The study should (lead partner) covered by flood warning
investigate the possibility of • Environment Agency or emergency /
building new flood defences Fisheries Recreation and evacuation plans
through the town. Biodiversity To minimise community • Number of properties
• Corby Borough Council disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
event
vulnerability areas
event
• Extent of disruption.
the 1% flood event
flood event

Table 7.9 Action Plan for Policy Unit: Wellingborough
POLICY UNIT: WELLINGBOROUGH

increase in flood risk from urban development, landuse change and climate change).
The policy unit for Wellingborough is mainly urban with a relatively high population density. The River Ise,
Swanspool Brook and Harrowden Brook run through this policy unit and includes the village of Wilby.
dissemination method. Wellingborough benefits from the Harrowden Brook flood storage reservoir, which
provides an estimated standard of protection to the 2% AEP. There is also the Wilby flood storage reservoir,
which provides protection to the 2% AEP event. Maintenance activities include obstruction clearance,
channel/bank maintenance and asset inspections.
Current flood risk:

Currently, 308 people are at risk of flooding from the 1% AEP event. Velocities and depths of floodwater are
generally low with the majority of depths less than 0.5m. There are 206 properties at risk from the 1% AEP
event, comprising of 123 residential and 83 commercial. There are 5 electricity sub-stations, 1 metal recycling
site, 1 IPPC site, the Midland Mainline, A45, A510, A5128, A5193 and locally important roads in Wellingborough
at risk in the 1% AEP event. The estimate of economic damages is £30.50 million (£0.89 million residential and
£29.61 million commercial). There is no grade 1 or grade 2 agricultural land affected or historic environment
assets at risk in this policy unit. 1 BAP habitat is at risk in the 1% AEP event. Fluvial and surface water flooding
may cause a risk in this policy unit.
Future flood risk:

properties. There is an additional 1 ambulance station, 1 fire station and a school are at risk in the 1% flood
event in the future. The economic damages increase in the future to £51.43 million (£2.58 million residential and
£48.86 million commercial).

Communities programme and creating and managing wetland habitats to contribute to BAP targets.

need to restrict development in floodplains. Landscape character and local designations may constrain
works in some locations. Negative impacts may be experienced on existing biodiversity within the
floodplain if flooding is deep and prolonged in spring and summer months or if flood risk management
measures isolate the river from its floodplain.
Proposed response:
we maintain flood warning, maintain channel maintenance and create/develop upstream storage. This
maintains flood risk at the current level and offsets future changes.

policy unit. This will mitigate • Natural England sustainable flood risk or emergency /
future flood risk to • Environment Agency management by evacuation plans
(Oundle to Water Newton) • Kettering Borough key towns, working event
Nene Washes policy units. • Borough Council of processes and vulnerability areas
Wellingborough making space for affected in the 1% flood
The study should determine • East Northamptonshire water. event
the possible location of Council • Extent of disruption
storage and combination of • Duration of disruption
river restoration and To minimise economic • Residential damages in
engineered flood storage. impacts of flooding the 1% flood event
the use of abandoned gravel • Commercial damages in
the 1% flood event
Local Plan. Where possible agricultural land flooded
the study should enhance the during the 1% flood

environment by improving event
the natural state of the river
and its habitat.
Biodiversity Team disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
event
vulnerability areas
event
the 1% flood event
grade 1 and 2
during the 1% flood
event


vulnerability areas
event
the 1% flood event
grade 1 and 2
during the 1% flood
event
Plan to encourage people to Flood Incident priority for this policy unit to risks to the population in the 1% flood event
sign up to and respond to help maintain the current • Number of people
flood warnings as well as Management (lead partner) level of risk into the future by covered by flood warning
using self-help methods to • General Public using more sustainable flood or emergency /
protect their properties. • National Flood Forum risk management activities. evacuation plans
event

vulnerability areas
event
the 1% flood event
grade 1 and 2
during the 1% flood
event
metal recycling site, 1 IPPC • Environment Agency
site, the Midland Mainline, Flood Risk Mapping and
A45, A510, A5128, A5193, 1 Data Management
ambulance station, 1 fire • Environment Agency
station and a school at risk of Regional Incident and
flooding. Emergency Planning
Flood Incident
Management
councils:
Wellingborough
Put in place policies within • Borough Council of 2008 to 2100 To minimise flood related • Number of people at risk
the Local Development Wellingborough (lead risks to the population in the 1% flood event
Framework for no partner) • Number of people
inappropriate development in • Environment Agency covered by flood warning
the floodplain using methods Development Control or emergency /
in PPS25. Any new Team evacuation plans

environmental enhancement To minimise economic • Residential damages in
the 1% flood event
grade 1 and 2
during the 1% flood
event
Enhance the biodiversity of The distribution and
the catchment by improving extent of the future
the quality of the river UK BAP priority
environment and contributing habitats (for
to UK Biodiversity Action example, fens, wet
Plan targets woodland, reed bed,
floodplain grazing
marsh)
Put in place policies within • Borough Council of 2008 to 2100 To minimise flood related • Number of people at risk
the Local Development Wellingborough (lead risks to the population in the 1% flood event
Framework to link flood risk partner) • Number of people
management planning with • Environment Agency covered by flood warning
regeneration and Development Control or emergency /
redevelopment of Team evacuation plans
commercial sites. The • Environment Agency
location, layout and design of Planning Liaison Team

commercial developments To minimise community • Number of properties
can help to reduce flood risk. disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
PPS25 sets out a range of event
measures that can reduce • Category of social
the impacts of flood risk, vulnerability areas
such as making buildings affected in the 1% flood
resilient to flooding. event
the 1% flood event
grade 1 and 2
during the 1% flood
event
recommendations of from the Northamptonshire risks to the population in the 1% flood event
North Northamptonshire Development Company • Number of people
Water Cycle Strategy for (lead partner) covered by flood warning
the increased risk to the • Anglian Water or emergency /
drainage system from future • Borough Council of evacuation plan
development proposed for Wellingborough To minimise community • Number of properties
Wellingborough • Environment Agency disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
Development Control event
• Environment Agency • Category of social
Planning Liaison vulnerability areas
Sustainable event
Development Delivery • Extent of disruption
Team • Duration of disruption

the 1% flood event
grade 1 and 2
during the 1% flood
event
project for the 1 BAP habitat partner) the catchment by improving extent of the future UK
in this policy unit. The • Environment Agency the quality of the river BAP priority habitats (for
project should investigate the Fisheries Recreation and environment and contributing example, fens, wet
extent and impact of flooding Biodiversity to UK Biodiversity Action woodland, reed bed,
in the current and future 1% • Environment Agency Plan targets floodplain grazing marsh)
AEP event to these sites. Habitat Creation
The study should also Manager
investigate whether
mitigation measures are
needed.

Table 7.10 Action Plan for Policy Unit: Rushden and Raunds
POLICY UNIT: RUSHDEN AND RAUNDS

increase in flood risk from urban development, landuse change and climate change).
The policy unit for Rushden and Raunds is mainly urban, but there are some open areas between the two towns.
It includes the town of Higham Ferrers and the village of Stanwick. Current flood risk management includes
flood warning with our flood warnings direct service as the main dissemination method. There are no formal
defences within this policy unit, although there may be some informal/private defences. Maintenance activities
along the main rivers include obstruction removal, weed control and tree work. The main flood risk is from the
Skew Bridge Dyke and Raunds Hogs Dyke watercourses through Rushden and Raunds.
Current flood risk:

Currently, 342 people are at risk of flooding from the 1% AEP event. The watercourses are relatively urban and
narrow, with quick surface runoff and would indicate a moderate to fast response time and moderate to high
velocities. The depth of floodwater is likely to be between 0.5 metres and 1.5 metres. There are 178 properties
at risk from the 1% AEP event, comprising of 137 residential and 41 commercial. There is 1 electricity sub-
station, Rushden hospital, Raunds ambulance station, the A45 and a number of locally important roads in the
centre of Rushden and within Raunds at risk in the 1% AEP event. The estimate of economic damages is
£12.09 million (£3.5M residential and £8.59 million commercial). The area of grade 2 agricultural land affected is
0.2%. One Scheduled Monument is at risk in the 1% AEP event. Fluvial, ground water and surface water
flooding may cause a risk in this policy unit.
Future flood risk:

properties. There is an additional electricity sub-station and Raunds STW at risk in the future 1% AEP event.
The economic damages increase in the future to £15.76 million (£7.17 million residential and £8.59 million
commercial). The area of grade 2 agricultural land affected is 1.2% in the future 1% AEP event.

Communities programme and creating and managing wetland habitats to contribute to BAP targets.

need to restrict development in and open up floodplains. The existing urban framework can physically
constrain the space available for flood defences.
Proposed response:
we maintain flood warning, maintain channel maintenance, maintained local defences and stream
restoration/upstream storage. This maintains flood risk at the current level and offsets future changes.

Asset System and • Environment Agency 2011-2015 this action is a To minimise flood related • Number of people at risk
Replacement Project to Asset System priority for this policy unit to risks to the population in the 1% flood event
investigate feasibility of Management Team sustain the current level of • Number of people
increasing the size of the (lead partner) risk into the future. covered by flood warning
culverts along Skew Bridge or emergency /
Dyke and Raunds Hog Dyke. evacuation plans
event
vulnerability areas
event
the 1% flood event
grade 1 and 2
during the 1% flood
event

the catchment is risk management
proportional to the risks activities.
Management Plan to Asset System risks to the population in the 1% flood event
investigate how we can Management Team • Number of people
Biodiversity Team disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
event
vulnerability areas
event
the 1% flood event
grade 1 and 2
during the 1% flood
event

vulnerability areas
event
the 1% flood event
grade 1 and 2
during the 1% flood
event
Awareness Plan to Flood Incident priority for this policy unit to risks to the population in the 1% flood event
encourage people to sign up Management (lead help maintain the current • Number of people
to and respond to flood partner) level of risk into the future by covered by flood warning
warnings as well as using • General Public using more sustainable flood or emergency /
self-help methods to protect • National Flood Forum risk management activities. evacuation plans
their properties. To minimise community • Number of properties
event
vulnerability areas
event
the 1% flood event
grade 1 and 2
during the 1% flood
event
electricity sub-stations, • Emergency Services facilities risk in a 1% flood event
Raunds STW, Rushden • Environment Agency
hospital and the A45, at risk Flood Risk Mapping and
of flooding. Data Management
Emergency Planning
Flood Incident
Management
councils:
Council
District Council
Put in place policies within • East Northamptonshire 2008 to 2100 To minimise flood related • Number of people at risk
the Council (lead partner) risks to the population in the 1% flood event
Local Development • Environment Agency • Number of people
Framework to re-create a Development Control covered by flood warning
river corridor so there is Team or emergency /
more space for the river to • Environment Agency evacuation plans
flow and flood naturally. Planning Liaison Team To minimise community • Number of properties
Flood risk management disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
planning needs to be linked event
closely with regeneration and • Category of social
redevelopment so that the vulnerability areas
location and layout of affected in the 1% flood
development can help to event
reduce flood risk. PPS25 • Extent of disruption
sets out a range of measures • Duration of disruption

that can reduce the impacts To minimise economic • Residential damages in
of residual flood risk, such as impacts of flooding the 1% flood event
making buildings resilient to • Commercial damages in
flooding. the 1% flood event
grade 1 and 2
during the 1% flood
event
Enhance the biodiversity of The distribution and
the catchment by improving extent of the future
the quality of the river UK BAP priority
environment and contributing habitats (for
to UK Biodiversity Action example, fens, wet
Plan targets woodland, reed bed,
floodplain grazing
marsh)
the Council (lead partner) risks to the population in the 1% flood event
Local Development • Environment Agency • Number of people
Framework to link flood risk Development Control covered by flood warning
management planning with Team or emergency /
regeneration and • Environment Agency evacuation plans
redevelopment of Planning Liaison Team To minimise community • Number of properties
commercial sites. The disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
location, layout and design of event
commercial developments • Category of social
can help to reduce flood risk. vulnerability areas
PPS25 sets out a range of affected in the 1% flood
measures that can reduce event
the impacts of flood risk, • Extent of disruption
such as making buildings • Duration of disruption
resilient to flooding.

the 1% flood event
grade 1 and 2
during the 1% flood
event
Develop a Surface Water • Anglian Water (lead 2008 to 2011 To minimise flood related • Number of people at risk
Management Plan for partner) risks to the population in the 1% flood event
Rushden and Raunds. This • Northampton Borough • Number of people
plan should investigate the Council covered by flood warning
risk from surface water • South Northamptonshire or emergency /
flooding. District Council evacuation plans
• Environment Agency To minimise community • Number of properties
Development Control disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
Planning Liaison • Category of social
• Environment Agency vulnerability areas
Sustainable affected in the 1% flood
Development Team event
the 1% flood event
grade 1 and 2
during the 1% flood
event

Monument at risk in this • Environment Agency environment assets and their • Historic Parks and
event to this site. The study Biodiversity flooding or flood risk
should also investigate management activities
whether local

Table 7.11 Action Plan for Policy Unit: Thrapston
POLICY UNIT: THRAPSTON

Our selected policy is policy 3 to continue with existing and alternative actions to manage flood risk at the current level (accepting that flood
risk will increase over time from the baseline).
This policy unit includes the mainly urban market town of Thrapston, which is situated on one side of the River
Nene. Thrapston is protected by floodwalls and embankments. Current flood risk management includes
floodwalls and embankments along the River Nene, which provide protection up to the 0.5% AEP event. Flood
warning is undertaken by the use of our flood warnings direct service. Maintenance activities include obstruction
removal, structure/channel/bank.
Current flood risk:

For the current 1% AEP event, there are no people, property, critical infrastructure, agricultural land or
environmental sites at risk of flooding, due to the presence of defences. Significant flooding only occurs at the
0.1% probability event if defences are overtopped.
Future flood risk:

In the future 1% AEP event, there is no change to the people, property, critical infrastructure or agricultural land
at risk of flooding. Flood defences prevent frequent flooding from occurring. Significant flooding only occurs for
flood events less frequent than the 1% event, if defences are overtopped. However, if defences are breached at
lower events the impact of flooding is potentially very severe, with high velocities and depths.

Communities programme. Also creating and managing wetland habitats to contribute to BAP targets is an
opportunity. The demand for increased housing provision and associated infrastructure within the Milton Keynes
– South Midlands (Northampton, Corby, Kettering, Wellingborough) growth areas may come into conflict with the
need to restrict development in floodplains. Designated sites may be a constraint if special interest features are
sensitive to flood levels. The River Nene navigation is an important asset to the local community and economy.
Landscape character and local designations may constrain works in some locations.
Proposed response:
continue flood warning and maintain channel maintenance. This maintains flood risk at the current level and the
increasing residual flood risk in the future would be offset by upstream storage.

The SAMPs should consider Biodiversity Team disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
how this policy unit will event
benefit from the storage • Category of social
upstream within the River vulnerability areas
Nene Corridor policy unit. affected in the 1% flood
event
the 1% flood event
flood event
Review the existing System • Environment Agency 2012 to 2115 To minimise flood related • Number of people at risk
Asset Management Plan Asset System risks to the population in the 1% flood event
(SAMP) to investigate how Management Team • Number of people
storage upstream along the (lead partner) covered by flood warning
River Nene corridor may • Natural England or emergency /
effect how and where we • Environment Agency evacuation plans
carry out maintenance within Fisheries Recreation and To minimise community • Number of properties
this policy unit. Biodiversity Team disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
event

This policy unit will benefit • Category of social
from upstream storage along vulnerability areas
the main River Nene corridor. affected in the 1% flood
There may be the opportunity event
to manage flood risk at the • Extent of disruption
current level but using an • Duration of disruption
alternative approach. This To minimise economic • Residential damages in
could involve reducing impacts of flooding the 1% flood event
maintenance activities in • Commercial damages in
conjunction with taking the 1% flood event
advantage of the upstream • Percentage area of grade
storage. 1 and 2 agricultural land
flood event
vulnerability areas
event

the 1% flood event
flood event
Develop an Emergency • General public/private 2008 to 2011 To minimise flood related • Number of people at risk
Response Plan to mitigate owners (lead partners) risks to the population in the 1% flood event
flood risk in Thrapston and • East Northamptonshire • Number of people
Islip from the risk of the Council covered by flood warning
defences breaching. • Emergency Services or emergency /
• Environment Agency evacuation plans
Flood Risk Mapping and To minimise community • Number of properties
Data Management disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
Regional Incident and • Category of social
Emergency Planning vulnerability areas
Flood Incident event
Management • Extent of disruption
the 1% flood event
flood event

the Local Development Council (lead partners) risks to the population in the 1% flood event
the floodplain using methods Team or emergency /
in PPS25. Any new • Environment Agency evacuation plans
development should be Planning Liaison Team
located in the areas of lowest To minimise community • Number of properties
flood risk, targeted to disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
previously developed land event
and must not increase risk to • Category of social
existing development. vulnerability areas
Developers should affected in the 1% flood
incorporate river event
naturalisation and • Extent of disruption
environmental enhancement • Duration of disruption
into new developments. To minimise economic • Residential damages in
the 1% flood event
flood event
Plan targets

Table 7.12 Action Plan for Policy Unit: Barnwell
POLICY UNIT: Barnwell

The Barnwell policy unit is a small largely rural, though partly sub-urban policy unit, with Barnwell being the only
settlement contained within it. It covers a small portion of the catchment of the Barnwell Brook, a minor tributary of
the River Nene which joins the river near Oundle. The policy unit covers the brook from upstream of the Barnwell
flood storage area to the confluence of the stream with the River Nene, and extends laterally to cover the entire
floodplain. Barnwell is protected by a flood storage area upstream of the village on the Barnwell Brook. Current
flood risk management includes flood warning with our flood warning direct as the main dissemination method.
Maintenance activities include the control of vegetation to maintain the channel capacity and the inspection and
maintenance of the structures associated with the flood storage facility.
Current flood risk:

No people or property would be currently affected in the 1% AEP flood because of the protection provided by the
Barnwell flood storage area. For the same reason, no critical infrastructure or community facilities would be
affected, neither would any agricultural land or environmental sites.
Future flood risk:

In a future 1% AEP flood, 153 people and 64 properties (61 residential, 3 commercial) are at risk. Flood velocities
are not expected to be high and most affected properties would be flooded to depths of less than 1m. No critical
infrastructure or community facilities would be affected. Economic damages are estimated to be £2.16m to
residential and £0.68m to commercial properties. No agricultural land would be affected but two conservation
areas would be affected.

There are opportunities to contribute to the network of Green Infrastructure developments and to create and
manage wetland habitats aimed at BAP targets. The demand for increased housing provision and associated
infrastructure within the London-Stanstead-Cambridge-Peterborough growth areas might come into conflict with
the need to restrict development in floodplains. Designated sites might be a constraint if special interest features
are sensitive to flood levels.
Proposed response:
To analyse the impact of this policy on people, property and the environment, we considered the outcome if we
maintained our current maintenance and flood warning without any alternative intervention. Our actions are
appropriate to the future level of flood risk.

policy unit. The SAMP Fisheries Recreation and To minimise community • Number of properties
should also investigate where Biodiversity Team disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
we can create more natural event
river channels. • Category of social
vulnerability areas
event
the 1% flood event
flood event
target floodplain grazing marsh)

vulnerability areas
event
the 1% flood event
flood event
the Local Development Council (lead partner) risks to the population in the 1% flood event
into new developments. • Extent of disruption
the 1% flood event

flood event
to UK Biodiversity Action Plan floodplain grazing marsh)
targets

Table 7.13 Action Plan for Policy Unit: River Nene (Oundle to Water Newton)
POLICY UNIT: River Nene (Oundle to Water Newton)

The River Nene corridor policy unit is mainly rural. It covers the floodplain of the River Nene from just upstream of
Oundle, past Wansford and Water Newton, down to Orton just upstream of Peterborough. Current flood risk
management includes flood warning with our flood warnings direct as the main dissemination method. There are
no formal defences within this policy unit, though there may be some informal/private defences. Maintenance
activities include obstruction removal, weed control and structure/bank/channel maintenance.
Current flood risk:

Currently, 400 people and 191 properties (160 residential, 31 commercial) are affected by flooding (which is
potentially for a long duration) in the 1% AEP event. The wide floodplain and shallow flood depths, generally less
than 0.5 metres, indicate that velocities are likely to be low in general. One STW, the A427 at Oundle, the A1 at
Alwalton and the A6118 at Wansford are at risk in the 1% AEP event. There are £1.58 million residential and
£3.21 million commercial damages and the area of grade 2 agricultural land affected is 25.3%. Five Conservation
Areas, 16 Scheduled Monuments, 1 registered park and garden, and 94% of Castor Flood Meadows SSSI and 3
BAP habitats are affected by flooding in the current 1% AEP event. Groundwater and surface water flooding may
cause a risk in this policy unit.
Future flood risk:

In the future there are likely to be small increases in the depth (less than 0.25 metres), duration, frequency and
velocity of flooding. There are 445 people and 178 residential and 35 commercial properties affected by flooding
in the future 1% AEP event. There are no other additional critical infrastructure affected in the future 1% AEP
event, although flooding of transport infrastructure likely to see a small increase in duration, depth and velocity of
flooding in the future. Economic damages increase in the future to £2.71 million residential, £4.23 million for
commercial and the area of grade 2 agricultural land affected is 27.9%. In the future there is 1 additional
Scheduled Monument affected and less than 1 hectare of Wansford Pasture SSSI, although a small
amount/duration of flooding could be beneficial to the site. There is a small increase in the area affected (less
than 1%) at Castor Flood Meadows SSSI, but the likely affects are positive. There is a small increase in the area
of 3 BAP habitats in the future 1% event.

Communities programme. Also, creating and managing wetland habitats to contribute to BAP targets is an
opportunity.
Demand for increased housing provision and associated infrastructure within the London-Stansted-Cambridge-
Peterborough (Peterborough) growth areas may come into conflict with the need to restrict development in
floodplains. Designated sites may be a constraint if special interest features are sensitive to flood levels. The
River Nene navigation is an important asset to the local community and economy. Landscape character and
local designations may constrain works in some locations.
Proposed response:
continue with flood warning and maintain channel maintenance. This maintains flood risk at the current level and
the increasing residual flood risk in the future would be offset by upstream storage. The provision of upstream
storage would minimise the risk of uncontrolled flooding of the Nene Washes from the Oundle to Water Newton
stretch of river.

policy unit. The SAMP Fisheries Recreation and To minimise community • Number of properties
should also investigate where Biodiversity Team disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
we can create more natural event
river channels. • Category of social
vulnerability areas
event
the 1% flood event

flood event
Review the existing System • Environment Agency 2012 to 2115 To minimise flood related • Number of people at risk
Asset Management Plan Asset System risks to the population in the 1% flood event
(SAMP) to investigate how Management Team • Number of people
storage upstream along the (lead partner) covered by flood warning
River Nene corridor may • Natural England or emergency /
effect how and where we • Environment Agency evacuation plans
carry out maintenance within Fisheries Recreation and To minimise community • Number of properties
this policy unit. Biodiversity Team disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
event
This policy unit will benefit • Category of social
from upstream storage along vulnerability areas
the main river Nene corridor. affected in the 1% flood
There may be the opportunity event
to manage flood risk at the • Extent of disruption
current level but using an • Duration of disruption
alternative approach. This
could involve reducing impacts of flooding the 1% flood event
maintenance activities in
conjunction with taking • Commercial damages in
the 1% flood event
advantage of the upstream
storage. • Percentage area of grade
flood event

vulnerability areas
event
the 1% flood event
flood event
Sewage Treatment Works, • Rail Company facilities risk in a 1% flood event
A427 at Oundle, A1 at • Emergency Services
Alwalton and A6118 at • Environment Agency
Wansford at risk of flooding. Flood Risk Mapping and
Data Management
Emergency Planning
Flood Incident
Management
Council

into new developments. • Extent of disruption
the 1% flood event
flood event
from a 1% event

Wansford Pasture SSSI and • Environment Agency nature conservation sites flooded in a 1% flood
Castor Flood Meadows SSSI. Fisheries Recreation and (SSSI, SPA, SAC and event
Any increase in flooding is Biodiversity Ramsar) • Reported condition status
likely to be beneficial to these • Environment Agency of SSSIs, SPAs, SACs
sites. This project should Habitat Creation Manager and Ramsar sites at risk
investigate changes in from a 1% event
condition of the site and
recommend any changes in
management.
The project should investigate Fisheries Recreation and environment and contributing example, fens, wet
the extent and impact of Biodiversity to UK Biodiversity Action Plan woodland, reed bed,
flooding in the current and • Environment Agency targets floodplain grazing marsh)
future 1% AEP event to these Habitat Creation Manager
sites. The study should also
event to these sites. The Biodiversity or flood risk management
study should also investigate activities
whether local

Table 7.14 Action Plan for Policy Unit: Peterborough and the Nene Washes
POLICY UNIT: PETERBOROUGH AND THE NENE WASHES

The policy unit for Peterborough and the Nene Washes is mainly urban with a relatively high population density.
It includes the town of Peterborough with the River Nene and a number of smaller urban drains flowing into it. It
also includes the Nene Washes downstream, which is a rural managed washland that allows flood flows to pass
from Peterborough into storage during high tide conditions. The policy unit ends at the outlet gates for the
washland at Ring’s End Sluice.
dissemination method. Peterborough benefits from the operation of the Northampton Washlands upstream and
the Nene Washes flood storage reservoir (for Peterborough and the Fenland villages of Eldernell, Eastrea and
Guyhirn) as well as the Thorpe Drain storage area. Maintenance activities along the main rivers include
channel/bank maintenance and vermin control.
Current flood risk:

Currently, 396 people are at risk of flooding from the 1% AEP event. The velocity of floodwater is low and there
is an average flood depth of less than 0.5m, although this increases to up to 1m for a small number of
properties. There are 165 properties at risk from the 1% event, comprising of 158 residential and 7 commercial.
The A15 at Yaxley and 1 electricity substation are at risk in the current 1% AEP event. The estimate of
economic damages is £1.76 million and the area of grade 1 agricultural land is 83.1% and grade 2 agricultural
land affected is 31.6%. There are 2 Scheduled Monuments, 1 park and garden and 2 Conservation Areas at risk
from the 1% AEP event. 100% of the Nene Washes SSSI, SPA, SAC, Ramsar site, 6% of Orton Pit SSSI, SAC
and 1 BAP habitat are at flood risk in the 1% AEP event. Fluvial, surface water and sewer flooding may cause a
risk in this policy unit.
Future flood risk:

properties. There are 2 electricity substations and the A15 at Yaxley at risk. The future economic damages rise
to £5.93 million (£2.60 million residential and £3.34 million commercial). The area of grade 1 agricultural land is
85.6% and grade 2 agricultural land affected is 33.4%. There are 2 Scheduled Monuments, 1 park and garden
and 4 Conservation Areas at risk in the future 1% AEP event. The Nene Washes SSSI, SPA, SAC, Ramsar site
and 26% of the Orton Pit SSSI, SAC will be at risk under future conditions.

Develop a Flood Storage • Environment Agency 2008 to 2011 this action is a To minimise flood related • Number of people at risk
Study to investigate Asset System priority for this policy unit as it risks to the population in the 1% flood event
creating/developing storage Management Team will help create sustainable • Number of people
on the River Nene Corridor (lead partner) flood risk management by covered by flood warning
policy unit. This will mitigate • Natural England mitigating future flood risk to or emergency /
future flood risk to • Environment Agency several key towns, working evacuation plans
Wellingborough, Kettering, Fisheries Recreation and with natural processes and To minimise community • Number of properties
Thrapston, River Nene Biodiversity Team making space for water. disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
(Oundle to Water Newton) • Peterborough City event
and Peterborough and the Council • Category of social
Nene Washes policy units • Kettering Borough vulnerability areas
and take account of the need Council affected in the 1% flood
to protect the Nene Washes • Borough Council of event
SPA. Wellingborough • Extent of disruption
• East Northamptonshire • Duration of disruption
The study should determine Council To minimise economic • Residential damages in
the possible location of impacts of flooding the 1% flood event
river restoration and • Commercial damages in
the 1% flood event
The study should investigate • Percentage area of grade
the use of abandoned gravel 1 and 2 agricultural land
pits in association with the flooded during the 1%
policies outlined in the flood event
Northamptonshire Minerals Ensure future investment in • Expenditure on all flood
Local Plan. Where possible the catchment is proportional risk management
the study should enhance the to the risks activities
environment by improving the Protect and contribute to the • Area of SSSIs, SPAs,
natural state of the river and improvement of designated SACs and Ramsar sites
its habitat. nature conservation sites flooded in a 1% flood
from a 1% event

Enhance the biodiversity of • Area of SSSIs, SPAs,
the catchment by improving SACs and Ramsar sites
the quality of the river flooded in a 1% flood
environment and contributing event
to UK Biodiversity Action Plan • Reported condition status
targets of SSSIs, SPAs, SACs
from a 1% event
Partnership Project with • Environment Agency 2009 Ensure future investment in • Expenditure on all flood
the Nene Washlands Asset System the catchment is proportional risk management
Commissioners to gather Management Team to the risks activities
information on IDB (lead partner)
maintenance costs and • Internal Drainage Boards
activities and work together
with the IDBs to reassess the
policy options after the
inclusion of these costs and
activities.
policy unit. The SAMP should Fisheries Recreation and To minimise community • Number of properties
also investigate where we Biodiversity Team disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
can create more natural river event
channels. • Category of social
vulnerability areas
event
the 1% flood event

flood event
Warning delivery plan to Flood Forecasting Team risks to the population in the 1% flood event
maintain the current level of (lead partner) • Number of people
vulnerability areas
event
the 1% flood event
flood event
Develop a Flood Awareness • General Public/private 2008 to 2100 this action is a To minimise flood related • Number of people at risk
Plan to encourage people to owners (lead partners) priority for this policy unit to risks to the population in the 1% flood event
sign up to and respond to • National Flood Forum help maintain the current level • Number of people
flood warnings as well as • Environment Agency of risk into the future by using covered by flood warning
using self-help methods to Flood Incident more sustainable flood risk or emergency /
protect their properties. management activities. evacuation plans

Management To minimise community • Number of properties
event
vulnerability areas
event
the 1% flood event
flood event
Sewage Treatment Works • Rail Company facilities risk in a 1% flood event
and the A15 at Yaxley at risk • Highways Agency
of flooding. • Peterborough City
Council
• Emergency Services
Flood Risk Mapping and
Data Management
Emergency Planning
Environment Agency Flood
Incident Management
Put in place policies within • Peterborough City 2008 to 2100 To minimise flood related • Number of people at risk
the floodplain using methods Team or emergency /
in PPS25. Any new evacuation plans

environmental enhancement To minimise economic • Residential damages in
the 1% flood event
flood event
from a 1% event
Put in place policies within • Peterborough City 2008 to 2100 this action is a To minimise flood related • Number of people at risk
the Local Development Council (lead partner) priority for this policy unit to risks to the population in the 1% flood event
Framework to link flood risk • Environment Agency help maintain the current level • Number of people
management planning with Development Control of risk into the future by using covered by flood warning
regeneration and Team more sustainable flood risk or emergency /
redevelopment of commercial • Environment Agency management activities. evacuation plans
sites. The location, layout and

design of commercial Planning Liaison Team To minimise community • Number of properties
developments can help to disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
reduce flood risk. PPS25 sets event
out a range of measures that • Category of social
can reduce the impacts of vulnerability areas
flood risk, such as making affected in the 1% flood
buildings resilient to flooding. event
the 1% flood event
flood event
Develop an Integrated • Anglian Water (lead 2008 to 2011 To minimise flood related • Number of people at risk
Urban partner) risks to the population in the 1% flood event
Drainage Plan for • Peterborough City • Number of people
Peterborough. Council covered by flood warning
This plan should investigate • Environment Agency or emergency /
risk from surface water and Development Control evacuation plans
sewer flooding. This plan • Environment Agency
should consider increased Planning Liaison
risk to the drainage system To minimise community • Number of properties
from future development disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
Sustainable Development
proposed for Peterborough. event
Delivery Team
vulnerability areas
event

the 1% flood event
flood event
Continue with the Nene • Nene Washlands 2008 to 2010 Protect and contribute to the • Area of SSSIs, SPAs,
Washes (SSSI, SPA, SAC, Commissioners/Environ improvement of designated SACs and Ramsar sites
Ramsar) Water Level ment Agency Asset nature conservation sites flooded in a 1% flood
Management Plan and System Management (SSSI, SPA, SAC and event
consider any future changes (lead partners) Ramsar) • Reported condition status
in condition of the site. • Environment Agency of SSSIs, SPAs, SACs
Fisheries Recreation and and Ramsar sites at risk
Biodiversity from a 1% event
• RSPB
Orton Pit SSSI, SAC to • Environment Agency nature conservation sites flooded in a 1% flood
investigate changes in Fisheries Recreation and (SSSI, SPA, SAC and event
management. Habitat Creation Manager and Ramsar sites at risk
from a 1% event
project for the 1 BAP habitat partner) the catchment by improving extent of the future UK
in this policy unit. The project • Environment Agency the quality of the river BAP priority habitats (for
should investigate the extent Fisheries Recreation and environment and contributing example, fens, wet
and impact of flooding in the Biodiversity to UK Biodiversity Action Plan woodland, reed bed,
current 1% AEP event to this • Environment Agency targets floodplain grazing marsh)
site. The study should also Habitat Creation Manager

event to this site. The study Biodiversity or flood risk management
should also investigate activities
whether local

Table 7.15 Action Plan for Policy Unit: The Fens
POLICY UNIT: THE FENS

The policy unit for The Fens includes the low-lying fenland downstream of Peterborough that is largely drained
by pumped drainage. This policy unit extends from Whittlesey in the south to The Wash in the north, and from
Wisbech in the east nearly as far as Spalding in the west. It excludes the Nene Washes. The tidal reach is
contained between embankments which carry the River Nene above the level of the fenland. The tidal limit is at
the Dog-in-a-Doublet Sluice. The Fens contain the largest area of high grade agricultural land in the country.
Current flood risk management includes flood warning which is undertaken by the use of our flood warnings
direct service, sirens and the media. Maintenance on the Main Rivers includes structure/bank/embankment
maintenance and vermin control. Wisbech flood walls and gates have a standard of protection equal to the 0.5%
AEP. The embankments currently protect The Fens from flooding up to the 0.5% AEP surge tide.
Current flood risk:

Currently, 10 people are at risk of flooding from the 1% AEP event. There are 5 properties at risk from the 1%
event, comprising of 4 residential and 1 commercial. There is no critical infrastructure at risk in the 1% AEP
event. The estimate of economic damages is £410,000 in the 1% event and the area of grade 2 agricultural land
affected is 0.2%. There are no historic environment assets at risk in the 1% AEP event. The Adventurers Land
SSSI (6.9 hectares) is at flood risk in the 1% AEP event.
Future flood risk:

In the future 1% AEP event, there will be 20 people and 8 residential and 3 commercial properties. There is no
critical infrastructure at risk in the future 1% AEP event. The future economic damages rise to £970,000 and the
area of grade 1 agricultural land is 0.1% and grade 2 agricultural land affected is 0.2%. There are no historic
environment assets at risk in the future 1% AEP event. . The Adventurers Land SSSI (7 hectares) is at flood risk
in the future 1% AEP. If the embankments along the River Nene are breached, approximately 10,000 people
are at risk in the 1km rapid inundation zone, with high velocities and depths of flooding.

There are opportunities for creating and managing wetland habitats to contribute to BAP targets. Designated
sites may be a constraint if special interest features are sensitive to flood levels. This is particularly relevant to
The Wash which is sensitive to flow of water draining from the River Nene SPA/Ramsar site and The Wash and
North Norfolk Coast SAC.

Proposed response:
To analyse the impact of this policy to people, property and the environment we considered the outcome
if we increase, or at least maintain in the short term, the standard of protection of the land drainage and of
the tidal control structures and defences which are already in place. We plan to prepare a strategy for the
longer term flood risk management across the Fens. The strategy would cover all the CFMP fenland
areas and would provide a comprehensive view of flood risk.

Develop a Flood Risk • Internal Drainage 2010 to 2014 Ensure future investment in • Expenditure on all flood
Management Strategy for Boards/Environment the catchment is proportional risk management
the Fens. The strategy should Agency to the risks activities.
investigate how flood risk Asset System
varies across the Fens and Management (lead
the best approach to manage partners)
this risk, which may include • Environment Agency
making space for water. The Fisheries Recreation
strategy may highlight the And Biodiversity Team
need to carry out further work • Environment Agency To minimise flood related • Number of people at risk
in some areas, while in other Strategic and risks to the population in the 1% flood event
areas we may be able to Development
continue with or reduce our • Number of people
Planning
current flood risk covered by flood warning
• Environment Agency or emergency /
management activities. This Flood Risk Mapping and
may lead to a creation of new evacuation plans
Data Management To minimise economic
policy units and policies. The • Residential damages in
• Environment Agency impacts of flooding the 1% flood event
strategy should also consider Flood Incident
breach analysis to identify • Commercial damages in
Management
locations that are most at risk the 1% flood event
and what impact this would • Percentage area of grade
Strategic Environmental
have. As part of this analysis, 1 and 2 agricultural land
Planning Team
the strategy should flooded during the 1%
• Environment Agency flood event

investigate the feasibility of Habitat Creation Manager To minimise community • Number of properties
controlled breaching to • England Catchment disruption from flooding affected in the 1% flood
manage the increased Sensitive Farming event
probability of breaching in the Delivery Initiative • Category of social
future. The strategy must • National Farmers Union vulnerability areas
bring together all plans and • Farming Wildlife Advisory affected in the 1% flood
projects that are being Group event
developed across the Fens to • Countryside Land • Extent of disruption
create an integrated flood risk Association • Duration of disruption
management approach. This • RSPB
will include consideration of • Peterborough City
flood risk from the Rivers Council
Witham, Welland, Nene and • South Holland District
Great Ouse along with tidal Council To minimise risks to critical • Number and type of
risk and the policies set within
• Fenland District Council infrastructure and community critical infrastructure at
The Wash SMP. It will also
• Kings Lynn and West facilities risk in a 1% flood event
include working in partnership
Nortfolk Borough Council Protect and contribute to the • Area of SSSIs, SPAs,
with IDBs to gain a better
understanding of the level of improvement of designated SACs and Ramsar sites
risk and activities they carry nature conservation sites flooded in a 1% flood
out within their lowland
systems.
from a 1% event
Protect and enhance Number of:
significant historic • Scheduled Monuments
environment assets and their • Historic Parks and
settings Gardens
• Historic Battlefields
• Conservation Areas
adversely affected by
flooding or flood risk
management activities

Support the achievement of • WFD Article 5 pressures
good status/potential of and impacts assessments
surface and groundwater results
bodies under the WFD • WFD ecological and
chemical status/potential
of water bodies.
• Area of contaminated or
damaged land restored or
protected as a result of
flood risk management
activities

7.3 Outcomes of our policies
Our vision for the River Nene catchment is to reduce our flood risk management activity and maintenance
where it is appropriate through much of the rural areas of the River Nene catchment. We will investigate
opportunities for flood storage along the River Nene floodplain in order to prevent an increase of flood
risk to the main urban centres of Northampton, Kettering, Wellingborough and Peterborough. Other
measures within these urban centres might be necessary if upstream floodplain storage cannot be
developed in time or if insufficient storage is available to provide the protection which we need. Measures
are needed now to reduce the particular concentration of flood risk which exists in Corby.
Where the River Nene crosses the fenlands, we need to take further action to sustain the current level of
flood risk management into the future.
In order to achieve a sustainable approach to flood risk management we have adopted actions that
challenge previous methods of flood defence. In the River Nene catchment the actions comprise a range
of measures that include the following:
• Flood risk management needs to be linked closely with regeneration and redevelopment so that
the location, layout and design of development can be resilient and reduce flood risk.
• Application of appropriate planning and building regulations for proposed developments under
PPS25.
• Risk based approach to maintenance, we will reduce our maintenance where risk is low and
target our activities to where we need to reduce risk.
• Investigate and raise awareness of surface water and sewer flooding.
• Develop emergency response plans to mitigate risk to critical infrastructure.
• Increase flood awareness and education including the promotion of self help schemes.
• Maximise opportunities to enhance the environment, use the functioning floodplain and
encourage take-up of agri-environmental schemes to improve land use management and flood
risk.
7.4 Monitoring, review and evaluation
Together with other organisations from the steering group and consultation group, we are responsible for
implementing this CFMP. We need to continue to review and monitor it to provide or help with the
following:
• Managing the implementation of the CFMP;

• Monitoring that the CFMP is being implemented as proposed;
• Checking that the policy and actions of the CFMP are being implemented.
As CFMP sponsor, the Area Flood Risk Manager consulted others when finalising this CFMP document
to set a timetable for implementing CFMP actions. The Regional Strategic and Development Planning
Team will manage the implementation and help involve both internal and external groups.
We need to formally record progress and performance. We need to evaluate experience in applying the
CFMP policies and up-date/expand CFMP datasets to incorporate the most up-to-date catchment
information, such as flood outlines, environmental baseline data, property databases and improved flood
estimates. We also need to consider new planning and modelling tools, the effects of recent significant
floods, catchment development and advanced understanding of climate change or changes in national
policy guidance.
The CFMP will remain a ‘living document’ that evolves as we understand more about flood risk through
new information that we gain. We will report on the progress of the delivery of the actions as we work
towards implementing the policies.
We will carry out formal reviews of the River Nene CFMP to incorporate any significant changes in flood
risk within the catchment. This will ensure that our future policies are sustainable as we work with our
partners to reduce flood risk.

Glossary of terms
Annual Exceedance Probability
A flood that occurs at irregular intervals of years has an average probability of occurring each year. When
applied to the probability of flooding, the event is the exceedance of a flood of given magnitude. Annual
exceedance probability (AEP) is related to return period as follows:
Annual
exceedance Return period, years
probability, %
0.1 1000
1.0 100
2.0 50
5.0 20
10.0 10
Appraisal
The process of defining objectives, examining options and evaluating costs, benefits, risks, opportunities
and uncertainties before making a decision.
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)

Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) were formally designated under the National Parks and
Access to the Countryside Act of 1949 to protect areas of the countryside of high scenic quality that
cannot be selected for National Park status due to their lack of opportunities for outdoor recreation (an
essential objective of National Parks). The Countryside Agency is responsible for designating AONBs
and advising Government and others on how they should be protected and managed.
Further information on AONBs can be found at http://www.aonb.org.uk/.
Average Annualised Damage

The total damage in financial terms caused by flooding over a long period of time expressed as the
average annual amount. The total damage is the aggregation of damage up to the flood of 0.5% average
annual exceedance probability.
Benefits
Those positive measurable and unmeasurable changes that a plan will produce, including damages
avoided.
Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP)

An agreed plan for a habitat or species, which forms part of the UK’s commitment to biodiversity. For
further information, consult the BAP website: http://www.ukbap.org.uk.
Birds Directive
European Community Directive (79/409/EEC) on the conservation of wild birds. Implemented in the UK
as the Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations (1994). For further information consult, the Office
of Public Sector Information website: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/.
Catchment
A surface water catchment is the total area that drains into a river. A groundwater catchment is the total
area that contributes to the groundwater part of the river flow.

Catchment Abstraction Management Strategies (CAMS)
Strategies for managing water resources locally. They will make more information on water resources
allocation publicly available and allow us to decide the balance between the needs of abstractors and
those of the aquatic environment after consulting with local interested parties.
Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP)

A large-scale strategic planning framework for managing flood risks to people and the developed and
natural environment in a sustainable manner.
Catchment opportunities and constraints

Key catchment issues, that we identify using a combination of catchment characteristics (e.g. designated
areas requiring protection or enhancement), government policy/targets (e.g. Defra ‘High Level Targets’,
1999) and/or catchment initiatives (e.g. existing local authority strategies). Catchment policies/measures
should aim to ‘take account of constraints’ and ‘promote opportunities’ through the CFMP appraisal
framework (economic, environmental and technical). Designated sites have Water Level Management
Plans (WLMPs) that set out water level management needs in certain parts of the catchment and some
floodplain areas have nature conservation or heritage interest that benefit from increased incidence of
flooding.
Catchment policies
The outputs of the CFMP, which are the agreed policies for flood risk management within a defined flood
risk area, based on the common catchment policies.
Communication plan
A plan that sets out the CFMP consultation programme, and specific arrangements for consulting both
internal teams and external organisations.
Consultation group
A group of people representing interested groups who should be consulted on the CFMP as agreed with
the Project Board. The Consultation Group should be identified within the Communication Plan.
County Wildlife Site (CWS)/Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI)

Designated at a local level by being included within local or unitary development plans for their regional
or local conservation interest. Local Authorities usually adopt them for planning but have no statutory
protection. Further information on these designations can be found at
http://www.naturenet.net/status/sinc.html.
Countryside Character Areas

Parts of England, that have a similar countryside character. There are 159 Character Areas in England
on which strategies for both ecological and landscape issues can be based. The Countryside Agency
extensively uses this framework to describe and shape objectives to plan and manage the countryside.
Countryside and Rights of Way Act (CRoW)

The Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 came into force on 30 January 2001. The Act
applies in England and Wales and has five parts:
1. Access to the Countryside
2. Public Rights of Way and Road Traffic
3. Nature Conservation and Wildlife Protection
4. Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
5. Miscellaneous and Supplementary
Of these, Part 3 is the most relevant in terms of catchment flood management as it gives biodiversity a
statutory basis, revises SSSI notification procedures, greatly increases protection for SSSIs and
strengthens the advisory role of EN / CCW, increases the scope of some wildlife offences and increases
penalties.
For further information refer to the Office of Public Sector Information website: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/.
Critical Ordinary Watercourses (COWs)

Stretches of non-main river watercourse that district and borough councils and we have defined as critical
in terms of flood risk management.

Defra
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The department of central government responsible
for flood management policy in England.
Digital Elevation Model (DEM)

A representation of the topography of an area that gives the elevation of the upper surface whether it is
the ground, vegetation or a building.
Digital Terrain Model (DTM)

A representation of the ground surface with buildings and vegetation removed. With airborne techniques
automated filters have been developed which can detect buildings and remove them and fill the gap with
data.
DTLR
Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. The former department of central
government responsible for policy on planning and other issues. Now replaced by the Office of the
Deputy Prime Minister.
Environment Agency
Non-departmental public body responsible for the delivery of government policy relating to the
environment and flood risk management in England and Wales.
Environment Agency Vision

The Environment Agency’s ‘vision’ for the environment and a sustainable future is: ‘A healthy, rich and
diverse environment in England and Wales, for present and future generations’
To achieve the targets that will make the ‘vision’ a reality the Agency has identified nine key ‘themes’ or
‘frameworks for change’ through which it will work for a more sustainable future.
1. A better quality of life: the Agency will work with all sectors to enhance the quality of the environment
and the services it provides – for business, anglers, the boating community and other users of the
waterways, farmers, planners and all sections of the community.
2. An enhanced environment for wildlife: the Agency will ensure that its activities and those it authorises
do not threaten key species and habitats;
3. Cleaner air for everyone
4. Improved and protected inland and coastal waters: the Agency will work to clean up polluted waters
and to reduce the risk of further pollution;
5. Restored protected land with healthier soils.
6. A ‘greener’ business world
7. Wiser sustainable use of natural resources
8. Limiting and adapting to climate change
9. Reducing flood risk: the Agency will improve flood defences and information on flood risks
For further information refer to the Environment Agency’s website: http://www.environment-
agency.gov.uk
Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA)

Introduced by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF; predecessor to Defra) in 1987 and
are designated under the provisions of sections 18 and 19 of the 1986 Agriculture Act and
Environmentally Sensitive Area (Stage II) Designation (Amendment)(No2) Order 2001. They are
governed by Defra and offer incentives (on a 10 year agreement with a 5 year break clause) to
encourage farmers to adopt agricultural practices which would safeguard and enhance parts of the
country of particularly high landscape, wildlife or historic value.
Further detail can be found on Defra’s website:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/schemes/esas/default.htm
Flood defence
A structure (or system of structures) for the alleviation of flooding from rivers or the sea.
Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH)

The FEH sets out the current practice for flood estimation in UK
Flood Map
Shows the flood extents, which ignore defences, the location of raised defences, and the area benefiting
from defences. It also provides information on the likelihood of flooding to general areas of land. It can be
found on our website at http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/
Floodplain
Any area of land over which water flows or is stored during a flood event or would flow but for the
presence of flood defences.
Flood risk
The level of flood risk is the product of the frequency or likelihood of flooding together with its effects
(such as loss, damage, harm, distress and disruption).
Flood risk management

Changing the frequency or consequences of flooding to an appropriate level (appropriate to land use),
and monitoring to ensure that flood risks remain at this level. This should take account of other water
level management requirements, and opportunities and constraints. It is not just about building flood
defences.
Flood zones
We produced these in response to Planning Policy Guidance (PPG 25) and to provide planning
authorities with quality assured flood risk data. The zones show the area at risk if there were no defences
and are classified as follows:
Zone 1 – annual exceedance probability of flooding of less than 1000:1 (0.1%)
Zone 2 - annual exceedance probability of flooding between 1000:1 (0.1%) and 100:1 (1.0%) for river
flooding
or 200:1 (0.5%) for coastal flooding
Zone 3 - annual exceedance probability of flooding greater than or equal to 100:1 (1.0%) for river flooding
or greater than or equal to 200:1 (0.5%) for coastal flooding
Fluvial
Relating to a watercourse (river or stream).
Freeboard
The height that the crest of an embankment exceeds the maximum level of the water, which the
embankment is designed to retain. Freeboard provides security in the event that the water level exceeds
the design level.
Freshwater Fisheries Directive designation

EC Directive 78/659/EEC on the Quality of Fresh Waters Needing Protection or Improvement in order to
Support Fish Life (‘The Freshwater Fish Directive’) aims to protect and improve water quality and forms
part of our water quality monitoring programme. Under the Directive, the UK Government must designate
two categories of water: those suitable for salmonids (waters that have the potential to support fish of the
family Salmonidae, mainly salmon and trout but also grayling) and those suitable for cyprinids (from the
family Cyprinidae plus pike, perch and eel).
The Directive sets standards to safeguard freshwater fisheries, mainly relating to the quality of the water,
and requires that certain designated stretches of water meet these standards in order to enable fish to
live or breed.
For further information please consult our website:

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/

Geographical Information System (GIS)
A computer-based system for capturing, storing, checking, integrating, manipulating, analysing and
displaying data.
Geomorphology
The erosion, deposition and transport of sediment processes that create the topography and shape of a
river and its floodplain.
Great Fen Project

The Great Fen Project aims to restore wildlife habitats to 3,700 hectares of fenland in Cambridgeshire
between Huntingdon and Peterborough.
Groundwater
Water occurring below ground in natural formations (typically rocks, gravels and sands).
Habitats Directive
In 1992 the European Community adopted Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the Conservation of natural
habitats and of wild fauna and flora (EC Habitats Directive). The main aim of the EC Habitats Directive is
to promote the maintenance of biodiversity by requiring Member States to take measures to maintain or
restore natural habitats and wild species at a favourable conservation status, introducing robust
protection for those habitats and species of European importance. In applying these measures Member
States are required to take account of economic, social and cultural requirements and regional and local
characteristics.
For further information please consult our website:

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk
Highest Astronomic Tide (HAT)

The highest tide that can occur due solely to the arrangement of the moon, sun and planets.
Historic flood map

The Historic Flood Map shows the extents of known historical floods
Hydrological model
Estimates the flow in a river arising from a given amount of rainfall falling into the catchment. Such
models typically account for factors such as catchment area, topography, soils, geology and land use.
Inception report
Provides a detailed description of the work undertaken during the CFMP Inception phase. This includes a
summary of catchment data collection and preliminary understanding of the main issues we should
consider for effective flood risk management during subsequent phases of the CFMP process.
Indicative Standard of Protection

The range of level of protection we consider for flood defences, based upon the use of the land being
protected. They do not represent any entitlement to protection or minimum level to be achieved.
Internal Drainage Board (IDB)

Self-governing public bodies controlled by board members, which vary in size from a few hundred
hectares to tens of thousands of hectares depending on the size of the drainage district. They are
statutory bodies set up to improve and drain farmland and to protect agricultural as well as industrial,
commercial and residential interests from flooding. They are funded by landowners through a levy or rate.
Land use
Various activities, developments, cropping types, etc for which land is used.
Land management
Various forms of activities relating to agricultural, forestry, etc practice.

Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR)
Airborne mapping technique, which uses a laser to measure the distance between the aircraft and the
ground.
Local authority development plans

These statutory land development plans generally cover a 10-year period from the date they are adopted.
However, the local authorities currently review these plans on a 5- yearly basis. A district council and a
unitary authority will produce a Local Plan and a County Council produce a Structure Plan. A Structuring
Plan guides the Local Plans of several district councils.
Local Biodiversity Action Plan (LBAP)

A local agenda (produced by the local authority) with plans and targets to protect and improve
biodiversity and achieve sustainable development. The Agency is committed to Biodiversity Action Plans
and work with central government (Rio Earth Summit, 1992) to realise LBAP objectives.
Local Environment Agency Plan (LEAP)

A non-statutory plan based on the river basin (or sub-catchments or groups of smaller catchments)
providing environmental baseline information and actions/objectives for that river basin (largely
superseded the National Rivers Authority’s Catchment Management Plans (CMPs)).
Local Nature Reserve (LNR)

Designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 by local authorities (which
must have some legal control over the site) in consultation with English Nature for their locally important
wildlife or geological features. They are generally intended for education and recreation as well as
conservation.
For further information refer to the English Nature website:

http://www.english-nature.org.uk/special/lnr/lnr_search.asp
MAFF
The former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food – all functions now incorporated within Defra.
Mean High Water Springs (MHWS)

The average of the spring tides which occur every two weeks.
Main river
Watercourses defined on a ‘Main River Map’ designated by Defra. The Environment Agency has
permissive powers to carry out flood defence works, maintenance and operational activities for main
rivers only. The riparian owner (the land owner) is responsible for maintenance.
Modelling and Decision Support Framework (MDSF)

A GIS based decision support tool developed specifically to assist the CFMP process by automating
parts of the analysis
National Nature Reserve (NNR)

Designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 or the Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) mainly for nature conservation, but can also include sites with
special geological of physiographic features. They were established to protect the most important areas
of wildlife habitat and geological formations in Britain, and as places for scientific research. All NNRs are
“nationally important” and are best examples of a particular habitat/ecosystem. They are usually owned
or leased by English Nature, or managed in accordance with a Nature Reserve Agreement with the
landowner or occupier. At the end of March 2000 there were 200 NNRs in England covering 80,533
hectares. NNRs receive SSSI designation under The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and The
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).
Further information about NNRs can be found on English Nature’s website site:
http://www.englishnature.org.uk/special/nnr/nnr_search.asp

National Parks
The National Park Authority's duties and powers are derived from a number of Acts of Parliament and
statements of Government policy, most recently the Environment Act 1995. The Statutory purposes of
National Parks, which the Authority has the duty to pursue, are:
• to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area
• to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the area's special qualities by the
public
In pursuing these purposes we also have a duty to seek to foster the economic and social well being of
the communities within the National Park, but without incurring significant expenditure in doing so.
For further information please consult the National Park Authority’s website at http://www.anpa.gov.uk/
National Flood and Coastal Defence Database (NFCDD)

The development of NFCDD is a requirement under the Defra High Level Targets for flood and coastal
defence operating authorities. We lead the development and work in partnership with local authorities
and internal drainage boards to ensure the successful delivery of the database.
Natural Area Profiles and Landscape Character Areas (LCAs)

Natural Areas are sub-divisions of England, each with a characteristic association of wildlife and natural
features. There are 120 Natural Areas in England and each has a unique identity resulting from the
interaction of wildlife, landforms, geology, land use and human impact.
Further information about Natural Areas can be found on English Nature’s Internet site:
http://www.englishnature.org.uk/science/natural/NA_search.asp.
Landscape Character areas. The Countryside Character Initiative is a programme of information and
advice on the character of the English countryside. It includes systematic descriptions of the features and
characteristics that make the landscape and guidance documents on how to undertake Landscape
Character Assessment.
Further information about Landscape Character Areas can be found on the Countryside Agencies
internet site: http://www.countryside.gov.uk/
Natural England
Natural England is the new government agency which will bring together the landscape, access and
recreation elements of the Countryside Agency, all of the responsibilities of English Nature and the
environmental land management functions of the Rural Development Service.
Non-main river
Watercourses not designated as main rivers (see above). The local authority has powers to maintain
them, but riparian owners (the landowners) are responsible for maintaining non-main rivers.
Ordnance Datum Newlyn

A traditional vertical coordinate system, consisting of a tide gauge datum with initial point at Newlyn
(Cornwall) and a Terrestrial Reference Frame observed by spirit levelling between 200 fundamental
bench marks across Britain. Each bench mark has an orthometric height only (not ellipsoid height or
accurate horizontal position). This coordinate system is important because it is used to describe vertical
positions of features on British maps (for example, spot heights and contours) in terms of height above
mean sea level. The word datum in the title refers to the tide gauge initial point only, not to the national
levelled bench marks.
Other historic features

English Heritage (EH) is the national body responsible for identifying and protecting historic buildings by
recommending the most important of them for “listing”. There are three grades of listed buildings
depending on their relative importance:
• Grade I buildings are those of exceptional interest;
• Grade II* buildings are particularly important buildings of more than special interest; and
• Grade II buildings are of special interest, warranting every effort to preserve them.
Local authorities have the power to designate Conservation Areas in any area of “special architectural or
historic interest”, whose character or appearance is worth protecting or enhancing. These qualities are
judged against local and regional criteria, rather than national importance, as is the case with listing
buildings. In England the prime sources of information on recorded archaeological remains will be the
Sites and Monuments Records (SMR) and the National Monuments Record (NMR). The SMR should
contain information about all known archaeological remains.
For further information refer to the English Heritage

website: Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Planning Policy Guidance Note 25: Development and Flood Risk (PPG25)
One of a series of Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPGs) issued by DTLR to advise local planning
authorities and developers. While PPGs are not statutory, planning authorities must consider them when
they prepare plans and determine planning applications. PPG25, issued in July 2001, raises the profile of
flood risk, which should be considered at all stages of the planning and development process and across
the whole catchment. It emphasises the need to act on a precautionary basis and to take account of
climate change. It advises on future urban development in areas at risk of flooding, subjecting proposals
to a sequential response (dependent on the degree of risk) and promotes the concept of Sustainable
Drainage Systems (SUDS) in new development or redevelopment.
For further information please refer to the Department for Communities and Local Government website:
http://www.planning.odpm.gov.uk/ppg25/
Pre-feasibility study
A preliminary study to determine if a feasibility study or project appraisal is needed.
Problem areas
Areas within the catchment identified as being at significant risk from flooding.
Probability of occurrence
The probability of a flood event being equalled or exceeded in any one year.
Project Team
Responsible for producing the CFMP, and is made up of our staff assisted by consultants.
Ramsar site
The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, Especially as Waterfowl Habitat (1971)
requires the UK Government to promote the wise use of wetlands and to protect wetlands of international
importance. This includes designating certain areas as Ramsar sites, where their importance for nature
conservation (especially with respect to waterfowl) and environmental sustainability meet certain criteria.
Ramsar sites receive SSSI designation under The Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 and
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).
Further information can be located on the RAMSAR Convention on Wetlands website:

http://www.ramsar.org/
Regional Planning Guidance (RPG)

Planning guidance issued for the East Midlands and East of England by the Government Office for the
East Midlands and the East of England Regional Assemblies. Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) replace
RPGs.
Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS)

Replaces Regional Planning Guidance.
Return Period
The average interval in years between the exceedances of a flood of a selected magnitude. See annual
exceedance probability.
Risk assessment
Consideration of the risks inherent in a project, leading to the development of actions to control, mitigate
or accept them.

River Quality Objective (RQO)
Rivers and canals are monitored under the requirements of the Water Resources Act, 1991.
This legislation gave the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Wales the power to set
statutory water quality objectives to secure specific water quality standards. To meet this requirement the
Environment Agency, as the nominated statutory body, has introduced the River Quality Objective (RQO)
classification system.
Currently, we classify RQOs using a River Ecosystem (RE) Classification, based on a set of chemical
water quality parameters defined within the EC Freshwater Fish Directive (78/659/EEC). There are five
river ecosystem classes, from RE1 to RE5. The RQO classification system provides an indication of the
water quality conditions that the Environment Agency would like to see in all main rivers but there are no
legal requirements directly connected with it. Instead the RQO system indicates the 'ideal' quality of
waters and so shows their relative importance.
For further information consult the Environment Agency website: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk
Scenario
A possible future situation, which can influence either catchment flood processes or flood responses, and
therefore the success of flood risk management policies/measures. Scenarios will usually comprise
combinations of the following: urban development (both in the catchment and river corridor); change in
land use and land management practice (including future environmental designations); or climate
change.
Scheduled Monuments, Scheduled Ancient Monuments

To protect archaeological sites for future generations, the most valuable sites may be “scheduled”.
Scheduling is the process through which nationally important sites and monuments are given legal
protection by being placed on a list, or ‘schedule’. English Heritage identifies sites in England, which
should be placed on the schedule by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The current
legislation, the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979, supports a formal system of
scheduled monument consent for any work affecting a designated monument.
Further information can be found on the English Heritage website: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk
Section 105
Section of the Water Resources Act under which floodplain mapping is carried out. Level A was the initial
Section 105 modelling, level B modelling has been undertaken to look at key areas in more detail.
For further detail refer to The Office of Public Sector Information website:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/
Shoreline Management Plan (SMP)

Non-statutory plans to provide sustainable coastal defence policies (to prevent erosion by the sea and
flooding of low-lying coastal land), and to set objectives for the future management of the shoreline. They
are prepared by the Agency or maritime local authorities, acting individually or as part of coastal defence
groups.
Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)

Notified under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended) and the Countryside and Rights of
Way (CRoW) Act 2000 for their flora, fauna, geological or physiographical features. Notification of a SSSI
includes a list of operations that may be harmful to the special interest of the site. The Wildlife and
Countryside Act 1981 (provisions relating to SSSIs) has been replaced by a new Section 28 in Schedule
9 of the CRoW Act. The new Section 28 provides significantly improved protection for SSSIs. All cSACs,
SPAs and Ramsar sites are designated as SSSIs.
For further information refer to English Nature’s website:

http://www.english-nature.com

Soil Moisture Deficit
Plants will extract water from the soil when there is insufficient rain to match evaporation or transpiration,
creating a soil moisture deficit. This deficit increases until there is further rainfall to refill the available
water capacity.
Special Area for Conservation (SAC), Candidate

A Special Area of Conservation (SAC) is a site with habitats and/or species of European nature
conservation importance. SACs are designated under the Habitats Directive (Council Directive
92/43/EEC on the Conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora) and protected in the UK
under the Habitats Regulations (Conservation (Natural Habitats &c.) Regulations 1994).
SACs also receive SSSI designation under The Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 and
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).
For further details refer to The Joint Nature Conservation Committee website http://www.jncc.gov.uk
Special Protection Area (SPA), Proposed Special Protection Area (pSPA)

A site of international importance for birds, designated as required by the EC Birds Directive. A pSPA is a
proposed site, but has the same status as if it were confirmed. SPAs are designated for their international
importance as breeding, feeding and roosting habitat for birds. The Government must consider the
conservation of SPAs in all planning decisions.
SPAs receive SSSI designation under The Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act 2000 and The
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).
For further details refer to the European Commission website: http://europa.eu.int/ and The Joint Nature
Conservation Committee website at: http://www.jncc.gov.uk/ukspa/sites/spalistA-C.htm
Steering Group
Oversees the production of the CFMP, and is made up of our staff, together with staff from other
operating authorities and key organisations.
Strategy plan
A long-term (usually 50 years or more) plan for river or coastal management. It includes all the necessary
work needed to meet flood and coastal defence objectives for the target area. A Strategy plan is more
detailed and usually covers a smaller area than a CFMP.
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

The application of environmental assessment to earlier, more strategic, tiers of decision-making policies,
plans and programmes. The practical application of SEA is still in its infancy in the UK, but will become a
statutory requirement when implemented through an EC Directive.
For further detail please consult Defra’s website:Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA)

A broad scale assessment of flood risk carried out by a unitary authority or district council. Such
documents are drafted so that proposed developments can be quickly appraised to Planning Policy
Guidance.
Structure plan
A statutory plan comprising part of the development plan, prepared by county councils or a combination
of unitary authorities, containing strategic policies that cover key planning issues over a broad area and
provide a framework for local planning, including Unitary Development Plans (UDPs).
Surface Water
Water in rivers, estuaries, ponds and lakes.

Sustainability
Is a concept, which deals with mankind’s impact, through development, on the environment. Sustainable
development is ‘development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs’ (BrundHand, 1987) The degree to which flood risk
management options avoid tying future generations into inflexible or expensive options for flood defence.
This usually includes considering other defences and likely developments as well as processes within a
catchment. It should also take account, for example, of the long-term demands for non-renewable
materials.
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS)

A sequence of management practices and control structures designed to drain surface water in a more
sustainable fashion than some conventional techniques (may also be referred to as sustainable drainage
techniques).
Telemetry
The means by which a data signal is transferred to a remote control centre by the telephone network.
Unitary Development Plan (UDP)

A statutory plan produced by unitary authorities, comprising part of the development plan and written in
two parts: Part I – a written statement which contains the authority’s general policies for their area; Part II
– both a written statement and an ordnance plan, describing the policies in detail and illustrating them on
a geographical basis. A UDP replaces Local Plans within unitary authorities.

Directive (2000/60/EC) on integrated river basin management. The WFD sets out environmental
objectives for water status based on: ecological and chemical parameters; common monitoring and
assessment strategies; arrangements for river basin administration and planning; and a programme of
measures in order to meet the objectives.
For further detail consult the European Commission website: http://europa.eu.int
Water Level Management Plan (WLMP)

A document setting out water level management requirements in a defined floodplain area (usually a
SSSI) which is designed to reconcile different requirements for drainage.
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)

The main tool for legally protecting wildlife in Great Britain. The Wildlife and Countryside Act is divided
into four parts.
Part I is concerned with the protection of wildlife,
Part II relates to the countryside and national parks (and the designation of protected areas),
Part III covers public rights of way,
Part IV deals with miscellaneous provisions of the Act
The designation of protected species is included in Schedules 1, 5 and 8 of the Act, which list protected
birds, protected animals and protected plants, respectively

Abbreviations
AFFS Anglian Flood Forecasting System
ABD Areas Benefitting from Defences
CA Conservation Area
CAMS Catchment Abstraction Management Strategies
COW Critical Ordinary Watercourse
CWS County Wildlife Sites
DCLG Department of Communities and Local Government
FRMP Flood Risk Management Plan
FWA Flood Warning Area
FWD Flood Warning Direct
HYRAD Rainfall Radar
IPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control
LDF Local Development Framework
LPA Local Planning Authority
NFCDD National Flood and Coastal Defence Database
NFFS National Flood Forecasting System
NFFMSS National Flood Forecasting Modelling System Strategy
ODN Ordnance Datum Newlyn
ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
OD Ordnance Survey
OST Office of Science and Technology
PPS25 Planning Policy Statement 25
RBMP River Basin Management Plan
RFDC Regional Flood Defence Committee
RFRA Regional Flood Risk Assessment
SAM Scheduled Ancient Monument
SAMP Strategic Asset Management Plan
SMP Shoreline Management Plan
SFRA Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
STFS Storm Tide Forecast Service
SUDS Sustainable Drainage System
SWANTEL Regional Telemetry System
WLMP Water Level Management Plan

Bibliography
Bedford Borough Council (2006) Bedford Town Centre Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
Cabinet Office (2008) Learning Lessons from the 2007 floods: ‘The Pitt Review’
Cambridgeshire County Council and Peterborough City Council (2003) Cambridgeshire and
Peterborough Structure Plan 2001-2016
Cambridgeshire County Council (2002) Biodiversity Action Plan
CEH (2000). Land Cover Map of the UK.
Corby Borough Council (2004) Corby Borough Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment – Stage 1
DEFRA (2008) Freshwater Fish Directive.

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/water/quality/fwfish/index.htm
DEFRA (2006) Flood and Coastal Defence Appraisal Guidance FCDPAG3 Economic Appraisal:
Supplementary Note to Operating Authorities – Climate Change Impacts, October 2006
DEFRA (2006) UK Climate Change Programme
DEFRA (2005) Strategic Environmental Assessment

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/guidance/sea.htm
DEFRA (2004). Making Space for Water.
East of England Regional Assembly (2008). East of England Regional Plan
East Midlands Regional Assembly (2006) East Midlands Draft Regional Plan
East Midlands Regional Assembly (2006) East Midlands Regional Flood Risk Appraisal
East Midlands Regional Assembly (2005) Regional Spatial Strategy for the East Midlands
East Northamptonshire District Council (2006) East Northamptonshire Strategic Flood Risk Assessment –
Stage 2
Environment Agency (2008) Environment Agency Flood Map

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/maps/info/floodmaps/?version=1&lang=_e
Environment Agency (2007) North Northamptonshire Flood Risk Management Study
Environment Agency (2006) A Better Place to Play
Environment Agency (2006) Anglian Region Local Contributions 2006 – 2011: Improving the environment
in Anglian region
Environment Agency (2006) Creating a Better Place, Anglian Region Local Contribution
2006/11: Improving the Environment in Anglian Region.
Environment Agency (2006) Southfield Farm Marsh Water Level Management Plan
Environment Agency (2006) River Nene CFMP Consultation Draft Plan
Environment Agency (2005) River Nene Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy (CAMS)

Environment Agency (2005) The Climate is Changing: Time to get Ready
Environment Agency (2005) River Nene CFMP Scoping Report
Environment Agency (2004) River Nene CFMP Inception Report
Environment Agency (2004) Northampton Development and Flood Risk Management Update of Strategic
Review
Environment Agency (2004) River Nene Waterway Plan
Environment Agency (2003) Tidal Nene Strategy Study Phase C
Environment Agency (2000) Strategic review of development and flood risk in Northampton
Environment Agency (1998) Easter 1998 Floods: Final Assessment by the Independent Review Team:
The Bye Report
European Community (2007) Flood Directive: Assessment and Management of Flood Risks (2007/60/EC
of 23 October 2007)
European Community (2006) Freshwater Fish Directive (2006/44/EC)
Fenland District Council (2005) Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
Government Office for the East Midlands (2005) Regional Spatial Strategy for the East
Midlands (RSS8)
Government Offices for the South East, East Midlands, East of England (2005) Milton Keynes and South
Midlands (MKSM) Sub-Regional Strategy
Halcrow for the Corby WCS Project Group (2007) Corby Water Cycle Strategy Phase 2 – Detailed
Strategy summary report
Halcrow for the North Northamptonshire WCS Project Group (2007) North Northamptonshire
Development Study Outline Water Cycle Strategy – Technical report
Huntingdonshire District Council (2004) Huntingdonshire Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
Joint Nature Conservation Committee (2008) UK Biodiversity Action Plans

http://www.ukbap.org.uk/GenPageText.aspx?id=57
Kettering Borough Council (2005) Kettering and Wellingborough Strategic Flood Risk
Assessment
Kings Lynn & West Norfolk Borough Council (2005) Strategic Flood Risk Assessment
Lincolnshire County Council and the Environment Agency (2008). The Fens Waterways Link.
Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust (2006) Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action Plan, 2nd Edition
Natural England (2008) A Manifesto for the Natural Environment
Natural England (various) NNR information http://www.englishnature.org.uk/special/nnr/nnr_search.asp
Natural England (various) SSSI Citations

http://www.englishnature.org.uk/Special/sssi/search.cfm
Norfolk County Council (2008) Norfolk Biodiversity Action Plan

http://www.norfolkbiodiversity.org/

Northampton Borough Council (2004) Strategic Flood Risk Assessment – Stage 2
Northamptonshire County Council (2006) Northamptonshire Minerals Local Plan
Northamptonshire County Council (2001) Northamptonshire Structure Plan 1996–2016
North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit (2007) North Northamptonshire Core Spatial Strategy
NRA (1994) Upper Nene Catchment Management Plan
NRA (1994) Lower Nene Catchment Management Plan
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2006) Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005). Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological
Conservation
Office of Science and Technology (2004) Foresight: Future Flooding
Peterborough City Council (2005) Peterborough Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.
Posford Duvivier for Environment Agency (1997) Lower Nene tidal Limit: evaluating the consequences to
all Environment Agency functions relating to possible relocation of the tidal limit: scoping study
Posford Duvivier (1996) The Wash Shoreline Management Plan, Volume 1 – Core Report, December
1996.
South Holland District Council (2002) South Holland Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.
The European Parliament (2007) Directive on the Assessment and Management of Flood Risks (the
Floods Directive)
The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations (2003)
The Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire and Peterborough (2008)
Northamptonshire Biodiversity Action Plan, 2nd Edition
Wash Estuary Strategy Group (1996) The Wash Estuary Management Plan, June 1996.
West Northamptonshire Development Corporation (2008) Water Cycle Strategy Phase 1 report

Appendix A
Responsibilities for Flood Risk
Management and Associated Activities
Environment Agency
River Nene Catchment Flood Management Plan – December 2008 A1
Government
The Department of Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has overall responsibility for flood risk
management in England. Their aim is to reduce flood risk by:
• discouraging inappropriate development in areas at risk from flooding;

• encouraging the provision of adequate and cost effective flood warning systems;
• encouraging the provision of adequate technically, environmentally and
• economically sound and sustainable flood defence measures.
Defra is developing a new strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management for the next
20 years. This strategy is called “Making Space for Water” and will set the agenda for the
Government’s future strategic approach to flood risk (see www.defra.gsi.gov.uk).
The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) is responsible for building
regulations and planning in England. DCLG produces advice to local planning authorities in
the form of Planning Policy Statements, which are gradually replacing Planning Policy
Guidance. DCLG has issued the following PPSs that are relevant to this CFMP:
• PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development

• PPS7 – Sustainable Development in Rural Areas
• PPS9 – Biodiversity and Geological Conservation
• PPS11 – Regional Spatial Strategies
• PPS12 – Local Development Frameworks
• PPS25 – Development and Flood Risk
For further details, please see www.communities.gov.uk
The Environment Agency

We have the lead role in providing flood risk management, with powers to carry out flood
defence works on main rivers and sea defences across England and Wales. Our regulatory
powers for flood risk management are currently limited to providing information and advice to
planning authorities, which they may or may not consider. We provide a flood warning service
as set out in the Environment Agency Charter 2001. We also supervise all matters relating to
flood defence, including ordinary watercourses. We published our five-year Strategy for Flood
Risk Management in 2003, with a very clear direction for the CFMP. Sir John Harman,
Environment Agency Chairman, said:
“Our new five year Strategy for Flood Risk Management sets out how we will work with
executive committees to manage and reduce flood risk. It shows how we will use the
increased Government funding in areas of greatest need, to deliver a first class flood risk
management service to the public and meet Government and Environment Agency targets.
We will do this in ways that help to deliver additional benefits in areas such as sustainable
development, biodiversity, and urban and rural regeneration”.
We also have a role in taking action to reduce the risk of groundwater flooding. We could do
this by providing flood warnings for groundwater flooding or by removing water from the water
table to help reduce groundwater levels.
CFMPs are a major part of our strategy for flood risk management and will help to deliver a
more integrated approach.
Development and land use planning

Influencing land use planning and preventing inappropriate development within the flood plain
is Government policy and one of our flood risk management objectives. Defra has
“Discouraging inappropriate development in areas at risk from flooding” as one of their top
three ways of reducing flood risk, and we are seeking to become a statutory consultee on
flood risk.
Environment Agency
DCLG (see above) has recently issued PPS25 on development and Flood Risk. This
stipulates a “risk based sequential search” for assessing development in a catchment. It
supersedes Planning and Policy Guidance Note 25 (PPG25) on Development and Flood Risk.
PPS25 steers the way in which planning authorities allocate how land will be used and has a
significant impact on development both locally and regionally. We are a statutory consultee on
all planning applications in flood risk areas. We must therefore make sure that the CFMP is
compatible with and supports the strengthened planning process.
The CFMP, however, does not replace a strategic flood risk assessment. This is a more
detailed assessment of flood risk in relation to development and planning. The CFMP is an
important part of the framework for flood risk management, being driven by Government goals
and objectives, our vision for the future and local and regional planning structures and
requirements. The aspirations in the CFMP come from these Government and European
statutory and moral obligations.
Other organisations
District councils and unitary authorities have powers to carry out work on ordinary
watercourses for certain purposes. Their response to work on ordinary watercourses may
vary and they often have their own regulations and byelaws that affect what they can or
cannot do on an ordinary watercourse.
The Civil Contingencies Act 2004, and associated regulations, sets out an emergency
preparedness framework that includes planning for and responding to emergencies. Local
Resilience Forums, which include representatives from us, the emergency services and local
authorities, should make sure that risks from flooding are fully considered. This includes the
resilience of the emergency infrastructure that will operate during floods.
In certain areas, Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs) have operational and regulatory powers
on identified ordinary watercourses. These powers are similar to our powers on main rivers.
Highway authorities are responsible for managing drainage from roads on the local road
network, by making sure that they maintain drains for which they are responsible. The
Highways Agency is responsible for managing drainage from the trunk road network in
England, including the slip roads to and from trunk roads.
Riparian owners (landowners along watercourses) have:
• the right to protect their property from flooding and their land from erosion;
• a responsibility to accept flows through their land; and
• a responsibility to maintain the bed and banks of the watercourse, including clearing
debris.
Sewerage undertakers are generally responsible for surface water drainage from
development via adopted sewers and sustainable drainage systems. They should make sure
that Urban Drainage Plans reflect the appropriate regional spatial strategies and local
development documents.
Certain reservoir undertakers will have to produce emergency contingency plans (Flood
Plans) following direction by the Secretary of State under the Reservoirs Act 1975, as
amended. This will be introduced after Defra consults on it. The presence of reservoirs and
their implications for flood risk should be recognised in Regional Flood Risk Assessments
(RFRAs), Strategic Flood Risk Assessments (SFRAs) and Flood Risk Assessments (FRAs).
FRAs should take account of information from the reservoir undertakers and Flood Plans,
when available and relevant.
Working together
Flooding is often from more than one source. For example, surface water flooding during river
flooding, sewer and surface water flooding etc. It is important that, in a major flood event, all
the organisations involved work together to provide an effective response
Environment Agency
Appendix B
The Environmental Report
(documenting the Strategic
Environmental Assessment and
including the Policy Appraisal Tables)
Environment Agency
River Nene Catchment Flood Management Plan – December 2008 B1
Contents
Non-Technical Summary
Section B1 Introduction and Background

B1.1 The purpose of SEA
B1.2 The Catchment Flood Management Plan
B1.3 Structure of the report appendix
Section B2 Consultation
B2.1 Introduction
B2.2 Steering Group
B2.3 Consultation programme
B2.3 Consultation summary
Section B3 Environmental Context

B3.1 Policy, plan and programme review
B3.2 Baseline review
B3.3 Scope of the SEA and environmental objectives
Section B4 Assessment and evaluation of environmental effects

B4.1 Strategic options and appraisal process
B4.2 Assessment and evaluation of impacts
B4.3 Cumulative environmental effects
B4.4 Mitigation and enhancement
B4.5 Monitoring requirements
List of Figures
Figure B1 The location of the Nene Catchment Flood Management Plan
Figure B2 Policy Units
Figure B3 How the CFMP fits with the wider planning framework
Figure B4 Policy Units and preferred policies
List of Tables
Table B1 Summary of consultation undertaken during the development of the CFMP
Table B2 Review of policies, plans, and programmes and relevance to the CFMP
Table B3 Summary of current and future risks to people, property and the environment
Table B4 Scope of the SEA in relation to the CFMP
Table B5 Definition of policy options
Table B6 Summary of Appropriate Assessment requirements for Natura 2000 sites
Table B7 Summary of cumulative issues
List of Annexes
Annex A Forms reporting on the detailed policy appraisal
Form 12.5 Summary of current and future level and response to flood risk
Form 12.6 Screening of Policy Options against Appraisal Objectives
Form 12.7 Summary of the Relative Overall Losses and Gains
Form 12.8 Summary of the Preferred Policy
Annex B Forms reporting on the findings of the Appropriate Assessment
Form HR01 Stage 2 assessment

Form HR02 Stage 3 assessment
Environment Agency
Non-Technical Summary
We are developing the Nene Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP) in order to
establish long-term (50 - 100 years) policies for sustainable flood risk management. These
policies will not set specific measures to reduce flood risk or establish how to manage
flooding issues in a catchment. Our policies are at the highest level in our hierarchy of spatial
flood risk management plans and are about setting the right strategic direction so that in the
future we take the best and most sustainable approach to managing flood risk to people, the
environment and the economy.
Although not a legal requirement, we are undertaking strategic environmental assessment

(SEA) as part of our planning process in order to demonstrate how our plan takes account of
the environment and, in particular, the likely significant environmental effects of the CFMP.
The CFMP involves:
• working with key partners and decision makers to establish long-term policies for
sustainable flood risk management;
• carrying out a strategic assessment of current and future flood risk from all
sources (such as rivers, sewers, groundwater and the sea) within the catchment,
understanding both the likelihood and consequence of flooding and the effect of
current ways of reducing risk. We measure the scale of risk in social,
environmental and economic terms;
• considering how the catchment works, and looking at other policies, plans and
programmes to identify opportunities and constraints to achieving sustainable
flood risk management;
• finding ways to work with nature, and manage flood risk to maintain, restore or
improve natural and historic assets.
In undertaking the SEA we considered the baseline environment, and how this would evolve
without the influence of our plan.
The River Nene CFMP covers an area of 2,270km2 and contains the River Nene and its major
tributaries of the Kislingbury Branch, Brampton Branch, Wootton Brook, River Ise, Willow
Brook and Harpers Brook, plus a number of smaller tributaries.
There is a high level of flood risk across the River Nene catchment. Currently, at the 1.0%
Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) flood, there are about 4,200 people at risk in the main
urban centres of Northampton (away from the defended areas), Wellingborough, Kettering,
Corby and Peterborough. These centres account for about 60% of the risk. The remaining
risk is dispersed around the catchment, with some concentrations in smaller urban areas such
as Raunds. The risk to people is exacerbated by the rapid rise of flood water and high
velocities of flood flow. Such risks exist in the steeper tributaries of the River Ise and Slade
Brook through Kettering. Flooding is of long duration in the lower reach of the River Nene
through Peterborough.
The economic impact of flooding is significant. The average annual damage (AAD) – an
aggregation of damages over a range of flood probabilities – is £11.2m, about half of which
occurs in Northampton largely because of the flooding of undefended commercial property.
The rest of the AAD is distributed fairly evenly around the catchment with only Corby and
Wellingborough having significant values. Significant critical infrastructure (includes sewage
treatment works and electricity sub-stations) is at risk; the risk is generally associated with the
flooding of urban centres. The flood risk to environmental sites is both beneficial and adverse,
depending on the sensitivity of the site to flooding.
We assessed future flood risks using scenarios of future conditions which combine the effects
on flood risk of climate change, urban growth and land use change. Of these, climate change
has the dominant effect on increasing flooding around the catchment. Under the selected
scenario, flood risk approximately doubles. Thus, there are about twice the number of people
affected, of which the main urban centres now account for about 75% of the total. Corby
Environment Agency
emerges as the major area of risk – about 40%. There are general increases in the disruption
caused by flood depth, velocity and duration. The AAD doubles and has a similar distribution
across the catchment. More critical infrastructure is at risk, particularly in Corby. The increase
in the flooding of environmental sites is generally beneficial because of the predominance of
water-dependent sites, but there are a number of adverse effects.
Our understanding of the future was based on scenarios for the future, where estimated
changes to the climate, development and land management could result in changes to flood
risk. We used these scenarios to understand what six generic policy options could mean for
flood risk to people, the environment and the economy. The options we considered were:
1. No active intervention (including flood warning and maintenance). Continue to monitor

and advise
2. Reduce existing flood risk management actions (accepting that flood risk will increase
over time)
3. Continue with existing or alternative actions to manage flood risk at the current level
(accepting that flood risk will increase over time from this baseline)
4. Take further action to sustain current scale of flood risk into the future (responding to
the potential increases in flood risk from urban development, land use change, and
climate change)
5. Take further action to reduce flood risk (now and/or in the future)
6. Take action to increase the frequency of flooding to deliver benefits locally or elsewhere
(which may constitute an overall flood risk reduction, for example for habitat inundation)
The overall objective of the CFMP process is to develop sustainable policies for managing
flood risk within the River Nene catchment in the long term. This will take into account the
likely impacts of future changes in climate, urban development, land use and land
management. The catchment objectives, developed with our Steering Group, cover
environmental, economic and social themes.
The catchment objectives are:
• To minimise flood related risks to the population

• To minimise risks to critical infrastructure and community facilities;
• To minimise community disruption from flooding;
• To minimise economic impacts of flooding;
• Ensure future investment in the catchment is proportional to the risks;
• Protect and enhance significant historic environment assets and their settings;
1
(Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) , Special Protection Areas (SPA), Special
Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Ramsar3);
2
environment and contributing to UK Biodiversity Action Plan targets; and
• Support the achievement of good status/potential of surface bodies under the Water
Framework Directive (WFD)4.
1 SSSIs are nationally important sites with the best examples of the UK’s flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features
designated under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended)..
2 Special Areas of Conservation (SAC) and Special Protection Areas (SPA) are sites of European nature conservation importance
(also known as European Sites) designated under the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC) and EU Birds Directive (79/409/EEC)
respectively.
3 Ramsar sites are internationally important wetlands designated under the 1971 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International
Importance especially as waterfowl habitats.
Environment Agency
These objectives establish the key aims of the CFMP. We also consulted with the public on
our draft objectives, and it was against these that we appraised the alternative policy options,
drawing from opportunities and constraints provided from other policies, plans and
programme.
Key opportunities include:
• Potential to enhance well-being and raise the security of people, communities and
social institutions from flooding;
• Reduction in the overall cost of flooding and Flood Risk Management (FRM);
reduction in insurance premiums;
• Strategic approach to FRM across the catchment;
• Potential to reduce flood risk to heritage features within urban areas at risk from
flooding;
• Opportunity to contribute towards achieving conservation objectives of designated
sites;
• Potential to create and manage wetland habitats to contribute to BAP targets, Natural
Area objectives for the restoration of the natural floodplain, and the RSPB’s vision for
the creation of large wetlands in the Fens;
• Potential to create and manage wetland habitats to contribute to achieving good
ecological status/potential through measures under the WFD;
• Releasing stored winter floodwaters at times of low flow could address water quality
issues, for example, between Peterborough and Dog-in-a-Doublet Sluice on the main
River Nene;
• Potential to include new recreational and amenity features that contribute to the
network of Green Infrastructure developments, such as the River Nene Regional
Park, arising from the Government’s Sustainable Communities programme;
• Potential to link the River Nene to the Fen Waterways Link at Peterborough,
presenting opportunities for the transfer, storage and benefit of using stored
floodwaters outside the floodplain and the catchment;
• Potential to develop floodplain storage in areas planned for future mineral extraction
in the middle Nene, with associated benefits to biodiversity and recreation. However,
such opportunities might be limited by the protection afforded to river valleys from the
effects of mineral development. The protection is a policy of the Northamptonshire
Minerals Local Plan (May 2006); and,
• Potential to work with local authorities and regional development agencies to
influence developing waterfronts and floodplains.
Key constraints include:
• Existing residential property and social institutions on floodplain and defended areas;
• Pressure of urban and infrastructure development;
• Existing commercial and industrial properties on floodplain and defended areas;
• Some dependency upon floodplain storage becoming available through the after-use
of gravel extraction and other activities;
• The presence of Scheduled Monuments and other heritage features such as
Conservation Areas and historic parks and gardens may constrain acceptable options
and locations throughout the river valley;
• Designated sites may constrain flood risk management responses and activities if
changes in the flooding regime adversely affect the interest features. This may
particularly be a concern at the internationally important Nene Washes;
• Negative impacts may be experienced on existing biodiversity within the floodplain if
flooding is deep and prolonged in spring and summer months or if flood risk
management measures isolate the river from its floodplain. Shallow flooding over a
4 The WFD sets environmental objectives for rivers (and other types of water bodies such as lakes and groundwaters) to achieve
good ecological and chemical status by 2015.
Environment Agency
wide area is preferred to recreate areas of wet grassland in line with BAP targets and
Natural Area objectives;
• Flooding of areas of contaminated land or potentially polluting sites will require
measures to manage risks;
• Demand for increased housing provision and associated infrastructure within the
Milton Keynes – South Midlands (Northampton, Corby, Kettering, Wellingborough)
and London – Stansted – Cambridge – Peterborough growth areas, which may come
into conflict with the need to restrict development in floodplains;
• The River Nene navigation, which is important to the local community and economy
and may constrain options for flood risk management;
• The existing urban fabric that can physically constrain the space available for flood
defences;
• Landscape character and local designations that may constrain locations which are
suitable for flood risk management measures;
• The need to maintain the separation of tributary flood flows will limit the possible
locations for flood risk management measures; and,
• Future urban growth that will demand an increase in storage of water for public water
supply. Storing floodwater on floodplains is unlikely to contribute to meeting this
requirement because floodwater is only stored during the period of the flood and is
generally released soon after. There may be opportunities for using future water
supply reservoirs to contribute to flood management. However, floodwater stored on
floodplains might be detained in small quantities and used to increase low river flows.
Preferred flood risk management policies for the Nene CFMP were selected using the
catchment objectives. These are as follows:
Policy Unit Policy Option

Upper and Middle Nene 2 - Reduce existing flood risk management actions
Catchment
River Nene (Weedon to 6 - Take action with others to store water or manage runoff in
Kislingbury) locations that provide overall flood risk reduction or
environmental benefits locally or elsewhere in the catchment
Wootton 3 - Continue with existing or alternative actions to manage
flood risk at the current level
Northampton Central 4 - Take further action to sustain current scale of flood risk into
the future
Northampton Outer 4 - Take further action to sustain current scale of flood risk into
the future
River Nene Corridor 6 - Take action with others to store water or manage runoff in
locations that provide overall flood risk reduction or
environmental benefits locally or elsewhere in the catchment
Kettering 4 - Take further action to sustain current scale of flood risk into
the future
Corby 5 - Take further action to reduce flood risk (now and/or in the
future)
Wellingborough 4 - Take further action to sustain current scale of flood risk into
the future
Rushden and Raunds 4 - Take further action to sustain current scale of flood risk into
the future
Thrapston 3 - Continue with existing or alternative actions to manage
Barnwell 3 - Continue with existing or alternative actions to manage
River Nene (Oundle to 3 - Continue with existing or alternative actions to manage
Water Newton) flood risk at the current level
Peterborough and the 4 - Take further action to sustain current scale of flood risk into
Nene Washes the future
The Fens 4 - Take further action to sustain current scale of flood risk into
the future
Environment Agency
These policies recommend how future increases in flood risk within the River Nene catchment
can be sustainably managed in the long term. Significant impacts likely to result from the
CFMP are as follows:
• 3% increase in the number of people affected by flooding;

• 6% increase in the number of properties (both commercial and residential) affected
by flooding;
• 24% increase in damages to commercial and residential properties;
• 73% increase in the number of electricity substations affected by flooding;
• 40% increase in the number of sewage and water treatment plants affected by
flooding;
• 16% decrease in number of main roads affected by flooding;
• No change to the area of Grade 1 agricultural land affected by flooding;
• 12% increase in the area of Grade 2 agricultural land affected by flooding;
• EA expenditure would increase due to cost of constructing additional flood defences,
and flood storage; and,
• Two additional SSSIs will in the future be potentially flooded.
As a result of the potential risk to Natura 2000 sites, we have undertaken an appropriate
assessment of the plan. We have concluded, in most cases, that there is a potential adverse
effect on site integrity, but that conditions or restrictions can be applied to avoid this.
However, in relation to The Wash, the conclusion is that there may be a significant effect but
we cannot confirm this due to uncertainty. Actions and mechanisms have been proposed in
the Action Plan to avoid adverse effects on the integrity of the Natura 2000 sites.
We selected these policies because alternative policy options would have resulted in
unacceptable increases in economic and social losses with risks to public health and safety,
particularly in the main urban centres of Corby, Wellingborough, Northampton, Kettering and
Peterborough. The risk in Northampton is only notable for a future flood in excess of the 0.5%
AEP standard which would overtop the defences and put large numbers of people and
property at risk. There is currently a notable concentration of flood risk in Corby which needs
action before any increases take place.
Across the rural extent of the catchment, there is a generally low and much more dispersed
risk which does not warrant further intervention and where our current level of flood risk
management is unsustainable. Increasing flood risk along the River Nene corridor and along
part of the River Ise corridor by introducing flood storage could possibly enable us to manage
future flood risk in Northampton, Kettering, Wellingborough and Peterborough. In practice,
some local intervention in these areas might be necessary in combination with the upstream
storage options. Future flood risk along the River Nene between Oundle and Water Newton
does not warrant further intervention but, in practice, the policy to increase flood risk along the
River Nene corridor could enable us to prevent the increase in flood risk between Oundle and
Water Newton too. Options alternative to policy P4 selected for the Fens would either be
unsustainable of would put a large number of people and valuable agricultural land at
increased risk, particularly so in the event of a breaching of the tidal embankments.
Our mitigation and enhancement measures are included within the appraisal of alternatives
but these will be cascaded down through our subsequent and more detailed plans as we
decide the flood risk management measures we need to implement the policies. The
monitoring of the significant effects of the plan will include:
• Number of people at risk;

• Number of people covered by flood warning or emergency / evacuation plans;
• Number and type of critical infrastructure at risk;
• Number of properties affected;
• Category of social vulnerability areas affected;
• Residential damages;
• Commercial damages;
Environment Agency
• Agricultural damages;
• Percentage area of grade 1 and 2 agricultural land flooded;
• Expenditure on all FRM activities;
• Numbers of Scheduled Monuments, Historic Parks and Gardens, Historic Battlefields
and Conservation Areas adversely affected by flooding or flood risk management
activities;
• Reported condition status and area flooded of SSSIs, SPAs, SACs and Ramsar sites;
• The distribution and extent of the future UK BAP priority habitats;
• WFD ecological and chemical status/potential of water bodies; and,
Area of contaminated or damaged land restored or protected as a result of flood risk

management activities.
Environment Agency
Section B1 Introduction and Background
B1.1 The purpose of SEA
This appendix documents the strategic environmental assessment (SEA) process undertaken
for the Nene Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP).
SEA is a systematic process for anticipating and evaluating the environmental consequences
of plans and programmes prior to decisions being made. The purpose of SEA is to provide for
a high level of protection of the environment and to contribute to the integration of
environmental considerations into the preparation and adoption of plans and programmes
with a view to promoting sustainable development. There is no legal requirement for us to
undertake SEA for CFMPs because they are not required by legislation, regulation or
administrative provision. However they clearly help set the framework for future planning
decision, and have the potential to result in significant environmental effects. As a result,
Defra guidance (Defra, September 20085) and our own internal policy have identified a need
to undertake a SEA approach.
In developing our CFMP, we consider the environment alongside social and economic issues.
This appendix demonstrates how we have gone about undertaking the SEA for our CFMP.
The contents of this Environmental Report have been broadened to include the social and
economic effects also considered in our plan making process.
B1.2 The Catchment Flood Management Plan
The River Nene CFMP covers an area of 2,270km2 and contains the River Nene and its
major tributaries of the Kislingbury Branch, Brampton Branch, Wootton Brook, River Ise,
Willow Brook and Harpers Brook, plus a number of smaller tributaries. The catchment
extends between the Northampton uplands in the west and The Wash in the east, and is
largely rural. The main land use is agriculture, and the main urban areas include Daventry,
Peterborough, Corby, Wellingborough, Northampton, Kettering and Wisbech.
Figures B1 shows the location of the Nene CFMP in respect to the surrounding area, and
Figure B2 shows the locations of the Policy Units.
5 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/policy/sea.htm
Environment Agency
Figure B1 Location of the Nene Catchment Flood Management Plan
Catchment Flood Management Plans are planning documents that we are preparing for all
surface water river catchments across England and Wales. In developing the CFMPs, we are
working with other key decision-makers to help us to establish policies to manage flood risk
for the next 100 years. We know we cannot reduce flood risk everywhere, so we need to
target efforts to where they are needed most: this is the purpose of our CFMP. They will not
set specific measures to reduce flood risk or establish how to manage flooding issues in a
catchment. Our policies are at the highest level in our hierarchy of spatial flood risk
management plans and are about setting the right strategic direction so that we take the best
and most sustainable approach in the future. To do this, we need to understand the extent,
nature and scale of current and future flood risk to people, the environment and the economy
across the whole catchment before choosing certain policies. We need to decide at this stage
where to take further action to reduce or sustain flood risk, where we need to change the way
we currently manage flood risk, or where we need to take little or no action.
The main body of the CFMP report provides a more detailed introduction to the CFMP,
including the contents, aims and objectives of the plan: see Section 1.1 (Background) and
Section 1.2 (Aims and Scope).
The CFMP involves:
• carrying out a strategic assessment of current and future flood risk from all sources
(such as rivers, sewers, groundwater and the sea) within the catchment,
understanding both the likelihood and consequence of flooding and the effect of
current ways of reducing risk. We measure the scale of risk in social, environmental
and economic terms;
• identifying opportunities and constraints within the catchment to reduce flood risk
through changes in land use, land management practices and/or the flood defence
infrastructure;
Environment Agency
• finding ways to work with nature, and manage flood risk to maintain, restore or
improve natural and historic assets;
• working out priorities for studies or projects to manage flood risk within the
catchment, and identifying responsibilities for the Environment Agency, other
operating authorities, local authorities, water companies or other key interested
groups.
Environment Agency
Figure B2 Policy Units
Environment Agency
B1.3 Structure of the report appendix
This appendix documents the SEA process we have undertaken throughout our CFMP
planning process and covers:
• Section B2 – Consultation: setting out information on how we have engaged

interested parties, including the SEA consultation bodies, through CFMP
development and the SEA process.
• Section B3 – Environmental Context: The relationship between the CFMP and
relevant plans and programmes; a summary of the relevant environmental baseline in
the catchment. It also sets out the environmental issues scoped into the SEA process
and the environmental objectives used to carry out the assessment in Section B4.
• Section B4 – Assessment and Evaluation of Environmental Effects: Setting out the
environmental effects of the different options available to the CFMP, cumulative
effects of the CFMP as a whole and with other relevant plans in the catchment. It also
sets out how mitigation and enhancement are considered at this strategic scale and
the future monitoring requirements.
Note: hyperlinks have been provided to the main report to allow the reader to appreciate the
broader context of our plan-making process.
Environment Agency
Section B2 Consultation
B2.1 Introduction
Section 1.5 Involving others in the main CFMP report provides information about the
consultation undertaken to date. This information is repeated below.
We cannot reduce flood risk across England and Wales on our own. It is essential that all the
main organisations and decision-makers, in a catchment, work together to plan and take
action to reduce flood risk. The aim of the Nene CFMP is to make people aware of the most
important factors influencing flood risk within the catchment in the future. In addition, it aims
to help us understand better where, when and how we and others can best act to manage
flood risk.
B2.2 Steering Group
The development of this CFMP has been guided by a Steering Group (SG) whose members
provided advice, information, and approved reports before a wider consultation with a
Consultation Group (CG) took place. The SG covered a number of organisations including:
• Defra
• Natural England
• English Heritage
• Regional Flood Defence Committee
• East of England Regional Assembly
• RSPB
• Middle Level Commissioners
• North Level IDB
• Anglian Water Services
Representatives from the East of England Regional Assembly represented the Local
Authorities within the River Nene catchment on the SG.
B2.3 Consultation programme
The preparation of the CFMP proceeded through an inception stage, a scoping stage and,
finally, a main stage. A scoping report was produced in June 2005 and sent out for
consultation. Based upon the comments made at the scoping stage, a draft CFMP report was
developed in March 2006 and sent out for consultation.
The consultation process is outlined in Table B1. It consisted of meetings and workshops with
the Project Team (PT) and SG, and public consultations and exhibitions throughout the CFMP
development.
Table B1 – Summary of consultation undertaken during the development of the CFMP
Stage Date Who Method Details

consulted
Inception Nov 04 Inception report issued
(Jul 04 – Dec 04 SG First meeting Inception report reviewed and
Dec 04) approved for despatch to CG
Dec 04 SG sub- To form the historical perspective
group of changes in the River Nene
catchment
Dec 04 CG By distribution of Consultation on inception report.
report CG limited to a core group of key
stakeholders at this stage
Scoping Jan 05 PT First meeting To inform the PT of progress with
Environment Agency
consulted
(Dec 04 - the scoping stage and to obtain
Sep 05) advice on the scoping of CFMP
objectives and scenarios and
environmental issues and
objectives
Feb 05 SG Meeting Workshop on drivers of change in
flood risk and environmental
constraints and opportunities
Apr 05 SG sub- Meeting in IDB Consultation with North Level IDB
group offices and the Middle Level
Commissioners (SG members) to
obtain information about IDB areas
and about their approach to FRM
Apr 05 Agency Meeting in Enquiry about SFRAs in the River
Agency office Nene catchment
May 05 SG Meeting Agreement on revisions to draft
scoping report in preparation for its
issue to the CG. There was an
emphasis in this consultation on
scenarios and objectives
Jun 05 Scoping report issued
Jul – CG By distribution of Consultation on scoping report. 36
Sep 05 report (CDs and written responses received.
printed copies)
and
questionnaire
Sep 05 SG Meeting Review of consultation on scoping
report and planning of the main
stage report
Draft Main Dec 05 PT Meeting To inform the PT of the plan for
(Oct 05 - the draft main stage and to obtain
Jul 06) views on the planned work.
Consultee comments on scoping
work reviewed. A number of PT
concerns discussed.
Dec 05 SG Meeting Introduction to the main stage of
the CFMP; included presentation
of key aspects of the CFMP
Jan 06 PT Meeting To inform the PT of progress in
drafting the CFMP. Discussion of
how public consultation should be
conducted.
Mar 06 SG Meeting Presentation of draft; guidance
received on preparation of
consultation draft plan
Jul 06 SG & CG Meeting Meeting held during consultation
period to brief SG and CG
members on the consultation draft
plan and to encourage responses
Jul 06 Consultation Draft Plan with integrated SEA issued
Jul – Oct CG By distribution of Consultation on draft plan. 32
06 report and written responses received.
questionnaire.
Public exhibitions
held in
Northampton and
Peterborough
Environment Agency
consulted
Main (Oct Jul 08 PT & SG Meeting To approve final plan for
07 – Jul publication
08)
B2.3 Consultation summary
Scoping Report Consultation
The scoping report (EA, June 2005) put forward our early ideas about the scenarios of future
conditions and the objectives which flood risk management should achieve. We sought the
consultees’ views on these aspects in particular. In summary, the key points from the
consultation are outlined below, and informed the preparation of the draft CFMP report.
The key points from the scoping report consultation were:
1. Scenarios and drivers of change to flood risk:
• Change to rural land use: The concept of a radical change in the fenland was refuted
by the National Farmers’ Union but the North Level IDB acknowledged the potential
for some change. They thought the intensification of agriculture unlikely and the
Country Land and Business Association envisaged a shift in agriculture to non-food
crops. The shift was noted in recent years to an increased protection to property
across the fenland. Due to current financial conditions reversal in this trend is
anticipated.
• Urban growth: The regional assemblies, supported by Peterborough County Council,
recognised the role of CFMPs in informing the development of planning policy; the
CFMP projections of future flood risk could show what constraints should be imposed
upon urban growth. The Country Land and Business Association emphasised the
infrastructure growth that is likely to accompany urban growth and its potential impact
on rural landowners.
• Climate change: The need for a realistic assessment was emphasised.
2. Objectives: Views were expressed on some particular aspects that the catchment
objectives should embrace. These included sustainable urban drainage and urban
growth, the provision for enterprises (Port Sutton Bridge Ltd) and the enhancement of
amenities.
3. Opportunities: Consultees were aware of the opportunities which future flood risk
management could present, including the promotion of green infrastructure, the
reinstatement of floodplains, the use of stored floodwater to augment summer water
resources for irrigation and such projects as the Fens Waterways Link.
4. Strategic Environmental Assessment: English Heritage was concerned about the

conservation of heritage assets. English Nature (now Natural England) saw the
opportunity that the CFMP presents to build upon the Biodiversity Action Plan. The Wash
Estuary Advisory Group drew attention to the significance of the ‘The Wash Biodiversity
Plan’.
Draft CFMP Report Consultation
Below is a summary of the main issues that were highlighted during the consultation process
on the Draft CFMP Report (EA, March 2006).
1. Strategic approach: It was recognised by the SG that the distribution of urban growth
around the catchment could influence how floodwater accumulates in the River Nene.
The CFMP should consider this influence. The SG also recognised that the strategic
Environment Agency
approach taken by the CFMP could, in further studies, show the constraints which might
need to be placed upon the long-term plans for urban growth.
2. Implementation of CFMP: Consultees (including Bearwood Engineering, for example),

emphasised the need to inform people of the progress of implementing the CFMP. We
shall establish an implementation group to monitor and report on the delivery of the
CFMP. There will be an annual report on the progress with the delivery of the CFMP
actions. We expect this reporting and our Flood Awareness Campaign to help us raise
the public’s awareness of flood risk issues and how we are addressing them.
3. Integration of the CFMP into the planning system: Consultees (Northamptonshire County
Council, for example) asked about the role of the CFMPs within the planning system.
The CFMP policies will feed into the planning system at a regional and local level by
informing the Regional Spatial Strategy and the Development Plans. CFMP planning
takes account of the extent of development which is envisaged, particularly the
development being led by the DCLG (previously the ODPM). The authorities want to see
flood risk management being secured in planning consents and the monitoring of the
effectiveness of the flood risk management measures.
4. Flood risk management and water resources development: On the suggestion of East of
England Regional Assembly, the CFMP mentioned the possible opportunity to combine
storage for floodwater and water supply.
5. Flood storage proposals: The National Farmer’s Union was concerned about the
sustainability of providing flood storage for future flood risk management which
encroaches on agricultural land. This aspect will need consideration in the planning of
flood storage proposals.
6. Flood storage eco-system: In the Steering Group consultations, it was recognised that
flood storage tends to develop an ecosystem which attracts environmental designations,
constraining the use of the storage. The impact of water level variation in the Nene
Washes is an example.
7. The Wash and coastline habitats: The Wash and North Norfolk Coast European Marine
Site Management Group is concerned about the potential that a future increase in the
discharge of floodwater from the River Nene into The Wash could have the potential to
cause the deterioration of the natural habitats of the Wash and North Norfolk Coast for
which the area was designated a European Marine Site. In compliance with UK Habitat
Regulations, the CFMP addresses this issue through the inclusion of a Habitats
Regulations Assessment (HRA).
8. Non-statutory sites: The Wildlife Trusts mentioned the many non-statutory sites (County
Wildlife Sites, for example) which the CFMP does not consider. Their appraisal would be
considered in further studies following on from the CFMP.
Environment Agency
Section B3 Environmental context
B3.1 Policy, plan and programme review
The SEA considers the relationship between the CFMP and other relevant plans and programmes. A
review was undertaken at the scoping stage and updated during the main stage assessment, in order to:
• help collate additional environmental baseline information for developing the CFMP;
• identify environmental issues relevant to the SEA (e.g. existing environmental problems /
protection objectives);
• identify influences of the CFMP on existing plans and programmes and vice versa;
• understand these relationships to help evaluate the significance of environmental effects;
• help identify any further assessment required.
A diagram setting out our view of the relationship between CFMPs and other key policies, plans and
programmes is illustrated in Figure B3. Section_1_4_Links with other plans discusses the relationship
with other plans. Those plans that we have drawn into the development of the CFMP are listed in Table
B2.
Figure B3 – How the CFMP fits with the wider planning framework
Environment Agency
Table B2 – Review of policies, plans, and programmes and relevance to the CFMP
Relevant plan, policy Potential influence Considerations for the SEA

or programme and/or the CFMP
Floods Directive (FD The Floods Directive is designed to help Ensure that the CFMP complies
2007/60/EC) Member States prevent and limit floods with the requirements of the FD
and their damaging effects on human
health, the environment, infrastructure,
and property.
Water Framework The Water Framework Directive (WFD) The CFMP should take into
Directive (WFD) is the most substantial piece of EC account the following objective:
water legislation to date. the WFD requires all inland and
coastal waters to reach “good
It has the objective of introducing status” by 2015. It will do this by
consistent water management across establishing a river basin district
Europe in order to: structure within which demanding
• reduce pollution, prevent the environmental objectives will be
deterioration and improve the health set, including ecological targets
of aquatic ecosystems; for surface waters.
• promote the sustainable use of
water; and
• help to reduce the effects of floods
and droughts
Defra Strategy: Making The Making Space for Water Ensure CFMP follows the general
Space for Water (2004) programme is composed of four key principles of this cross-
themes: government programme taking
• holistic approach; forward the developing strategy
• achieving sustainable development; for flood and coastal erosion risk
• increasing resilience to flooding; management in England
and,
• funding.
EA Corporate Strategy The EA Corporate Strategy outlines a Ensure that the CFMP takes into
2006-2011: Creating a vision for the environment; “A better account the nine environmental
better place (2000) place for people and wildlife, for present goals outlined in this Strategy.
and for future generations”. In order to
achieve this vision nine environmental
goals have been set:
• a better quality of life for people
• an enhanced environment for
wildlife
• cleaner air for everyone
• improved and protected inland and
coastal waters
• restored, protected land with healthy
soils
• a greener business world
• wiser sustainable use of natural
resources
• limiting and adapting to climate
change
• reducing flood risk
Natural England: A Outlines goals required to conserve and Ensure that the CFMP takes into
Manifesto for the Natural enhance the natural environment. One account the goals outlined in the
Environment (2008) of the key goals with respect to the manifesto, in particular the one
CFMP is: regarding flood management.
“Our national flood management

strategy must work with nature, not
Environment Agency
against it. Using natural habitats on the
coast instead of hard defences;
restoring the uplands to reduce run-off;
and re-creating wetlands in our river
valleys to increase flood storage
capacity, will be important elements of
our flood defences of the future.
UK Climate Change Outlines the UK Government’s policies Ensure that the CFMP takes into
Programme (2006) and priorities for action with regards to account the principles of the UK
climate change in the UK and Climate Change Programme.
internationally. It outlines the
responsibilities of the EA in relation to
adapting to climate change.
Strategic Flood Risk Assesses flood risk, flood events and Work with local authorities and
Assessments (for standards of flood defence. Details other partners to target land for
example Fenland District areas of historic flooding that provides development in accordance with
Council SFRA, 2005) information for the CFMP PPS25, with good knowledge
levels of flood risk, and avoid
development that will be
detrimental.
Regional Spatial Major proposals for strategic East of England Plan (2008):
Strategies: development and infrastructure exposed
• East of England Plan to flooding (now/future) Policy WAT3 (Integrated water
(2008) management) outlines the need
• Regional Spatial for integrated water
Strategy for the east management, and the need for
Midlands (2005) and the EA and water industry to
Draft Regional Plan work with local authorities and
(2006) other partners to achieve this.
Policy WAT4 (Flood risk

management) outlines the
priorities as being the defence of
existing properties from flooding
and location of new development
where there is little or no risk of
flooding.
East Midland RSS
Policy 36 (A Regional Approach

to Managing Flood Risk) of the
East Midland RSS outlines that
development Plans, future Local
Development Frameworks, and
strategies of relevant agencies,
including CFMPs should:
• be informed by the use of

appropriate Strategic Flood
Risk Assessments in order to
evaluate actual flood risk and
should include policies which
prevent inappropriate
development either in, or
where there would be an
adverse impact on, the
Environment Agency
coastal and fluvial floodplain
areas;
• deliver a programme of flood
management schemes that
also maximise biodiversity
and other regeneration
benefits; and,
• require sustainable drainage
in all new developments
where practicable.
Local Development Future housing allocations within areas Accommodating future
Documents for Bedford exposed to flooding (now/future) development to meet housing
Borough Council (BC), targets
Corby BC, Daventry
District Council (DC),
East Northamptonshire
DC, Fenland DC,
Huntingdonshire DC,
Kettering BC, King’s Lynn
and West Norfolk BC,
Northamptonshire BC,
Peterborough City
Council, South Holland
DC, South
Northamptonshire DC
and Wellingborough BC.
Shoreline Management Details natural processes, coast Plan integrated response to all
Plans (SMPs) (for protection and coastal defence strategy types of flooding including
example The Wash SMP) coastal flood risk as well as all
inland flood sources. Account
fully for future sea level rise.
The Nene Catchment Sets out the availability of water in the Consider use of excess river
Abstraction Management Nene Catchment, and the Environment flows in winter months to gain
Strategy (2005) Agency’s abstraction licensing strategy biodiversity enhancements and
for managing water resources between act as an aid to reduced flooding
2005 and 2011.
Water Cycle Strategies WCS present an overview of the water Consider WCS requirements
(WCS) (for example cycle considering flood risks, sewage during the appraisal of CFMP
Corby Water Cycle treatment and the foul network, water policies.
Strategy) supply and water resources both now
and in the future. The purpose of these
studies is to identify potential constraints
to development using the proposed
housing trajectory. It indicates when
constraints need to be addressed and
what infrastructure is needed.
Water Level Management Identifies floodplain and river sites Consider WLMP requirements
Plans (WLMP) (for where water level management is critical during the appraisal of CFMP
example Southfield Farm and sets out how this should be policies.
Marsh WLMP) achieved.
North Northamptonshire A flood risk management strategy for Consider the requirements and
Flood Risk Management North Northamptonshire based upon the recommendations outlined in the
Study (2007) SFRAs developed for the area. study during the appraisal of
CFMP policies.
River Nene Waterway A vision for the sustainable development Consider the vision during the
Plan (2004) of the navigable river for the benefit of appraisal of CFMP policies
Environment Agency
boating, recreation and the natural
environment
Local Biodiversity Action The BAPs are made up of Species Consider recommendations and
Plan (LBAPs) for Action Plans and Habitat Action Plans, actions for water dependent
Northamptonshire, which set targets for nationally and species and habitats when
Cambridgeshire, locally important habitats and wildlife. drafting the CFMP.
Lincolnshire and Norfolk These are developed at the local level
and Habitat Action Plans into Local Biodiversity Action Plans
(HAPs) (LBAPs), which aim to provide effective
local action to meet the national
priorities (outlined in the UK BAP) and
highlight species and habitats, which are
particularly important at the local level.
PPS25: Development and Outlines the Government policy on Consider the requirements and
Flood Risk development and flood risk, which aims recommendations of PPS25
to ensure that flood risk is taken into during the appraisal of CFMP
account at all stages in the planning policies.
process to avoid inappropriate
development in areas at risk of flooding,
and to direct development away from
areas of highest risk.
PPS9: Biodiversity and Outlines the planning policies on Consider the requirements and
Geological Conservation protection of biodiversity and geological recommendations of PPS9
conservation throughout the planning during the appraisal of CFMP
system. It aims to ensure that policies.
biodiversity and geological conservation
are taken into account at all stages in
the planning process.
SSSI,SPA,SAC and Identifies the designated features, their Consider the recommendations
Ramsar management condition, and ways in which to outlined in the management
plans (for example The improve/maintain condition. plans during the appraisal of
Wash) CFMP policies.
B3.2 Baseline review
Section 2 Catchment overview provides an overview to the characteristics of the catchment, including the
environmental aspects relevant to the CFMP. Environmental issues within the catchment relevant to this
CFMP are summarised below. Section B4. Assessment and evaluation of environmental effects provides
more detail of the environmental characteristics of the individual areas most likely to be affected by the
plan, their current state of the environment and the likely evolution thereof without implementation of the
plan.
Table B3 provides a summary of the current and future risks (future P3 scenario) to people, property and
the environment within the catchment. These risks are defined for each of the 16 Policy Units.
Environment Agency
Table B3 – Summary of current and future risks to people, property and the environment within the catchment
Policy Unit Category Objective Key flood receptors Current flood risk Future flood risk
To minimise flood People 396 people affected by flooding at 1% 639 people affected by flooding in the 1% probability
Peterborough related risks to the 2358 people (943 properties) can apply for flood event.
and the Nene population warnings within the policy unit. Minor reduction in public preparedness for flooding.
Washes Flood warning systems will not be expanded beyond
present level.
To minimise risks to Critical infrastructure 1 electricity sub-station affected. 2 electricity sub-stations affected. Both flooded to
critical infrastructure and Transport Transport infrastructure affected: shallow depths.
community facilities infrastructure A15 at Yaxley is affected at the 1% flood Increase in depth and duration of flooding at key
Community facilities event. transport infrastructure.
Social No community facilities at risk.
To minimise community Properties 158 residential properties and 7 commercial 256 residential properties and 24 commercial
disruption from flooding Social vulnerability properties affected by flooding at 1% probability properties at risk of flooding at the 1% event.
People event. Increase in risk of flooding occurs in areas with
Social impact: Moderate - typically SFVI moderate social vulnerability to flooding (category 3)
category 3 Minor increase in depth, duration and frequency of
Vast majority of residential properties flooded to
depths of less than 0.5m. Risk to people from deep
flooding and high velocities is minimal.
To minimise economic People £1.43M residential damages £2.60M residential damages and £3.34M
impacts of flooding Agricultural Land: £0.33M commercial damages commercial damages at the 1% probability event.
Grade 1 and Grade 2 12ha of Grade 1 and 58ha of Grade 2 land 12ha of Grade 1 agricultural land affected.
affected in 1% probability event 61ha of Grade 2 agricultural land affected.
Economic
Ensure future EA expenditure (costs Current EA annual expenditure on maintenance No increase in cost of maintenance in real terms –
investment in the associated with estimated at £3k remains at £3k in current prices.
catchment is generic responses) No increase in EA expenditure on flood warning in
proportional to the risks real terms.
Protect and enhance Scheduled PE195 (Old Customs House) and 20804 Increase in depth of flooding at PE195 and 20804 of
significant historic Monuments (Roman Field System and Trackway with Later approx. 0.2m, PE140 on edge of floodplain, Thorpe
environment assets and Historic Parks and Field Ditches and Drive on Whittlesey Washes) Hall flooded to depth of approx. 1.35m over area of
their settings Gardens Scheduled Monuments – flooded to depths of up < 10%. This may cause significant adverse impacts
Historic Battlefields to 2.5m. including restricted public access.
Environmental
Conservation Areas Thorpe Hall Park and Gardens (ID 1036) Increase in depth of flooding at Conservation Areas
affected by flooding. of up to 0.3m. Small areas of Stanground and
Small areas of Longthorpe and Peterborough Queens Rd CAs become affected under this policy
City Centre Conservation Areas flooded to where they were not affected in the current 1%
shallow depths.
Protect and contribute to Designated sites Nene Washes SSSI, SPA, SAC, Ramsar site. Nene Washes: Increase in flooding of up to 0.3m,
the improvement of Site area 1512ha. 100% affected by flooding. though typically less than this. No increase in area
designated nature Depth of flooding of greater than 3m in some flooded. Bird nests may be washed out and habitats
conservation sites areas, though typically about 2m. become less suitable.
(SSSI, SPA, SAC and Orton Pit SSSI, SAC. Site area 146ha. Orton Pits: Modelling suggest that 26% of area
Ramsar) Modelling suggest that 6% of area (9ha) is (38ha) would be affected by flooding, equating to a
affected by flooding. Depth of flooding estimated 320% increase in the area affected and an increase
as up to 2m. Although modelling suggests that in depth of up to approx. 0.3m. Although modelling
theoretically there is a flood risk, Orton Pit does suggests that theoretically there is a flood risk,
Environment Agency
not currently receive surface water from the Orton Pit does not currently receive surface water
River Nene catchment. from the River Nene catchment and the risk is
unlikely to change in the future.
Enhance the biodiversity UK BAP habitats Lowland Meadows: Increase in depth of flooding of 0.2m in Lowland
of the catchment by Total Area in PU: 1517ha Meadows, 100% of the habitat is affected with no
improving the quality of Area At Risk: 1517ha change on the current. Minor negative effect on
the river environment % Area At Risk: 100% habitat.
and contributing to UK
targets
Support the WFD ecological and WFD Category: At Risk Increases in the frequency and extent of flooding
achievement of good chemical Applicable factors: Point source pollution, diffuse are likely to increase the levels of pollutants from
status/potential of status/potential of source pollution, physical or morphological sources in Kettering and other urban areas and
surface and water bodies alteration, alien species adjacent agricultural land that are washed into the
groundwater bodies river with potential adverse effects on water quality.
under the WFD This would not help to achieve WFD environmental
objectives
To minimise flood People No people affected by flooding due to flood No people affected by flooding in the 1% probability
related risks to the defences. event.
population 140 people (56 properties) can apply for Minor reduction in public preparedness for flooding.
flooding warnings within the policy area. Flood warning systems will not be expanded beyond
Thrapston
present level.
Reduction in the standard of protection will occur
increasing the likelihood of breaching and
Social overtopping.
To minimise risks to Critical infrastructure No critical assets at risk. No critical assets at risk.
critical infrastructure and Transport Flood defences prevent significant disruption to
community facilities infrastructure key infrastructure.
Community facilities
To minimise community Properties No properties affected at the 1% flood event. No properties affected at the 1% probability event.
disruption from flooding Social vulnerability Areas benefiting from defence have a moderate Areas defended have a typically moderate social
People SFVI, typically category 3. vulnerability to flooding (category 3)
To minimise economic People No economic damages at the 1% event. No economic damages at the 1% flood event.
impacts of flooding Agricultural Land: No Grade 1 or Grade 2 agricultural land at risk No Grade 1 or Grade 2 agricultural land at risk of
Grade 1 and Grade 2 of flooding at the 1% event. flooding at the 1% event.
Economic Ensure future EA expenditure (costs Current EA annual expenditure on maintenance No increase in cost of maintenance in real terms –
investment in the associated with generic estimated at £4k. remains at £4k in current prices.
catchment is responses) No increase in EA expenditure on flood warning in
Protect and enhance Scheduled Thrapston Conservation Area (Currently No historic assets affected
significant historic Monuments unaffected by flooding).
Environmental environment assets and Historic Parks and No scheduled Monuments, Historic Parks and
their settings Gardens Gardens, and Historic Battlefields present.
Historic Battlefields
Environment Agency
Conservation Areas
Protect and contribute to Designated sites No designated sites (SSSI, SPA, SAC and No designated sites (SSSI, SPA, SAC and
the improvement of Ramsar) present Ramsar) present
designated nature
conservation sites
(SSSI, SPA, SAC and
Ramsar)
Enhance the biodiversity UK BAP habitats No UKBAP habitats present within the policy No UKBAP habitats present within the policy unit.
of the catchment by unit.
improving the quality of
the river environment
targets
achievement of good chemical Applicable factors: Point source pollution, diffuse are likely to increase the levels of pollutants from
status/potential of status/potential of pollution, physical or morphological alterations, sources in adjacent agricultural land that are
surface and water bodies alien species. washed into the river with potential adverse effects
groundwater bodies on water quality. This would not help to achieve
under the WFD WFD environmental objectives.
To minimise flood People No people affected by flooding due to No people affected at 1% probability event.
related risks to the defences. However there is potential for high Maintaining the standard of protection at the
population velocities if defences are breached. current level will maintain the risk of breaching at
Northampton
4525 people (1810 properties) within this policy the current low level.
Central unit can apply for flood warnings Flood defences will be overtopped in a 0.5%
probability event, affecting a significant number of
people.
To minimise risks to Critical infrastructure Railways present and affected by flooding at No increase in depth and duration of flooding at key
critical infrastructure and Transport 1% event probability: West Coast mainline transport infrastructure in the 1% flood event.
community facilities infrastructure Northampton branch. No critical infrastructure affected in a 1% event.
Social Community facilities A45 at West Northampton is affected by Flood defences will be overtopped in a 0.5%
flooding at the 1% event probability probability event, with significant impact on
No critical infrastructure affected in a 1% event transport and critical infrastructure.
or 0.5% event.
To minimise community Properties No properties are affected by flooding at 1% No properties are affected by flooding at the 1%
disruption from flooding Social vulnerability probability event. probability event.
People Areas defended have a high social vulnerability Areas defended have a moderate to high social
to flooding - typically SFVI categories 4 and 5 vulnerability to flooding – categories 3 to 5.
Flood defences willbe overtopped in a 0.5%
probability event, affecting a significant number of
properties.
To minimise economic People No economic damages incurred at the 1% No economic damages incurred at the 1% event.
impacts of flooding Agricultural Land: event. Flood defences will be overtopped in a 0.5%
Grade 1 and Grade 2 No Grade 1 or Grade 2 agricultural land probability event, leading to large economic
Economic flooded. damages.
No Grade 1 or Grade 2 agricultural land flooded.
Ensure future EA expenditure (costs Annual EA expenditure on maintenance No increase in cost of maintenance in real terms –
Environment Agency
Protect and enhance Scheduled Scheduled Monument NN201 (Saxon Palace No historic environment assets affected.
significant historic Monuments Complex) present but not affected by flooding.
environment assets and Historic Parks and Northampton: All Saints Conservation Area
their settings Gardens present but not affected by flooding at the
Historic Battlefields current 1%.
Conservation Areas
Protect and contribute to Designated sites Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SSSI, 100% of the site continues to be flooded. Some
the improvement of pSPA/Ramsar site. 100% of site in this policy SPA bird populations may be temporarily displaced
designated nature unit flooded. Depth of flooding greater than 3m if frequency increases.
conservation sites across much of the SSSI.
(SSSI, SPA, SAC and No negative impacts anticipated from flooding
Ramsar) at current rate. Increased flooding could
potentially increase the quality and extent of
fringing wetland habitat within and beyond the
Environmental site, and may have a negative impact on some
bird species.
Enhance the biodiversity UK BAP habitats No BAP Habitats are affected No BAP Habitats are affected
of the catchment by
targets
Support the WFD ecological and WFD Category: At Risk Taking action to sustain current level of flood risk at
achievement of good chemical status/ Applicable Factors: Point source pollution, diffuse point and diffuse sources of pollution could prevent
status/potential of potential of water pollution, physical or morphological alterations, potential adverse effects on water quality. This
surface and bodies alien species. could provide environmental improvements helping
groundwater bodies to achieve WFD environmental objectives
under the WFD
To minimise flood People 308 people affected by flooding at 1% 530 people affected at the 1% probability event.
related risks to the probability event Minor reduction in public preparedness for flooding.
Wellingborough population 950 people (380 properties) can apply for flood Flood warning systems will not be expanded
warnings in Wellingborough beyond present level.
To minimise risks to Critical infrastructure Critical infrastructure affected by flooding: 5 Electricity substations flooded, up to depth of
critical infrastructure and Transport 4 electricity sub-stations. approx. 1.05m.
community facilities infrastructure 1 Metal recycling site. Increase in depth of flooding at Metal Recycling
Community facilities 1 IPPC site (food manufacturing site) Site of up to 1.05m.
Social Transport infrastructure affected by flooding: Increase in depth of flooding at IPPC site of up to
Midland Mainline (from London to 1.25m.
Sheffield) at risk of flooding. One ambulance station, one school and one fire
A45, A510, A5128, A5193 as well as station become affected by flooding.
locally important roads in Wellingborough Minor increase in depth and duration of flooding at
are at risk of flooding. key transport infrastructure.
disruption from flooding Social vulnerability properties affected by flooding at 1% probability properties affected at the 1% probability event.
Environment Agency
Social impact: Moderate - typically SFVI moderate social vulnerability to flooding (category
category 3 3)
Minor increase in depth, duration and velocity of
Small increase in depth of flooding, however depth
of flooding remains low, and typically less than
0.5m at residential properties. Small increase in
velocities may occur, however, velocities are not
likely to be significant. No significant risk to life.
To minimise economic People £0.89M residential at 1% event probability £2.58M residential damages and £48.86M
impacts of flooding Agricultural Land: £29.61M commercial at 1% event probability. commercial damages at the 1% probability event.
Grade 1 and Grade 2 No Grade 1 or Grade 2 agricultural land No Grade 1 or Grade 2 agricultural land flooded
flooded.
Economic
Ensure future EA expenditure (costs EA annual expenditure on maintenance No increase in cost of maintenance in real terms –
Protect and enhance Scheduled No historic assets at risk at the current 1% No historic assets at risk
significant historic Monuments probability event
environment assets and Historic Parks and
their settings Gardens
Conservation Areas
designated nature
conservation sites
(SSSI, SPA, SAC and
Ramsar)
Environmental Enhance the biodiversity UK BAP habitats Undetermined Grassland Undetermined Grassland:
of the catchment by Total Area in PU: 7.6ha Total Area In PU: 7.6
improving the quality of Area At Risk: 1ha Area At Risk Future: 42% (which is a large
the river environment % Area At Risk: 13% increase from current).
and contributing to UK An increase in depth of flooding of 0.3m.
targets
achievement of good chemical status/ are likely to increase the levels of pollutants from
status/potential of potential of water Applicable factors: Point source pollution, diffuse sources in Kettering and other urban areas and
surface and bodies pollution, physical or morphological alterations adjacent agricultural land that are washed into the
objectives
To minimise flood People 485 people affected by flooding at 1% 688 people affected by flooding at the 1%
related risks to the probability event probability event.
Kettering Social population 948 people (379 properties) can apply for flood Minor reduction in public preparedness for flooding.
warnings in the policy unit. Flood warning systems will not be expanded
beyond present level – increase in the number of
Environment Agency
people without flood warning.
To minimise risks to Critical infrastructure Critical infrastructure affected by flooding: 5 Electricity substations flooded, with depth of up to
critical infrastructure and Transport 4 Electricity Sub-stations 1.3m.
community facilities infrastructure Transport infrastructure affected by flooding: 1 non-hazardous waste transfer stations becomes
Community facilities Midland mainline railway and the A14 flooded, up to depth of 0.1m.
No community facilities affected by flooding. Minor increase in depth and duration of flooding at
transport infrastructure.
disruption from flooding Social vulnerability properties affected by flooding at 1% probability properties flooded at 1% probability event.
Social impact: Moderate – High. Predominantly moderate to high social vulnerability to flooding
SFVI category 3 with some areas of category 4. (categories 3 and 4)
Small increase in the number of properties flooding
to depths of greater than 1m – between 10 and 20
Velocities may pose a risk to life in some areas.
Grade 1 and Grade 2 No Grade 1 and 6ha of Grade 2 agricultural No Grade 1 and 10ha of Grade 2 land affected at
land affected in 1% probability event the 1% probability event.
Economic
Protect and enhance Scheduled Wicksteed Park Historic Park and Garden Small increase in flooding of up to 0.15m and
significant historic Monuments affected – typically flooded to depth of up to increase in area flooded of <5% may result in an
environment assets and Historic Parks and 1.5m. increase extent of damages; however, this is likely
Environmental
their settings Gardens to not be a significant increase.
Conservation Areas
Protect and contribute to Designated sites Southfield Farm Marsh SSSI affected – Limited increase in many areas, though in others
the improvement of typically flooded to depth of up to 2m. increase in depth of up to 0.1m, and a small
designated nature Effect of shallow flooding is positive – Increase increase in area flooded of <1%. This may
conservation sites in the area of frequent flooding could potentially potentially restore designated wetland plant
(SSSI, SPA, SAC and restore the designated wetland plant communities within the site.
Ramsar) communities within the site.
Enhance the biodiversity UK BAP habitats Fens: Fens:
of the catchment by Total area: 9 ha Total area: 9 ha
improving the quality of Area at risk: 2.8 ha Area at risk: 7.5 ha
the river environment % Area At Risk:31% % Area At Risk: 83%
and contributing to UK Undetermined Grassland: Undetermined Grassland:
Biodiversity Action Plan Total area: 18.7 ha Total area: 18.7ha
targets Area at risk: 3.8 ha Area at risk (future): 10.7ha
% Area At Risk: 20% % Area at risk (future): 57%
Lowland Meadows: Lowland Meadows
Total area: 1.9 ha Total area: 1.9ha
Environment Agency
Area at risk: 0.23 ha Area at risk (future): 0.37ha
% Area At Risk: 12% % Area at risk (future): 19%
Support the WFD ecological and WFD Category: At risk Increases in the frequency and extent of flooding
achievement of good chemical status/ Applicable factors: Point source pollution, diffuse are likely to increase the levels of pollutants from
status/potential of potential of water pollution, physical or morphological alterations sources in Kettering and other urban areas and
surface and bodies adjacent agricultural land that are washed into the
objectives
related risks to the probability event
Corby population 135 people (54 properties) can apply for flood Minor reduction in public preparedness for flooding.
warnings in the policy unit. Flood warning systems will not be expanded
beyond present level.
To minimise risks to Critical infrastructure Critical infrastructure affected by flooding: 18 Electricity substations flooded, up to depth of
critical infrastructure and Transport 1 Electricity Sub-station approx. 1.4m.
community facilities infrastructure Corby Sewage Treatment Works (STW) Increase in depth of flooding at Corby STW of up to
Community facilities flooded to depth of approx. 0.1m. 0.3m.
Waste Management Sites: 1 Metal Increase in depth of flooding at Metal Recycling
Recycling site. site of up to 0.6m.
Transport infrastructure affected by flooding: 2 non-hazardous waste transfer stations become
Roads present that are affected by flooding at flooded, with depths potentially greater than 2m.
1% probability event: A6116, A6086, A427, 1 IPPC sites previously not at risk at present
A6014 become affected, up to depth of approx 0.6m.
Social Community facilities affected by flooding: Maple Minor increase in depth and duration of flooding at
House care home flooded to depth of less than key transport infrastructure.
0.5m. Increase in depth of flooding at care home of up to
0.05m.
Hazel Ley school becomes affected by flooding in
the future.
Social impact: Moderate - High typically SFVI moderate to high social vulnerability to flooding
categories 3 and 4 (category 4)
Minor increase in depth, duration and frequency of
Majority of properties still flooded to depths of less
than 0.5m, though a small number are now flooded
to depths estimated as greater than 1.5m.
Grade 1 and Grade 2 No Grade 1 and Grade 2 land at risk of flooding. No Grade 1 and Grade 2 land at risk of flooding.
Economic Ensure future EA expenditure (costs Annual EA expenditure on maintenance No increase in cost of maintenance in real terms –
Environmental Protect and enhance Scheduled Great Oakley Conservation Area affected – Approximately 100% increase in the area of Great
Environment Agency
significant historic Monuments typically flooded to shallow depths (<0.5m) Oakley CA affected and a smaller increase in the
environment assets and Historic Parks and outside of river channel. area of Weldon CA affected by flooding (increase
their settings Gardens Weldon Conservation Areas affected – flooded in depth of approx. 0.5m), resulting in additional
Historic Battlefields to depths of up to 1m, though typically less than damage.
Conservation Areas 0.5m.
designated nature
conservation sites
(SSSI, SPA, SAC and
Ramsar)
Enhance the biodiversity UK BAP habitats Lowland Meadows: Lowland Meadows:
of the catchment by Total area in PU: 1.9ha Total area in PU: 1.9ha
improving the quality of Area at risk: 0.23ha Area at risk: 0.37ha
the river environment %Area at risk:: 12% %Area at risk: 19%
Biodiversity Action Plan Undetermined Grassland: Undetermined Grassland:
targets Total area in PU: 3.2ha Total area in PU: 3.2ha
Area at risk: 0ha Area at risk: 0.5ha
% Area at risk: 0% % Area at risk: 16%.
achievement of good chemical status/ Applicable factors: Diffuse pollution, physical or are likely to increase the levels of pollutants from
status/potential of potential of water morphological alteration. sources in Corby and other urban areas and
groundwater bodies river. This would not help to achieve WFD
under the WFD environmental objectives
River Nene To minimise flood People 400 people affected by flooding at 1% 445 people affected at the 1% probability event.
(Oundle to Water population 230 people (92 residential properties) can apply Flood warning systems will not be expanded
Newton) for flood warnings within the policy unit. beyond present level.
To minimise risks to Critical infrastructure Critical infrastructure affected by flooding: 1 electricity substation previously not at risk flooded
critical infrastructure and Transport Stibbington STW flooded to depth of up to to depth of up to 0.1m.
community facilities infrastructure 1.75m. Increase in depth of flooding at STW of up to
Community facilities Transport infrastructure affected by flooding: 1.05m.
A427 at Oundle Increase in depth and duration of flooding at key
A1 at Alwalton transport infrastructure.
Social A6118 at Wansford
No community facilities affected by flooding.
Social impact: Moderate - typically SFVI moderate social vulnerability to flooding (category
category 3 3).
Increase in depth of flooding of up to 0.25m,
though typically much less. Depth of flooding at
Environment Agency
vast majority of residential properties less than
0.5m. Nature of flooding (to shallow depth)
suggests that velocity of flow is likely to be low. No
significant risk to life.
Grade 1 and Grade 2 No Grade 1 and 428ha of Grade 2 land affected No Grade 1 agricultural land affected.
in 1% probability event 471ha of Grade 2 agricultural land affected.
Economic
investment in the associated with generic estimated at £124k remains at £124k in current prices.
Protect and enhance Scheduled 5 conservation areas are affected - Small increase in duration of flooding for all assets:
significant historic Monuments Fotheringhay, Cotterstock, Ashton Wold, Sutton Small increase in area and depth of flooding at 5
environment assets and Historic Parks and and Wansford Conservation Areas are affected. conservation areas affected.
their settings Gardens 16 Scheduled Monuments (flooded to depths of Scheduled Monuments – Increase in depth of
Historic Battlefields up to 1.5m in some cases). flooding at the 16 SMs of up to 0.5m, though
Conservation Areas Elton Hall Park and Garden affected (<10ha of typically less than this. Small increase in area of
Environmental site flooded typically to depth of up to 1m). SMs not already completely flooded
Wansford Roman Site SM (which does not flood
under existing regime) will experience minor
flooding
Elton Hall Park and Garden – small increase in
area of flooding. Increase in depth of less than
0.1m.
Protect and contribute to Designated sites Castor Flood Meadows SSSI affected. Site area Wansford Pasture SSSI becomes affected (<1ha of
the improvement of 41.8ha. 39.1ha flooded, with depth of flooding site becomes flooded to low depth). A small
designated nature up to 1m. amount/duration of flooding could be beneficial to
conservation sites the site.
(SSSI, SPA, SAC and Castor Flood Meadows SSSI: 39.3ha affected by
Ramsar) flooding at future 1% probability event which
equates to a small increase in the area flooded.
Increase in frequency, depth and duration of
flooding
Enhance the biodiversity UK BAP habitats Undetermined Grassland: Undetermined Grassland:
of the catchment by Total Area in PU: 8.5ha Total Area in PU: 8.5ha
improving the quality of Area At Risk: 7.7ha Area At Risk: 8.5ha
the river environment % Area At Risk: 91% % Area At Risk: 100%, an increase of 0.8ha on
and contributing to UK current 1%. .
Biodiversity Action Plan Undetermined Woodland
targets Total Area in PU: 4ha Undetermined Woodland
Area At Risk: 0ha Total Area in PU: 4ha
%Area At Risk: 0% Area At Risk: 0.5ha
%Area At Risk: 13%, an increase of 0.5ha on
Lowland Meadows: current 1%.
Total Area in PU: 42ha
Area At Risk: 41ha Lowland Meadows
% Area At Risk: 98% Total Area in PU: 42ha
Area At Risk: 41ha
Environment Agency
%Area At Risk: 98%. No change
achievement of good chemical status/ Applicable Factors: Point source pollution, diffuse are likely to increase the levels of pollutants from
status/potential of potential of water pollution, physical or morphological alterations, sources in adjacent agricultural land that are
surface and bodies alien species washed into the river with potential adverse effects
under the WFD WFD environmental objectives
To minimise flood People 363 people affected by flooding. 740 people affected at the 1% probability event.
Northampton related risks to the 998 people (399 properties) can apply for Minor reduction in public preparedness for flooding.
Outer population flooding warnings within the policy area. Flood warning systems will not be expanded
To minimise risks to Critical infrastructure Critical infrastructure affected by flooding: 11 electricity substations flooded, with depth of up
critical infrastructure and Transport 10 electricity sub-stations to 2.3m.
community facilities infrastructure 1 non-hazardous waste transfer stations Increase in depth of flooding at 2 Non-hazardous
Community facilities Transport infrastructure affected by flooding: Waste transfer station of up to 0.8m.
West Coast mainline (Northampton Increase in depth and duration of flooding at key
branch) transport infrastructure.
A43 and A45 are affected by flooding at
the 1% event
No community facilities are affected.
Social
Social impact: Moderate - typically SFVI low-moderate vulnerability to flooding (category
category 3 2&3)
Vast majority of residential properties at risk from
the River Nene and Brampton Branch flooded to
depths of less than 0.5m. Depth of flooding on
Dallington and Billing Brooks tends to be greater
but typically less than 1m still. Potential for
significant velocities.
To minimise economic People £3.01M residential property damages at 1% £6.77M residential damages and £53.77M
impacts of flooding Agricultural Land: probability event commercial damages at the 1% probability event.
Grade 1 and Grade 2 £33.03M commercial property damages at 1% No Grade 1 agricultural land affected.
event probability 50ha of Grade 2 land affected.
No Grade 1 and 42ha of Grade 2 land affected
Economic
in 1% probability event
Protect and enhance Scheduled Dallington Conservation area affected – typically Increase in depth of flooding at Clifford Hill Motte
significant historic Monuments flooded to depths of up to 0.75m. Castle Scheduled Monument of up to 0.7m with a
Environmental environment assets and Historic Parks and Clifford Hill Motte Castle scheduled Monument small increase in the area flooded. This may cause
their settings Gardens affected – typically flooded to depths of up to significant adverse impacts including restricted
Historic Battlefields 1.5m. public access.
Environment Agency
Conservation Areas Increase in depth of flooding at Dallington CA up to
0.9m, with a minor increase in area flooded,
duration and frequency of flooding.
designated nature
conservation sites
(SSSI, SPA, SAC and
Ramsar)
Enhance the biodiversity UK BAP habitats Lowland Heathland Increase in depth of flooding of 0.6m in Lowland
of the catchment by Total Area In PU: 3ha Heathland and Undetermined Grassland.
improving the quality of Area At Risk: 0.3ha
the river environment % Area At Risk: 10
Biodiversity Action Plan Undetermined Grassland:
targets Total Area In PU: 41.9ha
Area At Risk: 6ha
% Area At Risk: 14%
achievement of good chemical status/ Applicable factors: Diffuse pollution, physical or are likely to increase the levels of pollutants from
status/potential of potential of water morphological alteration, alien species. sources in Kettering and other urban areas and
objectives
To minimise flood People 115 people affected by flooding at 1% 165 people affected by flooding at 1% event.
Grendon Brook related risks to the probability event Minor reduction in public preparedness for flooding.
Villages population 503 people (201 properties) within policy unit Flood warning systems will not be expanded
that can apply for flood warnings beyond present level.
To minimise risks to Critical infrastructure Critical infrastructure affected by flooding: Increase in depth of flooding of up to 0.15 m at
critical infrastructure and Transport Yardley Hastings Sewage Treatment Yardley Hastings STW.
community facilities infrastructure Works (STW) flooded to depth of approx. Bozeat STW becomes affected - flooded to depth
Community facilities 0.1m. of < 0.15m
No major transport infrastructure or community
facilities affected.
Social To minimise community Properties 46 residential properties and 6 commercial 66 residential properties flooded and 7 commercial
disruption from flooding Social vulnerability properties affected by flooding at 1% probability properties flooded at 1% probability event.
People event. Minor increase in risk of flooding occurs in areas
Social impact: Moderate - typically SFVI with a moderate-low social vulnerability to flooding
category 3 (Category 2)
All properties flooded to less than 1m, with majority
flooded to depths of less than 0.5m. Velocities may
increase, however, it is thought they are unlikely to
be high in areas of residential flooding.
Economic
impacts of flooding Agricultural Land: probability event commercial damages at 1% probability event.
Environment Agency
Grade 1 and Grade 2 £3.41M commercial property damages at 1% No Grade 1 land affected.
event probability 13ha of Grade 2 land affected
No Grade 1 and 3ha of Grade 2 land affected in
1% probability event
Protect and enhance Scheduled Three Conservation Areas affected by flooding Conservation Areas – Small increase in depth and
significant historic Monuments – Grendon, Yardley Hastings and Bozeat. extent of flooding at three sites affected.
environment assets and Historic Parks and Flooding at these sites less than 1m. Medieval Cross Scheduled Monument - Increase in
their settings Gardens Castle Ashby (registered park/ garden) affected depth of flooding at SM of approx. 0.6m.
Historic Battlefields – depth of flooding typically up to 1m. Park and Garden - Significant increase in area of
Conservation Areas Medieval Cross Scheduled Monument affected Castle Ashby flooded – approx. 40ha flooded.
– depth of flooding 0.3m. Increase in depth of over 1m in parts though
typically about 0.5m.
Protect and contribute to Designated sites No designated sites (SSSI, SPA, SAC and Very small area (<5%) of Bozeat Meadows affected
the improvement of Ramsar) affect at the current 1% event flooded to depth of < 0.05m. Negative effect on
designated nature site: terrestrial grassland communities present are
conservation sites sensitive to flooding.
(SSSI, SPA, SAC and
Ramsar)
Environmental
Enhance the biodiversity UK BAP habitats No BAP habitats affected. No significant area of BAP habitat affected.
of the catchment by
targets
achievement of good chemical status/ are likely to increase the levels of pollutants from
status/potential of potential of water Applicable factors: Point source pollution, diffuse sources in Kettering and other urban areas and
surface and bodies pollution, physical or morphological alterations, adjacent agricultural land that are washed into the
groundwater bodies alien species. river with potential adverse effects on water quality.
objectives
To minimise flood People 68 people affected by flooding at 1% probability 75 people affected at the 1% probability event.
River Nene related risks to the event Minor reduction in public preparedness for flooding.
Social
Corridor population 88 people (35 residential properties) can apply Flood warning systems will not be expanded
for flood warnings within the policy unit. beyond present level.
To minimise risks to Critical infrastructure Critical infrastructure affected by flooding: Great Billing, Broadholme and Islip STW affected.
critical infrastructure and Transport 3 Sewage Treatment Works (STW): Increase in depth and duration of flooding. Increase
community facilities infrastructure Great Billing, Broadholme and Islip. Great in depth at Great Billing and Islip of less than 0.1m.
Community facilities Billing STW flooded to depth of up to Increase in depth at Broadholme of up to 0.2m.
1.6m. Islip STW flooded to depth of up to Landfill site - increase in depth and duration of
0.7m. Broadholme STW flooded to depth flooding.
of up to 1.3m. Minor increases in depth and duration of flooding at
1 Waste Management Sites – Landfill site key transport infrastructure.
Environment Agency
Transport infrastructure affected by flooding:
Midland mainline (London – Leicester) is
affected by flooding at 1% event
probability.
Roads: A45, A6, A14, A509 and A605 are
all affected by flooding at the 1%
probability event. A number of locally
important river crossings along the River
Nene are also affected at the 1% event.
No community facilities are at risk.
Social impact: Low – moderate. Typically SFVI moderate social vulnerability to flooding (categories
categories 2 and 3. 2, 3 and 4)
Generally increase in depth is up to 0.25m though
typically less. Depths are less than 1m at the
majority of residential properties. Small handful of
properties (less than 5) between Billing and
Wellingborough flooded to depths of greater than
1m.
Grade 1 and Grade 2 No Grade 1 and 138ha of Grade 2 agricultural No Grade 1 agricultural land affected by flooding.
land affected by flooding. 171ha of Grade 2 agricultural land affected by
Economic flooding.
investment in the associated with estimated at £243k. remains at £243k in current prices.
Protect and enhance Scheduled Monuments Wadenhoe Conservation Area affected – Less than 10% of the area of both Conservation
significant historic Historic Parks and typically flooded to depths of up to 0.5m, though Areas flooded. Pilton to 0.6m and Wadenhoe up to
environment assets and Gardens up to 2m in some areas. . 2.5m.
their settings Historic Battlefields Pilton Conservation Area affected – typically Increase in depth, frequency and duration of
Conservation Areas flooded to depths of up to 0.5m. flooding at all 10 Scheduled Monuments. Increase
10 Scheduled Monuments affected by flooding: in depth of flooding of up to 0.2m generally.
Nn178 Roman Villa
Nn61 Irthlingborough Bridge
Environmental Nn65 Ditchford Bridge
Nn136 Castle Earthworks And Barn At
Thorpe Waterville
Nn83 Roman Station
13676 Raunds Bowl Barrow
13694 Mallows Cotton Deserted Medieval
Village
17135 Bowl Barrow 530m North East Of
Rose Farm
Environment Agency
17139 Bowl Barrow 700m North Of
Woodford Mill
13667 Irthlingborough Bowl Barrow,
760m West Of Rutland Lodge
Scheduled monuments flooded to varying
depths, with maximum depths up to 2m.
Protect and contribute to Designated sites Designated sites affected at current 1% probability Wadenhoe Marsh and Achurch Meadows – >80%
the improvement of event: of site flooded. Increase in flooding of up to 0.2m.
designated nature Wadenhoe Marsh and Achurch Meadow SSSI - Neutral to positive effect from flooding
conservation sites Site area 47ha. 79% area affected by flooding. Aldwinkle Marsh – Approx. 90% of area flooded.
(SSSI, SPA, SAC and Flooding up to depth of 2m, though typically less Increase in depth of up to 0.1m Effect from flooding
Ramsar) than 1.2m. unknown.
Aldwincle Marsh SSSI - Site area 2ha. 90% of Wollaston Meadows – 100% flooded. Increase in
area affected by flooding. Flooding up to depth depth of up to 0.1m. Negative effect from flooding
of 1.5m. Upper Nene Gravel Pits – 100% of site flooded.
Wollaston Meadows SSSI - Site area 14ha. Increase in depth of up to 0.1m, though typically
100% of area affected by flooding. Flooding up less.
to a depth of 1.5m. Minor increases in duration beyond the already
Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SSSI, potential substantial 48 to 96 hours.
SPA - Site area 1310ha. 100% of area affected
by flooding. Depth of flooding up to 2.5m.
Enhance the biodiversity UK BAP habitats Undetermined Grassland: Undetermined Grassland:
of the catchment by Total Area in PU: 41ha Total Area in PU: 41ha
improving the quality of Area At Risk: 19ha Area At Risk: 23ha, an increase of 4ha on current
the river environment % Area At Risk: 46% 1%. Effect unknown, dependant on plant
and contributing to UK communities present.
Biodiversity Action Plan Lowland Meadows
targets Total Area in PU: 31ha Lowland Meadows
Area At Risk: 31ha No future changes.
%Area At Risk: 100%
Fens
Fens Total Area in PU: 19ha
Total Area in PU: 19ha Area At Risk: 13ha, an increase of 3ha on current
Area At Risk: 10ha 1%. Unknown/ mixed effects; dependant of the
% Area At Risk: 53% type of fen and the duration of flooding.
Support the WFD ecological and WFD surface waters: Overall Risk: High Increases in the frequency and extent of flooding
achievement of good chemical status/ WFD groundwaters: Overall Risk: Low, small are likely to increase the levels of pollutants from
status/potential of potential of water areas of High sources in Kettering and other urban areas and
objectives
River Nene related risks to the probability event Minor reduction in public preparedness for flooding.
(Weedon to Social population 490 people (196 properties) can apply for flood Flood warning systems will not be expanded
Kislingbury) warnings in this policy unit. beyond present level – increase in the number of
To minimise risks to Critical infrastructure Critical infrastructure affected by flooding: Increase in depth, duration and frequency of
critical infrastructure and Transport Weedon STW flooded to estimated depth flooding at Weedon STW. Depth of flooding
Environment Agency
community facilities infrastructure of up to 1m. estimated as up to 1.2m.
Community facilities 1 Metal Recycling Centre. Bugbrooke STW becomes flooded up to depth of
Transport infrastructure affected by flooding: 0.7m.
West Coast mainline (London – Minor increase in depth, duration and frequency of
Birmingham) at Weedon at risk of flooding at metal recycling site.
flooding. One IPPC site (a food manufacturing site)
Grand Union Canal at Weedon at risk of becomes flooded to a shallow depth.
flooding. Minor increase in depth and duration of flooding at
A5 at Weedon Bec key transport infrastructure. Increased risk of
The M1 near Kislingbury is at risk of disruption to the M1.
flooding. Road may not flood at the 1%
event, but disruption may occur.
To minimise community Properties o 42 residential properties and 15 commercial 71 residential properties and 19 commercial
People event. Social impact: stay moderate - typically SFVI
o Social impact: Moderate - typically SFVI category 2 and 3
category 3 Increase in risk of flooding occurs in areas with low
to moderate social vulnerability to flooding
(category 2&3)
Most properties are flooded to depths of
significantly less than 0.5m. No significant increase
in velocities expected. Risk to life is limited.
To minimise economic People o £0.84M residential damages £1.38M residential damages and £4.09M
impacts of flooding Agricultural Land: o £3.59M commercial damages commercial damages at the 1% probability event.
Grade 1 and Grade 2 o No Grade 1 and 1ha of Grade 2 land affected in No Grade 1 agricultural land affected.
1% probability event 2ha of Grade 2 agricultural land affected.
Economic
Ensure future EA expenditure (costs Current annual EA expenditure on maintenance No increase in cost of maintenance in real terms –
investment in the associated with estimated at £78k remains at £78k in current prices.
Protect and enhance Scheduled Monuments Upton Bowl Barrow Scheduled Monument Small area of Kislingbury CA < 5ha outside of
significant historic Historic Parks and (13674)affected by flooding (100% of site defences, flooded to depth of up to 2m. There may
environment assets and Gardens flooded). be significant localised damages to the historic
their settings Historic Battlefields Conservation Areas affected by flooding: environment of Kislingbury CA due to the high
Conservation Areas Bugbrooke - approx 4ha flooded to depth depth of flooding.
of up to 0.4m. Bugbrooke CA – Increase in area flooded of
Kislingbury - < 5ha outside of defences, approx. 1ha. Increase in depth of flooding of up to
Environmental
flooded to depth of up to 2m. 0.6m. There may be moderate damages to the
Nether Heyford - approx. 2ha flooded to historic environment.
depth of less than 0.5m. Small increase in area and depth of flooding at
Nether Heyford CA. There could be minor
increases in damages to Nether Heyford CA.
Increase in depth of flooding of up to 0.15m at
Upton Bowl Barrow. Entire of SM is flooded.
Protect and contribute to Designated sites Bugbrooke Meadows SSSI affected. 7.5ha of Increase in depth of flooding of up to 0.1m at
the improvement of the 10.1ha site are flooded. Depth of flooding up Bugbrooke Meadows SSSI. 100% of site is
designated nature to 0.7m. Current condition 54% unfavourable flooded. Positive effect through an increase in the
Environment Agency
conservation sites due to agricultural management. Effect of extent of habitat.
(SSSI, SPA, SAC and flooding: Positive - Increased flooding could
Ramsar) potentially increase the extent of wetland
habitats within the site.
Enhance the biodiversity UK BAP habitats Undetermined Grassland: Undetermined Grassland : Area At Risk: 100%
of the catchment by Total Area in PU: 9.9ha (increase in area of 14% from current 1% event
improving the quality of Area At Risk: 7.5ha probability)
the river environment % Area At Risk: 76%
targets
status/potential of potential of water pollution, physical or morphological alterations, sources in adjacent agricultural land that are
surface and bodies aliens species washed into the river with potential adverse effects
under the WFD WFD environmental objectives.
To minimise flood People 342 people affected by flooding at 1% 508 people affected by flooding in the 1%
related risks to the probability event probability event.
Rushden and
population 150 people (60 properties) can apply for flood Minor reduction in public preparedness for flooding.
Raunds warnings in the policy unit. Flood warning systems will not be expanded
To minimise risks to Critical infrastructure Critical infrastructure affected by flooding: 2 electricity substations flooded, with depth of up to
critical infrastructure and Transport 1 electricity sub-station 2.7m.
community facilities infrastructure Transport infrastructure affected by flooding: Increase in depth and duration of flooding at key
Community facilities The A45 and a number of key roads in transport infrastructure.
the centre of Rushden and Raunds. Increase in depth, duration and frequency of
Community facilities affected by flooding: flooding at Rushden Hospital. Increase in depth of
Rushden Hospital flooded to depth of flooding of up to 0.6m. Maximum depth of flooding
approx. 1m. up to 1.6m.
Raunds Ambulance station flooded to a Raunds Ambulance station flooded to depth of up
Social shallow depth. to 0.5m.
Social impact: Moderate – High. SFVI category moderate to high social vulnerability to flooding,
3 throughout most of policy unit, though typically categories 3 and 4.
significant area of category 4 in Raunds. Minor increase in depth, duration and velocity of
Depths are generally less than 1m at present, but
would increase under this policy by up to 1m in
parts. Significant number of properties (>30) may
become flooded to depths of greater than 1m It is
difficult to quantify the increases in velocity likely,
but the characteristics of the catchment suggest
that moderate to high velocities may occur.
Economic
impacts of flooding Agricultural Land: probability event commercial damages at the 1% probability event.
Environment Agency
Grade 1 and Grade 2 £8.59M commercial property damages at 1% No Grade 1 agricultural land affected.
event probability 1ha of Grade 2 agricultural land affected.
Ensure future EA expenditure (costs Current annual EA expenditure on maintenance No increase in cost of maintenance in real terms –
Protect and enhance Scheduled NN199 (Deserted Settlement of West Cotton) Increase in depth of flooding at Scheduled
significant historic Monuments Scheduled Monument affected – flooded to Monument of up to 0.2m. Entire site (2ha) flooded.
environment assets and Historic Parks and depth of up to 1.3m. This may cause significant adverse impacts. In
their settings Gardens Rushden has a proposed Conservation Area. addition, there may be impact on Rushden
Historic Battlefields proposed Conservation Area.
Conservation Areas
designated nature
conservation sites
(SSSI, SPA, SAC and
Ramsar)
Environmental Enhance the biodiversity UK BAP habitats No BAP habitats within the policy unit No BAP habitats affected
of the catchment by
targets
status/potential of potential of water pollution, physical or morphological alterations, sources in Kettering and other urban areas and
surface and bodies alien species adjacent agricultural land that are washed into the
objectives
To minimise flood People No people affected by flooding in the 1% event Maximum of 153 people affected by flooding in the
related risks to the probability 1% probability event. Likely to be less than this
population 203 people can apply for flood warnings within figure.
Barnwell the policy unit. Minor reduction in public preparedness for flooding.
Flood warning systems will not be expanded
beyond present level – increase in the number of
Social To minimise risks to Critical infrastructure No critical assets at risk. No critical assets at risk
critical infrastructure and Transport
community facilities infrastructure
Community facilities
To minimise community Properties No properties affected by flooding at 1% Maximum of 64 residential properties and 3
disruption from flooding Social vulnerability probability event. commercial properties at risk of flooding at the 1%
People Areas benefiting from defence have a moderate event. Likely to be less than this figure.
SFVI - typically category 3. Increase in risk of flooding in an area with a
Environment Agency
moderate social vulnerability to flooding, category
3.
Majority of properties are still flooded to depths of
less than 1m. Flood storage area will prevent
flooding to greater than 1m at most properties.
To minimise economic People No economic damages incurred. Maximum of £2.16M residential damages and
impacts of flooding Agricultural Land: No Grade 1 or Grade 2 agricultural land flooded. £0.68M commercial damages at the 1% probability
Grade 1 and Grade 2 event.
Economic
Ensure future EA expenditure (costs Current annual EA expenditure on maintenance No change in annual expenditure on maintenance
investment in the associated with generic estimated at £17k. in real terms – remains at £17k
Protect and enhance Scheduled Barnwell CA protected from flooding, with Small increase in damage to the Barnwell CA
significant historic Monuments exception of area of CA that covers river through an increase in depth and extent of flooding
environment assets and Historic Parks and channel. (increase in depth of up to 0.75m though typically
their settings Gardens less, area flooded of 4ha).
Historic Battlefields All Saints Manor (Barnwelll) Park and Garden
Conservation Areas becomes affected in the future. Less than 1ha of
the site is flooded to a shallow depth.
designated nature
conservation sites
(SSSI, SPA, SAC and
Ramsar)
Environmental
Enhance the biodiversity UK BAP habitats No BAP habitat affected. No BAP habitat affected so no further appraisal
of the catchment by undertaken.
targets
Support the WFD ecological and WFD Category: At Risk Heavily modified water Increases in the frequency and extent of flooding
achievement of good chemical status/ body. are likely to increase the levels of pollutants from
status/potential of potential of water sources in adjacent agricultural land that are
surface and bodies washed into the river with potential adverse effects
under the WFD WFD environmental objectives
Wootton Social
population 153 (61 properties) can apply for flood warnings Flood warning systems will not be expanded
within the policy unit beyond present levels.
To minimise risks to Critical infrastructure No critical infrastructure affected. 2 Electricity sub-stations affected. Depth of
critical infrastructure and Transport Transport infrastructure affected: flooding up to 0.70m.
community facilities infrastructure West Coast mainline (Northampton Increase in depth, duration and frequency of
Environment Agency
Community facilities Branch) at risk of flooding. flooding at key transport infrastructure.
A508 at Wootton.
People event. Increase in risk of flooding occurs in areas with low
Social impact: Low - typically SFVI categories 1 vulnerability to flooding (category 2)
or 2 Minor increase in depth, duration and velocity of
Small increase in depth of flooding at residential
properties. Majority of residential properties are still
flooded to depths of less than 0.5m, although
approx. 5 are flooded to depths of greater than 1m.
Velocities unlikely to be significant in areas flooded
to depths of less than 0.5m.
To minimise economic People £0.99M residential damages at 1% £1.16M residential damages and £0.17M
impacts of flooding Agricultural Land: £0.16M commercial damages at 1% commercial damages at the 1% probability event.
Grade 1 and Grade 2 No Grade 1 and 2ha of Grade 2 land affected in No Grade 1 and 4ha of Grade 2 land affected at
1% probability event the 1% probability event
Economic
Protect and enhance Scheduled No historical assets within policy unit No historic environment assets affected.
significant historic Monuments
Conservation Areas
designated nature
conservation sites
(SSSI, SPA, SAC and
Ramsar)
Environmental Enhance the biodiversity UK BAP habitats No BAP habitats within the policy unit No BAP habitats affected
of the catchment by
targets
Support the WFD ecological and WFD category: At Risk Increases in the frequency and extent of flooding
achievement of good chemical status/ Applicable factors: are likely to increase the levels of pollutants from
status/potential of potential of water River Nene: Point source pollution, sources in Northampton and other urban areas and
surface and bodies diffuse pollution, physical or adjacent agricultural land that are washed into the
groundwater bodies morphological alteration, alien species river with potential adverse effects on water quality.
under the WFD Wootton Brook: Diffuse pollution, physical This would not help to achieve WFD environmental
or morphological alteration. objectives
Environment Agency
Upper and To minimise flood People 578 people affected by flooding at 1% 847 people affected at the 1% probability event.
Middle Nene population 485 people (194 residential properties) can Flood warning systems will not be expanded
Catchment apply for flood warnings in this policy unit. beyond present level.
To minimise risks to Critical infrastructure Critical infrastructure affected by flooding: 5 electricity substations are flooded. Small increase
critical infrastructure and Transport 1 Electricity Sub-station in depth, duration and frequency of flooding at site
community facilities infrastructure 3 Sewage Treatment Works (STW): currently affected.
Community facilities Wittering, Brixworth and Newnham Increase in the depth of flooding at Wittering,
Transport infrastructure affected by flooding: Brixworth and Newnham STWs, with depths
The West Coast Mainline (London to estimated at up to 1.2m. Hollowell STW becomes
Birmingham) is affected by flooding. flooded. Increase in duration and frequency of
The Grand Union Canal Northampton flooding at all STWs.
Branch is affected by flooding. 1 WMS (Other Non-Hazardous Waste Site)
Roads: A6003, A43, A6, A508, A14, becomes flooded.
A5199, A428, A425, A5, A361, A509, Watford Gap Police Outstation is at risk of flooding.
A45, A605 are affected by flooding at the Increase in depth and duration of flooding at key
Social 1% event probability. transport infrastructure. Increased risk of disruption
Risk of the M1 flooding at a number of to the M1.
locations between Colingtree and Watford
Gap.
No community facilities are at risk.
People event. Increase in risk of flooding occurs in areas with low
Social impact: Moderate - typically SFVI to moderate social vulnerability to flooding
category 3. (categories 2 and 3).
Most properties are flooded to depths of less than
0.5m. Velocities may be relatively high as most
flood risk is from upstream tributaries. Increase in
velocity is unlikely to be significant though. No
significant increase in risk to life.
To minimise economic People £4.71M residential damages at 1% £7.23M residential damages and £15.15M
impacts of flooding Agricultural Land: £5.99M commercial damages at 1% commercial damages at the 1% probability event.
Grade 1 and Grade 2 No Grade 1 and 145ha of Grade 2 agricultural No Grade 1 agricultural land affected.
land at risk of flooding. 189ha of Grade 2 agricultural land affected.
Economic
Ensure future EA expenditure (costs Annual cost of EA maintenance estimated at No increase in cost of maintenance in real terms –
investment in the associated with generic £229k. remains at £229k in current prices.
Protect and enhance Scheduled Monuments Conservation Areas: 22 in total affected at All Conservation Areas are affected by flooding by
significant historic Historic Parks and current 1% probability event - Brigstock, an average of up to 1.2m. An additional 3
environment assets and Gardens Bulwick, Cranford, Cransley, Geddington, Conservation Areas are affected to the current 1%
their settings Historic Battlefields Grafton Underwood, Kings Cliffe, Sudborough, event: Fotheringhay, Warkton, Southorpe.
Environmental
Conservation Areas Rushton, Pipewell, Polebrook, Mears Ashby, Increase in depth and area of Parks and Gardens
Lower Benefield, Little Oakley, Everdon, Lower flooded. An addition to the 12 flooded at present
Harlestone, Brockhall, Moulton, Grand Union Milton Hall becomes affected in the future.
Canal, Cottesbrooke, Blisworth, Thornhaugh. Increase in depth and area of Scheduled
Environment Agency
Flooded to varied depths, typically less than 1m. Monuments flooded. An additional 2 Scheduled
Parks and Gardens: 12 in total affected at Monuments are flooded.
current 1% probability event (Hinwick Hall
(1564), Hinwick House (1565), Althorp (2025),
Boughton Hall (2325), Deene Park (2032),
Fawsley Hall (2035), Horton Hall (2383), Kirby
Hall (1011), Brockhall Park (4041),
Cottesbrooke Hall (2030), Rushton Hall (5180),
Boughton House (1328)) – flooded to varied
depths though typically less than 1m.
Scheduled Monuments: 14 in total affected at
current 1% probability event (refer to Form 12.5
for list). Scheduled monuments flooded to
varied depths, though typically less than 1m.
Protect and contribute to Designated sites Designated sites affected at current 1% Titchmarsh Meadow SSSI: Small increase in area
the improvement of probability event: of land flooded. 1.6ha (73% of the site) is flooded.
designated nature Titchmarsh Meadow SSSI - Site area 2.2ha. Sutton Heath & Bog SSSI: Small increase in area
conservation sites 64% of area (1.4ha) affected due to flooding. of land flooded. 2.9ha (17% of the site) is flooded.
(SSSI, SPA, SAC and Flooding to depths of up to 1m. Bulwick Meadows SSSI: Site area 4.1ha. 2ha
Ramsar) Sutton Heath & Bog SSSI - Site area 17.2ha. affected by flooding at future 1% probability event
16% of area affected by flooding. which equates to an increase of 1ha.
Bulwick Meadows SSSI - Site area 4.1ha. 46% River Ise and Meadows SSSI: Site area 13.5ha.
of area affected by flooding. Flooding to depths 10.1ha affected by flooding at future 1% probability
of up to 0.7m.. event which equates to an increase of 4.4ha
River Ise and Meadows SSSI - Site area affected.
13.5ha. 42% of area affected by flooding. Pitsford Reservoir SSSI: No change in area of
Depth of flooding of up to 1m outside of river designated site affected by flooding at future 1%
channel. probability event when compared to current levels
Pitsford Reservoir SSSI - Site area Bonemills Hollow SSSI: Small increase in area of
413.1ha.100% area affected by flooding. land flooded. 4.1ha (23% of the site) is flooded.
Increase in depth of water likely to be minimal Effect is potentially positive, marsh plant
during times of flood. . communities may benefit from increase in flooding.
Bonemills Hollow SSSI: Site area 17.5ha. 17% Whitewater Valley SSSI: all increase in area of land
area affected by flooding (3.0ha).. flooded. 1.3ha (30% of the site) is flooded. Effect is
Whitewater Valley SSSI: Site area 4.3ha. 19% potentially positive, marsh plant communities may
area affected by flooding (0.8ha). benefit from increase in flooding.
West, Abbot’s & Lounds Woods: Site area West, Abbot’s & Lounds Woods SSSI: all increase
50.4ha. 2% area affected by flooding (1.1ha). in area of land flooded. 1.5ha (3% of the site) is
flooded. There is potential for a positive effect
through increased extent of wet grassland and
woodland.
Enhance the biodiversity UK BAP habitats Lowland Heath Lowland Heath
of the catchment by Total Area in PU: 145ha Total Area in PU: 145ha
improving the quality of Area At Risk: 3ha Area At Risk Future: 4ha, increase of 1ha on
the river environment % Area At Risk: 2% current 1% event. Negative effect.
targets
Environment Agency
Lowland Dry Acid Grassland Lowland Dry Acid Grassland
Total Area in PU: 45ha Total Area in PU: 145ha
Area At Risk: 3ha Area At Risk Future: 4.Ha, increase of 1.4ha on
% Area At Risk: 8%# current 1% event. Negative effect
Fens Fens: No future increases.

Area At Risk: 2ha
% Area At Risk: 13%
Undetermined Grassland: Undetermined Grassland:

Total Area in PU: 968ha Total Area in PU: 968ha
Area At Risk: 116ha Area At Risk: 146ha, increase of 30ha on current
% Area At Risk: 12% 1%. 15%. Mixed/ undetermined effect.
Lowland Meadows: Lowland Meadows:

Total Area in PU: 239ha No future changes
Area At Risk: 0ha
% Area At Risk: 0%
Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland: Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland:

Total Area in PU: 1114ha No future changes
Area At Risk: 1ha
% Area At Risk: <1%
Lowland Calcareous Grassland: Lowland Calcareous Grassland:

Total Area In PU: 126ha Total Area in PU: 126ha
Area At Risk: 6ha Area At Risk: 8ha, an increase of 2ha on current
% Area At Risk: 5% 1%. Negative effect.
Undetermined Woodland: Undetermined Woodland:

Total Area in PU: 1ha No change.
Area At Risk: 0ha
% Area At Risk: 0%
status/potential of potential of water pollution, physical or morphological alterations, sources in urban areas and adjacent agricultural
surface and bodies alien species land that are washed into the river. This would not
groundwater bodies help to achieve WFD environmental objectives
under the WFD
To minimise flood People 10 people affected by flooding at 1% event. 20 people affected by flooding in the 1% probability
The Fens Social
related risks to the 29270 people (11708 properties) can apply for event.
Environment Agency
population flood warnings within the policy unit. Standard of protection of defences significantly
reduced. Defences are overtopped in a number of
locations between Guyhirn and Sutton Bridge
during a 1% event. More serious overtopping
during a 0.5% event.
Significant increase in risk of defence failure at 1%
event, posing serious risk to life. 14,950 people are
assessed as being at severe risk should breaching
occur.
Minor reduction in public preparedness for flooding.
Flood warning systems will not be expanded
To minimise risks to Critical infrastructure No critical infrastructure affected. No critical assets at risk at the 1% event.
critical infrastructure and Transport No transport infrastructure affected. Some critical and transport infrastructure may be at
community facilities infrastructure No community facilities affected. risk during a 0.5% event.
Community facilities Increased risk of breaching at the 1% flood event.
Breaching poses significant risk to critical and
disruption from flooding Social vulnerability properties affected by flooding at 1% probability properties at risk of flooding at the 1% probability
People event. event.
Social impact: Moderate - typically SFVI Defences overtopped at more locations during a
category 3. 0.5% flood event. Likely that a significant number
of properties will be flooded.
Increase in risk of defence failure at 1% event,
posing serious risk to life. 6618 properties are
assessed as being at severe risk should breaching
occur.
Areas at risk have a typically moderate social
vulnerability to flooding.
Grade 1 and Grade 2 No Grade 1 or Grade 2 agricultural land flooded. Defences overtopped at more locations during a
0.5% flood event. Likely that significant property
damages will be accrued.
Increase in risk of defence failure at 1% event, with
Economic large damages likely if breaching does occur.
109ha of Grade 1 agricultural land and 11ha of
Grade 2 agricultural land affected by flooding.
Protect and enhance Scheduled No sites affected in the baseline. No historic environment assets affected.
significant historic Monuments
Environmental
Conservation Areas
Environment Agency
Protect and contribute to Designated sites Adventurers Land SSSI This policy is likely to result in 7.0ha of Adventurers
the improvement of Baseline – 7.0ha of 10.1ha site flooded. Depth Land SSSI flooded. Depth of flooding unknown,
designated nature of flooding unknown, though thought to be high though thought to be high (>1m) across much of
conservation sites (>1m) across much of site. site, and likely to cause a negative effect.
(SSSI, SPA, SAC and
Ramsar)
Enhance the biodiversity UK BAP habitats Limited BAP habitats in this policy unit. No BAP habitats affected.
of the catchment by 2.2ha of Lowland calcareous grassland – not
improving the quality of affected at baseline
the river environment 8.5ha of Lowland meadows – not affected at
and contributing to UK baseline.
targets
status/potential of potential of water pollution, physical or morphological alterations, sources in urban areas and adjacent agricultural
surface and bodies alien species land that are washed into the river. This would not
groundwater bodies help to achieve WFD environmental objectives
under the WFD
Environment Agency
B3.3 Scope of the SEA and environmental objectives
An important early stage in the SEA process is to identify which environmental issues are relevant to this
CFMP. Our Scoping exercise identified issues that are not relevant to this type and level of plan: allowing
us to exclude these issues and focus our assessment on what is most important. To help us do this we
consulted widely on a Scoping Report which was published in 2005.
The scope of this SEA was determined by:
• developing an understanding of the flood risk management context for the catchment, including
current flood risk to people and the environment (we also considered the economy), and the
potential constraints and opportunities to the management of flood risk;
• undertaking a review of the environmental context of the catchment, including identifying relevant
trends;
• a review of relevant plans and policies, including an assessment of their relationship with
catchment flood management planning;
• identifying relevant environmental protection objectives from these plans and policies and
consideration of how the CFMP might conflict with these, or influence their achievement; and
• consultation with key stakeholders (see previous Section B2), including the SEA statutory
consultation bodies: Natural England and English Heritage.
The environmental and social issues scoped into the SEA were then used alongside economic issues to
develop a suite of policy appraisal objectives, indicators and, where possible, targets (see Section 5.3
CFMP Objectives). Throughout this process we drew on the knowledge and vision of our CFMP Steering
Group (see Section 1.5 Involving others) to help understand what matters in the catchment and shape
what this plan was trying to achieve. Following our formal Scoping exercise, we considered what the
future might look like, including what the effects of climate change could be, and the impact of future
development pressures and changes in land management. While we can not predict the future with
complete certainty, we used this perspective on the future to help us understand the scale of changes we
could face in the future and so consider them explicitly within the development of the plan.
Table B4 summarises the issues we scoped into the development of the plan, and the resulting broad
objectives we developed against which to test our alternative options. Not all of these issues are equally
relevant everywhere in our plan area, and we also drew on other relevant policies, plans and
programmes to identify opportunities and constraints for individual areas (Policy Units) within the plan
area.
Table B4 – Scope of the SEA in relation to the CFMP
Environmental Scope and Justification Relevant CFMP Relevance to the

Topic objectives CFMP
Scoped in Scoped out
Population, People exposed Disease, stress and - Reduce harm to Flood risks to
Human Health, to flooding and trauma as a result people People, property,
Material Assets the risk of being of flooding. A - Maintain critical critical
and drowned due to robust assessment infrastructure and infrastructure and
Landscape flooding. of the risk community facilities community facilities
The impact of associated with - Manage level of at risk from flooding
flooding on the these impacts is not community within the
communities established for this disruption to catchment
they live in and level of plan. The acceptable level
the risk of disease for - Minimise economic
infrastructure such rare events harm of flooding
and services would be unlikely to - Ensure catchment
they rely on be significant. expenditure is
(material assets) proportional to risk
Historic Sites designated The risk of - Protect and enhance 55 Scheduled
Environment, or recognised as impacting upon significant historic Monuments, 1
Environment Agency
including cultural, of regional, unknown assets and their Historic Battlefield,
architectural and national or archaeology will be settings 41 Conservation
archaeological international considered at Areas
heritage importance. project level (Northamptonshire
assessment. only) and 16
Registered Parks
The risk of and Gardens within
impacting upon the catchment are
listed buildings will at risk from flooding
be considered at in the future
more detailed
stages of flood risk
management
planning.
Air quality No air quality There is no - No objectives set Not relevant to the
issues are potential for CFMP CFMP
relevant to this policies to influence
level of plan issues that effect
air quality, e.g.
emissions or
generation of
particulate matter at
a strategic level.
Air quality issues
are therefore not
considered to be
significant and have
been scoped out of
the assessment.
Climatic factors The plan There is no - No objectives set Climate changes
explicitly potential for CFMP are included within
considers the policies to influence the future flooding
implications of issues that affect predictions
climate change the climate. Any
on flood risk. local effects on
Our policies are climate due to
therefore aiming flooding are not
to help society considered
to adapt to significant and
climate change therefore scoped
out of the
assessment.
Biodiversity, Sites designated SPAs, SACs, - Protect and Three European
fauna and fauna as Special SSSIs and BAP contribute to the Sites (the Nene
Protection Areas habitats and improvement of Washes, Upper
(SPAs), Special species that do not designated nature Nene Valley Gravel
Areas of have dependence conservation sites Pits and Orton Pit)
Conservation on or are not (SSSI, SPA, SAC and a further 17
(SACs), affected by the and Ramsar). SSSIs within the
RAMSAR sites, water environment. - Enhance the catchment are at
Sites of Special biodiversity of the risk from flooding in
Scientific catchment by the future.
Interest (SSSIs) Although flooding improving the quality Changes to the
and Biodiversity presents potential of the river current flooding
Action Plan hazards to fisheries environment and regime in terms of
Environment Agency
(BAP) Habitats populations, these contributing to UK the frequency,
and Species are not considered Biodiversity Action timing and extent of
where these at the strategic Plan targets flooding could be
have some level of this CFMP. harmful or
dependence on Potential impacts For SPAs, SACs and beneficial to their
or may be upon the fisheries RAMSAR sites our aim nature conservation
affected by the populations of the is to have no interest
water River Nene and its significant detrimental
environment tributaries will be impact on the features The estuarine
and flooding. considered in any for which a site is system of The
We also detailed studies or designated. Where we Wash European
consider the plans arising from can not demonstrate Marine Site
need to this CFMP. that a significant receives the
undertake an detrimental effect is discharged
Appropriate not likely we will floodwaters of the
Assessment for undertake an River Nene and the
Natura 2000 Appropriate other Fenland
sites. Assessment in rivers, and is
accordance with the sensitive to
requirements of the changes in
Habitats Directive. freshwater
volumes, flood
flows and water
quality.
There are
numerous national
and local BAP
priority habitats and
species within the
catchment. Future
flood risk
management
policies may
present
opportunities for
biodiversity gain.
Soils The effect of the - No objectives set Not relevant to the
CFMP policies on CFMP due to the
erosion and low-lying nature of
transport of this catchment
sediment and
gravel, and soil
quality and quality
is not considered
significant due to
the low-lying nature
of the catchment
Water The potential for - Support the In 2005, we
flooding and achievement of assessed the risk of
flood risk good/potential of water bodies in
management to surface bodies under England and Wales
effect the the Water failing to reach the
achievement of Framework Directive WFD objectives.
good ecological We identified that
potential of the River Nene and
Environment Agency
water bodies. its tributaries were
at risk of failing to
The potential for meet its objectives
flooding to effect due to one of more
the quality of of the five
water (e.g. pressures
through flooding assessed (diffuse
of sewers) and point source
pollution, physical/
The potential for morphological
an increase in alteration, water
poor quality flow and regulation,
water (and and alien species)
secondary
impacts on 39 licensed
water potentially polluting
dependent on sources are at risk
designated sites from flooding in the
(SPA, SAC, future.
SSSI, Ramsar)
and BAP
habitats and
species
Environment Agency
Section B4 Assessment and Evaluation of Environmental Effects
B4.1 Strategic options and appraisal process
We have considered six generic options in our policy plan, which are listed in Table B5.
Table B5 – Definition of policy options
Policy option Risk management strategic approach

1. No active intervention (including flood warning and Accept the risk – both current and future
maintenance). Continue to monitor and advise increases in risk
2. Reduce existing flood risk management actions Accept the risk – both current and future
(accepting that flood risk will increase over time) increases in risk
3. Continue with existing or alternative actions to Accept the risk – our current scale of
manage flood risk at the current level (accepting that actions is sufficient to manage the current
flood risk will increase over time from this baseline) risk, and future increases will be acceptable
4. Take further action to sustain current scale of flood Accept the risk – but in the longer term
risk into the future (responding to the potential take action to ensure the risk does not
increases in flood risk from urban development, land increase from current level
use change, and Climate Change).
5. Take further action to reduce flood risk (now and/or Reduce the risk – lower the probability of
in the future) exposure to flooding and/or the magnitude
of the consequences of a flood, and hence
the risk
6. Take action with others to store water or manage Reduce the risk by transferring the risk to
runoff in locations that provide overall flood risk other locations where the risks (typically the
reduction or environmental benefits locally or consequences) are positive
elsewhere in the catchment (which may constitute
an overall flood risk reduction, for example for
habitat inundation).
These options relate to the outcome of flood risk management in terms of the scale of risk and
management activity compared to today. Deciding on the specific measures needed to achieve these
outcomes is not the purpose of the CFMP. However, we do need to appreciate whether or not the
change in risk under a particular policy is generally feasible and desirable in terms of where the water
goes in the catchment. To appreciate this we need to understand how the catchment works in times of
flood so that our policies make sense. The water needs to go somewhere when it floods and we need to
understand that if we prevent water from flooding homes in one location what the knock-on effects would
be in another location.
In order to understand how the catchment works we develop models that can draw on information about
the amount of rainfall and show to some extent how this drains off the land and into the river systems.
We can then consider at a broad scale how the flow of water within the catchment could change over
time with or without management intervention. Of particular importance in driving future changes in flood
risk are:
• the potential impact of climate change on flooding due to increased rainfall and sea level rise;
• the potential impact of new development due to extra run-off from impermeable surfaces as well
as new properties being developed in areas exposed to flooding; and
• the potential impact of changes in land management because this can change the permeability of
the catchment and how the rate at which water drains into the river system
To consider what the future might be like, and thus what the flood risk could be like with no management
intervention, we have considered a number of future scenarios. These scenarios aim to establish what
changes there could be in the three important drivers of change listed above (climate change,
development and land management). To develop reasonable predictions of change we have looked at
past changes and had discussions with our Steering Group to arrive at reasonable projections of what
the future could be like. To consider the impact of climate change on flooding we have used the
Environment Agency
government guidance issued by Defra (Defra/Environment Agency, 2005). A more detailed explanation of
the scenarios used is given in Section 4.2 Scenarios.
Our appraisal of the alternative policies is undertaken by considering how the flow within the catchment
could change in the future. This understanding is done at a high level using our models, complemented
with expert judgement on how water flows through the catchment during times of flood. For example, we
might say that if land management practices changed in the headlands of a catchment, the land would be
more permeable and this would reduce the rate at which rainfall enters the river system downstream.
Such a change in how water flows through the catchment could then reduce the volume of floodwater
downstream (and reduce the frequency of flooding to homes in this downstream location).
Our consideration of how the catchment works, and what the current and future risks are has allowed us
to divide the catchment up into smaller geographical areas that we have called Policy Units. In each
Policy Unit we have considered how the risks arise (using a source-pathway-receptor model) and what
our specific objectives are. We have considered other policies, plans and programmes to see where
there may be objectives and constraints that our plan could contribute to or that we need to take account
of. For example, a biodiversity action plan (BAP) may identify habitat improvement such as creation of
wet grassland. Our investigations could start to show that if the area adjacent to the river corridor was to
flood more frequently, then this could potentially help contribute to achieving the BAP improvements. The
process of SEA encourages us to make these links with other plans so that we can help deliver broader
benefits and reduce conflict between our flood risk management policies and other aspirations. We have
done this during the review of other plans and considered others’ objectives as opportunities or
constraints to our policy development, as an integral part of our appraisal.
B4.2 Assessment and evaluation of impacts
The alternative options have been assessed against objectives that are specific for each policy unit. The
tables set out in Annex A detail this appraisal. These tables identify the losses and gains under each of
the six generic policy options and identify the preferred option for each Policy Unit along with monitoring
requirements. As such they set out the findings of the SEA in relation to the assessment of options.
The preferred options for each Policy Unit are detailed below, and are shown in Figure B4. Where
adjacent Policy Units have the same preferred policies, they have been combined. The Grendon Brook
Villages Policy Unit has been combined into the Upper and Middle Nene catchment Policy Unit as they
both have policy option 2 as the preferred policy.

Upper and Middle Nene catchment 2 - Reduce existing flood risk management actions
River Nene (Weedon to Kislingbury) 6 - Take action with others to store water or manage runoff
in locations that provide overall flood risk reduction or
environmental benefits locally or elsewhere in the
catchment
Wootton 3 - Continue with existing or alternative actions to manage
Northampton Central 4 - Take further action to sustain current scale of flood risk
into the future
Northampton Outer 4 - Take further action to sustain current scale of flood risk
into the future
River Nene Corridor 6 - Take action with others to store water or manage runoff
in locations that provide overall flood risk reduction or
environmental benefits locally or elsewhere in the
catchment
Kettering 4 - Take further action to sustain current scale of flood risk
into the future
Corby 5 - Take further action to reduce flood risk (now and/or in
the future)
Wellingborough 4 - Take further action to sustain current scale of flood risk
into the future
Rushden and Raunds 4 - Take further action to sustain current scale of flood risk
Environment Agency
into the future
Thrapston 3 - Continue with existing or alternative actions to manage
Barnwell 3 - Continue with existing or alternative actions to manage
River Nene (Oundle to Water Newton) 3 - Continue with existing or alternative actions to manage
4 - Take further action to sustain current scale of flood risk
Peterborough and the Nene Washes
into the future
The Fens 4 - Take further action to sustain current scale of flood risk
into the future
Environment Agency
Figure B4 Policy Units and preferred policies
Environment Agency
Annex B provides a summary of the findings of the appropriate assessment, related to the
Habitats Directive. Table B6 identifies the findings of appropriate assessments and
summarises the justification we provide for pursuing a potentially damaging option (our
reasons for overriding public interest) and our commitment to mitigation and compensation for
the potential habitat damage.
Information on mitigation and enhancement measures related to the preferred policy option
identified for each policy unit is set out in Section B4.4.
A full appraisal of each policy option for each policy unit is provided in Annex A to this
appendix (Policy Appraisal Tables (Forms 12)).
At this level of plan, the mitigation and enhancement measures are integral to the policy
appraisal. Where we have the potential to enhance the environment we have included this
potential within the appraisal objectives. Mitigation measures at this level are generally
included as part of the policy options, so that a less detrimental impact will tend to be an
alternative policy option. We therefore can not identify any further specific mitigation
measures at the policy level. At a lower level in our planning hierarchy, when we are
investigating the details of how we will implement flood risk management measures, we will
be undertaking an appropriate level of environmental assessment which will, in turn, identify
more relevant mitigation measures to the impacts arising.
Table B6 Summary of Appropriate Assessment requirements for Natura 2000

(European) sites
Policy Unit and sites Findings of the Appropriate Justification for pursuit of
at risk Assessment undertaken option and commitment to
mitigation and compensation
Upper and Middle Nene Not likely to have a significant effect. No justification required.
Catchment
There are no Natura 2000 sites in the
Policy Unit. In addition, any potential
impact of the preferred policy option on
downstream policy units has been
incorporated into the policy choice for
those units. This has been taken into
account in this assessment.
Barnwell Not likely to have a significant effect. No justification required.

River Nene (Weedon to Not likely to have a significant effect. No justification required
Kislingbury)
Policy Unit. The preferred policy option
may benefit downstream policy units
and Natura 2000 sites (particularly
Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits
pSPA/Ramsar site) by creating
upstream flood storage.
Wootton Not likely to have a significant effect. No justification required

Environment Agency
Northampton Central Potential to result in damage (through A Flood Storage Study will
excessive flooding) to the habitats of the investigate the creation of
- Upper Nene Valley designated species: upstream storage in the River
Gravel Pits - Birds of lowland wet grasslands; Nene (Weedon to Kislingbury)
pSPA/Ramsar - Birds of lowland freshwaters and their policy unit. This could reduce the
margins. risk of excessive flooding of the
site, particularly the pits located in
Assessment concludes adverse effect Northampton Central.
on site integrity but conditions or
restrictions can be applied to avoid this. The CFMP Action Plan’s
Environmental Enhancement
Project, and Resilience and
Resistance Project, will aim to
manage the risk to the designated
species.
Proposals in the Action Plan for

policies in the Local Development
Framework to link flood risk
management planning with
regeneration and redevelopment,
could minimise the potential for in-
combination effects.
Northampton Outer Not likely to have a significant effect. No justification required

River Nene Corridor Potential to result in damage (through A Flood Storage Study will
excessive flooding) to the habitats of the investigate the creation of
- Upper Nene Valley designated species: upstream storage in the River
Gravel Pits - Birds of lowland wet grasslands; Nene (Weedon to Kislingbury)
pSPA/Ramsar - Birds of lowland freshwaters and their policy unit. This could reduce the
margins. risk of excessive flooding of the
site.
Assessment concludes adverse effect
on site integrity but conditions or The CFMP Action Plan’s
restrictions can be applied to avoid this. Environmental Enhancement
Project, and Resilience and
The preferred policy option may benefit Resistance Project, will aim to
downstream policy units and Natura manage the risk to the designated
2000 sites (particularly the Nene species.
Washes SAC/SPA/Ramsar site) by
creating upstream flood storage. Proposals in the Action Plan for
policies in the Local Development
Framework to link flood risk
management planning with
regeneration and redevelopment,
could minimise the potential for in-
Environment Agency
combination effects.
River Nene Corridor Potential for changes in river flow to The CFMP Action Plan’s
result in damage to the following Environmental Enhancement
- The Wash
designated features of the site, as a Project, and Resilience and
SPA/Ramsar site, and
result of changes to freshwater input: Resistance Project, can investigate
The Wash and North
- Estuarine and intertidal habitats; the potential changes in river flow
Norfolk Coast SAC
- Submerged marine habitats; and the subsequent potential for
(Indirectly)
- Large shallow bay and inter- an effect downstream in the Wash.
relationships between its
components;
- Birds of coastal habitats;
- Birds of estuarine habitats.
Potential for in-combination effects with

the CFMPs for the Great Ouse, River
Welland and River Witham.
Assessment concludes potential for

likely significant effect but cannot
ascertain (due to uncertainty) that it will
not adversely affect site integrity.
Kettering Not likely to have a significant effect. No justification required

Corby Not likely to have a significant effect. No justification required

Wellingborough Not likely to have a significant effect. No justification required

Rushden and Raunds Not likely to have a significant effect. No justification required

Environment Agency
Thrapston Not likely to have a significant effect. No justification required

River Nene (Oundle to Not likely to have a significant effect. No justification required
Water Newton)
downstream policy units (particularly
Peterborough and the Nene Washes)
has been incorporated into the policy
choice for those units. This has been
taken into account in this assessment.
Peterborough and The Potential to result in damage to the Continued implementation of the
Nene Washes following designated features of the site: Nene Washes Water Level
- Non-migratory fish and invertebrates of Management Plan, combined with
- Nene Washes (SAC; rivers; careful strategy and scheme
SPA/Ramsar) - Birds of lowland wet grasslands; design, including the use of
- Birds of lowland freshwaters and their upstream storage areas
margins ; (particularly in the River Nene
- Nationally important wetland plant Corridor) can avoid an increase in
species; flood risk to the site.
- Nationally important wetland
invertebrate species
Assessment concludes adverse effect

on site integrity but conditions or
restrictions can be applied to avoid this.
Peterborough and The Potential to result in damage to the The CFMP Action Plan aims to
Nene Washes following designated features of the site- establish an Environmental
- Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with Enhancement Project for Orton Pit,
- Orton Pit SAC benthic vegetation of Chara spp. to investigate any changes in
- Great crested newt Triturus cristatus conditions and to recommend
changes in management.
adverse effect on site integrity but
conditions or restrictions can be applied
to avoid this.
Peterborough and the Potential for changes in river flow to The Action Plan for The Fens
Nene Washes result in damage to the following recognises the sensitivity of The
designated features of the site, as a Wash to flow of water draining
- The Wash result of changes to freshwater input: from the River Nene and will take
Environment Agency
SPA/Ramsar site, and - Estuarine and intertidal habitats; this into account.
The Wash and North - Submerged marine habitats;
Norfolk Coast SAC - Large shallow bay and inter-
(Indirectly) relationships between its
components;


The Fens Potential for changes in river flow to The Action Plan recognises the
result in damage to the following sensitivity of The Wash to flow of
- The Wash designated features of the site, as a water draining from the River Nene
SPA/Ramsar site, and result of changes to freshwater input: and will take this into account in
The Wash and North - Estuarine and intertidal habitats; the formulation of actions in The
Norfolk Coast SAC - Submerged marine habitats; Fens policy unit.
(Indirectly) - Large shallow bay and inter-
relationships between its
components;


B4.3 Cumulative environmental effects
SEA requires assessment of cumulative and synergistic effects. This section sets out the
significant environmental effects of the plan as a whole, which have been considered in
relation to each of the environmental objectives. It goes on to consider the environmental
effects of potential interactions between the CFMP and relevant plans and programmes within
the catchment. These findings are summarised in Table B7.
Table B7 Summary of cumulative effects
Objective Cumulative effects across the Interaction of CFMP with

whole plan area relevant Policies, Plans and
(sum of Policy Unit impacts) Programmes
To minimise flood People affected: baseline = 4183, future Potential effects of further
related risks to the scenario = 4298. This represents a 3% development, particularly on the
population increase if CFMP policies are floodplain in the Upper and Middle
implemented in the future (including Nene catchment and the River
Environment Agency
allowing for climate change). Nene (Weedon to Kislingbury)
Policy Units. Need to consult with
The number of people at risk from the Local Authorities.
flooding will slightly increase in the future
in most Policy Units. The most significant The Regional Spatial Strategy for
increases will result where flood risk will the East Midlands, the East of
be allowed to increase, for example, in the England Plan and Local
Upper and Middle Nene catchment Policy Development Documents have
Unit (including Grendon Brook Villages); policies to prohibit/restrict
where the number of people affected will development in areas at risk of
increase by 391. The River Nene flooding and for development to
(Weedon to Kislingbury) Policy Unit will take flood risk management
see an increase of 73 people affected by issues into account.
flooding. In Corby, where the preferred
policy is to reduce flood risk, the number
of people at risk from flooding will
decrease by 86% (720 people).
To minimise risks to Critical infrastructure affected by flooding Potential effects of increase in

critical infrastructure (1% AEP): critical infrastructure associated
and community facilities with further development,
Electricity substations: baseline = 22, particularly on the floodplain in the
future scenarios = 38. This represents a Upper and Middle Nene
73% increase if CFMP polices are catchment, and the River Nene
implemented in the future (including (Weedon to Kislingbury) Policy
allowing for climate change). Where flood Units. Need to consult with the
risk will be allowed to increase, for Local Authorities.
example, in the Upper and Middle Nene
(including Grendon Brook Villages), the The Regional Spatial Strategy for
number of substations affected will the East Midlands, the East of
increase by 4. In Corby, where the England Plan and Local
preferred policy is to reduce flood risk, the Development Documents have
number of substations affected will policies to prohibit/restrict
increase by 9. development in areas at risk of
flooding and for development to
Water and sewage treatment plants: take flood defence issues into
baseline = 10, future scenarios = 14. This account.
represents a 40% increase if CFMP
policies are implemented in the future
(including allowing for climate change).
Where flood risk will be allowed to
increase in the Upper and Middle Nene
catchment Policy Unit (including Grendon
Brook Villages), the number of sites
affected will increase by 3.
Waste Management Sites: baseline = 5,

future scenarios = 6. This represents one
additional site at risk from flooding if
CFMP policies are implemented in the
future (including allowing for climate
change). Flood risk to a site in Corby is
reduced if the CFMP policies are
implemented. However, where flood risk
will be allowed to increase in the Upper
and Middle Nene Policy Unit (including
Grendon Brook Villages, an additional site
Environment Agency
will become at risk.
Integrated Pollution Prevention Control

(IPPC) sites: baseline = 1, future
scenarios = 2. This represents a 100%
increase if CFMP policies are
implemented in the future (including
allowing for climate change). In the River
Nene (Weedon to Kislingbury) Policy Unit
there will be an additional IPPC site at
risk.
Transport infrastructure affected by

flooding (1% AEP):
Main roads: baseline = 25 roads, future

scenarios = 21 roads. This represents a
16% decrease if CFMP policies are
allowing for climate change). In Corby,
where the preferred policy is to reduce
flood risk, the A6116, A6086, A427 and
A6014 will no longer be at risk from
flooding if the CFMP policies are
implemented.
Railways: At both the current and future

risk 4 railway lines will be affected by
flooding.
Canal: At both the current and future risk

the Grand Union Canal will be at risk
from flooding in the River Nene (Weedon
to Kislingbury) and the Upper and Middle
Nene catchment Policy Units.
Community facilities affected by flooding

(1% AEP): baseline = 1 hospital, 1 care
home, and 1 emergency response centre
are at risk, future scenarios = 1 hospital, 1
care home, and 2 emergency response
centres.
To minimise community Total Properties affected by flooding (1% Potential effects of further
disruption from flooding AEP event): baseline = 2100 future development, particularly on the
scenarios = 2236. This represents a 6% floodplain in the Upper and Middle
increase if CFMP policies are Nene catchment Policy Unit.
implemented in the future (including Need to consult with the Local
allowing for climate change). These Authorities.
figures included both commercial and
residential properties. The Regional Spatial Strategy for
the East Midlands, the East of
Residential Properties affected by flooding England Plan and Local
(1% AEP event): baseline = 1672 future Development Documents have
scenarios = 1718. This represents a 3% policies to prohibit/restrict
increase if CFMP policies are development in areas at risk of
implemented in the future (including flooding and for development to
Environment Agency
allowing for climate change). take flood defence issues into
account.
Commercial Properties affected by
flooding (1% AEP event): baseline = 428
future scenarios = 518. This represents a
21% increase if CFMP policies are
Most of the Policy Units see a small

increase in the amount of commercial and
residential properties affected by flooding
in the future. For example, in the Upper
and Middle Nene catchment Policy Unit
(including Grendon Brook Villages) the
total number of properties affected will
increase by 53% (176 properties) where
the preferred policy is to allow flood risk to
increase.
There will be small decreases in the

number of total properties affected Corby
(65% or 249 properties), and River Nene
Corridor (2% or 1 property) Policy Units.
To minimise economic Total damages (1% AEP event): baseline Potential effects of further
impacts of flooding = £138.7M, future scenarios = £172.5M. development, particularly on the
This represents a 24% increase in floodplain in the Upper and Middle
damages if CFMP policies are Nene catchment Policy Unit.
implemented (including allowing for Need to consult with the Local
climate change). These figures include Authorities.
both residential and commercial
damages. The Regional Spatial Strategy for
the East Midlands, the East of
Residential damages (1% AEP event): England Plan and Local
baseline = £30.1M, future scenario = Development Documents have
£38.7M. This represents a 28% increase if policies to prohibit/restrict
CFMP policies are implemented (including development in areas at risk of
allowing for climate change) flooding and for development to
take flood risk management
Commercial damages (1% AEP event): issues into account.
baseline = £108.6M, future scenario =
£133.8M. This represents a 23% increase
if CFMP policies are implemented
(including allowing for climate change)
Most of the Policy Units see a small
increase in the amount of damages to
commercial and residential properties as
a result of flooding in the future. For
example, in the Upper and Middle Nene
Catchment (including Grendon Brook
Villages) the level of damages will
increase by 62% (£9M) where the
preferred policy is to allow flood risk to
increase.
There will be small decreases in the

Environment Agency
amount of damages in The Fens (76% or
£1M), Rushden and Raunds (18% or
£2M), and River Nene Corridor (27% or
£1M) Policy Units.
Area of Grade 1 Agricultural Land affected

by flooding (1% AEP event): baseline =
12ha, future scenarios = 12ha. This
represents no change in the area
affected if CFMP policies are
implemented (including allowing for
climate change).
Area of Grade 2 Agricultural Land affected

by flooding (1% AEP event): baseline =
823ha, future scenarios 923ha. This
represents a 12% increase in the area of
land affected if CFMP policies are
implemented (including allowing for
climate change).
Where flood risk will be allowed to

increase, for example, in the Upper and
Middle Nene catchment Policy Unit
(including Grendon Brook Villages) the
area of Grade 2 agricultural land affected
by flooding will increase by 54ha.The
River Nene (Oundle to Water Newton)
Policy Unit will see an increase of 10%
(43ha) of the area of Grade 2 agricultural
land affected by flooding.
There will be small increases in the area

of grade 2 land affected by flooding in
Wooton (100% or 2ha), and River Nene
(Weedon to Kislingbury) (100% or 1ha)
Policy Units.
Ensure future Overall, EA expenditure would increase

investment in the due to cost of constructing additional flood
catchment is defences, and flood storage.
proportional to the risks
Protect and enhance Overall, there is likely to be a small Potential interaction between the
significant historic increase in the number of Registered CFMP and the Regional Spatial
environment assets and Parks and Gardens, Scheduled Strategy for the East Midlands,
their settings Monuments, and Conservation Areas the East of England Plan, and
affected by flooding if the CFMP policies Local Development Documents.
are implemented (including allowing for Need to consult with Statutory
climate change). These increases are Authorities.
concentrated in the Upper and Middle
Nene catchment Policy Unit (including
Grendon Brook Villages), where flood risk
will be allowed to increase.
Protect and contribute An assessment of future changes in flood Potential interaction between the
to the improvement of risk for the designated nature CFMP and the Regional Spatial
designated nature conservation sites within the catchment Strategy for the East Midlands,
Environment Agency
conservation sites has identified that two additional SSSIs (in the East of England Plan, Local
(SSSI, SPA, SAC and addition to the 18 sites currently affected) Development Documents,
Ramsar) will in the future be potentially affected, Abstraction management
albeit to a very limited degree, by flooding Strategies, Water Cycle
during events with a less than 1% annual Strategies, Water Level
probability of occurring. These sites are Management Plans, SSSI, SPA,
Bozeat Meadows SSSI (3% of the area SAC and Ramsar management
would be affected in the future) and plans. Need to consult with
Wansford Pasture SSSI (3% of the area Statutory Authorities.
would be affected in the future).
There is a potential for in-
For the majority of designated sites, the combination effects on The Wash
predicted increase in flood extent is European site as a result of
minimal. Significant increases in flood risk interaction between the CFMPs
are predicted, relative to the current for the River Nene, the Great
situation, for a limited number of sites Ouse, the River Welland and the
such as the River Ise and Meadows SSSI River Witham.
and Orton Pit SAC.
Any increased flooding in the future is

likely to have both beneficial and adverse
effects, depending on the sensitivity of the
site to flooding and the timing and
magnitude of future flooding events. For
example, although increased flooding
could potentially increase the extent of
wetland habitat in the Upper Nene Valley
Gravel Pits SSSI/potential SPA, and
Wadenhoe Marsh and Achurch Meadow
SSSI, to the benefit of these sites; the
timing of flooding is critical, as flooding in
spring or early summer could be
detrimental to breeding birds.
Potential future changes to the flow

patterns of the River Nene could have
effects on The Wash European site
through changes in the pattern of
freshwater input to the estuary.
Enhance the Increased flooding presents further Potential interaction between the
biodiversity of the opportunities to improve the quality, CFMP and Local Biodiversity
catchment by improving extent and connectivity of riparian and Action Plans for
the quality of the river wetland habitats and associated species Northamptonshire,
environment and within the catchment, including those Cambridgeshire, Lincolnshire and
contributing to UK targeted for action under the UK BAP at Norfolk, and Habitat Action Plans.
Biodiversity Action Plan both a national and local level. Flooding Need to consult with Statutory
targets will provide opportunities for the Authorities.
expansion and improvement of wetland
and wet grassland habitats and
associated species throughout the
floodplain. However, terrestrial BAP
habitats such as dry grasslands,
woodlands, heathlands and species would
be adversely affected by occasional flood
events and in particular, by periods of
frequent or prolonged flooding.
Environment Agency
Support the Most of the Policy Units are currently Potential interaction between the
achievement of good assessed as being at risk of not meeting CFMP and the Regional Spatial
status/potential of the WFD objectives. Increases in the Strategy for the East Midlands,
surface and frequency and extent of flooding in the the East of England Plan, and
groundwater bodies future may increase the levels of Local Development Documents.
under the WFD pollutants from urban areas and adjacent Need to consult with Statutory
agricultural land. However, sustaining or Authorities.
reducing flood risk may prevent potential
adverse effects on water quality from
point and diffuse sources. This could
provide environmental improvements
helping to achieve WFD objectives.
It is apparent from Table B7 that the selected policies do not succeed in attaining all the
objectives of the policy appraisal. Generally, the policies lead to an increase in flood risk over
the current level. However, the increase is significantly less than the approximate doubling of
flood risk that would occur were we to continue with our current flood management practice.
The reduced impact of flooding in the future is achieved by introducing policies which are
appropriate to the scale of the future flood risk in each policy unit. Where the scale is
significant, our policies aim to avoid an increase or, in the case of Corby, to reduce it. In the
Policy Units where the scale of the increase is less significant, our policies generally allow
flood risk to increase. The aggregated effect across the catchment of changing our current
policies in this way is to allow the overall flood risk to increase but, as noted, not to the extent
were we to continue our current flood risk management practice.
B4.4 Mitigation and enhancement
At this level of policy making, where we are setting the direction for future actions, the
mitigation and enhancement measures are integral to the policy appraisal. Where we have
the potential to enhance the environment we have included this potential within the appraisal
as opportunities. Mitigation measures at this level are generally included as part of the policy
options, so that a less detrimental impact will tend to be implicit within an alternative policy
option. At a lower level in our planning hierarchy, when we are investigating the details of how
we will implement flood risk management measures, we will be undertaking an appropriate
level of environmental assessment and consultation which will, in turn, identify more relevant
mitigation measures to the impacts arising. We will use the assessment of impacts
undertaken at this level to help focus our lower levels of decision making, ensuring that
relevant mitigation and enhancement measures are explored fully.
Where Table B7 identifies potential benefits / impacts between the CFMP and other plans /
programmes operating within the catchment we will take this into account when developing
further proposals, as set out above.
B4.5 Monitoring requirements
SEA requires significant environmental effects related to the implementation of the plan to be
monitored. Information on the monitoring requirements related to the implementation of the
CFMP is included in the appraisal tables presented in Annex A and referenced in Section
B4.2.
Environment Agency
Annex A: Policy Appraisal
The impacts of flooding reported in the policy appraisal are those that would be caused by the 1%
AEP flood, except where noted.
Environment Agency
Upper and Middle Nene
Environment Agency
Form 12.5 Summary of current and future levels of and response to flood risk
Policy unit: Upper and Middle Nene
Current responses to Defences
flood risk within the
policy unit? The Upper and Middle Nene policy unit area benefits from of
flooding storage schemes upstream along the River Ise, Harpers
Brook and Swanspool Brook.
• Great Oakley flood storage reservoir, EA responsibility
• Geddington flood relief channel, EA responsibility
• Clipston flood storage reservoir, EA responsibility
• Potentially some informal/ private defences.
Flood Warning
The Upper and Middle Nene policy unit is covered by a number of
flood watch and flood warning areas.
Primary Dissemination method: FWD
• River Nene and Tributaries from Daventry to Kislingbury –
trigger sites Dodford, Brixworth. Rate of uptake in this flood
warning area is 53.85%.
• River Nene and tributaries in Northampton, including low-lying
areas adjacent to the river – trigger sites Victoria Park,
Towcester Road Bridge and South Bridge. Rate of uptake in
this flood warning area is 7.31%.
• River Ise and tributaries from Clipston to Wellingborough –
trigger site Barford Bridge. Rate of uptake in this flood
• River Nene tributaries between Thrapston and the Dog-in-a-
Doublet sluice in Peterborough – trigger sites Harrowden and
Harpers Brook. Rate of uptake in this flood warning area is
49.08%.
• Willow Brook in Weldon and Kings Cliffe – trigger site Willow
Brook FSR. Rate of uptake in this flood warning area is
74.07%.
• Harpers Brook in Sudborough – trigger site Harpers Brook.
Rate of uptake in this flood warning area is 61.11%.
• River Nene between Thrapston and the Dog-in-a-Doublet
sluice to the east of Peterborough – trigger sites Islip and
Lilford. Rate of uptake in this flood warning area is 7.75%.
• River Nene between Wansford and the Dog-in-a-Doublet
sluice to the east of Peterborough – trigger site Wansford.
• River Nene and tributaries from Billing to Thrapston – trigger
sites Washlands and Southbridge. Rate of uptake in this flood
485 people (194 residential properties) can apply for flood

warnings within the policy unit.
Maintenance
• Maintenance activities along the main rivers include, with
annual expenditure:
• Control of vegetation to maintain channel capacity; £156k.
• Inspection of assets and operations, £15.4k.
• Maintenance of structures, £14.5k.
With these and other maintenance activities, the maintenance
budget for 2006/07 was £229k. Other activities in this policy unit
included, for that year, £1.6k on environmental management and
£19.7k on incident response.
Environment Agency
Standards of service Great Oakley flood storage reservoir provides protection to

that apply to flood Brigstock and Sudborough on the Harpers Brook, and has a
defences within the standard of protection equal to the 4% event.
policy unit?
Geddington flood relief channel has a standard of protection equal
to the 1% flood event.
The standard of protection of Clipston flood storage reservoir is

unknown.
What is currently Social
exposed to flooding?
Fluvial flooding from the tributaries of the River Nene in the upper
and middle catchment. These include the River Ise, Brampton
and Whilton Branches of the River Nene, Harpers Brook, Willow
Brook, Wootton Brook and Alledge Brook. Duration of flooding is
typically less than 24 hours, and in many cases much less than
this. Depths and velocities vary, though depths are generally low
(< 0.5m typically, though up to 1m in some areas).
578 people affected by flooding at 1% AEP flood (people affected

equates to 13.5% of the total people affected in the catchment).
A moderate number of properties (approx. 80) at risk of frequent

flooding (10% AEP flood), serious flooding occurs relatively
infrequently (1% AEP flood).
283 properties are affected at the 1% flood event: 231 residential,

52 commercial (properties affected equates to 13.2% of the total
properties affected in the catchment).
Social impact: Moderate - typically SFVI category 3
Infrastructure
Critical Infrastructure affected by flooding:

• Electricity Sub-stations/power supply: 1
• Sewage Treatment Works (STW): 3 - Wittering STW,
Brixworth STW, Newnham STW
Transport Infrastructure affected by flooding:

• Local, regional and national disruptions to transport
infrastructure.
• The West Coast Mainline (London to Birmingham) is affected
by flooding at 1% event probability.
• The Grand Union Canal Northampton Branch is affected by
flooding at the 1% event probability.
• Roads: A6003, A43, A6, A508, A14, A5199, A428, A425, A5,
A361, A509, A45, A605 are affected by flooding at the 1%
event probability. There is a risk of the M1 flooding at a
number of locations between Colingtree and Watford Gap.
No community facilities affected by flooding
Economic
Total damages incurred £10.70m: £5.99m residential and £4.71m

commercial (damages equates to 7.7% of the total damages for
Environment Agency
the catchment).
AAD: £1.01m
Percentage of agricultural land affected currently:

- Grade 1: 0%
- Grade 2: 1.1%
Environmental
Historic Environment:
Conservation Areas (22):
• Brigstock
• Bulwick
• Cranford
• Cransley
• Geddington
• Grafton Underwood
• Kings Cliffe
• Sudborough
• Rushton
• Pipewell
• Polebrook
• Mears Ashby
• Lower Benefield
• Little Oakley
• Everdon
• Lower Harlestone
• Brockhall
• Moulton
• Grand Union Canal
• Cottesbrooke
• Blisworth
• Thornhaugh
Registered Parks and Gardens (12):

• Hinwick Hall
• Hinwick House
• Althorp
• Boughton Hall
• Deene Park
• Fawsley Hall
• Horton Hall
• Kirby Hall
• Brockhall Park
• Cottesbrooke Hall
• Rushton Hall
• Boughton House
Scheduled Monuments (14):

• Nn183 Roman Villa
• Nn144 Roman Timber Bridge Over Harper Brook
• Nn193 Remains of Shrunken Medieval Village
• Nn5 Geddington Bridge
• Nn60 Everdon Bridge
• 13656 Place House Moat And Fishpond
• 13621 Stoke Doyle Moated Site, Near Oundle.
Environment Agency
• 13624 Calender Monastic Grange At Cottesbrooke
• 13652 Muscott deserted medieval village and double
moated site
• 17152 Remains Of A Moated Monastic Retreat House,
Manorial Courthouse And Inn
• 17158 Kirby Hall: An Elizabethan Country House And
Gardens And The Remains Of The Medieval Village Of Kirby
• 30074 Kelmarsh Medieval Settlement
• 30075 Cistercian Abbey And Medieval Settlement At
Pipewell
• PE201 Site revealed by aerial photography W of Sutton
Heath
national ecological sites:

• Site area 2.2ha. 64% of area (1.4ha) affected due to flooding.
Current condition status: 100 per cent unfavourable due to
inappropriate weed control. No relevant management
actions.
• Effect of flooding: Positive - Increased flooding would be
beneficial to the marsh communities.

• Site area 17.2ha. 16% of area affected by flooding (2.7ha).
100 per cent unfavourable recovering where grazing regime
was previously the problem.
• Effect of flooding: Neutral - Area at risk of flooding is relatively
small, and consequences of flooding unlikely to have any
significant impacts on either community.

Current condition status: 100 percent unfavourable due to
inappropriate ditch management, under grazing and
inappropriate weed control.
• Effect of flooding: Positive - Increased flooding could
potentially increase the extent of this habitat within and
beyond the site.

Current condition status: 54 per cent unfavourable (meadow
habitats) due to agricultural management.
• Effect of flooding: Neutral - Positive - Increased flooding
would be beneficial to flood meadow habitats.

• Site area 413.1ha. 100% area affected by flooding. Current
condition status: 100 per cent favourable but highly sensitive
to changes in Anglian Water Services pumping regime.
• Effect of flooding: Neutral - However, potential for flooding in
the spring or early summer to be detrimental to breeding birds
along the margins.
Bonemills Hollow SSSI

• Site area 17.5ha. 17% area affected by flooding (3.0ha).
Environment Agency
Current condition status: 81% unfavourable recovering.
Marsh plant communities may benefit from flooding.
Whitewater Valley SSSI

Current condition status: 94% unfavourable recovering.
Effect of flooding may be positive to wetland plant
communities.
West, Abbot’s & Lounds Woods SSSI

Current condition status 64% unfavourable declining.
Increased flooding may be beneficial to wet woodland and
wet grassland habitats.
Extent and distribution of BAP habitats:
Lowland Heath
Area At Risk Current: 3ha
% Area At Risk Current: 2%
Lowland Dry Acid Grassland

Fens
Undetermined Grassland:
Lowland Meadows:
Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland:

% Area At Risk Current: <1%
Lowland Calcareous Grassland:

Total Area In PU: 126ha

The River Nene is designated as a Sensitive Area (Eutrophic)
under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive.
The entire length of main river is a ‘heavily modified water body’
Environment Agency
and is classified as at risk.
Applicable factors: Point source pollution, diffuse
pollution, physical or morphological alterations, alien
species.
Who and what are Social

currently most • 578 people affected by flooding.
vulnerable to flood • A moderate number of properties at risk of frequent flooding.
damage and losses? Economic
• Moderate economic damages, though spread across large
area.
Environmental
• 21 Conservation Areas at risk at current 1% AEP flood.
• 12 Parks and Gardens at risk at current 1% AEP flood.
• 11 Scheduled Monuments at risk at current 1% AEP flood.
• Four ecologically designated sites are flooded to a large
extent (>50%) at the current 1% AEP flood, and a further two
to a lesser extent.
What are the key Climate Change – climate change is predicted to cause an
factors that could drive increase in peak river flows that will increase flood risk in the
future flood risk? future in this policy unit. An increase in peak flows of 15% is
assumed in this policy unit.
Rural Land Use – it was assumed that rural land use practices will
not cause significant change to the flood risk in the future.
Urban Growth – urban growth is unlikely to lead to a significant

increase in flood risk in the future in this policy unit.
What are the possible Social

future levels of flood
risk under the main In the future there will be small increases in the depth, duration
scenarios? and velocity of flooding from the tributaries of the River Nene in
the upper and middle catchment. Minor increases in the duration
and velocity will occur, with more significant increases in depths in
some areas. In general depths will remain moderate to low, less
than 1m, though may be higher in some areas.
847 people affected by flooding (people affected equates to 9.4%

of the total people affected in the catchment). This figure
indicates a 46.6% increase in people affected from the current 1%
AEP flood.
Total properties affected 407: 339 residential, 69 commercial

(properties affected equates to 9.6% of the total properties
affected in the catchment). This figure indicates a 44.2% increase
in properties affected at the current 1% AEP flood.
Infrastructure

• Sewage Treatment Works (STW): 4 - Wittering STW,
Brixworth STW, Newnham STW affected at present. Hollowell
STW also becomes affected.
• Waste Management Sites: 1 (Other Non-Hazardous Waste
Environment Agency
Site)

• The West Coast Mainline (London to Birmingham) is affected
by flooding at 1% event probability.
• The Grand Union Canal Northampton Branch is present and
is affected by flooding at the 1% event probability.
• Roads: A6003, A43, A6, A508, A14, A5199, A428, A425, A5,
A361, A509, A45, A605 are affected by flooding at the 1%
event probability. There is an increased risk of the M1
flooding at a number of locations between Colingtree and
Watford Gap compared with the present.
Flooding of transport infrastructure likely to see a small increase

in duration, depth and velocity of flooding in the future compared
with present.
Community facilities affected by flooding:

• Emergency Response Centres: 1 (Watford Gap Police
Outstation)
Economic
Total damages incurred £22.38m: £7.23m residential, £15.15m

the catchment). This figure is a 109.1% increase in damages
incurred from the current 1% AEP flood.
AAD: £2.75m
Percentage of agricultural land affected in the future:

- Grade 1: 0%
- Grade 2: 1.4%
Environmental
Increase in depth of flooding at 22 Conservation Areas affected at
present. Increase in depth of up to 1.2m. Most suffer only minor
increases in area flooded (<10% increase typically).
3 additional Conservation Areas (Fotherighay, Warkton,

Southorpe) also become affected during a future 1% AEP flood.
Increase in depth of flooding at the 12 Registered Parks and

Gardens affected at present. Increase in depth of flooding of up to
1.2m. Most suffer only minor increases in area flooded (<10%
increase typically).
In addition to the 12 Registered Parks and Gardens affected at

present, a small area of Milton Hall becomes affected in the future
1% event.
Increase in depth of flooding at the 14 Scheduled Monuments

flooded at present. Increase in depth of flooding typically less than
1.2m. Increase in area of feature flooded typically less than 10%.
2 further Scheduled Monuments (Geddington Cross (17155) and

Late 16th Century house, garden and Dovecote (21675)) also
Environment Agency
become affected in the future 1% event.
International ecological sites:

• Small increase in area of land flooded. 1.6ha (73% of the site)
is flooded. Effect of flooding is positive.

is flooded.

• Site area 4.1ha. 2ha affected by flooding at future 1% AEP
flood which equates to an increase of 1ha.
• Effect of flooding: Positive

• Site area 13.5ha. 10.1ha affected by flooding at future 1%
AEP flood which equates to an increase of 4.4ha affected.

• No change in area of designated site affected by flooding at
future 1% AEP flood when compared to current levels
Bonemills Hollow SSSI

is flooded.
Whitewater Valley SSSI

is flooded.
West, Abbot’s & Lounds Woods SSSI

is flooded.
Lowland Heath
Area At Risk Future: 4ha
% Area At Risk Future: 3%, increase of 0.7ha on current 1%
event.
Lowland Dry Acid Grassland

Area At Risk Future: 4.ha
% Area At Risk Future: 10%, increase of 1ha on current 1%
event.
Fens
% Area At Risk Future: 13%, no increase on current.
Environment Agency
% Area At Risk Future: 15%
Undetermined Woodland:
% Area At Risk Future 0%
Lowland Meadows:
Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland:

% Area At Risk Future: <1%

% Area At Risk Future: 6%, increase of 1ha on current 1%
What potential • Best farming practices
responses (or groups • River maintenance
of responses) are • Defences (to restrict floodplain)
being considered to • Localised defences
manage flood risk? • Flood warning & evacuation
• Studies
• Emergency Response plans
What gaps and • There is uncertainty in the assumption that future
uncertainties are there development will not take place on floodplains.
in knowledge and what • The analysis of flood risk in parts of this policy unit has largely
assumptions have been carried out using our JFLOW flood extents. Therefore
been made? the results in this policy unit may be less reliable than for
other policy units.
• Number of people affected calculated by using a multiplier of
2.5 on each residential property at risk
• Current and future flood risk given here is solely for fluvial
risk. Surface water and groundwater flooding are difficult to
quantify and as such have not been quantified here.
• The nature of the modelling carried out in this policy unit
means that velocities are difficult to quantify accurately.
Velocities have been considered in a qualitative way instead.
• There is uncertainty in the generation of the hydrographs of
the 1% AEP flood.
• The future level of flood risk is only an estimate – the level of
climate change and other drivers, and responses of the
catchment to these changes are subject to significant
uncertainties.
• There is uncertainty in the costs assumed for future flood risk
management.
• There is uncertainty in the influence of sediment erosion and
deposition.
• The elevation grid used to calculate flood depths in this policy
Environment Agency
unit is less accurate than in other parts of the catchment. As
such the results here may be less reliable.
• The precise impact of flooding on transport infrastructure is
often difficult to determine. Linear features such as roads and
railway lines are often raised above the floodplain on
embankments. Using broadscale modelling it can be difficult
to accurately determine whether or not these features are
flooded, and to what depth they may be flooded.
Environment Agency
POLICY UNIT 1: UPPER AND MIDDLE NENE
Generic Response: Policy 1 – Stop maintenance leading to decrease in conveyance
Description: In this policy unit some of the watercourses were modelled using our
broadscale model, whilst the impact of flooding for areas beyond the boundaries of the
broadscale model was determined using Flood Zones 2 and 3. The reaches that were
modelled include: the upper Wootton Brook, lower parts of the Brampton Branch, the upper
River Ise, Harpers Brook and Willow Brook. Policy 1 was simulated on these reaches by
assuming an increase in channel and floodplain roughness of 20%. Stopping maintenance
would result in a reduction in conveyance that can be approximated by increasing the
roughness coefficient by 20%. For areas beyond the boundaries of the broad-scale model, it
was not possible to model the impact of a reduction in conveyance caused by ceasing
maintenance. Therefore it was assumed that the change in damages, number of people
affected etc. compared with the baseline is the same as for the modelled reaches.
Base case conditions (current 1% AEP flood)
People at risk Properties at risk Economic Environmental
578 283 £10.70 million 8 SSSIs affected
Generic response results (future 1% AEP flood)
(+61%) (+57%) (+ 141%)
Conclusions
Cost: Nothing – no active intervention
Conclusion: Ceasing maintenance under this policy would lead to an increase in channel
obstructions and more frequent flooding out of bank. The modelling of this generic response
has shown a significant increase in flood risk.

Generic Response: Policy 2 – Reduced maintenance leading to decrease in
conveyance
River Ise, Harpers Brook and Willow Brook. Policy 2 was simulated on these reaches by
assuming an increase in channel and floodplain roughness of 10%. Reducing maintenance
would result in a reduction in conveyance that can be approximated by increasing the
roughness coefficient by 10%. For areas beyond the boundaries of the broad-scale model, , it
was not possible to model the impact of a reduction in conveyance caused by reduced
maintenance. Therefore it was assumed that the change in damages, number of people
affected etc. compared with the baseline is the same as for the modelled reaches.
(+57%) (+53%) (+126%)
Conclusions
Cost: Reduction in annual expenditure on maintenance to approximately £115 k.
Conclusion: Reducing maintenance under this policy would lead to an increase in channel
has shown an increase in flood risk.
Environment Agency
Generic Response: Policy 3 – Continue with existing flood risk management
Description: Maintaining the current level of flood risk management into the future has
already been modelled for Chapter 4. This assumes that maintenance is kept at the same
level and that no alternative intervention occurs. Flood risk is anticipated to increase because
of climate change, urban development and land use change.
(+47%) (+44%) (+109%)
Conclusions
Cost: No change in annual expenditure on maintenance – maintained at £229k.
Conclusion: Increases in peak flow as a result of climate change, urban development and
land use change will increase the risk of flooding, even if existing flood risk management is
continued.

Generic Response: Policy 4 – Increase maintenance leading to increase in conveyance
River Ise, Harpers Brook and Willow Brook. Increased maintenance was simulated on these
reaches by assuming a reduction in channel and floodplain roughness of 20%. Increasing
maintenance would result in an increase in conveyance that can be approximated by reducing
the roughness coefficient by 20%. For areas beyond the boundaries of the broad-scale
model, it was not possible to model the impact of increased maintenance. Therefore it was
assumed that the change in damages, number of people affected etc. compared with the
baseline is the same as for the modelled reaches.
(+42%) (+43%) (+89%)
Conclusions
Cost: Annual expenditure on maintenance increased to £459k.
Conclusion: The results of this generic response show that increasing the maintenance in
the future is not sufficient to maintain the flood risk at the present level. The increase in peak
flows caused by climate change, land use change and urban development cannot be
countered by increasing river channel maintenance.

Generic Response: Policy 4 – Reduce conveyance by increasing maintenance,
increasing upstream storage, rural land use change by improved farming practices and
creating localised protection
Description: For this generic response three responses were considered together
(increasing maintenance, localised protection, and developing existing storage). The results
of the other P4 generic response (increase maintenance alone) shows that some reduction in
the risk of flooding against the future risk can be achieved through increased maintenance,
though this alone is not sufficient to maintain the level of risk at the current level. For the
purposes of this generic response it was assumed that by developing upstream storage and
Environment Agency
creating localised protection, alongside increasing maintenance, future increases in flow can
be offset, thus maintaining the level of risk at the current level.
(no change) (no change) (no change)
Conclusions
Cost: Increase in expenditure to maintain flood risk at present level. Cost of combined capital
works estimated at £5 million.
Conclusion: Developing upstream storage, increasing maintenance, creating localised
protection and rural land use change can counteract increases in peak flow expected in the
future.

Generic Response: Policy 5 – Create localised protection measures
Description: The effect of localised protection measures were not modelled using the
broadscale model. Rather the defended areas polygon tool in MDSF was used to blank out
areas that would be defended were defences to be built. Defences were constructed for this
generic response in five different areas: Geddington, Blisworth, Southwick, Sudborough and
Brigstock. The images below show where these defences were constructed.
Blisworth defences Geddington defences
Environment Agency
Brigstock and Sudborough defences Southwick defences

(-18%) (-14%) (-11%)
Conclusions
Cost: Cost of constructing flood defences estimated at £20 million.
Conclusion: Constructing these defences prevents flooding in the areas with the highest
flood risk in the catchment. As a result of this the number of people and properties affected,
and the damages incurred, reduce by a moderate amount.

Generic Response: Policy 6 – Develop storage to benefit downstream areas.
Description: The majority of watercourses within this policy unit are small upstream
tributaries, with small contributory areas and relatively low peak flows. As a result there is only
a limited potential for strategic storage which has an impact over a widespread area. There
are a number of more major tributaries within this policy unit, including the Harpers Brook,
Willow Brook and Brampton Branch of the River Nene. Some preliminary modelling
investigations were carried out into the potential for storage on the Harpers Brook and Willow
Brook. This showed that rather than reducing the flood risk on the River Nene, this storage
actually increased the flood risk. This occurred because the storage delayed the flood peaks
from the Harpers Brook and Willow Brook, causing them to coincide with the peaks from the
River Ise and upper River Nene. Storage was also considered on the Brampton Branch
upstream of Northampton, however, this was rejected, as it was felt there is a lack of potential
for storage in this location.
As a result it was decided that this policy was not appropriate for this policy unit, and no
further modelling was undertaken.
Environment Agency
The following table shows the generic responses (or combinations of generic responses) that will be
taken forward to policy appraisal for each policy. The results of each generic response will be
appraised against objectives to determine which the most appropriate policy for this policy unit is.
Policy Generic Response

1 Stop maintenance leading to a decrease in conveyance
2 Reduce maintenance leading to a decrease in conveyance
3 Continue with existing flood risk management
4 Reduce conveyance by increasing maintenance, increasing upstream storage,
rural land use change by improved farming practices and creating localised
protection
5 Create localised protection measures
6 No generic response to be taken forward to policy appraisal
Environment Agency
Form 12.6 Policy Appraisal Policy unit: Upper and Middle Nene
No. Catchmen Indicators Baseline P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6

t objective No active Reduce existing Maintain current Sustain current risk Reduce current Increase
intervention actions risk risk frequency of
flooding
Generic responses: • Cease flood • Maintain flood • Maintain flood • Review flood • Review flood Opportunities for
warning and warning and warning and warning and warning and additional
forecasting forecasting forecasting forecasting forecasting storage
• Cease • Reduce • Continue • Maintain flood • Construct developments
maintenance maintenance of maintenance of defences and flood localised have been
of river river channel, river channel, storage areas defences in identified in the
channel and structures, flood structures, flood • Combined generic Blisworth, River Nene
structures defences and defences and response, Geddington, (from Weedon to
• Remove flood flood storage flood storage involving: Southwick, Kislingbury)
defences and areas areas o Increased river Brigstock and policy unit and
flood storage • Emergency • Emergency maintenance Sudborough the River Nene
areas. Response plans Response plans o Construction of • Emergency Corridor policy
• local defences Response unit. Very little
o Creation of plans scope to apply
upstream storage in this policy unit
o Rural land use therefore no
change through assessment of
better farming gains and losses
• Emergency was undertaken.
Response plans
SOC To • Number of 578 people 931 people 906 people affected 847 people affected 578 people affected 499 people
1 minimise people at affected by affected at the at the 1% AEP at the 1% AEP by flooding in the 1% affected by
flood risk in the flooding at 1% 1% AEP flood. flood. flood. AEP flood. flooding in the
related 1% flood AEP flood 1% AEP flood.
risks to the • Numbers of Cease flood Review flood Review flood Increased
population people warning and warning coverage warning coverage maintenance, Review flood
covered by 485 people (194 forecasting, with through a Flood through a Flood expansion of existing warning
flood residential increased risk to Warning and Warning and storage, better coverage
warning or properties) can community. Forecasting delivery Forecasting delivery farming practices, through a Flood
emergency / apply for flood plan. plan. and localised Warning and
evacuation warnings in this protection measures Forecasting
plans policy unit. capable of delivery plan.
maintaining level of
risk at current level. Develop a Flood
Environment Agency

flooding
Awareness plan
Review flood warning to encourage
coverage through a people to dign
Flood Warning and up to flood
Forecasting delivery warning.
plan.
Develop a Flood
Awareness plan to
encourage people to
dign up to flood
warning.
To Numbers and Critical At least 5 At least 5 electricity 5 electricity 1 electricity 5 electricity

minimise type of critical infrastructure electricity substations are substations are substations flooded. substations are
SOC risks to asset. affected by substations are flooded. Increase in flooded. Small No change in depth, flooded. Small
2 critical Critical flooding: flooded. depth, duration and increase in depth, duration or frequency. increase in
infrastructu infrastructure • 1 Electricity Increase in frequency of duration and depth, duration
re and includes: Sub-station depth, duration flooding. frequency of Wittering, Brixworth and frequency of
community • 3 Sewage and frequency of flooding at site and Newnham STWs flooding at site
facilities • Electricity Treatment flooding. Wittering, Brixworth currently affected. flooded, with depth currently
Sub- Works (STW): and Newnham estimated as up to affected.
stations/pow Wittering, Wittering, STWs flooded to Increase in the 1m. No increase in
er supply Brixworth and Brixworth and depths estimated at depth of flooding at depth, duration or Increase in the
• Sewage Newnham Newnham greater than 1.2m. Wittering, Brixworth frequency of flooding. depth of flooding
Treatment STWs flooded to Hollowell STW and Newnham at Wittering,
Works Transport depths becomes flooded. STWs, with depths No increase in depth Brixworth and
(STW) infrastructure estimated at Increase in duration estimated at up to and duration of Newnham
• Waste affected by greater than and frequency of 1.2m Hollowell STW flooding at key STWs, with
Treatment flooding: 1.2m. Hollowell flooding at all becomes flooded. transport depths
Works • The West STW becomes STWs. Increase in duration infrastructure estimated at up
(STW) Coast flooded. and frequency of to 1.2m
• Waste Mainline Increase in 1 WMS (Other Non- flooding at all No community Hollowell STW
Managemen (London to duration and Hazardous Waste STWs. facilities at risk becomes
t Sites Birmingham) frequency of Site) becomes flooded.
• IPPC Sites is affected by flooding at all flooded. 1 WMS (Other Non- Emergency Increase in
flooding. STWs. Hazardous Waste Response plans may duration and
Environment Agency

flooding
• Transport: • The Grand Watford Gap Police Site) becomes help to manage risk frequency of
Railway, Union Canal 1 WMS (Other Outstation is at risk flooded. to infrastructure. flooding at all
Roads, Northampton Non-Hazardous of flooding. STWs.
Canals Branch is Waste Site) Watford Gap Police
(particularly affected by becomes Increase in depth Outstation is at risk 1 WMS (Other
consider flooding. flooded. and duration of of flooding. Non-Hazardous
ability to use • Roads: flooding at key Waste Site)
other A6003, A43, Watford Gap transport Increase in depth becomes
routes) A6, A508, Police infrastructure. and duration of flooded.
Community A14, A5199, Outstation is at flooding at key
facilities A428, A425, risk of flooding. Emergency transport Watford Gap
include: A5, A361, Response plans infrastructure Police
• Hospitals A509, A45, Increase in may help to Outstation
• Emergency A605 are depth and manage risk to Emergency becomes at risk
Response affected by duration of infrastructure. Response plans of flooding.
Centres flooding at the flooding at key may help to
• Care 1% event transport manage risk to Increase in
Homes probability. infrastructure. infrastructure. depth and
• Schools • Risk of the M1 duration of
flooding at a flooding at key
number of transport
locations infrastructure
between
Colingtree Emergency
and Watford Response plans
Gap. may help to
manage risk to
No community infrastructure.
facilities are at
risk.
SOC To Number of 231 residential 373 residential 362 residential 339 residential 231 residential 200 residential
3 minimise properties properties and properties and properties and 71 properties and 69 properties and 52 properties and
community affected in the 52 commercial 72 commercial commercial commercial commercial 33 commercial
disruption 1% flood properties properties properties affected properties affected properties affected at properties
from Category of affected by affected at the at the 1% AEP at the 1% AEP the 1% AEP flood. affected at the
flooding social flooding at 1% 1% AEP flood. flood. flood. 1% AEP flood.
Environment Agency

flooding
vulnerability AEP flood. Areas at risk of
areas affected Increase in risk Increase in risk of Increase in risk of flooding have a Benefit of
in the 1% flood Social impact: of flooding flooding occurs in flooding occurs in typically low to increased flood
Extent of Moderate - occurs in areas areas with low to areas with low to moderate social risk
flooding typically SFVI with low to moderate social moderate social vulnerability to management felt
Duration of category 3. moderate social vulnerability to vulnerability to flooding (categories 2 in areas with low
flooding vulnerability to flooding (categories flooding (categories and 3) to moderate
flooding 2 and 3). 2 and 3). social
(categories 2 No significant vulnerability to
and 3). Increase in depth, Minor increase in increase in depth, or flooding
duration and depth, duration and velocity of flooding, (categories 2
Increase in velocity of flooding velocity of flooding though small and 3).
depth, duration will occur. will occur. increases in duration
and velocity of of flooding may occur Minor increase
flooding will Most properties are Most properties are in depth,
occur. flooded to depths of flooded to depths of Most properties duration and
less than 0.5m. less than 0.5m. flooded to depths of velocity of
Majority of Velocities may be Velocities may be less than 0.5m. flooding will
properties are relatively high as relatively high as Velocities likely to be occur outside of
flooded to most flood risk is most flood risk is moderate as most areas defended.
depths of less from upstream from upstream flood risk is from
than 1m. tributaries. Increase tributaries. Increase upstream tributaries. Most properties
Velocities likely in velocity is unlikely in velocity is unlikely No significant risk to are still flooded
to be relatively to be significant to be significant life. to depths of less
high as most though. No though. No than 0.5m.
flood risk is from significant increase significant increase Defences
upstream in risk to life. in risk to life. protect most of
tributaries. Any the areas that
increase in flood to depths
velocity is of greater than
unlikely to be 1m. Velocities
significant may be
though. No relatively high as
significant most flood risk is
increase in risk from upstream
to life. tributaries.
Increase in
Environment Agency

flooding
velocity is
unlikely to be
significant
though. No
significant risk to
life.
To Residential £4.71M £8.09m £7.69m residential £7.23m residential £4.71m residential £3.99m
ECO minimise damages 1% residential residential damages and damages and damages and £5.99M residential
N1 economic flood damages at 1% damages and £16.54m £15.15m commercial damages damages and
impacts of Commercial £17.54m commercial commercial at the 1% AEP flood. £5.70m
flooding damages 1% £5.99M commercial damages at the 1% damages at the 1% commercial
flood commercial damages at the AEP flood. AEP flood. No Grade 1 damages at the
Agricultural damages at 1% 1% AEP flood. agricultural land 1% AEP flood.
damages in No Grade 1 No Grade 1 affected.
the 1% flood No Grade 1 and No Grade 1 agricultural land agricultural land No Grade 1
Percentage 145ha of Grade agricultural land affected. affected. 1.1% of Grade 2 agricultural land
area of grade 2 agricultural affected. agricultural land affected.
1 and 2 land at risk of At least 1.4% of 1.4 of Grade 2 affected.
agricultural flooding. At least 1.4% of Grade 2 agricultural agricultural land 1.4% of Grade 2
land flooded Grade 2 land affected. affected. agricultural land
during the 1% agricultural land affected.
flood affected.
Ensure Expenditure Annual cost of EA ceases Annual EA No increase in cost Expanding influencing Cost of
future on all FRM EA maintenance spending money expenditure on of maintenance in and informing will constructing
ECO investment activities. estimated at on maintenance. maintenance real terms – lead to a minor defences will be
N2 in the £229k. estimated at £115k remains at £229k in increase in EA approximately
catchment EA ceases in current prices. current prices. expenditure. £20M
is influencing and
proportiona informing EA reduces No increase in EA Cost of implementing Increase in EA
l to the reducing expenditure on expenditure on combined works of expenditure on
risks expenditure influencing and flood warning in real conveyance, storage flood
significantly. informing. terms. and protection likely warning/flood
to increase EA awareness.
expenditure by £5M.
Protect Numbers of: Conservation Less protection for historic assets. All Conservation As for current This policy likely
and • Scheduled Areas: 22 in Areas are affected baseline to result in the
ENV enhance Monuments total affected at Decreasing conveyance under this by flooding by an same effects as
Environment Agency

flooding
1 significant • Historic current 1% AEP policy likely to result in: average of up to under P3 with
historic Parks and flood - Brigstock, • Conservation Areas: Increase in 1.2m. An additional the exception of:
environme Gardens Bulwick, depth, frequency and area of flooding 3 Conservation • Four CAs are
nt assets • Historic Cranford, for all 22 CAs at risk at present. Areas are affected now defended
and their Battlefields Cransley, Small area of three further CAs to the current 1% (Brigstock,
settings • Conservatio Geddington, become affected (Fotherighay, event. Sudborough,
n Areas Grafton Warkton, Southorpe). Geddington,
• adversely Underwood, • Parks and Gardens: Increase In All Registered Blisworth)
affected by Kings Cliffe, depth, frequency and area of flooding Parks and Gardens • Three SMs
flooding or Sudborough, at all 12 Parks and Gardens. are affected by up are now
flood risk Rushton, Additionally, mall area of Milton Hall to 1m, and an defended
managemen Pipewell, becomes affected. additional site is (29719
t activities Polebrook, • Scheduled Monuments: Increase in affected over the Market Cross
Mears Ashby, depth, frequency and area of flooding current 1% event. 8m West Of
Lower Benefield, at all 14 Scheduled Monuments The Market
Little Oakley, affected at present. 2 further SMs All Scheduled House; 17155
Everdon, Lower affected: Geddington Cross (17155) Monuments are Geddington
Harlestone, , and Late 16th Centruy house, garden affected to between Cross:
Brockhall, and Dovecote (21675). 0.1 and 1.5m, and Eleanor Cross
Moulton, Grand two additional And Conduit
Union Canal, Monuments are House; Nn5
Cottesbrooke, affected Geddington
Blisworth, Bridge)
Thornhaugh.
flooded to varied
depths, typically
less than 1m.
Parks and
Gardens: 12 in
total affected at
current 1% AEP
flood (Hinwick
Hall (1564),
Hinwick House
(1565), Althorp
(2025),
Environment Agency

flooding
Boughton Hall
(2325), Deene
Park (2032),
Fawsley Hall
(2035), Horton
Hall (2383),
Kirby Hall
(1011),
Brockhall Park
(4041),
Cottesbrooke
Hall (2030),
Rushton Hall
(5180),
Boughton House
(1328)) –
flooded to varied
depths though
typically less
than 1m.
Scheduled
Monuments: 14
in total affected
at current 1%
AEP flood (refer
to Form 12.5 for
list). Scheduled
monuments
flooded to varied
depths, though
typically less
than 1m.
ENV Protect Area of SSSIs, Designated sites Less protection for designated sites. This policy likely to These policies would This policy likely
2 and SPAs, SACs affected at result in: result in no increase to result in the
contribute and Ramsar current 1% AEP These policies likely to result in: Titchmarsh Meadow in depth or extent of same effects as
Environment Agency

flooding
to the sites flooded in flood: • Titchmarsh Meadows – small SSSI flooding compared for P3.
improveme a 1% flood • Titchmarsh increase in area flooded. Increase in • Small increase in with baseline.
nt of Reported Meadow SSSI depth of up to 0.7m. Effect of area of land Titchmarsh
designated condition - Site area flooding: Positive - Increased flooding flooded. 1.6ha Meadow SSSI
nature status of 2.2ha. 64% of would be beneficial to the marsh (73% of the site) • Amount of
conservati SSSIs, SPAs, area (1.4ha) communities. is flooded. Effect land affected
on sites SACs and affected due • Sutton Heath and Bog – Small of flooding is by flooding at
(SSSI, Ramsar sites to flooding. increase in area flooded. Increase in positive. future 1%
SPA, SAC at risk from a Flooding to depth of flooding of up to 0.7m. AEP flood is
and 1% flood depths of up Effect of flooding: Neutral - Area at Sutton Heath & Bog not significant
Ramsar) to 1m. risk of flooding is relatively small, and SSSI – 1.4ha
Current consequences of flooding unlikely to • Small increase in remains
condition have any significant impacts on area of land affected.
status: 100 either community. flooded. 2.9ha
per cent • Bulwick Meadows – Small increase (17% of the site) Sutton Heath &
unfavourable in area flooded (>10% increase). is flooded. Bog SSSI
due to Increase in depth of up to 0.4m. • No change in
inappropriate Effect of flooding: Positive - Bulwick Meadows area of
weed control. Increased flooding could potentially SSSI designated
No relevant increase the extent of this habitat • Site area 4.1ha. site affected
management within and beyond the site. 2ha affected by by flooding at
actions. • River Ise and Meadows - >50% flooding at future future 1%
Effect of increase in area flooded. Increase in 1% AEP flood AEP flood
flooding: depth of up to 0.7m. Effect of which equates to when
Positive - flooding: Neutral – Positive - an increase of compared to
Increased Increased flooding would be 1ha. current levels
flooding would beneficial to flood meadow habitats. • Effect of flooding:
be beneficial • Pistford Reservoir – 100% of area Positive Bulwick
to the marsh flooded. Likely minimal increase in Meadows SSSI
communities. depth of water. Effect of flooding: River Ise and • Site area 4ha.
• Sutton Heath Neutral - However, potential for Meadows SSSI 1.4 ha
& Bog SSSI - flooding in the spring or early • Site area 13.5ha. affected by
Site area summer to be detrimental to breeding 10.1ha affected flooding at
17.2ha. 16% birds along the margins. by flooding at future 1%
of area • Bonemills Hollow SSSI – Small future 1% AEP AEP flood
affected by increase in area flooded of greater flood which which equates
flooding. than 1ha. Likely increase in depth of equates to an to a decrease
Environment Agency

flooding
Flooding to approx. 0.5m. Effect is potentially increase of 4.4ha of 0.2ha
depths of up positive, marsh plant communities affected. affected.
to 1m. 100 may benefit from increase in flooding. • Effect of flooding: • Effect of
per cent • Whitewater Valley SSSI – Small Positive flooding:
unfavourable increase in area flooded of greater Positive
recovering than 0.5ha. Likely increase in depth Pitsford Reservoir
where grazing of approx. 0.5m. SSSI River Ise and
regime was • West, Abbot’s & Lounds Woods SSSI • No change in Meadows SSSI
previously the – Small increase in area flooded of area of • Site area
problem. greater than 0.5ha. Likely increase in designated site 14ha. 11.2ha
Effect of depth of approx. 0.5m. There is affected by affected by
flooding: potential for a positive effect through flooding at future flooding at
Neutral - Area increased extent of wet grassland 1% AEP flood future 1%
at risk of and woodland. when compared AEP flood
flooding is to current levels which equates
relatively to an increase
small, and Bonemills Hollow of 7ha
consequence SSSI affected which
s of flooding • Small increase in is significant.
unlikely to area of land • Effect of
have any flooded. 4.1ha flooding:
significant (23% of the site) Positive
impacts on is flooded. Effect
either is potentially
community. positive, marsh Pitsford
• Bulwick plant Reservoir SSSI
Meadows communities may • No change in
SSSI - Site benefit from area of
area 4.1ha. increase in designated
46% of area flooding. site affected
affected by by flooding at
flooding. Whitewater Valley future 1%
Flooding to SSSI AEP flood
depths of up • Small increase in when
to 0.7m. area of land compared to
Current flooded. 1.3ha current levels
condition (30% of the site)
Environment Agency

flooding
status: 100 is flooded. Effect Bonemills
percent is potentially Hollow SSSI
unfavourable positive, marsh • Small
due to plant increase in
inappropriate communities may area of land
ditch benefit from flooded. 4.1ha
management, increase in (23% of the
under grazing flooding. site) is
and flooded. Effect
inappropriate West, Abbot’s & is potentially
weed control. Lounds Woods positive,
Effect of SSSI marsh plant
flooding: • Small increase in communities
Positive - area of land may benefit
Increased flooded. 1.5ha from increase
flooding could (3% of the site) is in flooding.
potentially flooded. There is
increase the potential for a Whitewater
extent of this positive effect Valley SSSI
habitat within through • Small
and beyond increased extent increase in
the site. of wet grassland area of land
• River Ise and and woodland. flooded. 1.3ha
Meadows (30% of the
SSSI - Site site) is
area 13.5ha. flooded. Effect
42% of area is potentially
affected by positive,
flooding. marsh plant
Depth of communities
flooding of up may benefit
to 1m outside from increase
of river in flooding.
channel.
Current West, Abbot’s &
condition Lounds Woods
status: 54 per SSSI
Environment Agency

flooding
cent • Small
unfavourable increase in
(meadow area of land
habitats) due flooded. 1.5ha
to agricultural (3% of the
management. site) is
Effect of flooded.
flooding: There is
Neutral – potential for a
Positive - positive effect
Increased through
flooding would increased
be beneficial extent of wet
to flood grassland and
meadow woodland.
habitats.
• Pitsford
Reservoir
SSSI - Site
area
413.1ha.100
% area
affected by
flooding.
Increase in
depth of water
likely to be
minimal
during times
of flood.
Current
condition
status: 100
per cent
favourable but
highly
sensitive to
Environment Agency

flooding
changes in
AWS pumping
regime.
Effect of
flooding:
Neutral -
However,
potential for
flooding in the
spring or early
summer to be
detrimental to
breeding birds
along the
margins.
Bonemills
Hollow SSSI
• Site area
17.5ha. 17%
area affected
by flooding
(3.0ha).
Current
condition
status: 81%
unfavourable
recovering.
Marsh plant
communities
may benefit
from flooding.
Whitewater
Valley SSSI
• Site area
4.3ha. 19%
Environment Agency

flooding
area affected
by flooding
(0.8ha).
Current
condition
status: 94%
unfavourable
recovering.
Effect of
flooding may
be positive to
wetland plant
communities
West, Abbot’s &

Lounds Woods
• Site area
50.4ha. 2%
area affected
by flooding
(1.1ha).
Current
condition
status 64%
unfavourable
declining.
Increased
flooding may
be beneficial
to wet
woodland and
wet grassland
habitats.
ENV Enhance The Extent and Less protection for BAPs. This policy likely to This policy would This policy likely
3 the distribution distribution of result in: result in no increase to result in:
biodiversity and extent of BAP habitats: in depth or extent of
Environment Agency

flooding
of the the future UK These policies likely to result in: Lowland Heath flooding compared Lowland Heath
catchment BAP priority Lowland Heath • Lowland Heathland - Increase in area Total Area in PU: with baseline. Total Area in
by habitats (for Total Area in of flooding of greater than 1ha. 145ha PU: 145ha
improving example, fens, PU: 145ha Increase in depth of flooding of up to Area At Risk Future: Area At Risk
the quality wet woodland, Area At Risk 0.7m. 4ha, increase of Future: 4ha,
of the river reed bed, Current: 3ha • Lowland Dry Acid Grassland – 1ha on current 1% increase of 1ha
environme floodplain % Area At Risk Increase in area of flooding of greater event. Negative on current 1%
nt and grazing marsh) Current: 2% than 1ha. Increase in depth of effect. event. Negative
contributin flooding of up to 0.7m. effect.
g to UK Lowland Dry • Fens – Increase in area of flooding of Lowland Dry Acid
Biodiversit Acid Grassland at least 3ha. Increase in depth of up Grassland Lowland Dry
y Action Total Area in to 0.3m.. Effect unknown/ mixed, Total Area in PU: Acid Grassland
Plan PU: 45ha dependant on type of fen, duration 145ha Total Area in
targets Area At Risk and extent of flooding. Area At Risk Future: PU: 145ha
Current: 3ha • Undetermined Grassland – Increase 4.ha,, increase of Area At Risk
% Area At Risk in area flooded of at least 50ha. 1.4ha on current 1% Future: 4.ha,,
Current: 8% Increase in depth of up to 0.7m on event.. Negative increase of
tributaries, less from River Nene. effect 1.4ha on current
Fens Unknown effect, dependant on the 1% event..
Total Area in plant communities present. Fens: No future Negative effect
PU: 16ha • Lowland Meadows – No significant increases.
Area At Risk increase in area flooded. Increase in Fens: No future
Current: 2ha depth of flooding of up to 0.3m. increases.
% Area At Risk • Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland Undetermined
Current: 13% – Increase in area flooded of up to Grassland:
approx. 1ha. Increase in depth of up Total Area in PU: Undetermined
Undetermined to 0.7m.. Neutral or negative effect 968ha Grassland:
Grassland: dependant on flood duration. Area At Risk Future: Total Area in
Total Area in • Lowland Calcareous Grassland – 146ha, increase of PU: 968ha
PU: 968ha Increase in area flooded of up to 30ha on current 1%. Area At Risk
Area At Risk approx. 3ha. Increase in depth of up 15%. Mixed/ Future: 146ha,
Current: 116ha to 0.7m.. Negative effect. undetermined increase of 30ha
% Area At Risk effect. on current 1%.
• Undetermined Woodland – No
Current: 12% 15%. Mixed/
significant increase in area flooded.
Undetermined undetermined
Very small area flooded at present.
Lowland Woodland: effect.
• Wet Woodland - No significant
Meadows: No future changes.
Environment Agency

flooding
Total Area in increase in area flooded. Very small Undetermined
PU: 239ha area flooded at present. Lowland Meadows: Woodland:
Area At Risk No future changes No future
Current: 0ha changes.
% Area At Risk Lowland Mixed
Current: 0% Deciduous Lowland
Woodland: Meadows:
Lowland Mixed No future changes No future
Deciduous changes
Woodland: Lowland
Total Area in Calcareous Lowland Mixed
PU: 1114ha Grassland: Deciduous
Area At Risk Total Area in PU: Woodland:
Current: 1ha 126ha No future
% Area At Risk Area At Risk Future: changes
Current: <1% 8ha, an increase of
2ha on current 1%. Lowland
Lowland Negative effect. Calcareous
Calcareous Grassland:
Grassland: Total Area in
PU: 126ha Area At Risk
Area At Risk Future: 8ha, an
Current: 6ha increase of 2ha
% Area At Risk on current 1%.
Current: 5% Negative effect
ENV • Support WFD Article 5 WFD Increases in the Increases in the Increases in the Taking action to Taking action to
4 the pressures and frequency and frequency and frequency and sustain current level sustain current
achieve impacts Category: At risk extent of extent of flooding extent of flooding of flood risk at point level of flood risk
ment of assessments flooding are are likely to are likely to and diffuse sources of at point and
good results Applicable likely to increase increase the levels increase the levels pollution could diffuse sources
status/p WFD factors: Point the levels of of pollutants from of pollutants from prevent potential of pollution
otential ecological and source pollution, pollutants from sources in urban sources in urban adverse effects on could prevent
of chemical diffuse pollution, sources in urban areas and adjacent areas and adjacent water quality. This potential
surface status/potentia physical or areas and agricultural land that agricultural land that could provide adverse effects
and l of water morphological adjacent are washed into the are washed into the environmental on water quality.
Environment Agency

flooding
groundw bodies. alterations, alien agricultural land river. This would not river. This would not improvements helping This could
ater species that are washed help to achieve help to achieve to achieve WFD provide
bodies Area of into the river. WFD environmental WFD environmental environmental environmental
under contaminated This would not objectives objectives objectives improvements
the WFD or damaged help to achieve helping to
land restored WFD achieve WFD
or protected as environmental environmental
a result of objectives objectives
flood risk
management
activities
Environment Agency
Form 12.7 Summary of overall gains and losses for each policy option Policy unit: Upper and Middle Nene
Gains Losses Preferred policy option

Policy Social Social Not preferred. This policy option
one leads to a particular increase in risk
Low: Increase in depth, duration and velocity of High: Flood forecasting and warning ceased. to people as well as increased risks
flooding. Despite increase in depth of flooding, Medium: Increased risk to critical infrastructure – At to property and the environment.
majority of properties are still flooded to depths of least 5 electricity substations, 4 sewage treatment
less than 1m. Velocities likely to be relatively high works, and 1 waste management site at risk.
as most flood risk is from upstream tributaries. Medium: Increased risk to transport infrastructure –
Increase in velocity is unlikely to be significant increased risk of M1 and West Coast Mainline flooding.
though. No significant increase in risk to life. Increase in length of A roads flooded.
Low: Increase in risk occurs in areas with a Low: Increase in the number of people affected – 353
typically moderate to low social vulnerability to more people at risk. Although the number of people is
flooding (categories 2 and 3). high in absolute terms, it is low when the size of the
policy unit is taken into consideration
Economic Low: Increase in the number of residential properties
affected – 142 more at risk. Although the number of
High: No EA expenditure on maintenance – properties is high in absolute terms, it is low when the
reduction of £229k p.a. size of the policy unit is taken into account.
Low: Increase in area of Grade 2 agricultural land Low: Increase in the number of commercial properties
at risk – at least 1.4% of Grade 2 land in this policy affected – 20 more at risk.
unit is affected. Relatively large area of Grade 2 Low: Watford Gap Police Outstation at risk of flooding.
land is affected, however, vast majority of land
affected is of lower quality. Economic
Low: Increase in residential damages of £3.38M.

Damages are moderate when the size of the policy unit
is taken into account.
Low: Increase in commercial damages of £11.55M.
Damages are moderate when the size of the policy unit
is taken into account.
Environmental Environmental
Low: Increased flooding at Castor Flood Meadow Low: Planning policy would not afford more protection
SSSI would be beneficial if additional wet for historic assets.
grassland habitat created. Medium: Damages to all 22 CAs at risk at present
Low: Increased flooding at Wadenhoe Marsh and (increase in depth, frequency and area of flooding).
Environment Agency

Achurch Meadows SSSI could potentially increase Low: Small area of three further CAs become affected
the extent of wetland habitats within the site (but (Fotheringhay, Warkton, Southorpe).
could also have negative effects). Medium: Damage/disruption to at all 12 Parks and
Low: Increased flooding at Titchmarsh Meadows Gardens at risk at present (increase in depth, frequency
SSSI would be beneficial to the marsh and area of flooding)
communities. Low: Small area of Milton Hall (Park/Garden) becomes
Low: Increased flooding at Wollaston Meadows affected.
SSSI could be beneficial if creates an area of wet Medium: Damages to all 14 SMs at risk at present
grassland (but could also have negative effects). (increase in depth, frequency and area of flooding).
Medium: Increased flooding at Bulwick Meadows Low: Two further SMs affected: Geddington Cross
SSSI could potentially increase the extent of this (17155) and Late 16th Century house, garden and
habitat within and beyond the site. Dovecote (21675) affected by flooding.
Medium: Increased flooding at Upper Nene Gravel Low: Planning policy would not afford more protection
Pits SSSI could potentially increase the quality and for BAP habitats.
extent of fringing wetland habitat within and Low: Increased flooding at Sutton Heath and Bog SSSI
beyond the site. is unlikely to have any significant impacts from flooding.
Medium: Increased flooding at River Ise and Medium: Increased flooding at Wollaston Meadows
Meadows SSSI would be beneficial to flood SSSI could be detrimental to the dry grassland plant
meadow habitats. communities within the site (but could also have positive
Low to Medium: Increase in area Undetermined effects).
Grassland, and Lowland Calcareous Grassland
flooded.
Low to Medium: Increase in area of Fen flooded.
Low: increased flooding at Bonemills Hollow SSSI,
there may be benefits to marsh plan communities
Low: Increased flooding at West, Abbot’s & Lounds
Woods SSSI, there may be benefits to wet
grassland and wet woodland.
Low: Increased flooding at Whitewater Valley SSSI
Low: Increased flooding at Pistford Reservoir SSSI

likely to have a neutral effect, however flooding in the
spring or early summer could be detrimental to breeding
birds along the margins.
Low to Medium: Increase in area of Lowland Heathland
Environment Agency

flooded.

Low to Medium: Increase in area of Lowland Dry Acid
Grassland flooded.
Medium: Increase in area of Lowland Mixed Deciduous
Woodland flooded.
Low: May increase the diffuse pollution for adjacent
agricultural land and increase risk under WFD
Policy Social Social PREFERRED POLICY: This policy

two does see a moderate increase in the
Low: Increase in depth, duration and velocity of Medium: Increased risk to critical infrastructure – At level of risk to people and property.
flooding. Despite increase in depth of flooding, least 5 electricity substations, 4 sewage treatment However, there is no significant
most properties are still flooded to depths of less works, and 1 waste management site at risk. increase in risk to life. The policy
than 0.5m. Velocities may be relatively high as Medium: Increased risk to transport infrastructure – unit is very large, and it is felt that
most flood risk is from upstream tributaries. increased risk of M1 and West Coast Mainline flooding. reducing maintenance will not
Increase in velocity is unlikely to be significant Increase in length of A roads flooded. significantly increase the level of
though. No significant increase in risk to life. Low: Increase in the number of commercial properties community disruption in anyone
Low: Increase in risk occurs in areas with a affected – 19 more at risk. Number at risk is moderately place.
typically moderate to low social vulnerability to high.
flooding (categories 2 and 3). Low: Watford Gap Police Outstation at risk of flooding. The level of investment in flood risk
Low: Increase in the number of people affected – management under this policy is felt
328 more people at risk. Although the number of Economic to be proportionate to the low level
people is high in absolute terms, it is low when the of risk.
size of the policy unit is taken into consideration Low: Increase in residential damages of £2.98M.
Low: Increase in the number of residential Damages are moderate when the size of the policy unit
properties affected – 131 more at risk. Although is taken into account.
the number of properties is high in absolute terms, Low: Increase in commercial damages of £10.55M.
it is low when the size of the policy unit is taken Damages are moderate when the size of the policy unit
into account. is taken into account.
Low: Flood Warning and Forecasting delivery plan
will manage flood forecasting more effectively on
existing budget.
Environment Agency
Economic
High: Reduction in EA expenditure on

maintenance – reduction of £114k p.a.
Low: Increase in area of Grade 2 agricultural land
at risk – at least 1.4% of Grade 2 land in this policy
unit is affected. Relatively large area of Grade 2
land is affected, however, vast majority of land
affected is of lower quality.
Low: Increased flooding at Castor Flood Meadow Low: Planning policy would not afford more protection
SSSI would be beneficial if additional wet for historic assets.
grassland habitat created. Medium: Damages to all 22 CAs at risk at present
Achurch Meadows SSSI could potentially increase Low: Small area of three further CAs become affected
the extent of wetland habitats within the site (but (Fotheringhay, Warkton, Southorpe).
could also have negative effects). Medium: Damage/disruption to at all 12 Parks and
Low: Increased flooding at Titchmarsh Meadows Gardens at risk at present (increase in depth, frequency
SSSI would be beneficial to the marsh and area of flooding)
communities. Low: Small area of Milton Hall (Park/Garden) becomes
Low: Increased flooding at Wollaston Meadows affected.
SSSI could be beneficial if creates an area of wet Medium: Damages to all 14 SMs at risk at present
grassland (but could also have negative effects). (increase in depth, frequency and area of flooding).
Medium: Increased flooding at Bulwick Meadows Low: Two further SMs affected: Geddington Cross
SSSI could potentially increase the extent of this (17155) and Late 16th Century house, garden and
habitat within and beyond the site. Dovecote (21675) affected by flooding.
Medium: Increased flooding at Upper Nene Gravel Low: Planning policy would not afford more protection
Pits SSSI could potentially increase the quality and for BAP habitats.
extent of fringing wetland habitat within and
beyond the site.
Medium: Increased flooding at River Ise and
Meadows SSSI would be beneficial to flood
meadow habitats.
Environment Agency

Low to Medium: Increase in area of Undetermined
flooded.
Low to Medium: Increase in area of Lowland Heathland

and Heathland Networks flooded.
Grassland flooded.
Woodland flooded.
Policy Social Social Not preferred. This policy will see a
three moderate increase in flood risk. The
Low: Increase in the number of people affected – Medium: Increased risk to critical infrastructure – 5 present (high) level of maintenance
269 more people at risk. When the size of the electricity substations, 4 sewage treatment works, and 1 will need to be continued, however,
policy unit is taken into consideration the number waste management site at risk. and it is felt that this level of
at risk is relatively small. Medium: Increased risk to transport infrastructure – expenditure is not proportional to the
Low: Increase in the number of residential increased risk of M1 and West Coast Mainline flooding. level of flood risk.
properties affected – 108 more properties at risk. Increase in length of A roads flooded.
When the size of the policy unit is taken into Low: Watford Gap Police Outstation at risk of flooding.
consideration the number at risk is relatively small.
Low: Increase in the number of commercial Economic
properties affected – 9 more properties at risk.
When the size of the policy unit is taken into Low: Increase in residential damages of £2.52M.
consideration the number at risk is relatively small. Damages are moderate when the size of the policy unit
Low: Increase in depth, duration and velocity of is taken into account.
flooding. Despite increase in depth of flooding, Low: Increase in commercial damages of £9.16M.
Environment Agency

most properties are still flooded to depths of less Damages are moderate when the size of the policy unit
than 0.5m. Velocities may be relatively high as is taken into account.
most flood risk is from upstream tributaries. Low: EA expenditure on maintenance kept at the same
Increase in velocity is unlikely to be significant level - £229k p.a. Expenditure is considered to be high
though. No significant increase in risk to life. considering the rural nature of the area.
Low: Increase in risk occurs in areas with a
typically moderate to low social vulnerability to
flooding (categories 2 and 3).
existing budget.
Economic

at risk – 1.4% of Grade 2 land in this policy unit is
affected. Relatively large area of Grade 2 land is
affected, however, vast majority of land affected is
of lower quality.
Low: Increased flooding at Castor Flood Meadow Medium: Damages to all 22 CAs at risk at present
SSSI would be beneficial if additional wet (increase in depth, frequency and area of flooding).
grassland habitat created. Low: Small area of three further CAs become affected
Low: Increased flooding at Wadenhoe Marsh and (Fotheringhay, Warkton, Southorpe).
Achurch Meadows SSSI could potentially increase Medium: Damage/disruption to at all 12 Parks and
the extent of wetland habitats within the site (but Gardens at risk at present (increase in depth, frequency
could also have negative effects). and area of flooding)
Low: Increased flooding at Titchmarsh Meadows Low: Small area of Milton Hall (Park/Garden) becomes
SSSI would be beneficial to the marsh affected.
communities. Medium: Damages to all 14 SMs at risk at present
Low: Increased flooding at Wollaston Meadows (increase in depth, frequency and area of flooding).
SSSI could be beneficial if creates an area of wet Low: Two further SMs affected: Geddington Cross
grassland (but could also have negative effects). (17155) and Late 16th Century house, garden and
Low: Increased flooding at Bulwick Meadows SSSI Dovecote (21675) affected by flooding.
Environment Agency

could potentially increase the extent of this habitat
within and beyond the site.
Low: Increased flooding at Upper Nene Gravel Pits
SSSI could potentially increase the quality and
beyond the site.
meadow habitats.
flooded.
Low: Increase in area of Lowland Heathland flooded.

Grassland flooded.
Woodland flooded.
Policy Social Social Not preferred. The present level of
four risk is relatively low considering the
Medium: Number of people affected maintained at Medium: Risk to transport infrastructure maintained at size of the policy unit. Increasing
the same level – 578 people at risk. Number of the same level –risk of M1 and West Coast Mainline expenditure by an estimated £5M
people at risk is low considering the size of the flooding. Number of locally and regionally important A cannot be justified by the limited
policy unit. roads flooded. benefits that it will bring.
Medium: Number of residential properties affected Low: Risk to critical infrastructure maintained at the
maintained at the same level – 231 properties at same level – 1 electricity substation and 3 sewage
risk. Number of residential properties at risk is low treatment works at risk.
Environment Agency

considering the size of the policy unit.
Medium: No change in depth, duration and velocity Economic
of flooding. Most properties flooded to depths of
less than 0.5m. Velocities likely to be moderate as High: Increase in level of expenditure to maintain risk at
most flood risk is from upstream tributaries. No the same level – cost of capital works estimated at £5M.
significant risk to life.
Medium: Flood Warning and Forecasting Delivery
plan and Flood Awareness plan increase coverage
and effectiveness of flood warning.
Low: Number of commercial properties at risk
maintained at the same level – 52 commercial
properties at risk.
Low: The majority of areas at risk have a moderate
to low social vulnerability to flooding (categories 2
and 3).
Economic
Medium: Commercial damages maintained at the

same level - £5.99M. Damages are moderate
when the size of the policy unit is taken into
account.
Medium: Residential damages maintained at the
same level - £4.71M. Damages are moderate
when the size of the policy unit is taken into
account.
Low: No change in the area of Grade 2 agricultural
land affected – 1.1% of Grade 2 agricultural land in
this policy unit is affected. Relatively large area of
Grade 2 land is affected, however the vast majority
of land affected is of lower quality.
Low: Damages and degradation to historic Medium: 22 CAs still affected by flooding.
environment remain at the same baseline level. Medium: 12 Parks and Gardens still affected by
Low: Impacts to designated sites remain at the flooding.
Environment Agency

same baseline level. Medium: 14 SMs still affected by flooding.
Low: Castor Flood Meadow SSSI affected by Low: Sutton Heath and Bog SSSI still affected by
flooding. flooding.
Low: Wadenhoe Marsh and Achurch Meadows Low: Pistford Reservoir SSSI still affected by flooding.
SSSI affected by flooding. Low: Lowland Heathland still affected by flooding.
Low: Titchmarsh Meadows SSSI affected by Low: Lowland Dry Acid Grassland still affected by
flooding. flooding..
Low: Wollaston Meadows SSSI affected by Low to Medium: Lowland Mixed Deciduous Woodland
flooding. still affected by flooding.
Low: Bulwick Meadows SSSI affected by flooding.
Low: Upper Nene Gravel Pits SSSI affected by
flooding.
Low: River Ise and Meadows SSSI affected by
flooding.
Low: Impacts to BAP habitats remain at the same
baseline level.
Low: Undetermined Grassland, and Lowland
Calcareous Grassland affected by flooding.
Low: Fen affected by flooding
Low: May provide environmental improvements
helping to achieve WFD environmental objectives
Environment Agency

Policy Social Social Not preferred. The increased
five expenditure on flood risk
Medium: Reduction in the number of commercial Medium: Increased risk to critical infrastructure – 5 management cannot be justified
properties affected – 19 less at risk. electricity substations, 4 sewage treatment works, and 1 based on the relatively low social
Medium: Reduction in the number of people waste management site at risk. and economic gains.
affected – 79 less at risk. Medium: Increased risk to transport infrastructure –
Medium: Reduction in the number of residential increased risk of M1 and West Coast Mainline flooding.
properties affected – 31 less at risk. Increase in length of A roads flooded.
Medium: Increase in depth, duration and velocity of Low: Watford Gap Police Outstation at risk of flooding.
flooding in areas not protected by defences.
Despite increase in depth of flooding, most Economic
properties are still flooded to depths of less than
0.5m. Defences protect most of the areas that High: Significant increase in the level of expenditure on
flood to depths of greater than 1m. Velocities may flood defence – cost of capital works to reduce impact
be relatively high as most flood risk is from of flooding estimated at £20M.
upstream tributaries. Increase in velocity is unlikely
to be significant though. No significant risk to life.
Low: Areas benefiting from flood defences have a
low to moderate social vulnerability to flooding
(categories 2 and 3).
Economic
Medium: Reduction in commercial damages of
£0.29M. Damages are moderate when the size of
the policy unit is taken into account.
Medium: Reduction in residential damages of
£0.72M. Damages are moderate when the size of
the policy unit is taken into account.
at risk – 1.4% of Grade 2 land in this policy unit is
affected. Relatively large area of Grade 2 land is
affected, however, vast majority of land affected is
of lower quality.
Environment Agency

Low to Medium: Four CAs are now defended Medium: Increased damages to 18 CAs at risk at
(Brigstock, Sudborough, Geddington, Blisworth). present (increase in depth, frequency and area of
Low to Medium: Three SMs are now defended flooding). 3 further CAs become affected by flooding in
(29719 Market Cross 8m West Of The Market areas not defended (Fotheringhay, Warkton,
House; 17155 Geddington Cross: Eleanor Cross Southorpe).
And Conduit House; Nn5 Geddington Bridge) Medium: Damage/disruption to at all 12 Parks and
Low: Increased flooding at Castor Flood Meadow Gardens at risk at present (increase in depth, frequency
SSSI would be beneficial if additional wet and area of flooding)
grassland habitat created. Medium: Damages to all 14 SMs at risk at present
Achurch Meadows SSSI could potentially increase Low to Medium: Increase in area of Lowland Heathland
the extent of wetland habitats within the site (but flooded.
could also have negative effects). Low to Medium: Increase in area of Lowland Dry Acid
Low: Increased flooding at Titchmarsh Meadows Grassland flooded.
SSSI would be beneficial to the marsh Medium: Increase in area of Lowland Mixed Deciduous
communities. Woodland flooded.
Low: Increased flooding at Wollaston Meadows
SSSI could be beneficial if creates an area of wet
grassland (but could also have negative effects).
Medium: Increased flooding at Bulwick Meadows
SSSI could potentially increase the extent of this
habitat within and beyond the site.
Medium: Increased flooding at Upper Nene Gravel
Pits SSSI could potentially increase the quality and
beyond the site.
meadow habitats.
Environment Agency

flooded.

helping to achieve WFD environmental objectives.
Policy Opportunities for additional storage developments have been identified in the River Nene (from Weedon to Kislingbury) policy unit and the River
six Nene Corridor policy unit. Very little scope to apply in this policy unit therefore no assessment of gains and losses was undertaken.
Environment Agency
Form 12.8 Summary of the Preferred Policy Policy unit: Upper and Middle Nene
The Upper and Middle Nene catchment policy unit is a large and mostly rural policy unit. It covers
much of the upper and middle catchment of the River Nene, including the major tributaries of the
Harpers Brook, Willow Brook, upper River Ise and the Nene Brampton Branch above
Northampton. There are a number of moderately sized settlements in the catchment including
Daventry, Rothwell and Desborough.
The Upper and Middle Nene catchment policy unit covers the free-draining catchment of the River
Nene, excluding specific locations where there are areas of concentrated flood risk. As such the
level of flood risk is generally considered to be low.
The main source of flooding is fluvial, due to high flows in the watercourses. Records of fluvial
flooding incidents include: 1947 (significant flooding on the Harpers Brook); 1992 (moderate
flooding on the upper River Ise and smaller tributaries); 1998 (flooding in Titchmarsh and on the
River Ise); 2000 (flooding on the Harpers Brook and River Ise). Incidents of surface water flooding
have also been recorded in the past, notably in Geddington, where incidents occurred in 1973,
1980 and 1981. It is considered that there is some risk of groundwater flooding in this policy unit,
with one recorded incidence of flooding in Glapthorn.
A number of settlements in this policy unit benefit from flood protection measures: Great Oakley
flood storage reservoir provides protection to Brigstock and Sudborough on the Harpers Brook to
Problem / Risk a 4% AEP flood standard; Geddington flood relief channel provides protection to Geddington to a
1% AEP flood standard; Clipston flood storage reservoir provides benefits to Clipston and
downstream areas, though the standard of protection is uncertain.
Our analysis suggests that a 1% AEP flood event would affect 578 people, 283 properties, and
cause property damages of £10.70 million with damages being split fairly equally between
residential and commercial properties.
The main driver of increasing future flood risk is climate change which, together with potential
effects from future development, could increase peak flows by up to approximately 20%. Our
analysis suggests that, if we continue with our current flood risk management, a 1% AEP future
flood would affect 847 people and 407 properties (an increase of approximately 45%) causing
£22.80 million property damages (an increase of 110%). The future increase in flood risk is
moderate, changing from contributing 7.7% of the present CFMP area total damages to a
contribution of 7.3% in the future.
Policy P2 – Reduce existing flood risk management actions (accepting that flood risk will increase
over time).
Flood risk in the future in the Upper and Middle Nene catchment policy unit is considered to be
Chosen Policy moderate, given the extensive nature of this policy unit. The increase in flood risk in the future will
not worsen significantly with reduced flood risk management, but this will allow us to achieve
expenditure levels more appropriate to the scale of flood risk across the policy unit. The current
flood risk management responses will be reviewed and modified as appropriate under this policy.
In areas covered by the broadscale, an increase in channel and floodplain roughness was used to
simulate a reduction in maintenance. In areas where simpler JFLOW output was used, a similar
increase in the damages was assumed as on the broadscale model reaches. Under policy P2,
Generic
future climate change alongside a reduction in maintenance result in moderate increases to the
Responses
present flood risk. Maintenance of the flood protection measures presently in place will continue,
whereas reductions in maintenance levels will be found elsewhere. Flood warning and
Adopting policy P2 will lead to further losses in the future 1% AEP flood of approximately 59
people, 26 properties and £1.43 million over and above the increases that would occur were the
current flood risk management to continue. Our flood risk management will comprise the reduction
in maintenance of river channels and floodplains, leading to an increase in flooding. The reduction
Justification in the cost of annual maintenance by about 50% (about £114k) will lead to the increases noted
above which are relatively slight when they are considered to be spread over the large area of this
Environment Agency
policy unit. We will reduce our existing flood risk management actions overall, but maintain the
level of those actions which we consider are effective and sustainable, giving an appropriate level
of flood risk. Future changes in flood risk will be monitored such that further action needs can be
reviewed, and we will work in partnership to ensure that new responses are set against future
development where appropriate.
Adopting policy P2 supports economic, social and environmental sustainability by accepting some
increased future losses within the Upper and Middle Nene catchment policy unit, allowing
resources to be allocated to those areas where the risk of flooding becomes unacceptably high in
the future. The objectives which are met by this policy (1% AEP future flood impact compared to
current baseline) are:
Justification • To minimise flood related risks to the population (328 more people at risk, spread over a
(cont.) large area).
• To minimise risks to critical infrastructure and community facilities (minor increase in flood
risk to STWs, electricity sub-stations and other critical infrastructure).
• To minimise community disruption from flooding (150 more residential properties at risk,
• To minimise economic impacts of flooding (increase of £13.53 million property damages,
• Ensure future investment in the catchment is proportional to the risks (a reduction in
maintenance will result in relatively limited increases in the future level of flood risk
compared with other policy unit areas).
• Protect and enhance significant historic environment assets and their settings (minor
increase in flood impact at 25 conservation areas, 16 scheduled monuments and 13 parks
and gardens).
(increase in flooding at 8 SSSIs – positive impact at 6 of these sites, neutral impact at 2).
environment, contributing to UK Biodiversity Action Plan targets (minor increase in area of
BAP habitats affected by flooding).
• Support the achievement of good status/potential of surface and ground water bodies
under the WFD (possible minor increase in pollutants resulting from rising flood levels).
Other policies were rejected for the Upper and Middle Nene catchment policy unit due to (1% AEP
future flood impact, compared to current baseline):
Policy P1 - no active intervention; significant economic and social losses and risk to people,
especially given the increased flooding in lower magnitude events occurring as a result of loss of
existing flood defences (increases of 353 people, 162 properties, and £14.93 million property
damages).
Policy P3 - continue with existing or alternative actions to manage flood risk at the current level;
social and economic losses (increases of 269 people, 124 properties, and £12.10 million property
damages) are moderate, however the expenditure on flood risk management is not considered to
be proportional to the risk relative to other policy units.
Policy P4 - take further action to sustain the current level of flood risk into the future; potential
Alternative economic benefits are attractive with £11.68 million reduction in future damages, against likely
policies costs of £5 million. However, benefits to people and property are relatively limited compared to
considered other areas, and higher flood risk priorities exist elsewhere.
Policy P5 - take further action to reduce flood risk (now and / or in the future); potential benefits to
people and property are small, and large capital costs of £20 million make it unlikely to be
sustainable and affordable (79 less people, 50 less properties, £1.01 million less property
damages). Higher flood risk priorities exist elsewhere.
Policy P6 - take action with others to store water or manage runoff in locations that provide overall
flood risk reduction or environmental benefits locally or elsewhere in the catchment; little scope for
this policy as the majority of watercourses within this policy unit are small upstream tributaries,
with small contributory areas and relatively low peak flows. As a result there is only a limited
potential for strategic storage which has an impact over a widespread area. There are a number of
larger tributaries within this policy unit, including the Harpers Brook, Willow Brook and Brampton
Branch of the River Nene, however storage is not considered appropriate on these tributaries due
Environment Agency
to the relative timing of their inflows to the River Nene downstream and preferred policies on other
tributaries.
Main opportunities
• Including new recreational and amenity features to contribute to the network of Green
Infrastructure developments, such as the River Nene Regional Park, arising from the
Government’s Sustainable Communities programme.
developing waterfronts and floodplains, fully embracing PPS25 recommendations and the
‘Making space for water’ philosophy.
Main constraints
• Demand for increased housing provision and associated infrastructure within the Milton
Keynes – South Midlands (Northampton, Corby, Kettering, Wellingborough) growth area and
London-Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough (Peterborough) growth areas may come into
conflict with the need to restrict development in floodplains.
• Landscape character and local designations may constrain works in some locations.
• Designated sites may be a constraint if special interest features are sensitive to flood levels.
Catchment- • Negative impacts may be experienced on existing biodiversity within the floodplain if flooding
wide is deep and prolonged in spring and summer months or if flood risk management measures
opportunities & isolate the river from its floodplain.
constraints
Opportunities
Changes to the flooding regime may enable the site to support additional features of nature
conservation interest
Constraints
Changes to the flooding regime may result in a deterioration in the habitat currently of the SSSI
which is currently in favourable condition

Opportunities
Contribution to appropriate management could help restore parts of the site which are currently in
unfavourable condition.
Constraints
Changes to the flooding regime may alter the composition of the grassland communities
Increased flooding may mean that the current management practices may be impractical, these
changes in management may also affect the grassland composition.

Opportunities
Increased flooding and appropriate management could enable the extension of the valuable
grassland into adjacent fields
Constraints
changes in management may also affect the grassland composition

Opportunities
Appropriate management of downstream and upstream reaches may enable extension of valuable
habitats and extend the range of the species for which the site is designated
Constraints
Upstream storage may create a barrier to migration for grayling and other aquatic fauna
Changes to the flooding regime may alter the composition of the flood meadow communities

Opportunities
Increasing the flood storage within the reservoir could create additional marginal habitat
Environment Agency
Constraints
Increased flood storage at the reservoir could affect the bird populations supported there, if the
marginal land is adversely affected
Scheduled Monuments
Opportunities
The reduction in flood risk to Scheduled Monument will reduce the likelihood of flood damage and
enable the long term preservation of these historical assets
Constraints
Increased flooding frequency or duration may increase the damaged to Scheduled Monuments
associated with flooding events
Reduction in flood risk in some areas may result in drying of ground conditions which may be
detrimental to some buried archaeological features
Catchment- Landfill sites

wide Opportunities
opportunities & The reduction of flood risk to landfill sites will consequently reduce the water pollution problems
constraints associated with flood events
(cont.) Constraints
Increasing the frequency or duration of flooding of landfill sites will consequently increase the
water pollution problems associated with flood events
Discharges
Opportunities
Appropriate management of flows and storage of winter floodwaters may provide greater dilution
of the numerous discharges from trade and sewage treatment works discharges, therefore
improving water quality
Constraints
Alterations to the flooding regime may reduce the available water for dilution of discharges during
summer months if inappropriately managed
Abstractions
Opportunities
Appropriate management of flows and storage of winter floodwaters may provide additional
supplies to supplement agricultural requirements and the public water abstractions from the
various reservoirs within the catchment
Constraints
Alterations to the flooding regime may reduce the available water for abstraction if inappropriately
managed
The modelling and flood risk analysis accuracy is, by its nature, high-level for the CFMP. Simple
JFLOW model output, of reduced accuracy compared to elsewhere, was used for most reaches in
the Upper and Middle Nene catchment. Significant uncertainty surrounds climate change effects,
as well as surface water and groundwater influence on flood events; groundwater flooding could
be an issue for the policy unit. Further uncertainty surrounds the ground levels and property
Risks, threshold levels obtained from the DTM, and also the type and distribution of contaminated land
Uncertainties & within the policy unit.
Dependencies
The estimates of flood damage within this policy unit are considered sufficiently accurate to inform
the selection of the proposed policy and response.
There is uncertainty over the likely effect of policy options on water levels / quality, siltation,
frequency and duration of flooding within the designated sites of this policy unit. The changes to
wetland habitat areas that might result from different policy options are also unclear, together with
the biodiversity losses and gains that might occur.
Environment Agency
River Nene (Weedon to Kislingbury)
Environment Agency
Policy unit: River Nene (Weedon to Kislingbury)
policy unit? This policy unit benefits from a number of flood defence schemes:
• Weedon flood storage reservoir, EA responsibility
• Kislingbury flood walls and banks, including one demountable
wall section, EA responsibility
Flood storage is under construction between Kislingbury and

Northampton which will provide benefit to Northampton and areas
further downstream, as well as compensating for development in
the Upper Nene.
Flood Warning
This policy unit is covered by flood warning and flood watch
areas:
• River Nene in Kislingbury and at Bugbrooke Mill - trigger sites
Dodford. Rate of uptake in this flood warning area is 66.15%.
• River Nene and Tributaries from Daventry to Kislingbury -
trigger sites Dodford and Brixworth. Rate of uptake in this
flood warning area is 53.85%.
• River Nene in Weedon – trigger sites Weedon Beck. Rate of
uptake in this policy unit is 65.93%.
490 people (196 properties) can apply for flood warnings in this
policy unit.
Maintenance:
annual expenditure:
• Control of vegetation to maintain channel capacity; £42.2k
• Inspection of assets and operations, £9.6k
• Maintenance of structures, £13.1k

budget for 2006/07 was £77.8k. Other activities in this policy unit
included, for that year, £2.1k for environmental management.
Standards of service Weedon flood storage area has a standard of protection equal to
that apply to flood the 2% event.
defences within the
policy unit? The Kislingbury flood defences have a standard of protection
equal to the 0.5% flood event.

exposed to flooding? Flooding from the Kislingbury branch of the River Nene and other
smaller tributaries. Valleys are steep, so onset of flooding likely to
be rapid, though storage area upstream of Weedon reduces
response time. Duration of flooding typically between 24 and 36
hours and depth of flooding is generally low (<0.5m). Some of
valleys quite narrow, and gradient is quite steep implying
moderate velocities are possible.
In Kislingbury there is the potential for sudden flooding as a result

of breaching of defences, though this is unlikely.
Environment Agency
57 properties are affected at the 1% flood event: 42 residential, 15

commercial (properties affected equates to 2.7% of the total
Serious flood risk to properties occurs relatively infrequently

(0.1% AEP flood) when defences in Kislingbury are breached,
and the Weedon flood storage area offers minimal benefits to
Weedon. Approximately 300 properties are at risk during the 0.1%
event.
Infrastructure

• Sewage Treatment Works (STW): Weedon STW flooded to
estimated depth of up to 1m.
• Waste Management Sites: 1 Metal Recycling site affected by
flooding.

• West Coast mainline (London – Birmingham) at risk of
flooding at Weedon. Line may not flood at the 1% event, but
disruption may occur.
• A5 at Weedon Bec affected by flooding at the 1% event. The
M1 near Kislingbury is at risk of flooding. Road may not flood
at the 1% event, but disruption may occur.
Community facilities affected by flooding: none
Economic
the catchment). The majority of these economic damages are
incurred by commercial sites near Kislingbury.
AAD: £0.69m

- Grade 1: 0%
- Grade 2: 1.1%
Environmental
• 13674A (Upton Bowl Barrow) Scheduled Monument affected
by flooding
Conservation Areas affected by flooding:

• Bugbrooke – typically flooded to depth of up to 0.4m.
• Kislingbury – flooded to depth of up to 2m.
• Nether Heyford – depth of flooding estimated as up to 0.5m.

• Group of low-lying meadows alongside Kislingbury Branch
with a range of damp very species-rich grassland
Environment Agency
communities which have escaped drainage and improvement,
10.1ha, 75% of area at risk of flooding at 1% AEP flood, up to
a depth of 0.7m
• Management action: most of meadows flooded for all events.
Flood in winter and remain wet into growing season. Cut for
hay/silage in summer/ autumn.
• Current condition 54 % unfavourable due to agricultural
management.
potentially increase the extent of wetland habitats within the
site.
Total Area in PU: 9.9ha
Area At Risk Current: 7.5ha

species.
currently most • 105 people affected by flooding and very long duration of
vulnerable to flood flooding.
damage and losses? • Serious flooding occurs relatively infrequently when defences
in the policy unit are overwhelmed.
Economic
• Economic damages moderate. Majority of damages come
from commercial sites near Kislingbury.
Environmental
• One Scheduled Monuments and three Conservation Areas
Urban Growth – urban growth in the catchment of the Kislingbury

Branch of the River Nene may increase flood risk in the future.
See relevant appendix for urban growth predictions for the River
Nene catchment.

future levels of flood In the future there are likely to be small increases in the depth,
risk under the main duration, frequency and velocity of flooding. Increase in the depth
scenarios? of flooding of less than 0.25m in depth. Most properties flooded to
depth of < 0.5m, though some flooded up to 1.25m.
Environment Agency

indicates a 69.1% increase in people affected at the current 1%
AEP flood.
90 properties are affected at the 1% flood event: 71 residential, 19

properties affected in the catchment). This figure indicates a
57.9% increase in properties affected at the current 1% AEP
flood.
Serious flood risk to properties occurs relatively infrequently

(0.1% AEP flood) when defences in Kislingbury are breached,
and the Weedon flood storage area offers minimal benefits to
Weedon. Approximately 350 properties are at risk during the 0.1%
event.
Infrastructure

• Sewage Treatment Works (STW): 2. Increase in depth of
flooding of approximately 0.2m at Weedon STW. Bugbrooke
STW becomes affected, with flooding up to a depth of
approximately 0.7m.
• IPPC Sites: 1 Food Manufacturing site becomes affected at
the future 1% AEP flood
• Waste Management Sites: Minor increases in depth expected
at Metal Recycling site.

• West Coast mainline (London – Birmingham) at risk of
flooding at Weedon. Line may not flood at the 1% event, but
disruption may occur.
• Grand Union Canal at Weedon at risk of flooding in the 1%
flood event.
• A5 at Weedon Bec affected by flooding at the 1% event.
Increased risk of flooding and disruption at the M1 in the
future.
• Flooding of all transport infrastructure likely to see a small
increase in duration, depth and velocity of flooding in the
future compared with present.
No community facilities at risk.
Economic
the catchment). This figure indicates a 23.4% increase in
damages incurred at the current 1% AEP flood.
AAD: £0.91m

- Grade 1: 0%
- Grade 2: 1.8%
Environment Agency
Environmental
• 13674A (Upton Bowl Barrow) Scheduled Monument affected
by flooding - increase in flooding of up to 0.15m
Conservation Areas affected by flooding:

• Bugbrooke – Increase in flooding of up to 0.6m
• Kislingbury – flooded up to 2m
• Nether Heyford – minor increases in depth.
national ecological sites:

• Bugbrooke Meadows SSSI, 10.1ha, area at risk of flooding
increases from 75% to 100% in the future 1% AEP flood.
Area At Risk Future: 9.9ha
% Area At Risk Future: 100, increase of 2.4ha from current 1%
event.
What potential • Offline storage
responses (or groups • Floodplain storage / wetland creation
of responses) are • River maintenance
being considered to • Wetland creation
manage flood risk? • Defences (to restrict floodplain)
• Localised defences
• Flood warning & evacuation
• Flood awareness
• Maintain/increase localised protection measures
• Withdraw defences
• Studies
in knowledge and what • Number of people affected calculated by using a multiplier of
assumptions have 2.5 on each residential property at risk
been made? • Current and future flood risk given here is solely for fluvial
the 1% AEP flood.
uncertainties.
management.
deposition.
Environment Agency
• The effect of P6 floodplain storage was done in a broadscale
way. Estimates of the amount of storage available in this
policy unit are relatively simplistic, and it is likely that in
reality storage will be developed in an opportunistic fashion.
• The analysis of flood risk in parts of this policy unit was
carried out using our JFLOW flood extents. Therefore the
results in this policy unit may be less reliable than for other
policy units.
Environment Agency
POLICY UNIT 2: RIVER NENE (WEEDON TO KISLINGBURY)
Description: The broadscale model was run with an increase in the roughness coefficient of
20% to simulate the effect of maintenance being stopped. Stopping maintenance would result
in a reduction in conveyance that can be approximated by increasing the roughness
coefficient by 20%. For the unmodelled Bugbrooke Brook it was assumed that the change in
damages, number of people affected etc. relative to the baseline would be of the same
magnitude as the change observed for the modelled reaches.
105 57 £4.43 million 1 SSSI affected
(+100%) (+79%) (+31%)
Conclusions

Generic Response: Policy 1 – Remove defences in place
Description: The broadscale model was run without the flood defences in Kislingbury. Depth
grids, flood extents and damages were generated for Kislingbury to determine the impact of
flooding if defences were removed.
(+214%) (+181%) (+85%)
Conclusions
Conclusion: Removal of defences in Kislingbury (or ceasing maintenance so the defences
fall into disrepair) will see up to 100 properties flooded that are at present defended. The
modelling of this generic response has shown that there would be a significant increase in
flood risk if defences were removed.

conveyance
10% to simulate the effect of reducing maintenance. Reducing maintenance would result in a
reduction in conveyance that can be approximated by increasing the roughness coefficient by
10%. For the unmodelled Bugbrooke Brook it was assumed that the change in damages,
number of people affected etc. relative to the baseline would be of the same magnitude as the
change observed for the modelled reaches.
(+97%) (+77%) (+40%)
Environment Agency
Conclusions
Cost: Reduction in annual expenditure on maintenance to approximately £39k.

already been modelled for Chapter 4. This assumes that defences are maintained at their
same level and that no alternative intervention occurs. Flood risk is anticipated to increase
because of climate change, urban development and land use change.
(+70%) (+58%) (+23%)
Conclusions
continued.

Description: The broadscale model was run with a decrease in the roughness coefficient of
20% to simulate the effect of an increase in river channel maintenance. Increasing
the roughness coefficient by 20%. For the unmodelled Bugbrooke Brook it was assumed that
the change in damages, number of people affected etc. relative to the baseline would be of
the same magnitude as the change observed for the modelled reaches.
(+54%) (+44%) (19%)
Conclusions
Cost: Annual expenditure on maintenance increased to £156k

Generic Response: Policy 4 – Increase conveyance by increasing maintenance,
developing upstream storage and creating localised protection
purposes of this generic response it was assumed that developing upstream storage and
Environment Agency
creating localised protection, alongside increasing maintenance, is capable of reducing the
level of future risk to the current level of risk.
Conclusions
Cost: Cost of implementing combined works of conveyance, storage and protection likely to
increase EA expenditure by £2 million.
Conclusion: Development of upstream storage, localised protection measures and increased
maintenance are capable of maintaining the flood risk at the present level into the future.

Generic Response: Policy 5 – Create/increase localised protection measures
generic response in Weedon and Bugbrooke, as shown in the diagram below:
Weedon defences Bugbrooke defences

(-78%) (-65%) (-12%)
Conclusions
Cost: Cost of constructing defences will be approximately £4 million
Conclusion: Constructing defences in Weedon and Bugbrooke prevents flooding in the two
most at risk locations in the policy unit. As a result of this the number of people and properties
affected reduces significantly. There is a moderate reduction in total damages due to the
presence of large commercial sites at risk in other parts of the policy units.
Environment Agency
Generic Response: Policy 6 –Develop storage to benefit downstream areas
Description: The broadscale model was run with storage reservoirs implemented on the
Kislingbury Branch of the River Nene. The figure below shows the location in this policy unit
identified as having potential for developing storage.
The storage area was modelled by lagging and attenuating the inflow hydrograph from the
Kislingbury Branch into the River Nene upstream of Northampton. The hydrograph was
modified based on detailed modelling of a flood storage sceheme currently under construction
in the vicinity of Kislingbury.

(+70%) (+58%) (+23%)
Conclusions
Cost: Cost of developing storage will be approximately £8 million.
Conclusion: The results from this generic response show a significant reduction in the
impact of flooding in downstream policy units. As a result this generic response should be
taken forward to the policy appraisal for P6.
Environment Agency

1 Remove defences in place
2 Reduced maintenance leading to decrease in conveyance
4 Increase conveyance by increasing maintenance, developing upstream storage
and creating localised protection
6 Develop storage to benefit downstream areas
Environment Agency
Form 12.6 Policy Appraisal Policy unit: River Nene (Weedon to Kislingbury)
No. Catchment Indicators Baseline P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6

objective No active Reduce existing Maintain current Sustain current Reduce current Increase
intervention actions risk risk risk frequency of
flooding
Generic responses: • Cease flood • Reduce • Maintain flood • Review flood • Review flood • Review flood
warning and influencing and warning and warning and warning and warning and
forecasting informing of forecasting forecasting forecasting forecasting
• Cease planning policy • Continue • Combined • Construct • Continue
maintenance of • Maintain flood maintenance of generic localised maintenance
river channel warning and river channel, response, defences in of river
and structures forecasting. structures, flood involving: Weedon and channel and
• Remove flood • Reduce defences and o Increased Bugbrooke structures
defences and maintenance of flood storage river • Emergency • Create
flood storage river channel, areas maintenance Response plan storage to
areas. structures, flood o Construction benefit
defences and of local downstream
flood storage defences areas.
areas. o Creation of
upstream
storage
• Emergency
Response plan
SOC1 To minimise Number of 105 people 330 people 207 people 178 people 105 people 23 people affected 178 people
risks to critical people at risk affected by affected at the 1% affected at the 1% affected at the 1% affected at 1% at the 1% AEP affected at the
infrastructure in the 1% flooding at AEP flood. AEP flood. AEP flood. AEP flood. flood. 1% AEP flood.
and flood 1% AEP
community Numbers of flood Cease flood Flood warning Flood warning Expansion of Review flood Review flood
facilities people warning and coverage coverage existing upstream warning coverage warning
covered by forecasting, with maintained at the maintained at the storage, localised through a Flood coverage
flood warning 490 people increased risk to same level. same level. protection Warning and through a Flood
or emergency (196 community. measures and Forecasting Warning and
/ evacuation properties) increased delivery plan Forecasting
plans can apply for maintenance delivery plan
flood capable of Develop a Flood
warnings in maintaining level Awareness plan to Develop a Flood
this policy of risk at current eoncurage sign up Awareness plan
unit. level. to flood warning to eoncurage
sign up to flood
Review flood warning
Environment Agency

flooding
warning coverage
through a Flood Developing
Warning and storage in this
Forecasting policy unit will
delivery plan reduce the
number of
Develop a Flood people at risk in
Awareness plan to downstream
eoncurage sign up policy units:
to flood warning
Northampton
Outer:
Reduction in the
number of
people at risk by
8.
Wellingborough:
Reduction in the
number of
people at risk by
49.
River Nene
(Oundle – Water
Newton):
Reduction in the
number of
people at risk by
23.
Peterborough:
Reduction in the
number of
people at risk by
38.
Environment Agency

flooding
Residual
benefits to
people in
Thrapston and
Northampton
Central.
Critical Increase in depth, Increase in depth, Increase in depth, No change in Increase in depth, Increase in
To minimise Numbers and infrastructure duration and duration and duration and depth, duration or duration and depth, duration
SOC2 risks to critical type of critical affected by frequency of frequency of frequency of frequency of frequency of and frequency of
infrastructure asset. flooding: flooding at flooding at flooding at flooding at flooding at flooding at
and Critical • Weedon Weedon STW. Weedon STW. Weedon STW. Weedon STW. Weedon STW. Weedon STW.
community infrastructure STW Depth of flooding Depth of flooding Depth of flooding Depth of flooding Depth of flooding Depth of
facilities includes: flooded to estimated as up to estimated as up to estimated as up to at Weedon STW estimated as up to flooding
• Electricity estimated 1.4m. 1.4m. 1.2m. estimated as up to 1.2m. estimated as up
Sub- depth of 1m. to 1.2m.
stations/po up to 1m. Bugbrooke STW Bugbrooke STW Bugbrooke STW Bugbrooke STW
wer supply • 1 Metal becomes flooded becomes flooded becomes flooded One metal becomes flooded Bugbrooke STW
• Sewage Recycling up to depth of up to depth of up to depth of recycling centre up to depth of becomes
Treatment Centre. 0.9m. 0.9m. 0.7m. affected. 0.7m. flooded up to
Works depth of 0.7m.
(STW) Transport Minor increase in Minor increase in Minor increase in No increase in Minor increase in
• Waste infrastructure depth, duration depth, duration depth, duration depth and depth, duration Minor increase
Treatment affected by and frequency of and frequency of and frequency of duration of and frequency of in depth,
Works flooding: flooding at metal flooding at metal flooding at metal flooding at key flooding at metal duration and
(STW) • West recycling site. recycling site. recycling site. transport recycling site. frequency of
• Waste Coast infrastructure. flooding at metal
Manageme mainline One IPPC site (a One IPPC site (a One IPPC site (a One IPPC site (a recycling site.
nt Sites (London – food food food Emergency food
• IPPC Sites Birmingha manufacturing manufacturing manufacturing Response plans manufacturing One IPPC site
• Transport: m) at site) becomes site) becomes site) becomes may help to site) becomes (a food
Railway, Weedon flooded to a flooded to a flooded to a manage risk to flooded to a manufacturing
Roads, at risk of shallow depth. shallow depth. shallow depth. infrastructure. shallow depth. site) becomes
Canals flooding. flooded to a
(particularl • A5 at Risk of Grand Risk of Grand Risk of Grand West Coast shallow depth.
y consider Weedon Union Canal Union Canal Union Canal Mainline at
ability to Bec flooding at flooding at flooding at Weedon becomes Minor Increase
• The M1 Weedon. Weedon. Weedon. protected by in depth and
Environment Agency

flooding
use other near defences. duration of
routes) Kislingbur Increase in depth Increase in depth Minor increase in flooding at key
Community y is at risk and duration of and duration of depth and Emergency transport
facilities of flooding at key flooding at key duration of Response plans infrastructure.
include: flooding. transport transport flooding at key may help to
• Hospitals Road may infrastructure. infrastructure. transport manage risk to Emergency
• Emergency not flood infrastructure. infrastructure. Response plans
Response at the 1% may help to
Centres event, but manage risk to
• Care disruption infrastructure.
Homes may
• Schools occur. Development of
storage under a
P6 would lead to
a reduction in
risk to critical
assets in
downstream
policy units.
SOC3 To minimise Number of 42 132 residential 83 residential 71 residential 42 residential 9 residential 71 residential
community properties residential properties and 28 properties and 19 properties and 19 properties and 15 properties and 11 properties and
disruption from affected in properties commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial 19 commercial
flooding the 1% flood and 15 properties properties properties properties properties properties
Category of commercial affected at the 1% affected at the 1% affected at the 1% affected at the 1% affected at the 1% affected at the
social properties AEP flood. AEP flood. AEP flood. AEP flood. AEP flood. 1% AEP flood.
vulnerability affected by
areas flooding at Increase in risk of Increase in risk of Social impact: Social impact: Benefit of Minor increase
affected in 1% AEP flooding occurs in flooding occurs in stay moderate - moderate - increased flood in depth,
the 1% flood flood. areas with low to areas with low to typically SFVI typically SFVI risk management duration and
Extent of moderate social moderate social category 2 and 3 category 3 felt in areas with velocity of
flooding Social vulnerability to vulnerability to low social flooding will
Duration of impact: flooding (category flooding (category Increase in risk of Areas at risk of vulnerability to occur.
flooding Moderate - 2&3) 2&3) flooding occurs in flooding have a flooding (category
typically areas with low to typically moderate 2). Most properties
SFVI Increase in depth, Increase in depth, moderate social social vulnerability are flooded to
category 3 duration and duration and vulnerability to to flooding Minor increase in depths of
Environment Agency

flooding
velocity of flooding velocity of flooding flooding (category (category 3) depth, duration significantly less
will occur. will occur. 2&3) and velocity of than 0.5m. No
No significant flooding will occur significant
Increase in depth, Increase in depth, Minor increase in increase in depth, outside of areas increase in
duration and duration and depth, duration duration and defended. velocities
velocity of velocity of and velocity of velocity of expected. Risk
flooding. flooding. flooding will occur. flooding. Most properties to life is limited.
Relatively large Relatively large are flooded to
increases in depth increases in depth Most properties Most properties depths of Developing
and velocity occur and velocity occur are flooded to are flooded to significantly less storage in this
in Weedon and in Weedon. Most depths of depths of than 0.5m, and policy unit will
Kislingbury. properties still significantly less significantly less thus there is a lead to a
Outside of these flooded to depths than 0.5m. No than 0.5m. Steep limited risk to life. reduction in the
areas most of less than 0.5m. significant and relatively Defences protect number of
residential increase in narrow valleys those areas where residential and
properties are velocities implies that some the depth and commercial
flooded to depths expected. Risk to moderately high velocity of flooding properties at risk
of less than 0.5m. life is limited. velocities may is highest. in downstream
occur. In general policy units:
risk to life is
limited. Northampton
Outer:
Reduction in the
number of
residential and
commercial
properties at risk
by 3 and 11
respectively.
Wellingborough:
Reduction in the
number of
residential and
commercial
properties at risk
by 20 and 5
Environment Agency

flooding
respectively.
River Nene
(Oundle – Water
Newton):
Reduction in the
number of
residential and
commercial
properties at risk
by 9 and 1
respectively.
Peterborough:
Reduction in the
number of
residential and
commercial
properties at risk
by 15 and 1
respectively.
Residual risk to
defended
properties in
Northampton
Central and
Thrapston
reduced.
To minimise Residential £0.84m £2.77m residential £1.48m residential £1.38m residential £0.84m residential £0.15m residential £1.38m
ECON economic damages 1% residential damages and damages and damages and damages and damages and residential
1 impacts of flood damages £5.44m £4.21m £4.09m £3.59m £3.48m damages and
flooding Commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial £4.09m
damages 1% £3.59m damages at the damages at the damages at the damages at the damages at the commercial
flood commercial 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood. damages at the
Agricultural damages 1% AEP flood.
damages in No Grade 1 No Grade 1 No Grade 1 No Grade 1 No Grade 1
Environment Agency

flooding
the 1% flood No Grade 1 agricultural land agricultural land agricultural land agricultural land agricultural land No Grade 1
Percentage and 1ha of affected. affected. affected. affected. affected. agricultural land
area of grade Grade 2 land affected.
1 and 2 affected in Greater than 1.8% Greater than 1.8% 1.8% of Grade 2 1.1% of Grade 2 1.8% of Grade 2
agricultural 1% AEP of Grade 2 of Grade 2 agricultural land agricultural land agricultural land At least 2ha of
land flooded flood agricultural land agricultural land affected. affected. affected. Grade 2
during the 1% affected. affected. agricultural land
flood affected
depending on
the location of
flood storage.
Development of
storage in this
policy unit will
lead to a
reduction in
residential and
commercial
damages in
downstream
policy units:
Northampton
Outer:
Reduction in
residential and
commercial
damages of
£0.10M and
£10.41M
respectively.
Wellingborough:
Reduction in
residential and
commercial
Environment Agency

flooding
damages of
£0.13M and
£5.01M
respectively.
River Nene
(Oundle to
Water Newton):
Reduction in
residential and
commercial
damages of
£0.29M and
£0.28M
respectively.
Peterborough:
Reduction in
residential and
commercial
damages of
£0.13M and
£0.36M
respectively.
Ensure future Expenditure Current EA ceases Annual EA No increase in Expanding Cost of Cost of
investment in on all FRM annual EA spending money expenditure on cost of influencing and constructing developing
ECON the catchment activities. expenditure on maintenance. maintenance maintenance in informing will lead defences will be storage will be
2 is proportional on estimated at £39k real terms – to a minor approximately approximately
to the risks maintenance EA ceases in current prices. remains at £78k in increase in EA £4M £8M.
estimated at influencing and current prices. expenditure.
£78k informing reducing EA reduces Increase in EA
expenditure expenditure on No increase in EA Cost of expenditure on
significantly. influencing and expenditure on implementing flood
informing. flood warning in combined works warning/flood
real terms. of conveyance, awareness.
storage and
protection likely to
Environment Agency

flooding
increase EA
expenditure by
£2M.
Protect and Numbers of: 13674 A Less protection for historic assets. This policy likely This policy would This policy would This policy
enhance • Scheduled Upton Bowl to lead to: result in no result in: would result in:
ENV1 significant Monument Barrow These policies are likely to lead to: - Small area of increase in depth - Same as effects - Same as
historic s Scheduled - Approx. 13ha of Kislingbury CA Kislingbury CA < or extent of under P3 except effects under P3
environment • Historic Monument flooded as a result of removal of 5ha outside of flooding compared Bugbrooke CA except Upton
assets and Parks and affected by defences. CA flooded to depth of up to defences, flooded with baseline. which becomes Bowl Barrow
their settings Gardens flooding 2m. to depth of up to protected, with the Scheduled
• Historic (100% of site - Bugbrooke and Nether Heyford CAs – 2m. There may exception of the Monument,
Battlefields flooded). as for P3. be significant area of the CA which will see
• Conservati - Increase in depth of flooding of up to localised that covers the an increase in
on Areas Conservatio 0.15m at Upton Bowl Barrow. Entire SM damages to the river channel. depth of flooding
adversely n Areas is flooded. historic of up to 0.1m.
affected by affected by environment of
flooding or flooding: Kislingbury CA
flood risk Bugbrooke - due to the high
management approx 4ha depth of flooding.
activities flooded to - Bugbrooke CA –
depth of up Increase in area
to 0.4m. flooded of approx.
Kislingbury - 1ha. Increase in
< 5ha depth of flooding
outside of of up to 0.6m.
defences, There may be
flooded to moderate
depth of up damages to the
to 2m. historic
Nether environment.
Heyford - - Small increase in
approx. 2ha area and depth of
flooded to flooding at Nether
depth of less Heyford CA.
than 0.5m. There could be
minor increases in
damages to
Environment Agency

flooding
Nether Heyford
CA.
- Increase in
depth of flooding
of up to 0.15m at
Upton Bowl
Barrow. Entire of
SM is flooded.
ENV2 Protect and Area of Bugbrooke Less protection for historic assets. Increase in depth No increase in Increase in depth Increase in
contribute to SSSIs, SPAs, Meadows of flooding of up to depth or extent of of flooding of up to depth of flooding
the SACs and SSSI Increase in depth of flooding of up to 0.1m at flooding compared 0.1m at of up to 0.1m at
improvement Ramsar sites affected. 0.1m at Bugbrooke Meadows SSSI. Bugbrooke with baseline Bugbrooke Bugbrooke
of designated flooded in a 7.5ha of the 100% of site flooded. Increased Meadows SSSI. Meadows SSSI. Meadows SSSI.
nature 1% flood 10.1ha site flooding could potentially increase the 100% of site is 100% of site is 100% of site
conservation Reported are flooded. extent of wetland habitats within the flooded. Positive flooded. Positive flooded. Positive
sites (SSSI, condition Depth of site. effect through an effect through an effect through
SPA, SAC and status of flooding up increase in the increase in the an increase in
Ramsar) SSSIs, SPAs, to 0.7m. extent of habitat. extent of habitat. the extent of
SACs and Current habitat.
Ramsar sites condition surrounding
at risk from a 54% existing
1% flood unfavourable ecologically
due to designated sites
agricultural which could
management result in entirely
Effect of new ecological
flooding: designations.
Positive -
Increased
flooding
could
potentially
increase the
extent of
wetland
habitats
within the
Environment Agency

flooding
site.
ENV3 Enhance the The Less protection for BAP habitats. This policy is likely This policy would This policy is This policy is
biodiversity of distribution Undetermine to lead to: result in no likely to lead to: likely to lead to:
the catchment and extent of d Grassland: These policies are likely to lead to: - Undetermined increase in depth - Undetermined - Undetermined
by improving the future UK Total Area in - Undetermined Grassland - Area At Grassland - Area or extent of Grassland - Area Grassland -
the quality of BAP priority PU: 9.9ha Risk Future: 100% At Risk Future: flooding compared At Risk Future: Area At Risk
the river habitats (for Area At Risk 100%. with baseline 100% Future: 100%
environment example, Current: 7.5
and fens, wet % Area At
contributing to woodland, Risk Current:
UK reed bed, 76ha
Biodiversity floodplain
Action Plan grazing Effect of
targets marsh) flooding on
undetermine
d grassland
is unknown,
dependant
on the plant
communities
present.
ENV4 • Support the WFD Article 5 Category: At Increases in the Increases in the Increases in the Taking action to Taking action to Taking action to
achievemen pressures risk frequency and frequency and frequency and sustain current reduce current reduce current
t of good and impacts extent of flooding extent of flooding extent of flooding level of flood risk level of flood risk level of flood risk
status/poten assessments Applicable are likely to are likely to are likely to at point and at point and at point and
tial of results factors: Point increase the increase the increase the diffuse sources of diffuse sources of diffuse sources
surface and WFD source levels of pollutants levels of pollutants levels of pollutants pollution could pollution could of pollution
groundwater ecological pollution, from sources in from sources in from sources in prevent potential prevent potential could prevent
bodies and chemical diffuse adjacent adjacent adjacent adverse effects on adverse effects on potential
under the status/potenti pollution, agricultural land agricultural land agricultural land water quality. This water quality. This adverse effects
WFD al of water physical or that are washed that are washed that are washed could provide could provide on water quality.
bodies. morphologic into the river with into the river with into the river with environmental environmental This could
al potential adverse potential adverse potential adverse improvements improvements provide
Area of alterations, effects on water effects on water effects on water helping to achieve helping to achieve environmental
contaminated aliens quality. This would quality. This would quality. This would WFD WFD improvements
or damaged species not help to not help to not help to environmental environmental helping to
land restored achieve WFD achieve WFD achieve WFD objectives objectives achieve WFD
Environment Agency

flooding
or protected environmental environmental environmental environmental
as a result of objectives objectives objectives objectives
flood risk
management
activities
Environment Agency
Form 12.7 Summary of overall gains and losses for each policy option Policy unit: River Nene (Weedon to Kislingbury)

Policy Social Social This policy option leads to a
one particular increase in risk to people
Low: Increase in the number of commercial High: Flood forecasting and warning ceased. as well as a significant increase in
properties affected – 4 more at risk. Number of Medium: Increase in the number of people affected – risk to property
commercial properties at risk is modest. 225 more at risk.
Medium: Increase in the number of residential
Economic properties affected – 42 more at risk.
Medium: Increase in depth, duration and velocity of
High: No EA expenditure on maintenance – flooding. Increase in depth, duration and velocity of
reduction of £78k p.a. flooding. Relatively large increases in depth and velocity
Medium: Increase in area of Grade 2 land affected occur in Weedon and Kislingbury. Outside of these
in this policy unit – at least 1.8% of Grade 2 land in areas most residential properties are flooded to depths
this policy unit is affected. Vast majority of of less than 0.5m. Medium: Increase in risk to transport
agricultural land affected is of lower quality. infrastructure – increased risk of West Coast Mainline
and M1 flooding. Increase in depth and length of A5
flooded.
Medium: Increase in risk to critical infrastructure – two
STWs, one IPPC site and one waste management site
affected.
Low: Increase in risk occurs in areas with a low-
moderate social vulnerability to flooding (categories 2
and 3).
Economic

Residential damages are moderately high when
compared with the rest of the catchment.
Commercial damages are moderately high when
Environment Agency

Medium: 100% of Bugbrooke Meadows SSSI may Low: Less protection for historic assets.
be flooded under this policy option. Substantial High: Damages to Kislingbury and Nether Heyford
increase in the extent of habitat within the SSSI. Conservation Areas. If defences were removed there
may be significant localised damages to the historic
environment of Kislingbury Conservation Area due to
the high depth of flooding.
Medium: Damages to Bugbrooke Conservation Area.
Medium: Upton Bowl Barrow Scheduled Monument
Low: Planning policy would not afford more protection
for BAP habitats.
agricultural land and increase risk under WFD.
Policy Social Social Not preferred. Reducing flood risk
two management will lead to significant
Low: Increase in the number of commercial Medium: Increase in risk to transport infrastructure – increases in risk to people and
properties affected – 4 more at risk. Number of increased risk of West Coast Mainline and M1 flooding. property.
commercial properties at risk is modest. Increase in depth and length of A5 flooded.
Medium: Increase in risk to critical infrastructure – two
Economic STWs, one IPPC site and one waste management site
affected.
Medium: Reduction in EA expenditure on Low: Increase in the number of people affected – 102
maintenance – reduction of £39k p.a. more at risk.
Medium: Increase in area of Grade 2 land affected Low: Increase in the number of residential properties
in this policy unit – at least 1.8% of Grade 2 land in affected – 41 more at risk.
this policy unit is affected. Vast majority of Low: Increase in risk occurs in areas with a low-
agricultural land affected is of lower quality. moderate social vulnerability to flooding (categories 2
Low: Increase in residential damages of £0.64M. and 3).
Despite this increase residential damages are Low: Increase in depth, duration and velocity of
modest compared with the rest of the catchment. flooding. Relatively large increases in depth and velocity
Low: Increase in commercial damages of £0.62M. occur in Weedon. Most properties still flooded to depths
Commercial damages are moderately high when of less than 0.5m.
compared with the rest of the catchment. Low: Flood forecasting and warning maintained at the
same level. Likely to see increase in risk to community.
Environment Agency
Economic
No economic losses identified.
Medium: 100% of Bugbrooke Meadows SSSI may Low: Planning policy would not afford more protection
be flooded under this policy option. Substantial for historic assets.
increase in the extent of habitat within the SSSI. High: Significant localised damages to the historic
environment of Kislingbury Conservation Area due to
the high depth of flooding.
Medium: Upton Bowl Barrow Scheduled Monument
for BAP habitats.
Policy Social Social Not preferred. Although the social

three and economic impact under this
Medium: Minor increase in the depth, duration and Medium: Increase in risk to transport infrastructure – policy option is moderate, this policy
velocity of flooding. Most properties are flooded to increased risk of West Coast Mainline and M1 flooding. is not preferred as there is potential
depths of significantly less than 0.5m. No Increase in depth and length of A5 flooded. for developing storage in this policy
significant increase in velocities expected. Risk to Medium: Increase in risk to critical infrastructure – two unit to benefit downstream areas.
life is limited. STWs, one IPPC site and one waste management site This policy option does not exploit
Low: Increase in the number of commercial affected. this potential.
properties affected – 4 more at risk. Number of Low: Increase in the number of people affected – 73
commercial properties at risk is moderately high. more people at risk. This constitutes a moderately high
number of people at risk.
Economic Low: Increase in the number of residential properties
affected – 29 more at risk. Compared with the rest of
Medium: Increase in area of Grade 2 land affected the catchment this number of moderately high.
in this policy unit – 1.8% of Grade 2 land in this Low: Increase in risk occurs in areas with a low-
policy unit is affected. Vast majority of agricultural moderate social vulnerability to flooding (categories 2
Environment Agency

land affected is of lower quality. and 3).
Medium: Increase in residential damages of Low: Flood forecasting and warning maintained at the
£0.54M. Despite this increase residential damages same level. Likely to see increase in risk to community.
are modest compared with the rest of the
catchment. Economic
Low: EA expenditure remains at the same level -
£78k p.a. No economic losses identified.
Commercial damages are moderately high when Environmental
Medium: localised damages to the historic environment
of Kislingbury Conservation Area due to the high depth
Environmental of flooding.
Medium: 100% of Bugbrooke Meadows SSSI may Low: Damages to Nether Heyford Conservation Area.
be flooded under this policy option. Substantial Medium: Upton Bowl Barrow Scheduled Monument
increase in the extent of habitat within the SSSI. affected by flooding.
Low: some small increases in the extent of Low: May increase the diffuse pollution for adjacent
Grassland Networks (BAP) agricultural land and increase risk under WFD
Policy Social Social Not preferred. There is insufficient

four risk to in this policy unit to justify
Medium: No change in the depth and duration of Medium: Low/moderate risk to regionally and nationally increased expenditure on flood risk
flooding. Most properties are flooded to depths of important transport links (M1 and West Coast Mainline) management.
significantly less than 0.5m. Steep and relatively remains.
narrow valleys implies that some moderately high Low: No change in impact on critical infrastructure –
velocities may occur. In general risk to life is one STW and one IPPC site still at risk.
limited.
Medium: Flood Warning and Forecasting Delivery Economic
and effectiveness of flood warning. Medium: Increase in EA expenditure to maintain risk at
Low: The number of people affected maintained at present level – cost of capital works estimated at £2M.
the same low level – 105 at risk.
Low: the number of residential properties affected Environmental
maintained at the same low level – 42 at risk.
Low: Number of commercial properties maintained Medium: Kislingbury Conservation Area still affected by
Environment Agency

at same moderately low level – 15 at risk. flooding.
Medium: Bugbrooke Conservation Area still affected by
flooding.
Low: Nether Heyford Conservation Area still affected by
Economic flooding.
Low: Upton Bowl Barrow Scheduled Monument still
Medium: Residential damages maintained at the affected by flooding.
same low level - £0.84M of damages.
same low level - £3.59M of damages.
Medium: Area of Grade 2 agricultural land at risk
maintained at the same low level – 1.1% of Grade
2 agricultural land in this policy unit is affected.
Vast majority of land at risk is of a lower quality.
Environmental
Low: Damages and degradation to historic

environment remain at the same baseline level.
Medium: Bugbrooke Meadows SSSI currently
flooded.
Policy Social Social Not preferred. There is insufficient

five flood risk in this policy unit to
High: Reduction in the number of people affected – Medium: Increase in risk to critical infrastructure, warrant increased investment in
82 less people at risk. including two STWs. flood risk management.
High: Reduction in the number of residential Low: Minor increase in the risk of the M1 flooding. West
properties affected – 33 less at risk. Coast Mainline becomes protected by defences in
Medium: Reduction in the number of commercial Weedon.
properties affected – 4 less at risk.
Medium: Minor increase in the depth, duration and Economic
velocity of flooding in most areas. Most properties
are flooded to depths of significantly less than High: Significant increase in the level of expenditure on
0.5m, and thus there is a limited risk to life. flood defence – cost of capital works to reduce impact
Environment Agency

Defences protect those areas where the depth and of flooding estimated at £4M.
velocity of flooding is highest.
plan and Flood Awareness plan increase coverage Environmental
Low: Defences protect areas with a moderate Medium: localised damages to the historic environment
social vulnerability (category 3). of Kislingbury Conservation Area due to the high depth
of flooding.
Economic Low: Damages to Bugbrooke Conservation Area are
limited to just the area of the CA that covers the river
High: Reduction in residential damages of £0.69M. channel.
Residential damages are very low. Low: Damages to Nether Heyford Conservation Area.
Medium: Reduction in commercial damages of Medium: Upton Bowl Barrow Scheduled Monument
£0.11M. Commercial damages become affected by flooding.
moderately low.
Medium: Increase in area of Grade 2 land affected
in this policy unit – 1.8% of Grade 2 land in this
policy unit is affected. Vast majority of agricultural
land affected is of lower quality.
Environmental
Medium: 100% of Bugbrooke Meadows SSSI may

be flooded under this policy option. Substantial
increase in the extent of habitat within the SSSI.
Low: some small increases in the extent of
Grassland Networks (BAP)
Medium: Damages are reduced for Bugbrooke
Conservation Area if it becomes protected (with
the exception of the area of the CA that covers the
river channel).
Low: This policy may contribute to the
achievement of good surface water status under
WFD by reducing the frequency of diffuse pollution
incidence.
Environment Agency

Policy Social Social PREFERRED POLICY. Increases in
six social and economic impacts are
High: Significant benefits to people in downstream Medium: Increase in risk to transport infrastructure – allowed to increase as they would if
policy units. 118 less people at risk – 8 in increased risk of West Coast Mainline and M1 flooding. current flood risk management
Northampton Outer, 49 in Wellingborough, 23 in Increase in depth and length of A5 flooded. continued but major gains in
River Nene (Oundle – Water Newton), and 38 in Medium: Increase in risk to critical infrastructure – two downstream policy units are gained.
Peterborough. STWs, one IPPC site and one waste management site Significant environmental gains
High: Significant benefits to properties in affected. could occur as a result of the
downstream policy units. 47 less at risk – 3 in Low: Increase in the number of people affected – 73 development of storage in this policy
Northampton (Outer), 20 in Wellingborough, 9 in more people at risk. This constitutes a moderately high unit.
River Nene (Oundle – Water Newton), and 15 in number of people at risk.
Peterborough. Low: Increase in the number of residential properties
High: Residual benefits to people and property in affected – 29 more at risk. Compared with the rest of
Northampton Central and Thrapston policy units. the catchment this number of moderately high.
Developing storage capable of maintaining the Low: Increase in risk occurs in areas with a low-
standard of protection of flood defences in moderate social vulnerability to flooding (categories 2
Northampton Central and Thrapston. and 3).
Medium: Minor increase in the depth, duration and
velocity of flooding. Most properties are flooded to Economic
depths of significantly less than 0.5m. No
significant increase in velocities expected. Risk to High: Large increase in the level of expenditure on flood
life is limited. defence – estimated that construction of flood storage in
Medium: Flood Warning and Forecasting Delivery this policy unit is likely to cost £8M.
Low: Increase in the number of commercial
properties affected – 4 more at risk. Number of
commercial properties at risk is moderately high.
Economic Environmental
High: Significant reduction in commercial damages Medium: localised damages to the historic environment
in downstream policy units. Reduction of £16.06M of Kislingbury Conservation Area due to the high depth
- £10.41M in Northampton Outer, £5.01M in of flooding.
Wellingborough, £0.28M in River Nene (Oundle – Medium: Damages to Bugbrooke Conservation Area.
Environment Agency

Water Newton), and £0.36M in Peterborough. Low: Damages to Nether Heyford Conservation Area.
Medium: Reduction in residential damages in Medium: Upton Bowl Barrow Scheduled Monument
downstream policy units as a result of this policy. affected by flooding, and under this policy would result
Reduction of £0.65M - £0.10M in Northampton in an increase in depth of flooding of up to 0.1m.
Outer, £0.13M in Wellingborough, £0.29M in River
Nene (Oundle – Water Newton), and £0.13M in
Peterborough.
Medium: Increase in area of Grade 2 land affected
in this policy unit – 1.8% of Grade 2 land in this
policy unit is affected. Vast majority of agricultural
land affected is of lower quality.
Medium: Increase in residential damages of
£0.54M. Despite this increase residential damages
are modest compared with the rest of the
catchment.
Commercial damages are moderately high when
Environmental
Medium: 100% of Bugbrooke Meadows SSSI may

be flooded under this policy option. Substantial
increase in the extent of habitat within the SSSI.
High: Could lead to an increase in the area of
habitat surrounding existing designated sites or
result in entirely new ecological designations.
Environment Agency
Form 12.8 Summary of the Preferred Policy Policy unit: River Nene (Weedon to Kislingbury)
The River Nene (Weedon to Kislingbury) policy unit is largely rural in nature. It covers the
Policy Unit
floodplain of the River Nene on the Kislingbury branch from Weedon to the A45 Upton Way
2 – River Nene
crossing of the Nene at Northampton, as well as parts of the Weedon Bec and Bugbrooke Brook
(Weedon to
tributaries. It includes the key town of Kislingbury as well as smaller settlements such as the
Kislingbury
villages of Weedon and Bugbrooke.
The policy unit is in the upstream reaches of the River Nene to the west of Northampton. It has a
low population density and is primarily made up of grade 3 agricultural land.
The main source of flooding is fluvial, due to high flows in the watercourses. Significant flooding
was recorded in the catchment area during 1946 (Nov), 1947 (Mar) and more recently in 1992
(Sept) and 1998 (Apr). Groundwater and surface water flooding are not thought to pose a risk to
people and properties here, though it is presently difficult to quantify this risk accurately.
Subsequent to major flooding in April 1998, a number of defences have been constructed: flood
storage reservoir for Weedon in 2002, to 2% AEP; defences for Kislingbury in 2003, to 0.5% AEP;
flood storage linked to new development between Kislingbury and Northampton, providing benefit
Problem / Risk
to Northampton and downstream areas, plus compensating for development in the Upper Nene.
Our analysis suggests that a 1% AEP flood event would affect 105 people and 57 properties,
causing £4.4 million property damages, concentrated at undefended properties in Bugbrooke and
other commercial property.
effects from future development, could increase peak flows by up to approximately 20%. In the
future there is likely to be an increasing risk of overtopping and potential breach of defences. Our
analysis suggests that a 1% AEP future flood would affect 178 people and 90 properties (a rise of
over 50%), causing £5.5 million property damages (a rise of up to 25%).
Policy P6 – Take action with others to store water or manage runoff in locations that provide
overall flood risk reduction or environmental benefits locally or elsewhere in the catchment (which
may constitute an overall risk reduction e.g. for habitat inundation).
Chosen Policy The social and economic impacts within this policy unit are allowed to increase as they would if
current flood risk management were continued, whilst there are major social and economic gains
in downstream policy units. Significant environmental gains could occur as a result of the
development of flood storage in this policy unit.
The broadscale model was run with increased floodplain storage on the Kislingbury Branch of the
River Nene (see modelling summary after Form 12.5). This could comprise changes to floodplain
topography, perhaps through raising or lowering bank heights, or use of control structures, but
was simply represented by reducing and delaying the flows in the model through Northampton.
Generic
This was based on detailed modelling of similar flood storage currently under construction, the
Responses
results showing significant benefits downstream. Some local reduction in damages may be gained
depending on the storage locations selected, with continued maintenance of the flood defences
required. The new flood storage provision will require appropriate enhancements to flood warning,
development control and emergency response planning (for example for infrastructure).
Adopting policy P6 will focus efforts on creating flood storage to the benefit of all downstream
areas (for example 1% AEP future flood risk reductions at: Northampton Outer, 8 people, 3
properties and £10.5 million; Wellingborough 49 people, 20 properties and £5.1 million; River
Nene (Oundle to Water Newton), 23 people, 9 properties and £0.6 million; Peterborough, 38
people, 15 properties and £0.5 million). This will be achieved through the generic responses
Justification outlined above, altering the shape and peak of the downstream flood hydrograph to help offset the
effects of future climate and development change and maximising the effectiveness of the
Northampton washlands. Implementation should continue to be largely promoted and funded
through linking the requirements to any further development in the catchment, where this is
appropriate, working in partnership with developers and planners.
Environment Agency
Within the River Nene (Weedon to Kislingbury) policy unit, policy P6 will allow present actions to
control flood risk to be continued (for example maintaining the channels and defences, and flood
warning). The resulting future flood risk (increase of 73 people, 33 properties and £1.1 million
property damages at 1% AEP) is accepted as the increase if current flood risk management were
continued, this policy unit representing approximately 2% of total future 1% AEP flood risk for the
CFMP area, and is set against the potential to reduce downstream flood damages for this event by
up to approximately £16.7 million as set out above. This reduces flood risk for thousands of
people, as well as for critical infrastructure and other important assets; the residual flood risk in
Justification Northampton Central and Thrapston is also reduced.
(cont.)
Some local reduction in damages may be gained depending on the storage locations selected,
with continued maintenance of the flood defences required. The new flood storage provision will
require appropriate enhancements to flood warning, development control and emergency
response planning (for example for infrastructure), together with appropriate land use planning.
Policy P6 supports economic, social and environmental sustainability by making best use of the
Nene floodplain for storage. It prioritises offsetting future impacts, from climate and development
change, in many areas with the highest flood risk. The objectives which are met by this policy (1%
AEP future flood impact compared to current baseline; ‘future’ reduction downstream) are:
• To minimise flood related risks to the population (73 more people in PU2; reduction of 118
people downstream).
• To minimise risks to critical infrastructure and community facilities (small increased risk to
3 sites locally; risk reduction achieved to numerous sites downstream).
• To minimise community disruption from flooding (increase of 29 residential and 4
commercial properties in PU2; reduction of 47 residential, 18 commercial downstream).
• To minimise economic impacts of flooding (local increase of £1.04 million property
damages).
• Ensure future investment in the catchment is proportional to the risks (estimated £8 million
cost of works with small increase in maintenance costs, both partially set against future
development; reduction in future flood damage of £16.7 million achieved downstream).
• Protect and enhance significant historic environment assets and their settings (increased
flooding at 3 Conservation Areas and 1 SM; but numerous sites downstream protected).
• Protect and contribute to the improvement of designated nature conservation sites (likely
improvement/ expansion locally of Bugbrooke Meadows SSSI).
environment, contributing to UK Biodiversity Action Plan targets (creation of ‘grassland’).
under the WFD (likely reduction in pollutants resulting from enhanced land management).
Other policies were rejected for the River Nene (Weedon-Kislingbury) due to (1% AEP future flood
Policy P1 - no active intervention; significant economic and social losses (increases of 225 people,
103 properties, and £3.8 million property damages) with loss of current defences leading to high
risk to public health and safety.
Alternative Policy P2 - reduce existing flood risk management actions; economic and social losses (increases
policies of 102 people, 45 properties, and £1.26 million property damages), with risk to public health and
considered safety. These are significant increases in flood risk without the downstream gains that policy P6
would provide.
allowing flood risk to rise with future change as additional flood risk management responses are
unlikely to be justified locally; however the policy does not offer the measurable benefits to policy
units downstream that policy P6 would provide.
Policy P4 - take further action to sustain the current level of flood risk into the future; future rises in
Environment Agency
economic and social losses are presently considered relatively limited, and are therefore unlikely
to justify additional responses across this policy unit (potential £1 million damage reduction,
costing roughly twice that amount), though under P6 some local benefits may be achieved.
Policy P5 - take further action to reduce flood risk (now and / or in the future); potential benefits
are attractive but difficult to justify against likely costs, such that any major response here is
unlikely to be sustainable and affordable with approximately £2 million future damage reduction,
costing roughly twice that amount; higher flood risk priorities exist elsewhere.
Main opportunities
• New recreational and amenity features to contribute to the network of Green Infrastructure
developments, such as the River Nene Regional Park, arising from the Government’s
Sustainable Communities programme.
• Use of existing or new mineral extraction sites and influencing their reinstatement plans.
Main constraints
• The River Nene navigation is an important asset to the local community and economy.
• Negative impacts may be experienced on existing biodiversity within the floodplain if flooding
is deep and prolonged in spring and summer months or if flood risk management measures
isolate the river from its floodplain.
• Land availability is a constraint for responses requiring changes in land use or management.
Catchment- Opportunities: Increased flooding and appropriate management could enable the extension of the
wide valuable grassland into adjacent fields.
opportunities & Constraints: Changes to the flooding regime may alter the composition of the grassland
constraints communities. Increased flooding may mean that the current management practices may not be
practical, these changes in management may also affect the grassland composition.
Landfill sites
Opportunities: The reduction of flood risk to landfill sites will consequently reduce the water
pollution problems associated with flood events.
Constraints: Increasing the frequency or duration of flooding of landfill sites could potentially
increase water pollution problems, requiring design of mitigation measures.
Discharges
Opportunities: Appropriate management of flows and storage of winter floodwaters may provide
greater dilution of the numerous discharges from trade and sewage treatment works discharges,
therefore improving water quality.
Constraints: Alterations to the flooding regime may reduce the available water for dilution of
discharges during summer months if inappropriately managed.
Abstractions
additional supplies to supplement agricultural requirements and public water provision.
Constraints: Alterations to the flooding regime may reduce the available water for abstraction if
inappropriately managed.
Risks, JFLOW model output, of reduced accuracy compared to elsewhere, was used on the tributaries.
Uncertainties & Significant uncertainty surrounds climate change effects, as well as surface water and
Dependencies groundwater influence on flood events though these are not thought to be significant. Further
uncertainty surrounds the ground levels and property threshold levels obtained from the DTM, and
also the type and distribution of contaminated land within the policy unit.
Environment Agency
The estimates of flood damage within the River Nene (Weedon-Kislingbury) are considered
sufficiently accurate to inform the selection of the proposed policy and response. However, the
uncertainty over present flood risk at Bugbrooke village may need to be investigated further, and
the uncertainty over the detailed application of P6 storage needs to be investigated more at a
strategic level.
frequency and duration of flooding within the designated sites of this and downstream policy units.
The changes to wetland habitat areas that might result from different policy options are also
unclear, together with the biodiversity losses and gains that might occur.
Environment Agency
Wootton
Environment Agency
Policy unit: Wootton
flood risk within the No formal defences within this policy unit, though there may be
policy unit? some informal/ private defences.
Flood Warning
Wootton is covered by several flood warning and flood watch
areas:
• Wootton Brook in the Collingtree Park Area of Northampton -
trigger site Wootton Brook. The rate of uptake in this flood
153 people (61 properties) can apply for flood warnings within the
policy unit.
Maintenance
annual expenditure:
• Control of vegetation to maintain channel capacity; £11.3k.
• Inspection of assets and operations, £2.6k.

budget for 2006/07 was £20.9k.
Standards of service There are no formal defences in this policy unit.

that apply to flood
defences within the
policy unit?

exposed to flooding? Fluvial flooding from Wootton Brook, duration of flooding
moderate (up to 24 hours), velocities and depths generally
moderate (< 0.5m typically, though a few properties flooded to
depths of greater than 1m). There is some history of surface
water flooding in this policy unit.

Flooding of approx. 30 properties can occur frequently (> 10per

cent annual event probability). Increase in the number of
properties affected from the 10% event to the 1% event is not
dramatic.
74 properties are at risk at the 1% flood event: 71 residential, 3

Social impact: Low - typically SFVI categories 1 or 2
Infrastructure
Critical Infrastructure affected at the 1% event: none
Environment Agency
Transport Infrastructure affected at the 1% event:

• West Coast Mainline (Northampton Branch) at risk of flooding.
• A508 at Wootton.
Community facilities affected at the 1% event: none
Economic
the catchment). Majority of damages comes from residential
properties.
AAD:£0.08m

- Grade 1: 0%
- Grade 2: 1.2%
Environmental
Historic Environment: none
International ecological sites: none
Extent and distribution of BAP habitats: N/A

Applicable factors:
• River Nene: Point source pollution, diffuse pollution, physical
or morphological alterations, alien species.
• Wootton Brook: Diffuse pollution, physical or morphological
alteration.

currently most • 178 people affected by flooding. Social impact generally low
vulnerable to flood (e.g. low SFVI, and generally low depths).
damage and losses? • Some risk to locally and nationally important transport
infrastructure.
Economic
• Economic damages are not high – majority come from
residential properties though.
Environmental
• No significant environmental features present in policy unit.
Urban Growth – urban growth in the Wootton Brook catchment

may increase flood risk in the future. See relevant appendix for
urban growth predictions for the Wootton Brook catchment.
Environment Agency
future levels of flood Increase in depth of between 0.25 and 1m. Most of properties
risk under the main flooded to depth of < 1m, though a few properties are flooded to
scenarios? depths of up to 3.5m.

indicates a 12.7% increase in people affected from the current 1%
flood event.
83 properties are affected in the future 1% flood: 80 residential, 3

flood.
Social impact: Low - typically SFVI categories1 and 2
Infrastructure
Critical infrastructure affected by flooding:

Transport infrastructure affected by flooding:

• West Coast mainline (Northampton Branch) is at an increased
risk of flooding.
• A508 at Wootton

in duration, depth and velocity of flooding in the future compared
with present.
Economic
damages from the current 1% event.
AADs: £0.12m

- Grade 1: 0%
- Grade 2: 2%
Environmental
Historic Environment: none
national ecological sites: none
Extent and distribution of BAP habitats: N/A
What potential • River maintenance

responses (or groups • Defences (to restrict floodplain)
of responses) are • Localised defences
being considered to • Flood warning & evacuation
manage flood risk? • Flood Awareness
Environment Agency
• Studies
the 1% AEP flood.
uncertainties.
management.
deposition.
Environment Agency
POLICY UNIT 3: WOOTTON
coefficient by 20%.
(+49%) (+50%) (+49%)
Conclusions

conveyance
10% to simulate the effect of reduced maintenance. Reducing maintenance would result in a
10%.
(+48%) (+47%) (+43%)
Conclusions

same level and that no alternative intervention occurs.
(+12%) (+12%) (+16%)
Conclusions
continued.
Environment Agency
increase upstream storage and creating localised protection
(increasing maintenance, localised protection, and developing existing storage for the
Conclusions
increase EA expenditure by £1 million
Conclusion: Developing upstream storage, increasing maintenance and creating localised
protection can counteract increases in peak flow expected in the future.

Description: The effect of localised protection measures were not simulated using the
areas that would be defended were defences to be built. Defences were constructed along
the Wootton Brook as shown in the diagram below.

Environment Agency
(-59%) (-58%) (-72%)
Conclusions
Cost: Cost of constructing defences will be approximately £4 million
Conclusion: The results from the modelling of this generic response show a significant
reduction in the risk to people and property. There is also a substantial increase in the level of
damages, however, given the large reductions in risk to people and property, this generic
response will be taken forward to the policy appraisal for P5.

Description: Not feasible in this Policy Unit. The Policy Unit is largely urbanised with
insufficient floodplain area to make storage effective.
No further modelling carried out.

1 Stop maintenance leading to decrease in conveyance
4 Increase conveyance by increasing maintenance, increase upstream storage
5 Increase localised protection measures
Environment Agency
Form 12.6 Policy Appraisal Policy unit: Wootton

flooding
Generic responses: • Cease flood • Reduce • Maintain flood • Review flood • Review flood Opportunities for
warning and influencing and warning and warning and warning and additional storage
forecasting informing of forecasting forecasting forecasting developments
• Cease planning policy • Continue • Combined • Construct have been
maintenance • Maintain flood maintenance of generic localised identified in the
of river warning and river channel response, defences on River Nene (from
channel and forecasting. and structures. involving: the Wootton Weedon to
structures • Reduce • Surface Water o Increased Brook Kislingbury) policy
maintenance of Management river • Surface Water unit and the River
river channel and Plan maintenance Management Nene Corridor
structures. • Emergency o Construction Plan policy unit. Very
Response plan of local • Emergency little scope to
defences Response apply in this policy
o Creation of plan unit therefore no
upstream assessment of
storage gains and losses
• Surface Water was undertaken.
Management
Plan
• Emergency
Response plan
SOC To minimise Number of 178 people 265 people 263 people affected 200 people 178 people 73 people
1 flood related people at risk affected by affected at the at the 1% AEP flood. affected at the 1% affected at 1% affected at the
risks to the in the 1% flooding at 1% 1% AEP flood. AEP flood. AEP flood 1% AEP flood.
population flood AEP flood Flood warning
Numbers of Cease flood coveragte Review flood Increased Review flood
people 153 (61 warning and maintained at the warning coverage maintenance, warning
covered by properties) can forecasting, with same level. through a Flood creation of small coverage
flood warning apply for flood increased risk to Warning and scale upstream through a Flood
or emergency warnings within community Increased risk of Forecasting storage and Warning and
/ evacuation the policy unit. surface water delivery plan. localised Forecasting
plans Increased risk of flooding. protection delivery plan.
surface water Develop a Flood measures capable
flooding. Awareness plan to of maintaining Develop a Flood
Environment Agency

flooding
encourage sign up level of risk at Awareness plan
to flood warning. current level. to encourage
sign up to flood
Develop an Review flood warning.
Surface Water warning coverage
Management Plan through a Flood Develop an
to reduce the Warning and Surface Water
impact of surface Forecasting Management
water. delivery plan. Plan to reduce
the impact of
Develop a Flood surface water.
Awareness plan to
encourage sign up
to flood warning.
Develop an
Surface Water
Management Plan
to reduce the
impact of surface
water.
To minimise Numbers and No critical 2 Electricity sub- 2 Electricity sub- 2 Electricity sub- No increase in 1 Electricity
risks to critical type of critical infrastructure stations stations affected. stations affected. depth and substations
SOC infrastructure asset. affected. affected. Depth Depth of flooding up Depth of flooding duration of flooded, with
2 and Critical of flooding up to to 0.8m. up to 0.70m. flooding at key depth of up to
community infrastructure Transport 0.85m. transport 0.7m.
facilities includes: infrastructure Increase in depth, Increase in depth, infrastructure.
• Electricity affected: Increase in duration and duration and Increase in
Sub- • West Coast depth, duration frequency of flooding frequency of Emergency depth, duration
stations/po mainline and frequency of at key transport flooding at key Response plans and frequency of
wer supply (Northampton flooding at key infrastructure. transport may help to flooding at key
• Sewage Branch) at transport infrastructure. manage risk to transport
Treatment risk of infrastructure. infrastructure. infrastructure
Works flooding. Emergency not protected by
(STW) • A508 at Response plans defences.
• Waste Wootton. may help to
Environment Agency

flooding
Treatment manage risk to Increased risk of
Works infrastructure. flooding to
(STW) Northampton
• Waste Branch of the
Manageme West Coast
nt Sites Mainline.
• IPPC Sites
• Transport: Emergency
Railway, Response plans
Roads, may help to
Canals manage risk to
(particularly infrastructure.
consider
ability to
use other
routes)
Community
facilities
include:
• Hospitals
• Emergency
Response
Centres
• Care
Homes
• Schools
SOC To minimise Number of 71 residential 106 residential 105 residential 80 residential 71 residential 29 residential
3 community properties properties and 3 properties and 5 properties and 4 properties and 3 properties and 3 properties and 2
disruption from affected in the commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial
flooding 1% flood properties properties properties affected properties properties properties
Category of affected by affected at the at the 1% AEP flood. affected at the 1% affected at the 1% affected at the
social flooding at 1% 1% AEP flood. AEP flood. AEP flood. 1% AEP flood.
vulnerability AEP flood. Increase in risk of
areas affected Increase in risk flooding occurs in Increase in risk of Areas at risk of Increase in risk
Environment Agency

flooding
in the 1% Social impact: of flooding areas with low flooding occurs in flooding have a of flooding
flood Low - typically occurs in areas vulnerability to areas with low typically low social occurs in areas
Extent of SFVI categories with low flooding (category 2) vulnerability to vulnerability to with low
flooding 1 or 2 vulnerability to flooding (category flooding vulnerability to
Duration of flooding Increase in depth, 2) (categories 1 and flooding
flooding (category 2) duration and velocity 2) (category 2)
of flooding will occur. Minor increase in
Increase in depth, duration No change in Minor increase
depth, duration Small increase in and velocity of depth, duration in depth,
and velocity of depth of flooding at flooding will occur. and velocity of duration and
flooding will residential flooding. velocity of
occur. properties. Majority Small increase in flooding will
of properties on the depth of flooding Majority of occur outside of
Small increase Wootton Brook are at residential residential areas defended.
in depth of flooded to depths of properties. properties are still
flooding at less than 0.5m. A Majority of flooded to depths Defences will
residential small number (5 - residential of less than 0.5m. protect those
properties. 10) are flooded to properties are still Less than 5 areas where
Majority of depth of significantly flooded to depths flooded to depths deep and fast
properties on more than 1m, of less than 0.5m, of greater than flooding occurs.
the Wootton posing a risk to life. although approx. 1m. Velocities All properties
Brook are Velocities may be 5 are flooded to unlikely to be flooded to
flooded to significant in these depths of greater significant in depths of less
depths of less areas. than 1m. areas flooded to than 1m.
than 0.5m. A Velocities unlikely depths of less Reduction in risk
small number (5 to be significant in than 0.5m, but to life.
- 10) are flooded areas flooded to may be high
to depth of depths of less elsewhere.
significantly than 0.5m.
more than 1m,
posing a risk to
life. Velocities
may be
significant in
these areas.
To minimise Residential £0.99m £1.51m £1.49m residential £1.16m residential £0.99m residential £0.31m
Environment Agency

flooding
ECO economic damages 1% residential residential damages and damages and damages and residential
N1 impacts of flood damages at 1% damages and £0.17M commercial £0.17m £0.16m damages and
flooding Commercial £0.20M damages at the 1% commercial commercial £0.01m
damages 1% £0.16m commercial AEP flood. damages at the damages at the commercial
flood commercial damages at the 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood. damages at the
Agricultural damages at 1% 1% AEP flood. No Grade 1 and 1% AEP flood.
damages in greater than 2% of No Grade 1 and No Grade 1 and
the 1% flood No Grade 1 and No Grade 1 and Grade 2 land 4ha of Grade 2 1.2% of Grade 2 No Grade 1 and
Percentage 1.2% of Grade 2 greater than 2% affected at the 1% land affected at land affected in 2% of Grade 2
area of grade land affected in of Grade 2 land AEP flood. the 1% AEP flood 1% AEP flood land affected at
1 and 2 1% AEP flood affected at the the 1% AEP
agricultural 1% AEP flood. flood
land flooded
during the 1%
flood
Ensure future Expenditure Current EA EA ceases Annual EA No increase in Expanding Cost of
investment in on all FRM annual spending money expenditure on cost of influencing and constructing
ECO the catchment activities. expenditure on on maintenance. maintenance maintenance in informing will lead defences will be
N2 is proportional maintenance estimated at £10k in real terms – to a minor approximately
to the risks estimated at EA ceases current prices. remains at £21k in increase in EA £4M
£21k. influencing and current prices. expenditure.
informing EA reduces Increase in EA
reducing expenditure on No increase in EA Cost of expenditure on
expenditure influencing and expenditure on implementing flood
significantly. informing. flood warning in combined works warning/flood
real terms. of conveyance, awareness.
storage and
increase EA
expenditure by
£1M.
Protect and Numbers of: No historical No historic No historic No historic No historic No historic
enhance • Scheduled assets within environment environment assets environment environment environment
ENV significant Monuments policy unit assets affected. affected. assets affected. assets affected. assets affected.
1 historic • Historic
environment Parks and
assets and Gardens
Environment Agency

flooding
their settings • Historic
Battlefields
• Conservati
on Areas
adversely
affected by
flooding or
flood risk
management
activities
ENV Protect and Area of No designated No designated No designated sites No designated No designated No designated
2 contribute to SSSIs, SPAs, sites within sites affected affected sites affected sites affected sites affected
the SACs and policy unit
improvement Ramsar sites
of designated flooded in a
nature 1% flood
conservation Reported
sites (SSSI, condition
SPA, SAC and status of
Ramsar) SSSIs, SPAs,
SACs and
Ramsar sites
at risk from a
1% flood
ENV Enhance the The No BAP habitats No BAP habitats affected No BAP habitats No BAP habitats No BAP habitats
3 biodiversity of distribution within the policy affected affected affected
the catchment and extent of unit
by improving the future UK
the quality of BAP priority
the river habitats (for
environment example,
and fens, wet
contributing to woodland,
UK reed bed,
Action Plan grazing
Environment Agency

flooding
targets marsh)
ENV Support the WFD Article 5 WFD category: Increases in the Increases in the Increases in the Taking action to Taking action to
4 achievement pressures and At Risk frequency and frequency and frequency and sustain current reduce current
of good impacts extent of flooding extent of flooding extent of flooding level of flood risk level of flood risk
status/potentia assessments Applicable are likely to are likely to are likely to at known point at known point
l of surface results factors: increase the increase the levels increase the sources of sources of
and WFD levels of of pollutants from levels of pollutants pollution could pollution could
groundwater ecological River Nene: pollutants from sources in from sources in prevent potential prevent potential
bodies under and chemical Point source sources in Northampton and Northampton and adverse effects on adverse effects
the WFD status/potenti pollution, diffuse Northampton and other urban areas other urban areas water quality. This on water quality.
al of water pollution, other urban and adjacent and adjacent could provide This could
bodies. physical or areas and agricultural land that agricultural land environmental provide
morphological adjacent are washed into the that are washed improvements environmental
Area of alteration, alien agricultural land river with potential into the river with helping to achieve improvements
contaminated species that are washed adverse effects on potential adverse WFD helping to
or damaged into the river with water quality. This effects on water environmental achieve WFD
land restored Wootton Brook: potential adverse would not help to quality. This would objectives environmental
or protected Diffuse pollution, effects on water achieve WFD not help to objectives
as a result of physical or quality. This environmental achieve WFD
flood risk morphological would not help to objectives environmental
management alteration. achieve WFD objectives
activities environmental
objectives
species.
Environment Agency
Form 12.7 Summary of overall gains and losses for each policy option Policy unit: Wootton

Policy Social Social Not preferred. This policy leads to a
one particular increase in risk to people
Medium: Increase in the number of commercial High: Flood warning and forecasting ceased. as well as significant increases in
properties affected – 2 more at risk. Number of Medium: Increase in the number of residential damages and the number of
commercial properties affected remains very low. properties affected – 35 more at risk. residential properties.
Low: Increases in risk do not occur in areas where Medium: Increase in the number of people affected – 87
there is a high social vulnerability to flooding more at risk.
(typically category 1 and 2). Medium: Increase in risk to transport infrastructure –
increased risk of West Coast Mainline (Northampton
Economic branch) being affected. Increased length of A508
flooded to greater depth.
High: No EA expenditure on maintenance – Medium: Increased risk of surface water flooding.
reduction of £21k p.a. Medium: Increase in risk to critical infrastructure – 2
High: Increase in commercial damages by £0.04M. electricity substations at risk.
Commercial damages remain very low when Low: Increase in depth, duration and velocity of
considered against the rest of the catchment. flooding. Small increase in depth of flooding at
Medium: Small increase in the area of Grade 2 residential properties. Majority of properties on the
agricultural land at risk – at least 2% of Grade 2 Wootton Brook are flooded to depths of less than 0.5m.
land in this policy unit is affected. The majority of A small number (5 - 10) are flooded to depth of
agricultural land at risk is of lower quality. significantly more than 1m, posing a risk to life.
Velocities may be significant in these areas.
Environmental Economic
Low: Potentially small increases in the extent of Low: Increase in residential damages by £0.52M.
BAP grassland habitats with increased flood area. Residential damages are moderately high for such a
policy unit.
Environmental

Environment Agency

two particular increase in risk to people
High: Increase in the number of commercial Medium: Increase in the number of residential as well as significant increases in
properties affected – 1 more at risk. Number of properties affected – 34 more at risk. damages and the number of
commercial properties affected remains very low. Medium: Increase in the number of people affected – 85 residential properties.
Low: Increases in risk do not occur in areas where more at risk.
there is a high social vulnerability to flooding Medium: Increase in risk to transport infrastructure –
(typically category 1 and 2). increased risk of West Coast Mainline (Northampton
branch) being affected. Increased length of A508
Economic flooded to greater depth.
Medium: Increased risk of surface water flooding.
High: Reduction in EA expenditure on Medium: Increase in risk to critical infrastructure – 2
maintenance – reduction of £11k p.a. electricity substations at risk.
High: Increase in commercial damages by £0.01M. Low: Small increase in depth of flooding at residential
Commercial damages remain very low when properties. Majority of properties on the Wootton Brook
considered against the rest of the catchment. are flooded to depths of less than 0.5m. A small number
Medium: Small increase in the area of Grade 2 (5 - 10) are flooded to depth of significantly more than
agricultural land at risk – at least 2% of Grade 2 1m, posing a risk to life.
land in this policy unit is affected. The majority of Low: Flood forecasting and warning maintained at the
agricultural land at risk is of lower quality. same level. Likely to see increase in risk to community.
Low: Potentially small increases in the extent of Low: Increase in residential damages by £0.49M.
BAP grassland habitats with increased flood area. Residential damages are moderately high for such a
policy unit.
Environmental

Policy Social Social PREFERRED POLICY: The primary
three risk in this policy unit is to people
High: No change in the number of commercial Medium: Increase in risk to critical infrastructure – 2 and property. Allowing the flood risk
properties at risk. Number of commercial electricity substations at risk. to increase into the future will not
properties affected remains very low. Medium: Increase in risk to transport infrastructure – lead to a significant increase in the
Environment Agency

Medium: Surface Water Management Plan increased risk of West Coast Mainline (Northampton risk to people.
reduces risk of surface water flooding. branch) being affected. Increased length of A508
Low: Increases in risk do not occur in areas where flooded to greater depth.
there is a high social vulnerability to flooding
(typically category 1 and 2). Economic
Low: Increase in the number of people affected –
22 more at risk. No economic losses identified.
Low: Increase in the number of residential
properties affected – 9 more at risk. Environmental
Low: Small increase in depth of flooding at
residential properties. Majority of residential Low: May increase the diffuse pollution for adjacent
properties are still flooded to depths of less than agricultural land and increase risk under WFD
0.5m, although approx. 5 are flooded to depths of
greater than 1m. Velocities unlikely to be
significant in areas flooded to depths of less than
0.5m.
and Flood Awareness plan will manage flood
forecasting more effectively on existing budget.
Economic
High: Small increase in commercial damages of

£0.01M. Commercial damages remain very low
when considered against the rest of the catchment.
Medium: Small increase in the area of Grade 2
agricultural land at risk – 2% of Grade 2 land in this
policy unit is affected. The majority of agricultural
land at risk is of lower quality.
Medium: Small increase in residential damages of
£0.17M. Despite this increase residential damages
remain low.
Low: EA expenditure maintained at the same level
- £21k p.a.
Environment Agency

Environmental
Low: Potentially small increases in the extent of

BAP grassland habitats with increased flood area.
Policy Social Social Not preferred. Increasing

four expenditure to maintain the risk at
High: Number of commercial properties affected Low: Risk to regionally and nationally important the same level cannot be justified by
maintained at the same level – 3 at risk. This transport links (West Coast Mainline Northampton the limited gains when compared
constitutes a very small risk to commercial Branch) maintained at the same level. with P3.
properties.
High: No critical infrastructure at risk of flooding. Economic
plan and Flood Awareness plan increase coverage Low: EA expenditure increased to maintain the present
and effectiveness of flood warning. level of risk. Cost of capital works to maintain risk
Medium: Surface Water Management Plan estimated at £1M.
reduces risk of surface water flooding.
Low: No change in the number of people affected
– 178 at risk. Environmental
Low: No change in the number of residential
properties affected – 71 at risk. Low: Small losses of deciduous woodland networks
Low: No change in depth of flooding at residential (BAP).
properties. Majority of residential properties are still
flooded to depths of less than 0.5m.
Low: Areas at risk have a low social vulnerability to
flooding (categories 1 and 2)
Economic
High: No change in commercial damages –

damages of £0.16M. Commercial damages remain
very low.
Medium: No change in residential damages –
damages of £0.99.
Medium: No change in the area of Grade 2 land
affected – 1.2% of Grade 2 land in this policy unit
Environment Agency

is affected.
Environmental

that could contribute toward achieving
environmental objectives under WFD.
Policy Social Social Not preferred. The increase in

five expenditure associated with the
High: Reduction in the number of commercial Medium: Increase in risk to regionally and nationally construction of defences cannot be
properties affected – 1 less at risk. Number of important transport links (West Coast Mainline justified when compared to the
commercial properties at risk is very low. Northampton Branch). limited benefits they will bring.
Medium: Reduction in the number of residential Low: Increase in risk to critical infrastructure – 1
properties affected – 42 less at risk. Number of electricity substation at risk.
residential properties at risk is low.
Medium: Reduction in the number of people Economic
affected – 105 less at risk.
Medium: Defences will protect those areas where High: Significant increase in the level of expenditure on
deep and fast flooding occurs. All properties flood defence – cost of capital works to reduce impact
flooded to depths of less than 1m. Reduction in of flooding estimated at £4M.
risk to life.
Medium: Flood Warning and Forecasting Delivery Environmental
Medium: Surface Water Management Plan
reduces risk of surface water flooding.
Low: Areas benefiting from defences have a low
social vulnerability to flooding (categories 1 and 2)
Economic
High: Significant reduction in commercial and

residential damages.
Medium: Small increase in the area of Grade 2
agricultural land at risk – 2% of Grade 2 land in this
Environment Agency

policy unit is affected. The majority of agricultural
land at risk is of lower quality.
Environmental
Low: Potentially small increases in the extent of

BAP grassland habitats with increased flood area.

that could contribute toward achieving.
Environment Agency
Form 12.8 Summary of the Preferred Policy Policy unit: Wootton
The Wootton policy unit is largely urban or semi-urban in nature. It covers a portion of the Wootton
Brook catchment, with the Wootton Brook forming the southern branch of the River Nene
Policy Unit tributaries upstream of Northampton. It extends over the area of Northampton to the south of the
3 – Wootton A45, from the upstream edge of the urban area within the catchment to the southern edge of the
Nene floodplain where the river enters Northampton, just upstream of the A45 Upton Way. It
includes the built up areas of Wootton and Grange Park, bordered to the south by the M1.
The Wootton policy unit is in one of the upstream reaches of the River Nene, covering the south of
Northampton and centred on the Wootton Brook, with some minor tributaries entering the reach.
This mostly urban policy unit therefore has a relatively high population density, containing little
open land apart from some active floodplain of the Wootton Brook.
The main source of flooding is fluvial, due to high flows in the watercourses. Significant flooding
was recorded in the Wootton policy unit in 1998 (Apr) and 2007 (Jun), while during earlier flood
events impacting Northampton such as in 1947 this area was not yet urbanised. Groundwater is
not thought to pose a significant risk to people and properties here, though it is presently difficult to
quantify this risk accurately. There is some history of surface water flooding, with a recorded event
in June 2007.
With much of the development in the policy unit being relatively new, there are no significant
recent additions to the flood defences, though there have been a number of modifications to the
Problem / Risk channels and floodplains as part of the development of the area. This includes some online
storage lakes along the Wootton Brook and other measures linked to specific developments to
compensate for their impact in terms of increased surface runoff to the watercourses from paved
areas.
causing £1.15 million property damages, concentrated at residential properties along the edge of
the Wootton Brook floodplain.
only approximately 12%), causing £1.33 million property damages (a rise of approximately 15%).
The future increase in flood risk is relatively limited in this policy unit, changing from contributing
0.8% of the present CFMP area total damages to a contribution of 0.4% in the future.
Policy P3 – Continue with existing or alternative actions to manage flood risk at the current level
(accepting that flood risk will increase over time from this baseline).
Chosen Policy The future social and economic impacts within this policy unit are allowed to increase under the
present level of flood risk management without significant increase in flood risk. Modifications and
enhancements to our responses will be considered, in particular through actively influencing land
use planning and the take up of flood resilience measures.
The broadscale model was run with various raised defences, improved flood storage and
increased maintenance responses (see modelling summary after Form 12.5) but these are not
considered to be sustainable. Under policy P3, future climate and development change result in
Generic moderate increases to the present flood risk. Maintenance of the flood defences will continue,
Responses together with appropriate enhancements to flood warning, development control and emergency
response planning (for example for infrastructure). Small numbers of higher risk properties (for
example those flooded in June 2007) may require a more structural response, possibly through
enhanced flood resilience.
Adopting policy P3 here will accept some future minor losses within the Wootton policy unit. It will
give 1% AEP future flood risk increases for Wootton of approximately 22 people, 9 (residential)
properties and £0.18 million. Our flood risk management will include the generic responses
outlined above, continuing and modifying or enhancing what we do at present including actively
Justification influencing land use planning and the take up of flood resilience measures. Future changes in
Environment Agency
flood risk will be monitored such that further action needs can be reviewed, and we will work in
partnership to ensure that new responses are set against future development where appropriate.
increased future losses within the Wootton policy unit, with the current flood risk management
responses considered appropriate for the level of risk. The objectives which are met by this policy
(1% AEP future flood impact compared to current baseline) are:
• To minimise flood related risks to the population (22 more people).

• To minimise risks to critical infrastructure and community facilities (minor increase in risk
to 2 sites).
• To minimise community disruption from flooding (9 more residential properties).
• To minimise economic impacts of flooding (increase of £0.18 million property damages).
Justification • Ensure future investment in the catchment expenditure is proportional to the risks (no new
(cont.) works and maintenance costs continued at present level; any new responses set against
future development).
• Protect and enhance significant historic environment assets and their settings (no
change).
• Protect and contribute to the improvement of designated nature conservation sites (no
change).
environment, contributing to UK Biodiversity Action Plan targets (no change).
Other policies were rejected for the Wootton policy unit due to (1% AEP future flood impact,
Policy P1 - no active intervention; a particular increase in risk to people and significant increases
in damages and number of properties (increases of 87 people, 37 properties, and £0.56 million
property damages), with risk to public health and safety from urban nature of channel corridors.
Policy P2 - reduce existing flood risk management actions; a particular increase in risk to people
and significant increases in damages and number of properties(increases of 85 people, 35
economic and social losses are presently considered relatively limited and are therefore unlikely to
Alternative
justify additional responses on their own, with a potential £0.18 million damage reduction costing
policies
roughly £1 million, though some future benefits may come through measures implemented in
considered
partnership with local authorities and developers under development control.
are attractive but difficult to justify £1.0 million reduction in future property damages against likely
costs of £4 million (105 less people, 43 less properties, and £0.83 million damage reduction), such
that any major response here is unlikely to be sustainable and affordable; higher flood risk
this policy as the area is too urban, and therefore not assessed.
Main opportunities
Catchment-
wide
opportunities & • Opportunities to work with local authorities and regional development agencies to influence
constraints
Main constraints
Keynes – South Midlands (Northampton, Corby, Kettering, Wellingborough) growth areas may
Environment Agency
come into conflict with the need to restrict development in floodplains.
Landfill sites
Discharges
Abstractions
The modelling and flood risk analysis accuracy is, by its nature, high-level for the CFMP.
Significant uncertainty surrounds climate change effects, as well as surface water and
groundwater influence on flood events though these are not thought to be significant. Further
Risks,
Uncertainties & The estimates of flood damage within the Wootton policy unit are considered sufficiently accurate
Dependencies to inform the selection of the proposed policy and response. However, the uncertainty over
present flood risk at some isolated properties may need to be investigated further.
Environment Agency
Northampton Central
Environment Agency
Policy unit : Northampton Central
flood risk within the Northampton Central benefits from extensive flood defence and
policy unit? storage schemes:
• Flood walls and banks, EA and local authority responsibility.
• Duston flood storage reservoir , EA/EP responsibility
• Hardingstone flood storage reservoir, EA responsibility.
• Northampton Washlands flood storage reservoir, EA
responsibility.
Flood Warning
Northampton Central is covered by a number of flood warning and
flood watch areas.
Primary Dissemination method: FWD and Sirens
areas adjacent to the river – trigger sites Victoria Park,
Towcester Road Bridge, and South Bridge. Rate of uptake in
• River Nene and tributaries in the St James area of
Northampton – trigger sites Dodford, Brixworth. Rate of
uptake in this flood warning area is 9.89%.
• River Nene and tributaries in the Far Cotton Area of
• River Nene and tributaries in the Tanner Street area of
uptake in this flood warning area is 20%.
• River Nene and tributaries in the St Peters Way and Victoria
Promenade areas of Northampton – trigger sites Dodford,
Brixworth. No uptake in this flood warning area.
• River Nene and tributaries in the Dallington Brook area of
• River Nene and tributaries from Billing to Thrapston – Trigger
sites Washlands, Southbridge. Rate of uptake in this flood
4525 people (1810 properties) within this policy unit can apply for
flood warnings
Maintenance:
annual expenditure:
• With these and other maintenance activities, the maintenance
budget for 2006/07 was £131k. Other activities in this policy
unit included, for that year, a non-recurring amount for asset
maintenance of £10.3k and an amount for environmental
management.
Environment Agency
Standards of service Northampton flood walls and banks have a standard of protection
that apply to flood equal to the 0.5% flood event. Although the Northampton
defences within the defences were designed before allowances for climate change
policy unit? became definitive, it is believed that the defences could
accommodate the allowance which is now recommended.
Standard of protection of Duston flood storage reservoir is

unknown.
Hardingstone flood storage reservoir has an estimated standard

of protection equal to the 2% flood event.
Northampton Washlands flood storage reservoir has an estimated

standard of protection of 12% at Billing aquadrome. The
Northampton Washlands also provide protection to areas further
downstream of Billing.
exposed to flooding? Flood defences prevent frequent flooding from occurring.
Significant flooding only occurs at the 0.1% event when defences
are overtopped. If defences are breached the impact of flooding is
potentially very severe, with high velocities and depths posing a
risk to life.
Due to 0.5% standard flood defences through Northampton there

are no properties or people at risk at the 1% flood event.
Social impact: Moderate - High – areas that benefit from defence

are typically SFVI categories 3, 4 and 5.
Infrastructure
No Critical Infrastructure affected at the 1% flood event.
Transport Infrastructure affected at the 1% flood event:

• West Coast mainline (Northampton branch) at risk of flooding
at the 1% flood event.
• A45 at West Northampton – road closed at 1% AEP flood.
• No other critical infrastructure at risk.
Community facilities affected by flooding: None
Economic
There are no damages at the 1% flood event.
AAD: £0

- Grade 1: 0%
- Grade 2: 0h%
Environmental
Scheduled Monument NN201 (Saxon Palace Complex) present
but not affected by flooding.
Northampton: All Saints Conservation Area present but not
affected by flooding at the current 1%.
International and national ecological sites:

• Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SSSI, pSPA/RAMSAR site
Environment Agency
Site area 1382ha (113ha lie within this policy unit). 100%
Area affected due to flooding at depths >3m for much of the
site. Current condition: 100 percent favourable. No negative
impacts anticipated from flooding.
Extent and distribution of UKBAP habitats: N/A

species.

currently most • No people and property at risk at the 1% flood event, main
vulnerable to flood social impacts at 1% flood event to transport infrastructure -
damage and losses? West Coast mainline (Northampton branch) and A45.
Economic
• Currently no damages
Environmental
• No environmental features significantly affected at current 1%
AEP flood.
Urban Growth – urban growth in the Upper River Nene catchment

urban growth predictions for the River Nene catchment upstream
of Northampton.
risk under the main Flood defences prevent frequent flooding. Significant flooding only
scenarios? occurs for events less frequent than the 1% AEP flood when
defences are overtopped. Thus, impacts under the future 1% AEP
flood are not as damaging as under the current 0.1% AEP flood.If
defences are breached the impact of flooding is potentially very
severe, with high velocities and depths posing a risk to life. In the
future the risk of breaching at the 1% flood event will increase, as
the standard of protection of the flood defences will decrease.
Due to defences no properties or people will be flooded at the 1%

event, and hence no damages accrued.
Infrastructure
Critical Infrastructure affected by flooding: None
Transport Infrastructure:
Environment Agency
• A45 at West Northampton – road closed at 1% AEP flood.
Community facilities affected by flooding: None
Economic
There are no damages at the 1% flood event.
AADs: £0

- Grade 1: 0ha
- Grade 2: 0ha
- No change from current
Environmental
No historic environment assets affected in a 1% event in the
future.

• Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SSSI, pSPA/Ramsar site. Site
area 1382ha (113ha within this policy unit). 100% area
affected due to flooding, i.e. no change from the existing 1%
AEP flood.
Extent and distribution of UKBAP habitats: N/A

What potential • Planning policy (future land use development)
responses (or groups • Withdraw defences
being considered to • Maintain/increase localised protection measures
manage flood risk? • Flood warning and evacuation
• Develop upstream storage
• Flood awareness
• Studies
the 1% AEP flood.
uncertainties.
management.
deposition.
Environment Agency
• The main risk in this policy unit at the 1% event is from
breaching of flood defences. The location, timing and
probability of breaching cannot easily be quantified, and thus
a qualitative analysis was undertaken.
Environment Agency
POLICY UNIT 4: NORTHAMPTON CENTRAL
Description: The effect of removing localised protection measures was not simulated using
the broadscale model. Rather the defended areas polygon tool in MDSF was not used to
blank out areas that were defended, simulating the removal of defences. All defences through
the centre of Northampton were removed.
(+∞%) (+∞%) (+∞%)
Conclusions
Cost: No cost - EA ceases spending money on maintenance
Conclusion: Removing the defences in place leads to very substantial damages, risk to
people and properties.

conveyance
coefficient by 10%. It was found that the peak water level for this generic response was
greater than the crest level of the flood defences in Northampton, and thus it was assumed
that the flood defences were completely overwhelmed and that damages would be the same
as for the removal of defences.
(+∞%) (+∞%) (+∞%)
Conclusions
Conclusion: Reducing maintenance leads to a very significant increase in risk to people and
property.

level and that no alternative intervention occurs.
Conclusions
Conclusion: Under this policy there is no increase in the impact on people, property and
damages at the 1% annual AEP flood, as defences still protect all properties in this policy unit.
Environment Agency
The standard of protection of the defences will decrease, however, meaning that there is an
increased risk of breaching at the 1% event, and that the defences will be overtopped in the
0.5% event.

Generic Response: Policy 4 – Develop upstream storage by creating channel
obstructions to increase inundation of the natural floodplain
Description: Developing storage upstream of this policy unit in the River Nene (Weedon –
Kislingbury) policy unit is capable of reducing the peak flows through Northampton to the
present level. Therefore the standard of protection of the defences in Northampton are
maintained at the same level, and there is no increase in flood risk.
Conclusions
Cost: No capital costs incurred in this policy unit, though costs incurred in upstream policy
units. Maintainance continues at present level.
Conclusion: Under this policy there is no change in the risk to people, property and
damages, because the defence standard of protection is maintained at the same level.

Generic Response: Policy 5 –Increase localised protection measures
broadscale model. An increase in protection was achieved by increasing the crest level of the
defences through Northampton, increasing the standard of protection of the defences, and
reducing the risk of breaching at the 1% event.

Conclusions
Cost: Capital costs to improve the standard of defence in this policy unit estimated at £7.5
million.
Conclusion: Under this policy there is no change in the number of people and properties
affected, though there is a reduction in the risk of breaching at the 1% flood event.

Generic Response: Policy 6 – Develop storage to benefit downstream areas
Description: Not feasible in this Policy Unit. Central Northampton is very urbanised and
protected to high standard of protection by recently constructed defences. To develop natural
floodplain storage would require the removal of these defences leading to very high damages,
and it is unlikely that sufficient volumes of water would be able to be stored either.
Environment Agency

4 Develop upstream storage by creating channel obstructions to increase
inundation of the natural floodplain
Environment Agency
Form 12.6 Policy Appraisal Policy unit: Northampton Central

objective No active Reduce Maintain Sustain current Reduce current Increase frequency
intervention existing current risk risk risk of flooding
actions
warning and warning and warning and warning and warning and additional storage
forecasting forecasting forecasting forecasting forecasting developments have
• Cease • Reduce • Continue • Develop • Increase been identified in the
maintenanc maintenance maintenance upstream storage standard of River Nene (from
e of river of channel, of river by creating protection of Weedon to
channel and structures and channel, channel defences Kislingbury) policy
structures flood structures and obstructions to already in unit and the River
• Remove defences flood increase place Nene Corridor policy
flood defences inundation of the • Emergency unit. Very little scope
defences in natural floodplain Response to apply in this policy
place • Increase plans unit therefore no
maintenance of assessment of gains
channel, and losses was
structures and undertaken.
flood defences
• Emergency
Response plans
SOC1 To minimise Number of No people or 4730 people 4730 people No people 0 people affected at Increasing the
flood related people at properties affected by affected by affected by 1% AEP flood. standard of
risks to the risk in the affected by flooding in the flooding in the flooding in the Maintaining the protection of the
population 1% flood flooding due 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood. standard of defences
Numbers of to defences. Reduction in the protection at the through
people However Standard of Standard of standard of current level will Northampton will
covered by there is protection of protection of protection will maintain the risk of maintain the
flood potential for flood defences flood defences occur increasing breaching at the level of risk at
warning or high will reduce will reduce the likelihood of current low level. the current level
emergency / velocities if significantly significantly breaching at the for the 1% AEP
evacuation defences are under this under this 1% event. Flood defences will flood - no people
plans breached. policy. People policy. People not be overtopped affected.
will be affected will be affected Flood defences in a 0.5% AEP Increasing the
4525 people by flooding of by flooding of a will be flood. No people standard of
(1810 a lower lower magnitude overtopped in a would be affected protection will
properties) magnitude than the 1% 0.5% AEP flood during such an reduce the risk
Environment Agency

actions
within this than the 1% event. affecting a large event. of breaching at
policy unit event. number of the 1% event.
can apply for Flood warning people (>1000). Expansion of
flood Cease flood effectiveness existing upstream Flood defences
warnings warning and and coverage Flood warning storage, as well as will not be
forecasting, maintained at effectiveness development of new overtopped in a
with increased the same level. and coverage storage areas 0.5% AEP flood.
risk to maintained at capable of No people would
community. the same level. maintaining present be affected
level of risk to during such an
people. event. The risk
of breaching at
Review flood the 0.5% event
warning coverage would be
through a Flood reduced.
Warning and Flood
Forecasting delivery Review flood
plan. warning
coverage
Develop a Flood through a Flood
Awareness plan to Warning and
eoncurage sing up Flood
to flood warning. Forecasting
delivery plan.
Develop a Flood
Awareness plan
to eoncurage
sing up to flood
warning.
To minimise Numbers Railways Increase in 20 Electricity Increase in No increase in No increase in

risks to and type of present and depth of substations depth and depth and duration depth and
SOC2 critical critical asset. affected by flooding at 20 become flooded, duration of of flooding at key duration of
infrastructure Critical flooding at Electricity up to a depth of flooding at key transport flooding at key
and infrastructure 1% event substations up 2.05m. transport infrastructure in the transport
community includes: probability: to a depth of infrastructure in 1% flood event. infrastructure in
Environment Agency

actions
facilities • Electricity West Coast 2.1m. 1 IPPC site the 1% flood the 1% flood
Sub- mainline becomes event. Flood defences will event.
stations/p Northampton Increase in flooded, up to a not be overtopped
ower branch. depth of depth of 1.35m. Flood defences in a 0.5% AEP Flood defences
supply flooding at will be flood. No critical will not be
• Sewage A45 at West IPPC site up to 3 Metal overtopped in a infrastructure overtopped in a
Treatment Northampton a depth of Recycling sites 0.5% AEP flood. affected at the 0.5% 0.5% AEP flood.
Works is affected 1.4m. become flooded, This will have a AEP flood. No critical
(STW) by flooding up to a depth of severe impact infrastructure
• Waste at the 1% Increase in 1.15m. on critical and Emergency affected at the
Treatment event depth of transport Response plans 0.5% AEP flood.
Works probability flooding at 3 1 non- infrastructure. may help to
(STW) Metal hazardous manage risk to Emergency
• Waste Recycling sites waste transfer Up to 20 infrastructure. Response plans
Managem up to a depth station becomes electricity sub- may help to
ent Sites of 1.2m. flooded, up to stations, 1 IPPC manage risk to
• IPPC depth of 1.55m. site and 4 waste infrastructure.
Sites Increase in management
• Transport: depth of 1 non- sites may be
Railway, flooding at hazardous affected during
Roads, non-hazardous waste treatment the 0.5% event.
Canals waste transfer site becomes
(particularl station up to flooded, up to a 1 school and 1
y consider depth of 1.6m. depth of 1.15m. care home may
ability to be affected.
use other Increase in Increase in
routes) depth of depth and
Community flooding at duration of
facilities non-hazardous flooding at key
include: waste transport
• Hospitals treatment site infrastructure
up to a depth already affected.
• Emergenc
of 1.2m. Number of key
y
road links in the
Response
Increase in centre of
Centres
depth and Northampton
• Care
duration of become affected
Environment Agency

actions
Homes flooding at key by flooding.
transport
• Schools infrastructure 1 care home
already becomes
affected. flooded, up to a
Number of key depth of 0.25m.
road links in
the centre of 1 school
Northampton becomes
become flooded, up to a
affected by depth of 0.55m.
flooding.
Increase in
depth of
flooding at
care home up
to a depth of
0.3m.
Increase in
depth of
flooding at 1
school up to a
depth of 0.6m.
SOC3 To minimise Number of No 1892 1892 residential 0 residential 0 residential 0 residential

community properties properties residential properties and properties and 0 properties and 0 properties and 0
disruption affected in are affected properties and 546 commercial commercial commercial commercial
from flooding the 1% flood by flooding 546 properties properties properties affected properties
Category of at 1% AEP commercial affected at the affected at the at the 1% AEP affected at the
social flood. properties 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood. flood. 1% AEP flood.
vulnerability affected at the
areas Areas 1% AEP flood. Increase in risk Areas defended Areas defended Areas defended
affected in defended of flooding have a have a moderate to have a
the 1% flood have a high Increase in occurs in areas moderate to high social moderate to
Extent of social risk of flooding with high social high social vulnerability to high social
Environment Agency

actions
flooding vulnerability occurs in vulnerability to vulnerability to flooding – vulnerability to
Duration of to flooding - areas with flooding flooding – categories 3 to 5. flooding –
flooding typically high social (category 4&5) categories 3 to categories 3 to
SFVI vulnerability to 5. Flood defences will 5.
categories 4 flooding Significant not be overtopped
and 5 (category 4&5) increase in Flood defences in a 0.5% AEP Flood defences
depth, duration will be flood. No properties will not be
Significant and velocity of overtopped in a affected at the 0.5% overtopped in a
increase in flooding will 0.5% AEP flood. event. 0.5% AEP flood.
depth, duration occur. Depth Significant No properties
and velocity of and velocity of numbers of affected at the
flooding will flooding will properties would 0.5% event.
occur. Depth present a be affected.
and velocity of significant risk to
flooding will life.
present a
significant risk
to life.
To minimise Residential No economic £57.45m £57.45m No economic No economic No economic

ECON1 economic damages 1% damages. residential residential damages damages incurred damages
impacts of flood damages and damages and incurred at the at the 1% event. incurred at the
flooding Commercial No Grade 1 £278.35m £278.35m 1% event. 1% event.
damages 1% or Grade 2 commercial commercial Flood defences will
flood agricultural damages at damages at the Flood defences not be overtopped Flood defences
Agricultural land flooded. the 1% AEP 1% AEP flood. will be in a 0.5% AEP will not be
damages in flood. overtopped in a flood. No damages overtopped in a
the 1% flood No Grade 1 or 0.5% AEP flood. incurred at the 0.5% 0.5% AEP flood.
Percentage No Grade 1 or Grade 2 Significant event. No damages
area of Grade 2 agricultural land residential and incurred at the
grade 1 and agricultural flooded. commercial No Grade 1 or 0.5% event.
2 agricultural land flooded. damages Grade 2 agricultural
land flooded incurred. land flooded. No Grade 1 or
during the Grade 2
1% flood No Grade 1 or agricultural land
Grade 2 flooded.
agricultural land
Environment Agency

actions
flooded.
Ensure Expenditure Annual EA EA ceases Annual EA No increase in No capital cost Capital costs to
future on all FRM expenditure spending expenditure on cost of associated with this improve the
ECON2 investment in activities. on money on maintenance maintenance in policy unit but costs standard of
the maintenance maintenance. estimated at real terms – incurred in defence in this
catchment is estimated at £66k in current remains at upstream policy policy unit
proportional £131k. EA ceases prices. £131k in current units where storage estimated at
to the risks influencing prices. developed. £7.5M.
and informing EA reduces
reducing expenditure on No increase in Expanding Increase in EA
expenditure influencing and EA expenditure influencing and expenditure on
significantly. informing. on flood warning informing will lead flood
in real terms. to a minor increase warning/flood
in EA expenditure. awareness.
Protect and Numbers of: No historic No historic No historic No historic No historic No historic
enhance • Scheduled environment environment environment environment environment assets environment
ENV1 significant Monument assets assets assets affected. assets affected. affected. assets affected.
historic s affected. affected.
environment • Historic
assets and Parks and
• Historic
Battlefield
s
• Conservati
on Areas
adversely
affected by
flooding or
flood risk
management
activities
ENV2 Protect and Area of Upper Nene No significant increase in the No significant 100% of the site No significant Potential for
contribute to SSSIs, Valley depth of flooding due to the increase in continues to be increase in significant negative
Environment Agency

actions
the SPAs, SACs Gravel Pits hydraulic complexities at and depth of flooded. No depth of effect on some bird
improvement and Ramsar SSSI. 100% around the site but there would be flooding. No negative impacts flooding. No species
of sites flooded of site in this a likely increase in duration and negative occur. negative
designated in a 1% flood policy unit frequency of inundation. impacts occur. impacts occur.
nature Reported flooded. Therefore minor positive benefits
conservation condition Depth of as increased flooding could
sites (SSSI, status of flooding potentially increase the quality
SPA, SAC SSSIs, greater than and extent of fringing wetland
and Ramsar) SPAs, SACs 3m across habitat within and beyond the site.
and Ramsar much of the
sites at risk SSSI.
from a 1%
flood No negative
impacts
anticipated
from
flooding.
Increased
flooding
could
potentially
increase the
quality and
extent of
fringing
wetland
habitat within
and beyond
the site.
ENV3 Enhance the The No BAP Habitats are effected No BAP No BAP Habitats No BAP
biodiversity distribution Habitats are are effected Habitats are
of the and extent of effected effected
catchment by the future
improving UK BAP
the quality of priority
the river habitats (for
environment example,
Environment Agency

actions
and fens, wet
contributing woodland,
to UK reed bed,
Action Plan grazing
targets marsh)
ENV4 • Support WFD Article WFD Increases in Increases in the Increases in the Taking action to Taking action to
the 5 pressures Category: At the frequency frequency and frequency and sustain current level reduce current
achieveme and impacts Risk and extent of extent of extent of of flood risk at point level of flood risk
nt of good assessments Applicable flooding are flooding are flooding are and diffuse sources at point and
status/pote results Factors: likely to likely to increase likely to increase of pollution could diffuse sources
ntial of WFD Point source increase the the levels of the levels of prevent potential of pollution
surface ecological pollution, levels of pollutants from pollutants from adverse effects on could prevent
and and diffuse pollutants from sources in sources in water quality. This potential
groundwat chemical pollution, sources in adjacent adjacent could provide adverse effects
er bodies status/potent physical or adjacent agricultural land agricultural land environmental on water quality.
under the ial of water morphologic agricultural that are washed that are washed improvements This could
WFD bodies. al land that are into the river into the river helping to achieve provide
alterations, washed into with potential with potential WFD environmental environmental
Area of alien the river with adverse effects adverse effects objectives improvements
contaminate species. potential on water quality. on water quality. helping to
d or adverse This would not This would not achieve WFD
damaged effects on help to achieve help to achieve environmental
land restored water quality. WFD WFD objectives
or protected This would not environmental environmental
as a result of help to objectives objectives
flood risk achieve WFD
management environmental
activities objectives
Environment Agency
Form 12.7 Summary of overall gains and losses for each policy option Policy unit: Northampton Central

Policy Social Social Not preferred. There is a very serious increase in
one flood risk in all sectors; in particular many lives
No social gains identified High: Very significant increase in the number of would be at risk.
people affected – 4730 more at risk
Economic High: Very significant increase in the number of
commercial and residential properties affected –
High: No EA expenditure on maintenance – 1892 more residential and 546 more commercial
reduction of £243k p.a. properties at risk.
High: No Grade 1 or Grade 2 agricultural land High: Significant increases in risk occur in areas
affected. with a high social vulnerability to flooding
Environmental (categories 3, 4 and 5).
Low: Small increase in depth of flooding may High: Removal of defences will lead to significant
increase the quality and extent of the of the increases in the depth, duration and velocity of
fringing wetland habitat within and beyond the flooding. Depth and velocity present a significant
Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SSSI risk to life.
High: Flood warning and forecasting ceased.
High: Significant increase in risk to critical
infrastructure – 20 electricity substations, 1 IPPC
site, and 5 waste management sites become
affected.
High: Increase in risk to community facilities – 1
care home and 1 school become affected.
High: Increase in risk to transport infrastructure –
increased risk of flooding at A45, Northampton
branch of the West Coast Mainline, and key
transport links in the centre of Northampton.
Economic
High: Very significant increase in commercial and

residential damages – increase in residential
damages of £57.45M and commercial of
£278.35M
Environmental
Environment Agency
Low: May increase the diffuse pollution for

adjacent agricultural land and increase risk under
WFD
Policy Social Social Not preferred. The increase in flood risk, in
two particular the risk to life, is on the same scale as
No social gains identified High: Very significant increase in the number of for P1.
people affected – 4730 more at risk
Economic High: Very significant increase in the number of
commercial and residential properties affected –
High: Reduction in EA expenditure on 1892 more residential and 546 more commercial
maintenance – reduction of £122k p.a. properties at risk.
High: No Grade 1 or Grade 2 agricultural land High: Significant increases in risk occur in areas
affected. with a high social vulnerability to flooding
Environmental (categories 3, 4 and 5).
Low: Small increase in depth of flooding may High: Removal of defences will lead to significant
increase the quality and extent of the of the increases in the depth, duration and frequency of
fringing wetland habitat within and beyond the flooding. Depth and velocity present a significant
Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SSSI risk to life.
infrastructure – 20 electricity substations, 1 IPPC
site, and 5 waste management sites become
affected.
High: Increase in risk to community facilities – 1
care home and 1 school become affected.
High: Increase in risk to transport infrastructure –
increased risk of flooding at A45, Northampton
branch of the West Coast Mainline, and key
transport links in the centre of Northampton.
Low: Flood forecasting and warning maintained
at the same level. Likely to see increase in risk to
community.
Economic
High: very significant increase in commercial and
Environment Agency

residential damages – increase in residential
damages of £57.45M and commercial of
£278.35M
Environmental
Low: May increase the diffuse pollution for

adjacent agricultural land and increase risk under
WFD
Policy Social Social Not preferred. This policy would see no increase
three in the number of people, properties or damages
Low: No people affected at the 1% AEP flood, as Medium: Standard of protection of flood defences at the 1% AEP flood. However, not expanding
at the moment. Standard of protection of through Northampton will decrease in the future. the flood risk management options would lead to
defences will reduce, increasing the likelihood of Flood defences will be overtopped in a 0.5% increased risk at the 1% event due to a greater
breaching. event affecting a large number of people and chance of defences breaching.
Low: No commercial and residential properties properties. Risk of large depths and velocities
affected at the 1% AEP flood. Standard of posing risk to life at the 0.5% event. Further to this, flood defences would be
protection of defences will reduce, increasing the Low: Flood forecasting and warning maintained overtopped at the 0.5% flood event leading to
likelihood of breaching. at the same level. Likely to see increase in risk to significant risks to people, property and the
Low: Areas with a high social vulnerability to community. economy.
flooding will be protected at the 1% AEP flood.
Standard of protection of defences will reduce, Economic
increasing the likelihood of breaching in areas
with a high social vulnerability. Medium: Standard of protection of flood defences
Low: No critical infrastructure will be affected at through Northampton will decrease in the future.
the 1% AEP flood. Standard of protection of Flood defences will be overtopped in a 0.5%
defences will reduce, increasing the likelihood of event, with the potential for large damages to be
breaching in and around infrastructure. incurred.
Low: Very small increases in the depth and
High: No Grade 1 or Grade 2 agricultural land extent of flooding in deciduous woodlands (BAP)
affected. may result in minor habitat loss.
Medium: EA expenditure maintained at current Low: May increase the diffuse pollution for
level - £243k p.a. adjacent agricultural land and increase risk under
Low: No commercial and residential damages WFD.
Environment Agency

incurred at the 1% event. Standard of protection
of defences will reduce, increasing the likelihood
of breaching. Potential for substantial damages
accruing of defences are breached.
Environmental
Policy Social Social PREFERRED OPTION: Maintaining the present

four level of risk into the future is economically and
Medium: Standard of protection of defences No social losses identified. socially sustainable. No significant adverse
maintained at the same level. No people or effects on the environment would occur as a
properties affected at the 0.5% event. Economic result of this policy.
Medium: No change in risk to people at the 1%
flood event. No economic losses identified.
Medium: No change in risk to commercial
properties at the 1% event. Environmental
Medium: Areas with a high social vulnerability to
flooding will be protected at the 1% AEP flood. No losses
Medium: No change in risk to critical
infrastructure – maintained at the same level.
Medium: Flood Warning and Forecasting
Delivery plan and Flood Awareness plan
increase coverage and effectiveness of flood
warning.
Low: No change in risk to transport infrastructure
– small risk to West Coast Mainline and A45.
Economic
High: No Grade 1 or Grade 2 agricultural land

affected.
Medium: Standard of protection of defences
maintained at the same level. No damages
incurred at the 0.5% event.
Medium: No commercial and residential
Environment Agency

damages incurred.
Low: Increase in expenditure needed to maintain
flood risk at the present level – costs will be
incurred in the River Nene (Weedon –
Kislingbury) policy unit.
Environmental

helping to achieve WFD environmental
objectives.
Policy Social Social Not preferred. Increasing the defence standard of

five protection through Northampton is not justifiable
High: No people affected at the 1% AEP flood, as No social losses identified. given the large cost of capital works, and the
at the moment. Increased standard of protection minimal benefits that would be accrued.
of defence will reduce likelihood of breaching. Economic
High: No commercial and residential properties
affected at the 1% AEP flood. Increased High: Increase in the level of expenditure on
standard of protection of defence will reduce flood defence – cost of capital works to reduce
likelihood of breaching. impact of flooding estimated at £7.5M.
High: Areas with a high social vulnerability to
flooding will be protected at the 1% AEP flood. Environmental
Increased standard of protection of defence will
reduce likelihood of breaching in areas with high No losses
social vulnerability.
High: Critical infrastructure will be protected at
the 1% AEP flood. Increased standard of
protection of defences will reduce the likelihood
of breaching in and around infrastructure.
warning.
Economic
Environment Agency

affected.
High: No commercial and residential damages
incurred. Increased standard of protection of
defences will reduce the likelihood of breaching.
Environmental

helping to achieve WFD environmental
objectives.
Policy Opportunities for additional storage developments have been identified in the River Nene (from Weedon to Kislingbury) policy unit and the River Nene
six Corridor policy unit. Very little scope to apply in this policy unit therefore no assessment of gains and losses was undertaken.
Environment Agency
Form 12.8 Summary of the Preferred Policy Policy unit: Northampton Central
Policy Unit
4– The policy unit for Northampton Central is by nature largely urban. The policy unit extends from
Northampton the A45 Upton Way crossing of the Nene just upstream of Northampton through the town down to
Central the outlet gates from the Northampton Washlands just above Billing.
Northampton Central is located at the confluence or joining point of flows from three main upper
tributaries of the Nene: the Kislingbury Branch, Brampton Branch and Wootton Brook. The flows
from these three rivers combine in Northampton, just above a constraint to flood flow at South
Bridge, before being controlled just downstream of the town at the Northampton Washlands. The
washlands consist of an area of former gravel workings into which flood waters are diverted and
stored, up to approximately the 1% AEP flood, for controlled release after the flood peak has
passed. This mostly urban policy unit therefore has a relatively high population density, containing
little open land apart from the downstream washland and other storage reservoirs.
The main source of flooding is fluvial, arising from the high flows in the River Nene, together with
some smaller tributary watercourses and a degree of influence backing up from the washlands as
they fill. Significant flooding was recorded in Northampton during 1947 (Mar) and more recently in
1998 (Apr) and 2003 (Jan), with records of flooding in the town back through 1939 and 1940 to
1847. Surface water flooding could pose some risk to people and properties here, though this risk
is difficult to quantify.
Through the centre of Northampton, the River Nene is separated from much of its floodplain by
defences constructed in 2002 to 0.5% AEP flood standard. The area previously benefited from
Problem / Risk construction of the Northampton Washlands in the 1970s. There are also smaller flood storage
areas: Duston flood storage reservoir, defence standard uncertain; and Hardingstone flood
storage reservoir to approximately 2% AEP flood standard. The town has more recently benefited
from construction of a flood storage reservoir for Weedon in 2002, to 2% AEP, and flood storage
linked to new development between Kislingbury and Northampton, providing benefit to
Northampton and downstream areas, plus compensating for development in the Upper Nene.
Our analysis suggests that a 1% AEP flood would not directly affect any people or properties,
causing no property damage until in excess of a 0.5% AEP flood. The risk rises dramatically for a
0.1% AEP flood, for which Northampton Central then has 60% of the damages over the whole
CFMP area (approximately £530 million) with almost 3000 properties at flood risk. For this event
there would also be widespread disruption to major infrastructure.
analysis suggests that a 1% AEP future flood would still not overtop the Northampton defences,
though a 0.5% AEP future flood now would, and the risk of breaching of defences would be higher
with reduced freeboard on the defence heights. Flood risk at the 0.1% AEP future flood would rise
further but not significantly (almost £600 million property damages).
Policy P4 - Take further action to sustain the current level of flood risk into the future
The social and economic impacts within Northampton Central are sustained close to the present
Chosen Policy level by offsetting future impacts from climate and development change by making best use of
natural storage on the River Nene upstream through enhanced floodplain storage. Significant
environmental gains could occur as a result of flood storage creation.
The broadscale model was run with increased floodplain storage on the River Nene (Weedon to
Kislingbury, PU2). This could comprise changes to floodplain topography, perhaps through raising
or lowering bank heights, or use of control structures. It was simply represented by reducing and
delaying the flows into the model from upstream of Northampton, based on detailed modelling of
Generic
similar flood storage currently under construction (see modelling summary after Form 12.5). The
Responses
results show large benefits for Northampton Central at extreme events, with the present defence
design standards sustained. Further reduction in damages may be gained from other measures
such as improved flood warning, development control and emergency response planning.
Environment Agency
Adopting policy P4 will focus efforts on creating flood storage in the natural floodplain of the River
Nene upstream (PU2) as outlined above, sustaining defence standards at Northampton against
future change. This will remove extremely high flood risk damages of approximately £500 million
that would otherwise start to occur at the 0.5% flood, affecting approximately 600 people and 3000
properties. This will be achieved through the generic responses outlined above, altering the shape
and peak of the flood hydrograph as it progresses through the upstream catchment to help offset
the effects of future climate and development change. Additional flood risk reductions are
achieved by these actions within other policy units (see PU 2) such that the cost is justified.
Although the Northampton defences might now accommodate the effect on river flow of climate
change, the effects of the other drivers of change in flood risk must also be considered if the
standard of defence is to be maintained. The Northampton defences are one component of the
flood protection to Northampton.
Policy P4 will allow present actions to control flood risk to be continued and enhanced (for
example maintaining the washlands and other defences, and flood warning). The resulting future
flood risk then remains at the current level as the residual flood risk for the policy unit is sustained
and avoids the serious increase in flood risk that would occur if there were no further action. Some
further reduction in damages may be gained from other related measures such as improved flood
warning, development control and emergency response planning. On the urban tributaries
selective local protection measures may prove feasible for offsetting rising flood risk, but this
should ideally be addressed through a sustainable planning and development control approach.
Justification Adopting policy P4 for Northampton Central supports economic, social and environmental
sustainability by looking to make best use of the River Nene floodplain upstream to manage flood
risk. It aims to offset future impacts, from climate and development change. The objectives which
are met by this policy (1% AEP future flood impact, compared to current baseline) are:
• To minimise flood related risks to the population (defence standard maintained, 6000
people protected).
• To minimise risks to critical infrastructure and community facilities (major assets
protected).
• To minimise community disruption from flooding (3000 properties protected).
• To minimise economic impacts of flooding (protection sustained to £500 million worth of
property damage).
cost of works in upstream policy units, partially set against future development, delivers
£16.7 million reduction in damages overall, with additional large residual benefits from
Northampton).
change).
change).
Other policies were rejected for Northampton Central due to (1% AEP future flood impact,
Policy P1 - no active intervention; major economic and social losses (increases of 4730 people,
2438 properties, and £336 million property damages) with loss of current defences leading to
Alternative extremely high risk to public health and safety.
policies Policy P2 - reduce existing flood risk management actions; major economic and social losses
considered (increases of 4730 people, 2438 properties, and £336 million property damages), with high risk to
allowing the standard of protection currently provided to decrease significantly. Flood risk from
overtopping and breaching of the defences would increase severely.
Environment Agency
would be attractive for the extreme events but difficult to justify against likely costs of £7.5 million
with flood defence standards already at the 0.5% AEP.
Main opportunities
• Releasing stored winter floodwaters at times of low flow could address water quality issues.
Main constraints
Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SSSI, pSPA/Ramsar site

Opportunities
Catchment- Appropriate management could extend the area of designation by improving the adjacent areas.
wide Constraints
opportunities & Further flooding may result in an increase in the displacement of golden plover, in the winter, from
constraints rough grassland to surrounding agricultural land outside of the designated area. If excessive
flooding of reedbeds were to occur, this could be detrimental to wintering bittern.
Scheduled Monuments
Opportunities
Reduced flood risk will reduce likelihood of damage and enable long term preservation of assets.
Constraints
Increased flood frequency or duration may increase damage to Scheduled Monuments. Reduced
flood risk could be detrimental to some buried archaeological features if ground conditions dry out.
Discharges
Abstractions
Environment Agency
groundwater influence on flood events; surface water flooding could be an issue for Northampton.
Further uncertainty surrounds the ground levels and property threshold levels obtained from the
DTM, and also the type and distribution of contaminated land within the policy unit.
Risks, The estimates of flood damage within Northampton Central are considered sufficiently accurate to
Uncertainties & inform the selection of the proposed policy and response, although the assumptions made in
Dependencies simulating the generic responses do not enable the damages under policy options P1 and P2 to
be distinguished. The uncertainty over present flood risk on some of the urban tributaries may
need to be investigated more locally in the future.
Environment Agency
Northampton Outer
Environment Agency
Policy unit: Northampton Outer
flood risk within the Northampton (Outer) benefits from a number of flood storage and
policy unit? flood defence schemes:
• Dallington Brook Flood wall and banks, EA responsibility.
• Billing Brook flood detention ponds, Northampton BC
responsibility.
• Dallington flood storage reservoir, EA responsibility.
Flood Warning
Northampton (Outer) is covered by flood watch and flood warning
areas.
Primary Dissemination method: FWD and Sirens.
Flood warning areas include:
areas adjacent to the river - trigger sites Victoria Park,
Towcester, Road Bridge and South Bridge. Rate of uptake in
• River Nene and tributaries in the Dallington Brook area of
Northampton - trigger sites Victoria Park, Towcester, Road
Bridge and South Bridge. Rate of uptake in this flood warning
area is 22.54%.
• River Nene and tributaries from Billing to Thrapston - trigger
sites Washlands and South Bridge. Rate of uptake in this
• River Nene at Billing Aquadrome - trigger sites Washlands
and South Bridge. Rate of uptake in this flood warning area is
13.33%.
998 people (399 properties) can apply for flooding warning within
the policy area.
Maintenance:
annual expenditure:
budget for 2006/07 was £69.4k
Standards of service Dallington Brook flood walls and bank have a standard of
that apply to flood protection equal to the 0.5% flood event.
defences within the
policy unit? The standard of protection of the Billing Brook flood detention
pond is unknown.
Dallington flood storage reservoir has a standard of protection

equal to the 2% flood event.

exposed to flooding? Flooding is of a moderate duration (< 24 hours), velocities and
depths unlikely to be high on the River Nene and Brampton
Branch, though they may be high on the Dallington and Billing
Brook.
Environment Agency
A significant number of people are at risk of frequent flooding

(approximately 300 at the 10% event). Risk to over 100 residential
properties, and over 100 commercial properties at the 10% as
well. These commercial properties are mainly located in the River
Nene floodplain in the Billing area, with residential properties
more distributed throughout policy unit.
251 properties affected at the 1% flood event: 145 residential, 106

Infrastructure

• Waste Management Sites: 1

• A45 and A43 affected by flooding at the 1% flood event.
Economic
Total damages incurred £36.04M: £3.01M residential and
£33.03M commercial (damages equates to 25.9% of the total
damages for the catchment). The majority of damages come from
commercial properties.
Significant commercial damages occur at the 10% event

(approximately £25M). These damages are accrued in the River
Nene floodplain in the Billing area.
AAD: £5.28m. High AAD is caused by significant commercial

damages at lower magnitude flood events.

- Grade 1: 0%
- Grade 2: 19.7%
Environmental
Dallington Conservation Area (typically flooded up to a depth
0.75m) and Clifford Hill Motte Castle (up to 1.5m) (Scheduled
Monument) are present within the policy area and both are
affected by flooding at the 1% event probability.
national ecological sites: None
Lowland Heathland
Environment Agency
Total Area In PU: 41.9ha

species.

currently most • 363 people affected by flooding at the 1% flood event.
vulnerable to flood Significant number also at risk at the 10% event.
damage and losses? • Significant number of commercial and residential at risk at the
10% event.
• 10 electricity sub-stations at risk of flooding at the 1% flood
event.
Economic
• Majority of economic damages comes from commercial
properties. Significant commercial damages for low
magnitude events.
Environmental
• One Scheduled Monument and one Conservation Area
Urban Growth – urban growth in the Upper River Nene catchment

urban growth predictions for the River Nene catchment upstream
of Northampton.

future levels of flood Small increase of < 0.25m in depth of flooding from the River
risk under the main Nene and Brampton Branch – most residential properties flooded
scenarios? to depth of < 0.5m. More significant increase in the depth of
flooding from the Dallington and Billing Brooks, with small number
flooded up to 1.25m.

AEP flood.
Environment Agency
A significant number of people are at risk of frequent flooding

(approximately 550 at the 10% event). Risk to over 200 residential
properties, and over 150 commercial properties at the 10% as
well. These commercial properties are mainly located in the River
Nene floodplain in the Billing area, with residential properties
more distributed throughout policy unit.

flood.
Infrastructure

• Waste Management Sites: 2

at the 1% flood event. Increased risk of flooding compared
with present.
• A45 and A43 affected by flooding at the 1% flood event.
Small increases in depth, duration and frequency of flooding will

occur at transport infrastructure affected.
Economic
Significant commercial damages occur at the 10% event

(approximately £35m). These damages are accrued in the River
Nene floodplain in the Billing area.
AAD: £8.39m. As for the present condition, high AAD caused by

significant commercial damages at the 10% flood event.

- Grade 1: 0%
- Grade 2: 23.3%
Environmental
Dallington Conservation Area and Clifford Hill Motte Castle
(Scheduled Monument) are present within the policy area and
both are affected by flooding at the 1% event probability.
International ecological sites: none
Environment Agency
Lowland Heathland
Total Area In PU: 41.9ha

being considered to • Individual protection to properties
• Flood awareness
• Building regulations (resilience)
• Studies
• Emergency Response plan

assumptions have 2.5 on each residential property at risk.
the 1% AEP flood.
uncertainties.
management.
deposition.
• The analysis of flood risk in some of the areas in this policy
unit was carried out using our JFLOW flood extents.
Therefore the results in this policy unit may be less reliable
than for other policy units.
Environment Agency
POLICY UNIT 5: NORTHAMPTON OUTER
coefficient by 20%. For the unmodelled reaches (the Dallington Brook and Billing Brook) it
was assumed that the change in damages, number of people affected etc. relative to the
baseline would be of the same magnitude as the change observed across the catchment.
(+121%) (+82%) (+90%)
Conclusions

conveyance
10% to simulate the effect of a reduction in maintenance. Reducing maintenance would result
coefficient by 10%. For the unmodelled reaches (the Dallington Brook and Billing Brook) it
was assumed that the change in damages, number of people affected etc. relative to the
baseline would be of the same magnitude as the change observed across the catchment.
(+116%) (+78%) (+80%)
Conclusions
Environment Agency
(+104%) (+71%) (+68%)
Conclusions
continued.

the roughness coefficient by 20%. For the unmodelled Dallington Brook and Billing Brook we
assumed that the change in damages, number of people affected etc. relative to the baseline
would be of the same magnitude as the change observed across the catchment.
(100%) (+67%) (+50%)
Conclusions
Cost: Increase in annual expenditure on maintenance to £139k.
Environment Agency
Generic Response: Policy 4 – Develop upstream storage – create channel obstructions
to increase inundation of the natural floodplain
Description: The broadscale model was run with storage reservoirs implemented in the River
Nene (Weedon to Kislingbury) policy unit. The storage reservoir was modelled by adjusting
the inflow hydrograph into the broadscale model immediately upstream of Northampton. The
hydrograph was lagged and attenuated based on detailed modelling of a flood storage
scheme currently being constructed at Kislingbury. The annotated hydrograph below
demonstrates how the inflow into the broadscale model at Kislingbury was lagged and
attenuated. To carry out a P4 in Northampton Outer policy unit a P6 policy option would be
needed in the River Nene (Weedon – Kislingbury) policy units.
Original
hydrograph
Hydrograph with
Lag storage
Attenuation
Flow
Time
Small scale storage was also considered on the Billing and Dallington Brooks through
Northampton. It was assumed that by developing storage on these watercourses the increase
in flood risk in the future could be mitigated.
Base case conditions (current 1%AEP flood)
Generic response results (future 1%AEP flood)
(+6%) (+8%) (+15%)
Conclusions
units. Maintainance in this policy unit continues at the present level.
Conclusion: Developing upstream storage on the River Nene, Billing Brook and Dallington
Brook can reduce the risk posed by flooding in the future to approximately the same level as
at present. Slight increases in damages, and people and properties at risk occur, however
these are minor.
Environment Agency
Generic Response: Policy 4 – Maintain/increase localised protection measures on the
River Nene
the River Nene as shown in the diagram below.

(+36%) (-8%) (-34%)
Conclusions
Cost: Cost of constructing defences will be approximately £21 million.
Conclusion: Constructing defences in this area to the East of Northampton protects a large
number of the commercial properties at risk in the catchment. As a result there is a reduction
in the damages and properties affected against the baseline. A moderate increase in the
number of people affected occurs as the largest risk to people in this policy unit is not in this
area.
Environment Agency
broadscale model. Rather the defended areas polygon tool in MDSF was used to blank out areas
that would be defended were defences to be built. In addition to the defences constructed under
the P4 option on the River Nene, defences were constructed on the Dallington Brook and Billing
Brook as shown in the diagrams below:
Billing Brook defences Dallington Brook defences

(-85%) (-83%) (-75%)
Conclusions
Conclusion: The results of this generic response show a significant reduction in the risk of
flooding in this policy unit. There is a reduction in the impact on the three principal indicators of
greater than 70%.

Description: Not feasible in this Policy Unit. Northampton Outer is a heavily urbanised Policy
Unit with insufficient space for water to be stored. In urban areas such as Northampton
floodplains are often developed leaving little potential for the development of natural floodplain
storage.
Environment Agency

4 Develop upstream storage – create channel obstructions to increase inundation of
the natural floodplain
Environment Agency
Form 12.6 Policy Appraisal Policy unit: Northampton Outer

actions
forecasting forecasting. forecasting forecasting forecasting developments have
• Cease • Reduce • Continue • Develop • Construct been identified in the
maintenance maintenance maintenance upstream localised River Nene (from
of river of river of river storage by defences Weedon to
channel and channel, channel, creating along the Kislingbury) policy
structures structures, structures, channel River Nene, unit and the River
• Remove flood flood storage flood storage obstructions and on the Nene Corridor policy
storage areas areas and areas and to increase Brampton and unit. Very little scope
and defences flood flood inundation of Dallington to apply in this policy
defences. defences the natural Brooks unit therefore no
floodplain. • Emergency assessment of gains
• Increase Response and losses was
maintenance plans undertaken.
of channel,
structures and
flood storage
area in this
policy unit.
• Relocate or
improve
resilience of
industrial sites
in the River
Nene
floodplain
• Emergency
Response
plans
SOC To minimise Number of 363 people 804 people 784 people 740 people 383 people 55 people
1 flood related people at affected by affected at the affected at the affected at the affected by affected by
risks to the risk in the flooding. 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood. flooding in the flooding in the
population 1% flood 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood.
Environment Agency

actions
Numbers of Cease flood Flood warning Flood warning
people 998 people (399 warning and coverage coverage Review flood Review flood
covered by properties) can forecasting, with maintained at maintained at warning through warning through
flood apply for flooding increased risk to the same level. the same level. Flood Warning Flood Warning
warning or warnings within community. and Forecasting and Forecasting
emergency / the policy area. delivery plan. delivery plan.
evacuation
plans Develop a Flood Develop a Flood
Awareness plan Awareness plan
to encourage to encourage
more people to more people to
sign up for flood sign up for flood
warnings. warnings.
To minimise Numbers Critical At least 11 At least 11 11 electricity 10 Electricity 3 electricity

risks to and type of infrastructure electricity electricity substations substations substations
SOC critical critical asset. affected by substations substations flooded, with affected by remain at risk.
2 infrastructure Critical flooding: flooded, with flooded, with depth of up to flooding.
and infrastructure • 10 electricity depth of up to depth of up to 2.3m. The 1 non-
community includes: sub-stations 2.45m. 2.4m. 1 Non- hazardous
facilities • Electricity • 1 non- Increase in hazardous waste transfer
Sub- hazardous Increase in Increase in depth of flooding Waste transfer station at risk at
stations/p waste transfer depth of flooding depth of flooding at 2 Non- station affected present
ower station at 2 Non- at 2 Non- hazardous by flooding. becomes
supply hazardous hazardous Waste transfer protected by
• Sewage Transport Waste transfer Waste transfer station of up to No increase in defences.
Treatment infrastructure station of up to station of up to 0.8m. depth and
Works affected by 0.5m. 0.9m. duration of Defences
(STW) flooding: Increase in flooding at key protect A45.
• Waste • West Coast Increase in Increase in depth and transport Minor increase
Treatment mainline depth and depth and duration of infrastructure. in depth and
Works (Northampton duration of duration of flooding at key duration of
(STW) branch) flooding at key flooding at key transport Flood Risk study flooding at other
• Waste • A43 and A45 transport transport infrastructure. carried out to key transport
Managem are affected by infrastructure. infrastructure. determine level infrastructure.
ent Sites flooding at the of risk for each
Environment Agency

actions
• IPPC 1% event electricity sub- Flood Risk study
Sites station. carried out to
• Transport: No community determine level
Railway, facilities are Emergency of risk for each
Roads, affected. Response plans electricity sub-
Canals may help to station.
(particularl manage risk to
y consider infrastructure. Emergency
ability to Response plans
use other may help to
routes) manage risk to
Community infrastructure.
facilities
include:
• Hospitals
• Emergenc
y
Response
Centres
• Care
Homes
• Schools
3 community properties properties and properties and properties and properties and properties and properties and
disruption affected in 106 commercial 138 commercial 135 commercial 132 commercial 119 commercial 20 commercial
from flooding the 1% flood properties properties properties properties properties properties
Category of affected by affected at the affected at the affected at the affected at the affected at the
social flooding at 1% 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood.
vulnerability AEP flood.
areas Increase in risk Increase in risk Increase in risk Areas at risk of Benefit of
affected in Social impact: of flooding of flooding of flooding flooding have a increased flood
the 1% flood Moderate - occurs in areas occurs in areas occurs in areas typically risk
Extent of typically SFVI with low- with low- with low- moderate social management felt
flooding category 3 moderate moderate moderate vulnerability to in areas with
Duration of vulnerability to vulnerability to vulnerability to flooding low-moderate
flooding flooding flooding flooding (categories 3) social
Environment Agency

actions
(category 2&3) (category 2&3) (category 2&3) vulnerability to
No significant flooding
Increase in Increase in Minor increase increase in (category 2&3).
depth, duration depth, duration in depth, depth, duration
and frequency of and frequency of duration and and frequency of Minor increase
flooding will flooding will frequency of flooding. in depth,
occur. occur. flooding will duration and
occur. Low depth of frequency of
Vast majority of Vast majority of flooding at flooding will
residential residential Vast majority of residential occur outside of
properties at risk properties at risk residential properties on areas defended.
from the River from the River properties at risk the River Nene,
Nene and Nene and from the River Brampton Defences
Brampton Brampton Nene and Branch, protect areas
Branch flooded Branch flooded Brampton Dallington and with significant
to depths of less to depths of less Branch flooded Billing Brooks. depths of
than 0.5m. than 0.5m. to depths of less Majority of flooding on the
Possibly Possibly than 0.5m. properties Dallington and
significant significant Depth of flooded to Billing Brooks.
increases on increases on flooding on depths of less Properties not
Dallington and Dallington and Dallington and than 0.5m. defended
Billing Brooks, Billing Brooks, Billing Brooks Potential for typically flooded
with some with some tends to be moderate to depths of less
properties properties greater but velocities on the than 0.5m.
subject to large subject to large typically less Brooks.
depths and depths and than 1m still.
velocities. velocities. Potential for
significant
velocities.
To minimise Residential £3.01m residential £7.34m £7.02m £6.77m £3.17m £0.55m
ECO economic damages 1% property damages residential residential residential residential residential
N1 impacts of flood at 1% AEP flood damages and damages and damages and damages and damages and
flooding Commercial £61.05m £57.92m £53.77m £38.21m £8.53m
damages 1% £33.03m commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial
flood commercial damages at the damages at the damages at the damages at the damages at the
Agricultural property damages 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood.
damages in at 1% event
Environment Agency

actions
the 1% flood probability No Grade 1 No Grade 1 No Grade 1 Industrial sites in No Grade 1
Percentage agricultural land agricultural land agricultural land the River Nene agricultural land
area of No Grade 1 and affected. affected. affected. catchment affected.
grade 1 and 19.7% of Grade 2 relocated, and
2 agricultural land affected in Greater than Greater than 23.3% of Grade where not Significant
land flooded 1% AEP flood 23.3% of Grade 23.3% of Grade 2 land affected. possible made reduction in the
during the 2 land affected. 2 land affected. resilient. area of Grade 2
1% flood land flooded due
No Grade 1 to construction
agricultural land of flood
affected. defences.
19.7% of Grade
2 land affected.
Ensure Expenditure Annual EA EA ceases Annual EA No increase in Cost of £2m in Cost of
future on all FRM expenditure on spending money expenditure on cost of this policy unit to constructing
ECO investment activities. maintenance on maintenance. maintenance maintenance in maintain risk at defences on the
N2 in the estimated at £69k estimated at real terms – the same level River Nene,
catchment is EA ceases £35k in current remains at £69k on the Dallington Brook
proportional influencing and prices. in current prices. Dallington and and Billing
to the risks informing Billing Brooks. Brook estimated
reducing EA reduces No increase in at £26 million.
expenditure expenditure on EA expenditure No cost
significantly. influencing and on flood warning associated with
informing. in real terms. developing
storage on the
River Nene in
this policy unit -
costs incurred in
upstream policy
units where
storage
developed.
Expanding
influencing and
informing will
Environment Agency

actions
lead to a minor
increase in EA
expenditure.
Protect and Numbers of: Dallington Less protection for historic assets. Increase in Less than 50% Clifford Hill
enhance • Scheduled Conservation area depth of flooding of Clifford Hill Motte Castle
ENV significant Monument affected – typically Increase in depth of flooding at at Clifford Hill Motte flooded to and DAllington
1 historic s flooded to depths Clifford Hill Motte Castle Scheduled Motte Castle depth of up to CA become
environment • Historic of up to 0.75m. Monument of up to 0.7m with a Scheduled 1.5m. defended at 1%
assets and Parks and small increase in the area flooded. Monument of up probability
their settings Gardens This may cause significant adverse to 0.7m with a No change in
• Historic Clifford Hill Motte impacts including limitations to small increase in the area of
Battlefield Castle scheduled visitation. the area Dallington CA
s Monument flooded. This affected.
• Conservati affected – typically Increase in depth of flooding at may cause
on Areas flooded to depths Dallington CA up to 1.1m with a significant
adversely of up to 1.5m. minor increase in area flooded, adverse impacts
affected duration and frequency of flooding. including
by restricted public
flooding or access.
flood risk
managem Increase in
ent depth of flooding
activities at Dallington CA
up to 0.9m, with
a minor increase
in area flooded,
duration and
frequency of
flooding.
ENV Protect and Area of No designated No designated No designated No designated No designated No designated
2 contribute to SSSIs, sites present. sites present so sites present so sites present so sites present so sites present so
the SPAs, SACs no further no further no further no further no further
improvement and Ramsar appraisal appraisal appraisal appraisal appraisal
of sites flooded undertaken. undertaken. undertaken. undertaken. undertaken.
designated in a 1% flood
Environment Agency

actions
nature Reported
conservation condition
sites (SSSI, status of
SPA, SAC SSSIs,
and Ramsar) SPAs, SACs
and Ramsar
sites at risk
from a 1%
flood
ENV Enhance the The Lowland Less protection Less protection Increase in Minimal change Increase in
3 biodiversity distribution Heathland for more BAP for more BAP depth of flooding in the depth of depth of flooding
of the and extent of Total Area In PU: habitats. habitats. of 0.6m in flooding and the of 0.6m in
catchment the future 3ha Lowland following BAP Lowland
by improving UK BAP Area At Risk Lowland Lowland Heathland and habitats at risk: Heathland and
the quality of priority Current: 0.3ha Heathland – Heathland – Undetermined Undetermined
the river habitats (for % Area At Risk increase in increase in Grassland. Lowland Grassland.
environment example, Current: 10% depth of flooding depth of flooding Heathland -
and fens, wet of up to 0.8m. of up to 0.8m. increase in area
contributing woodland, Undetermined Increase in area Increase in area flooded to 0.4,
to UK reed bed, Grassland: flooded likely to flooded likely to an increase of
Biodiversity floodplain Total Area In PU: be slightly more be slightly more 0.1ha on current
Action Plan grazing 41.9ha than that for P3 than that for P3 1%
targets marsh) Area At Risk
Current: 6ha Undetermined Undetermined Undetermined
% Area At Risk grassland – No grassland – No Grassland: -
Current: 14% increase in area, increase in area, increase in area
increase in increase in flooded to 6.7,
depth of up to depth of up to an increase of
0.3m 0.3m 0.7ha on current
1%
ENV • Support WFD Article WFD Entire length of Increases in the Increases in the Taking action to Taking action to
4 the 5 pressures main river in this frequency and frequency and sustain current reduce current
achievem and impacts Category: At Risk policy unit is extent of extent of level of flood risk level of flood risk
Environment Agency

actions
ent of assessments classified as at flooding are flooding are at point and at point and
good results Applicable factors: risk under the likely to increase likely to increase diffuse sources diffuse sources
status/pot WFD Diffuse pollution, WFD from a the levels of the levels of of pollution of pollution
ential of ecological physical or variety of pollutants from pollutants from could prevent could prevent
surface and morphological pressures. sources in sources in potential potential
and chemical alteration, alien These are Kettering and Kettering and adverse effects adverse effects
groundwat status/potent species. principally other urban other urban on water quality. on water quality.
er bodies ial of water diffuse and point areas and areas and This could This could
under the bodies. source pollution adjacent adjacent provide provide
WFD and agricultural land agricultural land environmental environmental
Area of physical/morpho that are washed that are washed improvements improvements
contaminate logical into the river into the river helping to helping to
d or alteration. with potential with potential achieve WFD achieve WFD
damaged Uncertainty adverse effects adverse effects environmental environmental
land restored regarding risks on water quality. on water quality. objectives objectives
or protected due to alien This would not This would not
as a result of species and help to achieve help to achieve
flood risk limited issues WFD WFD
management relating to water environmental environmental
activities abstraction and objective objectives
flow regulation
Environment Agency
Form 12.7 Summary of overall gains and losses for each policy option Policy unit: Northampton Outer

one particular increase in risk to people as
No social gains identified. High: Flood warning and forecasting well as significant increases in damages
ceased. and the number of properties affected.
Economic High: Significant increase in the number
of people affected – 441 more at risk.
High: No EA expenditure on maintenance – reduction of £69k p.a. High: Significant increase in the risk to
Low: Increase in the area of Grade 2 agricultural land affected – at residential properties – 176 more at risk.
least 23.3% of Grade 2 land in this policy unit is affected by High: Increase in the risk to commercial
flooding. properties – 32 more at risk.
High: Significant impact on critical
Environmental infrastructure – at least 11 electricity
substations at risk, 2 waste management
No environmental gains identified. sites at risk.
Medium: Increase in depth and duration
of flooding at transport infrastructure,
including West Coast Mainline
(Northampton branch), A45 and A43.
Low: Vast majority of residential
properties at risk from the River Nene and
Brampton Branch flooded to depths of
less than 0.5m. Possibly significant
increases on Dallington and Billing
Brooks, with some properties subject to
large depths and velocities.
Low: Increase in risk in areas with a low-
moderate social vulnerability to flooding
Economic
High: Increase in residential damages of

£4.33M.
High: Increase in commercial damages of
£28.02M.
Environment Agency

Environmental
Medium: Does not promote appropriate

(sustainable) land use changes.
Medium: No protection to historic assets
as patterns of development that increase
flood risk to other areas are not
discouraged.
Medium: A moderate increase in the
depth (of up to 0.7m) and small increase
in the area of Clifford Hill Motte Castle
Scheduled Monument affected by
flooding. This may cause significant
adverse impacts including limitations to
visitation.
in the area of Darlington CA affected by
flooding. This may cause substantial
losses through damage and degradation.
Low - medium: All BAP habitats
experience a substantial increase in
depth except undetermined grassland,
which experiences a smaller increase in
depth. There is no increase in area
flooded. There may be some habitat
loss.Low: May increase the diffuse
pollution for adjacent agricultural land and
increase risk under WFD
Policy Social Social Not preferred. The increase in flood risk,
two in particular to people, is on the same
No social gains identified. High: Significant increase in the number scale as for P1.
of people affected – 421 more at risk.
Economic High: Significant increase in the risk to
residential properties – 168 more at risk.
Medium: Reduction in EA expenditure on maintenance – reduction High: Increase in the risk to commercial
Environment Agency

of £ 35k p.a. properties – 29 more at risk.
Low: Increase in the area of Grade 2 agricultural land affected – at High: Significant impact on critical
least 23.3% of Grade 2 land in this policy unit is affected by infrastructure – at least 11 electricity
flooding. substations at risk, 2 waste management
sites at risk.
Environmental Medium: Increase in depth and duration
of flooding at transport infrastructure,
No environmental gains identified. including West Coast Mainline
Low: Flood forecasting and warning
maintained at the same level. Likely to
see increase in risk to community
Economic

£4.01M.
High: Increase in commercial damages of
£24.89M.
Environmental
Environment Agency

discouraged.

visitation.
in the area of Darlington CA affected by
flooding. This may cause substantial
losses through damage and degradation.
Low - medium: All BAP habitats
experience a substantial increase in
depth except undetermined grassland,
which experiences a smaller increase in
depth. There is no increase in area
flooded. There may be some habitat loss
Low: May increase the diffuse pollution
for adjacent agricultural land and increase
risk under WFD
Policy Social Social Not preferred. Maintaining the level of
three flood risk management at the present
No social gains identified. High: Increase in the risk to commercial level will lead to increases in risk,
properties – 26 more at risk. particularly to people, on the same scale
Economic High: Significant impact on critical as for P1 and P2.
infrastructure – at least 11 electricity
Medium: EA expenditure on maintenance maintained at the same substations at risk, 2 waste management
level - £69k p.a. sites at risk.
Low: Increase in the area of Grade 2 agricultural land affected – Medium: Increase in the number of
23.3% of Grade 2 land in this policy unit is affected by flooding. people affected – 387 more at risk.
Medium: Increase in the risk to residential
Environmental properties – 151 more at risk.
Medium: Increase in depth and duration
Environment Agency

No environmental gains identified. of flooding at transport infrastructure,
including West Coast Mainline
maintained at the same level. Likely to
see increase in risk to community
Economic

£3.76M.
Medium: Increase in commercial
damages of £20.74M.
Environmental
discouraged.
Environment Agency

visitation.
depth (of up to 0.8m) of flooding at the
Dallington CA, <20% of the area affected.
This may cause substantial losses
through damage and degradation.
Low: BAP habitats affected to the same
degree as current 1% event probability.
There is habitat loss.
Low: May increase the diffuse pollution
for adjacent agricultural land and increase
risk under WFD
Policy Social Social PREFERRED POLICY: Majority of risk
four under this policy is to commercial
Medium: Low depth of flooding at residential properties on the High: Small increase in the level of risk to properties and critical infrastructure.
River Nene, Brampton Branch, Dallington and Billing Brooks. commercial property – 13 more at risk. Risk to people and property is
Majority of properties flooded to depths of less than 0.5m. High: No increase in the risk to critical moderate, with no serious risk to life.
Potential for moderate velocities on the Brooks. infrastructure, high risk remains – 10
Medium: Relocation and resilience measures taken at industrial electricity substations, and 1 waste The Environment Agency is primarily
sites in the River Nene floodplain reduce the impact of flooding on management site at risk. concerned with reducing the risk to life,
industry significantly. Low: Small increase in the number of and as depths and velocities in this
Medium: Flood Warning and Forecasting Delivery plan and Flood people affected – 20 more at risk. policy unit are typically low, it is not a
Awareness plan increase coverage and effectiveness of flood Moderate number at risk when priority to reduce the risk from the
warning. considered on catchment wide basis. present level.
Low: Flood Risk study and Emergency Response plans likely to Low: Small increase in the level of risk to
reduce the impact that flooding has on critical infrastructure. residential properties – 8 more at risk.
Low: Areas at risk tend to be areas with a moderate social Moderate number at risk when
vulnerability to flooding. considered on catchment wide basis.
Low: No change in impact of flooding on
Economic transport infrastructure – West Coast
Environment Agency

Mainline (Northampton branch), A45 and
Medium: Increase in expenditure needed to maintain flood risk at A43 are at risk of flooding.
the present level – majority of costs will be incurred in the River
Nene (Weedon – Kislingbury) policy unit. £2M of damages in this Economic
policy unit, associated with the construction of storage areas on
the Dallington and Billing Brooks. Medium: Increase in commercial
Low: Area of Grade 2 agricultural land affected remains at the damages of £5.18M. Commercial
same level – 19.7% of area of Grade 2 land in this policy unit damages remain high when considered
affected. Majority of agricultural land at risk is of lower quality. on catchment wide basis.
Low: Small increase in residential
Environmental damages of £0.16M. Residential
damages remain moderately high on
Low: Small increases in the area of BAP habitats affected by catchment wide basis.
flooding. There may be small increases in the extent of particular
BAP habitats. Environmental
Low: May provide environmental improvements helping to achieve
WFD environmental objectives. Low: Small increases in the area and
depth of BAP habitats affected by
flooding. There may be minor habitat loss
particularly within woodland networks.
Policy Social Economic Not preferred. The main risk in this

five policy unit is to commercial properties.
Medium: Flood Warning and Forecasting Delivery plan and Flood High: Significant increase in the level of Large costs will be incurred by
Awareness plan increase coverage and effectiveness of flood expenditure on flood defence – cost of developing flood storage and
warning. capital works to reduce impact of flooding constructing defences, and this cost is
Low: Flood Risk study and Emergency Response plans likely to estimated at £21M in this policy unit. not felt to be in proportion to the size or
reduce the impact that flooding has on critical infrastructure. Development of upstream storage in the nature of risk in this policy unit.
Low: Large reduction in the number of people affected – 308 less River Nene (Weedon to Kislingbury)
people at risk. Number of people affected remains moderate when policy unit will incur costs there as well.
considered against the rest of the catchment. Low: Reduction in commercial damages
Low: Significant reduction in the number of commercial and of £24.50M. Despite reduction in
residential properties affected – 86 less commercial and 123 less damages, commercial damages in this
residential properties at risk. Number of properties at risk remains policy unit remain relatively high.
moderate when considered against the rest of the catchment.
Low: Reduction in the level of risk in areas with a low - moderate Environmental
Environment Agency

social vulnerability (categories 2 and 3)
Low: A significant reduction in the level of risk posed to critical Low: Dallington CA becomes defended
infrastructure – 7 less electricity substations and 1 less waste with the exception of the area of the CA
management site are affected. that covers the river channel; where in
there may be small losses.
Economic Low: Small changes in the depth of
flooding, no change in extent. There may
Medium: Reduction in residential damages of £2.46M. be some habitat loss.
Medium: Significant reduction in the area of Grade 2 agricultural
land at risk of flooding due to construction of flood defences.
Environmental
High: Clifford Hill Motte Castle becomes defended at 100 AEP

flood. Dallington CA becomes defended with the exception of the
area of the CA that covers the river channel.
Low: May provide environmental improvements helping to achieve
WFD environmental objectives.
Environment Agency
Form 12.8 Summary of the Preferred Policy Policy unit: Northampton Outer
Policy Unit The policy unit for Northampton Outer is by nature largely urban. The policy unit extends from
5– north of the River Nene Kislingbury Branch floodplain just upstream of Northampton around the
Northampton urban fringes of the town, including Dallington Brook, to cross the River Nene Brampton Branch
Outer upstream of St. Andrew’s Mill and continue to follow the northern and eastern edge of the town
down to Billing Aquadrome.
Northampton Outer is located across the north of the town, centred on the River Nene Brampton
Branch, and sitting above the Kislingbury Branch, but including the River Nene from the
Northampton Washlands to Billing Aquadrome and the related tributaries to the north such as the
Billing Brook. Reference should be made to Northampton Central (PU4) for a description of how
the three main branches of the Nene combine before being controlled just downstream of the town
at the Northampton Washlands. This mostly urban policy unit therefore has a relatively high
population density, containing little open land apart from some active floodplain of the River Nene.
some smaller tributary watercourses. Significant flooding was recorded in Northampton during
1947 (Mar) and more recently in 1998 (Apr) and 2003 (Jan), with records of flooding in the town
back through 1939 and 1940 to 1847. Surface water flooding could pose some risk to people and
properties here, though this risk is difficult to quantify.
The defences through the centre of Northampton on the River Nene continue upstream on the
Brampton Branch for some distance, with the Dallington Brook flood walls built adjacent to the
River Nene in 2002 continuing to provide a 0.5% AEP defence standard. Upstream on the
Dallington Brook the Dallington flood storage area provides a 2% AEP flood standard. The River
Nene area downstream at Billing benefits from a flood detention pond on the Billing Brook, as well
Problem / Risk
as the Northampton Washlands and the smaller flood storage areas at Duston and Hardingstone
(PU4), and more recently the Weedon flood storage reservoir together with flood storage linked to
new development between Kislingbury and Northampton (PU2).
causing £36 million property damages, with significant flood risk on the Dallington and Billing
Brooks as well as the River Nene and a large number of commercial properties such as at Billing.
This policy unit has the largest flood damages under the present day baseline, also rising
significantly for a 0.1% AEP flood (£91 million event damages), with widespread disruption to
major infrastructure.
effects from future development, could increase peak flows by up to approximately 20%. A 1%
AEP future flood would still not overtop many of the Northampton defences, though a 0.5% AEP
future flood now would, and the risk of breaching of defences would be higher with reduced
freeboard on the defence heights. Our analysis suggests that a 1% AEP future flood would affect
740 people and 428 properties (a rise of over 70%, concentrated more on residential properties),
causing £60.5 million property damages (a rise of nearly 70%). The policy unit now has the
second largest flood damages, rising to £167 million event damages for a 0.1% AEP flood.
The social and economic impacts within Northampton Outer are sustained close to the present
Chosen Policy relatively high level by looking to offset future impacts from climate and development change
through relocation of high value commercial sites and increasing the flood resilience of the
properties or the appropriateness of the land use. The Billing area will also benefit from enhanced
floodplain storage indicated elsewhere for the River Nene Kislingbury Branch upstream (PU2).
The broadscale model was run with increased floodplain storage on the River Nene (Weedon to
Kislingbury, PU2). This could comprise changes to floodplain topography, perhaps through raising
Generic or lowering bank heights, or use of control structures. It was simply represented by reducing and
Responses delaying the flows into the model from upstream of Northampton, based on detailed modelling of
similar flood storage currently under construction (see modelling summary after Form 12.5). The
results show significant benefits for Northampton Outer, with damages under the future 1.0% AEP
flood back close to the present day values. Further reduction in damages may be gained from
Environment Agency
other measures such as improved flood warning, development control and emergency response
planning, plus active land use planning to ensure that property at flood risk is appropriate to such
locations and takes on appropriate flood resilience measures.
Adopting policy P4 will focus efforts on creating flood storage in the natural floodplain of the River
Nene upstream (PU2) as outlined above, but also considering how to change the urban fabric to
be less impacted by flood events and to recover more quickly. It will give 1% AEP future flood risk
reductions for Northampton Outer of approximately 357 people, 156 properties and £19.2 million.
This will be achieved through the generic responses outlined above, offsetting the effects of future
climate and development change partly by working to reduce flood peaks and partly through
actively influencing land use planning and the take up of flood resilience measures.
example maintaining the washlands and other defences, and flood warning). The resulting future
flood risk then remains at the current level, avoiding the increase in risk, particularly to people, that
would occur if no further action were taken. On the urban tributaries selective local protection
measures may prove feasible for offsetting rising flood risk, but this should ideally be addressed
through a sustainable planning and development control approach.
Justification
Adopting policy P4 for Northampton Outer supports economic, social and environmental
sustainability by looking to make best use of the River Nene floodplain upstream to manage flood
risk. It aims to offset future impacts, from climate and development change. The objectives which
are met by this policy (1% AEP future flood impact, compared to current baseline) are:
• To minimise risks to critical infrastructure and community facilities (marginal change to 11
sites).
• To minimise community disruption from flooding (up to 8 more residential and 13 more
commercial properties).
Justification • To minimise economic impacts of flooding (increase of £0.16 million residential damages
(cont.) and £5.18 million commercial damages).
cost of works in Northampton Outer, partially set against future development and with
further work in PU2, delivers £19.2 million reduction in damages in Northampton Outer).
change).
change).
environment, contributing to UK Biodiversity Action Plan targets (minor change).
Other policies were rejected for Northampton Outer due to (1% AEP future flood impact,
Policy P1 - no active intervention; large economic and social losses (increases of 441 people, 208
properties, and £32.3 million property damages) with high risk to public health and safety.
Policy P2 - reduce existing flood risk management actions; large economic and social losses
(increases of 421 people, 197 properties, and £28.9 million property damages) and high risk.
Alternative allowing flood risk to rise with future change would lead to significant increases in risks on the
policies same scale as for policies P1 and P2, particularly due to high extreme flood event damages and
considered risks to people.
would be attractive with £48.4 million reduction in future property damages and likely costs of £7.5
million (223 less people, 171 less properties and £23.9 million damage reduction), but defences
are largely inappropriate as many of the properties lie in the active floodplain.
Environment Agency
Main opportunities
• Releasing stored winter floodwaters at times of low flow could address water quality issues.
Main constraints
Catchment- is deep and prolonged in spring and summer months or if flood risk management measures
wide isolate the river from its floodplain.
opportunities &
constraints Scheduled Monuments
Opportunities
Constraints
Discharges
Abstractions
JFLOW model output, of reduced accuracy compared to elsewhere, was used on the tributaries.
groundwater influence on flood events; surface water flooding could be an issue for Northampton.
Risks, DTM, and also the type and distribution of contaminated land within the policy unit.
Uncertainties &
Dependencies The estimates of flood damage within Northampton Outer are considered sufficiently accurate to
inform the selection of the proposed policy and response, though the uncertainty over present
flood risk on some of the urban tributaries may need to be investigated more locally in the future.
Environment Agency
River Nene Corridor
Environment Agency
Policy unit : River Nene Corridor
flood risk within the No formal defences within this policy unit, though there may be some
policy unit? informal/ private defences.
Flood Warning
The River Nene Corridor is covered by a number of flood watch and flood
warning areas.
Flood warning areas include:
• River Nene and tributaries from Billing to Thrapston – trigger sites
Washlands and Southbridge. Rate of uptake in this flood warning area
is 25.12%.
• River Ise and tributaries from Clipston to Wellingborough – trigger site
Barford Bridge. Rate of uptake in this flood warning area is 23.77%.
• River Nene tributaries between Thrapston and the Dog-in-a-Doublet
sluice in Peterborough – trigger sites Harrowden and Harpers Brook.
• River Nene between Thrapston and Castor including low lying mill
properties – trigger sites Islip and Lilford. Rate of uptake in this flood
• River Nene between Thrapston and the Dog-in-a-Doublet sluice to the
east of Peterborough – trigger sites Islip and Lilford. Rate of uptake in
88 people (35 residential properties) can apply for flood warnings within
the policy unit.
Maintenance:
• Maintenance activities along the main rivers include, with annual
expenditure:
• Control of vegetation to maintain channel capacity; £110k
With these and other maintenance activities, the maintenance budget for
2006/07 was £243k. Other activities in this policy unit included, for that
year, £26.1k for blockage removal and minor defence repairs and £60.6k
for incident response.
that apply to flood
defences within the
policy unit?

exposed to flooding? Flooding from the River Nene has a gradual onset. Flooding is likely to
occur 48 – 72 hours after rainfall, and the duration of flooding can be very
long (48 – 96 hours). Depths are generally moderate, less than 1m, though
a few properties (less than 5) between Billing and Wellingborough flooded
to depths of up to 2m. Wide floodplain and shallow depths of flooding at
properties indicates that velocities are likely to be low in general.
68 people affected by flooding at 1% AEP flood (people affected equates

to 1.6% of the total people affected in the catchment).
49 properties affected by flooding at the 1% event: 27 residential, 22
Environment Agency
commercial (properties affected equates to 2.3% of the total properties
affected in the catchment).
Majority of properties at risk in the catchment are at risk of frequent

flooding (10% AEP flood).
Social impact: Low to Moderate - typically SFVI categories 2 and 3
Infrastructure

• Sewage Treatment Works (STW): 3, Great Billing, Islip and
Broadholme STWs. Great Billing STW flooded to depth of up to 1.6m.
Islip STW flooded to depth of up to 0.7m. Broadholme STW flooded to
depth of up to 1.3m.
• Waste Management Sites: 1 Landfill site.

• A45, A6, A14, A509 and A605 are all affected by flooding at the 1%
AEP flood. A number of locally important river crossings along the
River Nene are also affected at the 1% event.
• The Midland mainline railway is at risk of flooding at the 1% event at
Burton Latimer.
Economic
commercial (damages equates to 2.5% of the total damages for the
catchment).

- Grade 1: 0%
- Grade 2: 19.9%
Environmental
Conservation Areas (2)
• Wadenhoe – typically flooded up to a depth 0.5m but up to 2m in some
areas
• Pilton – typically flooded up to a depth of 0.5m
Scheduled Monuments (10)

• Nn178 Roman Villa
• Nn61 Irthlingborough Bridge
• Nn65 Ditchford Bridge
• Nn136 Castle Earthworks And Barn At Thorpe Waterville
• Nn83 Roman Station
• 13676 Raunds Bowl Barrow
• 13694 Mallows Cotton Deserted Medieval Village
• 17135 Bowl Barrow 530m North East Of Rose Farm
• 17139 Bowl Barrow 700m North Of Woodford Mill
• 13667 Irthlingborough Bowl Barrow, 760m West Of Rutland
Lodge
Environment Agency
• Site area 47ha. 79% area affected by flooding. Current condition
status: 30 percent unfavourable due to inappropriate grassland
management.
• Management actions: Wet meadows maintained by winter flooding
regime.
• Effect of flooding: Neutral - Positive - Increased flooding could
potentially increase the extent of wetland habitats within the site, but
could be detrimental to the breeding waders if it occurs in the spring or
early summer.
Aldwinkle Marsh SSSI

• Site area 2ha. 90% of area affected by flooding. Current condition
status: 100 per cent unfavourable due to under-grazing.
• Effect of flooding: unknown
Wollaston Meadows SSSI

• Site area 14ha. 100% of area affected by flooding. Current condition
status: 100 percent unfavourable recovering where grassland
management was previously the problem.
• Effect of flooding: Negative - Increased flooding could be detrimental
to the dry grassland plant communities within the site, although an
area of wet grassland may benefit.
Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SSSI, potential SPA.

• Site area 1310ha. 100% of area affected by flooding. Current
condition status: 100 percent favourable.
• Effect of flooding: Positive - Increased flooding could potentially
increase the quality and extent of fringing wetland habitat within and
beyond the site.
Lowland Meadows
%Area At Risk Current: 100%
Fens
currently most • 68 people affected by flooding and very long duration of flooding.
vulnerable to flood • 49 properties are at risk of flooding.
• Majority of economic damages comes from commercial properties.
Environmental
• Two Conservation Areas, ten Scheduled Monuments affected by
flooding.
• Four SSSIs (one potential SPA/Ramsar site included) are affected by
flooding
Environment Agency
• Three UKBAP habitat types are affected by flooding
What are the key Climate Change – climate change is predicted to cause an increase in
factors that could drive peak river flows that will increase flood risk in the future in this policy unit.
future flood risk? An increase in peak flows of 15% is assumed in this policy unit.
Rural Land Use – it was assumed that rural land use practices will not
cause significant change to the flood risk in the future.
Urban Growth – urban growth in the River Nene catchment may increase
flood risk in the future. See relevant appendix for urban growth predictions
for the River Nene catchment.
future levels of flood In the future there are likely to be small increases in the depth, duration,
risk under the main frequency and velocity of flooding. Increases in depth are likely to be minor
scenarios? (typically less than 0.25m). Any increase in the duration of flooding is likely
to be minor compared with the present duration of flooding (48-72 hours).
Velocities may increase in some areas, however, in general they are likely
to be low.
75 people affected by flooding (people affected equates to 0.8% of the

total people affected in the catchment). This figure indicates a 11.1%
increase in people affected from the current 1% AEP flood.
52 properties are affected by flooding: 30 residential, 22 commercial

(properties affected equates to 1.2% of the total properties affected in the
catchment). This figure indicates a 6.1% increase in properties affected at
the current 1% AEP flood.
Social impact: Low to Moderate - typically SFVI categories 2 and 3
Infrastructure

• Sewage Treatment Works (STW): 3 (Great Billing, Islip and
Broadholme STWs). Increase in depth of flooding at Great Billing and
Islip STWs of less than 0.1m. Increase in depth of flooding at
Broadholme STW of up to 0.2m.
• Waste Management Sites: 1 Landfill site. Increase in depth of flooding
at landfill site of up to 0.2m.

• A45, A6, A14, A509 and A605 are all affected by flooding at the 1%
AEP flood. A number of locally important river crossings along the
River Nene are also affected at the 1% event.
• The Midland mainline railway is at increased risk of flooding at the 1%
event in the future.
• Flooding at transport infrastructure in likely to see a small increase in
duration, depth and frequency of flooding in the future compared with
the present.
Economic
Total damages incurred £4.29m: £0.76m residential, £3.53m commercial
(damages equates to 1.4% of the total damages for the catchment). This
figure indicates a 22.9% increase in damages incurred at the current 1%
AEP flood.
Environment Agency
As with the current condition, the majority of the properties affected are at
risk of frequent flooding (10% AEP flood).
AAD: £0.58m, an increase of £0.27m.

- Grade 1: 0%
- Grade 2: 24.7%
Environmental
Conservation Areas
• Pilton – Flooding up to 0.6m in depth, <10% of site flooded.
• Wadenhoe Flooding up to 2.5m in depth, < 10% of site flooded.
Increase in depth of flooding at 10 Scheduled Monuments affected at

present. Increase in depth of flooding typically low (<0.2m). Small increase
in area flooded expected (typically less than 10%).
• Wadenhoe Marsh and Achurch Meadows SSSI – >80% of site

flooded. Increase in flooding of up to 0.2m. Neural to positive effect
from flooding
• Aldwinkle Marsh SSSI – Approx. 90% of area flooded. Increase in
depth of up to 0.1m Effect from flooding unknown.
• Wollaston Meadows SSSSI – 100% flooded. Increase in depth of up to
0.1m. Negative effect from flooding
• Upper Nene Gravel Pits SSSI, pSPA/RAMSAR site – 100% of site
flooded. Increase in depth of up to 0.1m, though typically less. Some
positive effects from flooding, but potential for negative effects.
Lowland Meadows
%Area At Risk Future: 100%
Fens
What potential • Online storage
responses (or groups • Offline storage
of responses) are • Floodplain storage / wetland creation
being considered to • River maintenance
manage flood risk? • River re-engineering (e.g. restoration)
• Wetland creation
• Defences (to restrict floodplain)
• Localised defences
Environment Agency
• Flood warning & evacuation
• Flood awareness
• Studies
What gaps and • There is uncertainty in the assumption that future development will not
uncertainties are there take place on floodplains.
in knowledge and what • Number of people affected calculated by using a multiplier of 2.5 on
assumptions have each residential property at risk
been made? • Current and future flood risk given here is solely for fluvial risk. Surface
water and groundwater flooding are difficult to quantify and as such
have not been quantified here.
• The nature of the modelling carried out in this policy unit means that
velocities are difficult to quantify accurately. Velocities have been
considered in a qualitative way instead.
• There is uncertainty in the generation of the hydrographs of the 1%
AEP flood.
• The future level of flood risk is only an estimate – the level of climate
change and other drivers, and responses of the catchment to these
changes are subject to significant uncertainties.
management.
deposition.
• The precise impact of flooding on transport infrastructure is often
difficult to determine. Linear features such as roads and railway lines
are often raised above the floodplain on embankments. Using
broadscale modelling it can be difficult to accurately determine
whether or not these features are flooded, and to what depth they
may be flooded.
• The effect of P6 floodplain storage was estimated using the broad-
scale method. Estimates of the amount of storage available in this
policy unit are relatively simplistic, and it is likely that in reality storage
will be developed in an opportunistic fashion.
Environment Agency
POLICY UNIT 6: RIVER NENE CORRIDOR
coefficient by 20%.
68 49 £3.49 million 4 SSSIs/SPAs
affected
75 52 £4.91M million 4 SSSIs/SPAs
(+10%) (+6%) (+41%) affected
Conclusions

conveyance
coefficient by 10%.
affected
(+10%) (+6%) (+35%) affected
Conclusions

same level and that no alternative intervention occurs.
affected
(+10%) (+6%) (+23%) affected
Conclusions
Environment Agency
continued.

Description: Maintain the current level of flood risk management in this policy unit by
developing upstream storage in the River Nene (Weedon – Kislingbury) policy unit. Our
modelling studies have shown that developing upstream storage is capable of reducing the
peak flow on the River Nene in the future to the same level as at present. Therefore the
present flood risk, as determined in Chapter 3 of the report, was used for this policy option.
affected
(no change) (no change) (no change) affected
Conclusions
Cost: No cost associated with this policy unit but costs incurred in upstream policy units
where storage developed. Maintenance in this policy unit continues at present level.
Conclusion: Developing upstream storage in the River Nene (Weedon – Kislingbury) policy
unit is capable of maintaining flood risk at the present level in this policy unit. This generic
response is dependent upon a P6 in the River Nene (Weedon – Kislingbury) policy unit.

the roughness coefficient by 20%.
affected
(+3%) (+2%) (+14%) affected
Conclusions
Conclusion: The results of this generic response show an increase in the impact on people,
property and damages. It is felt that the alternative P4 generic response provides a more
realistic generic response than this one.
Environment Agency
Description: The effects of localised protection measures were not simulated using the
areas that would be defended were defences to be built. Defences were constructed on the
River Nene in two locations – in the vicinity of Earls Barton between Billing and
Wellingborough, and at Denford to the south of Thrapston. The images below show the areas
defended.
Earls Barton defences Denford defences

affected
(-49%) (-33%) (+6%) affected
Conclusions
Cost Cost of constructing defences will be approximately £4 million.
Conclusion: The results from the modelling of this generic response show a significant
reduction in the risk to people and property. There is a small increase in damages, however,
given the large reductions in risk to people and property, this generic response will be taken
forward to the policy appraisal for P5.

Generic Response: Policy 6 – Develop floodplain storage to benefit areas downstream
Description: The broadscale model was run with storage reservoirs implemented along the
River Nene and the River Ise to simulate this generic response. Four broad areas where
floodplain storage was considered feasible were identified in this policy unit. These were:
1. Along the River Ise between Kettering and Wellingborough and upstream of Kettering
on the Slade Brook;
2. Along the River Nene between Northampton and Wellingborough;
3. Along the River Nene between Wellingborough and Thrapston;
4. Along the River Nene between Thrapston and Oundle.
Environment Agency
1
The storage areas along the River Ise were adjusted by altering the inflow hydrographs to the
models. The River Ise hydrograph was lagged by 2.75 hours and attenuated by 16%. These
figures were based on detailed modelling of a flood storage scheme currently being
constructed at Kislingbury. The other three storage areas were incorporated into the model. It
was assumed that 20% of the land flooded during a 1% event within each area could be used
for flood storage.
affected
(no change) (-2%) (+6%) affected
Conclusions
Cost: Cost of developing storage in this policy unit will be approximately £32 million.
Conclusion: The results from this generic response show a significant reduction in the
impact of flooding in downstream policy units. As a result this generic response should be
taken forward to the policy appraisal for P6.

6 Develop floodplain storage to benefit areas downstream
Environment Agency
Form 12.6 Policy Appraisal Policy unit: River Nene Corridor

objective No active Reduce existing Maintain Sustain current Reduce current Increase
intervention actions current risk risk risk frequency of
flooding
Generic responses: • Cease flood • Maintain flood • Maintain • Review flood • Review flood • Review flood
warning and warning and flood warning and warning and warning and
forecasting forecasting warning and forecasting forecasting forecasting
• Cease • Reduce forecasting • Increase river • Construct • Continue
maintenance maintenance of • Continue maintenance localised maintenance of
of river river channel and maintenanc and defences in river channel
channel and structures. e of river maintenance Denford and and structures
structures channel, of structures Earls Barton • Create storage
structures • Develop • Emergency to benefit
and flood upstream Response downstream
storage storage by plans areas.
areas creating • Emergency
channel Response plans
obstructions
to increase
inundation of
the natural
floodplain
• Emergency
Response
plans
SOC To minimise Number of 68 people 75 people 75 people affected 75 people 68 people 35 people affected 68 people affected
1 flood related people at affected by affected at the at the 1% AEP affected at the affected by by flooding in the by flooding in the
risks to the risk in the flooding at 1% AEP flood. flood. 1% AEP flood. flooding in the 1% AEP flood. 1% event.
population 1% flood 1% AEP 1% AEP flood.
Numbers of flood Cease flood Flood warning Flood warning Review flood Review flood
people warning and coverage coverage Review flood warning coverage warning coverage
covered by 88 people forecasting, with maintained at the maintained at warning through a Flood through a Flood
flood (35 increased risk to same level. the same coverage Warning and Warning and
warning or residential the community. level. through a Flood Forecasting Forecasting delivery
emergency / properties) Warning and delivery plan. plan.
evacuation can apply for Forecasting
plans flood delivery plan. Develop a Flood Develop a Flood
warnings Awareness plan to Awareness plan to
Environment Agency

flooding
within the Develop a Flood encourage people encourage people
policy unit. Awareness plan to sign up for flood to sign up for flood
to encourage warning. warning.
people to sign
up for flood Developing storage
warning. in the policy unit will
bring benefits to
people in a number
of downstream
policy units:
Kettering:
Reduction in the
number of people at
risk by 200.
Wellingborough:
Reduction in the
number of people at
risk by 99.
River Nene (Oundle

to Water Newton):
Reduction in the
number of people at
risk by 92.
Peterborough:
Reduction in the
number of people at
risk by 150.
Residual benefits to
people in
Thrapston.
To minimise Numbers Critical Great Billing, Great Billing, Great Billing, Great Billing, No STWs Great Billing,
Environment Agency

flooding
risks to and type of infrastructure Broadholme and Broadholme and Broadholme Broadholme and protected by Broadholme and
SOC critical critical asset. affected by Islip STW Islip STW affected. and Islip STW Islip STW defences. Islip STW affected.
2 infrastructure Critical flooding: affected. Increase in depth affected. affected. No Increase in depth No change in depth
and infrastructure • 3 Sewage Increase in and duration of Increase in change in depth and duration of of flooding
community includes: Treatment depth and flooding. Increase in depth and or duration of flooding. Increase compared with
facilities • Electricity Works duration of depth at Great duration of flooding in depth at Great present.
Sub- (STW): flooding. Billing and Islip of flooding. compared with Billing and Islip of
stations/p Great Increase in less than 0.1m. Increase in baseline. less than 0.1m. 1 landfill site
ower Billing, depth at Great Increase in depth at depth at Great Increase in depth affected. No change
supply Broadhol Billing and Islip Broadholme of Billing and Islip 1 landfill site at Broadholme of in depth of flooding
• Sewage me and of less than 0.2m. of less than affected. up to 0.2m. compared with
Treatment Islip. 0.1m. Increase 0.1m. Increase present.
Works Great in depth at 1 landfill site in depth at Emergency 1 landfill site
(STW) Billing Broadholme of affected. Increase in Broadholme of Response plans affected. No increase in
• Waste STW 0.25m. depth and duration up to 0.2m. may help to depth or frequency
Treatment flooded to of flooding. manage risk to Emergency of flooding at key
Works depth of 1 landfill site 1 landfill site infrastructure. Response plans transport
(STW) up to affected. Increase in depth affected. may help to infrastructure.
• Waste 1.6m. Islip Increase in and duration of Increase in No increase in manage risk to
Managem STW depth and flooding at key depth and depth of flooding infrastructure. Emergency
ent Sites flooded to duration of transport duration of at key transport Response plans
• IPPC depth of flooding. infrastructure. flooding. infrastructure. Minor increases in may help to
Sites up to depth and manage risk to
• Transport: 0.7m. Increase in Minor duration of infrastructure.
Railway, Broadhol depth and increases in flooding at key
Roads, me STW duration of depth and transport Development of
Canals flooded to flooding at key duration of infrastructure. storage will reduce
(particularl depth of transport flooding at key the risk to critical
y consider up to infrastructure. transport infrastructure in the
ability to 1.3m. infrastructure. downstream policy
use other • 1 Waste units of Kettering,
routes) Managem Wellingborough,
Community ent Sites – River Nene (Oundle
facilities Landfill – Water Newton)
include: site and Peterborough.
• Hospitals
Transport
Environment Agency

flooding
• Emergenc infrastructure
y affected by
Response flooding:
Centres • Midland
• Care mainline
Homes (London –
• Schools Leicester)
is affected
by
flooding at
1% event
probability
.
• Roads:
A45, A6,
A14, A509
and A605
are all
affected
by
flooding at
the 1%
AEP flood.
A number
of locally
important
river
crossings
along the
River
Nene are
also
affected at
the 1%
event.
No
Environment Agency

flooding
community
facilities are
at risk.
SOC To minimise Number of 27 30 residential 30 residential 30 residential 27 residential 14 residential 27 residential
3 community properties residential properties and properties and 22 properties and properties and properties and 19 properties and 21
disruption affected in properties 22 commercial commercial 22 commercial 22 commercial commercial commercial
from flooding the 1% flood and 22 properties properties affected properties properties properties properties affected
Category of commercial affected at the at the 1% AEP affected at the affected at the affected at the 1% at the 1% AEP
social properties 1% AEP flood. flood. 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood. AEP flood. flood.
vulnerability affected by
areas flooding at Increase in risk Increase in risk of Increase in Areas at risk Areas at risk have Areas at risk have a
affected in 1% AEP of flooding flooding occurs in risk of flooding have a low to a low to moderate low to moderate
the 1% flood flood. occurs in areas areas with occurs in moderate social social vulnerability social vulnerability
Extent of with moderate moderate social areas with vulnerability to to flooding to flooding
flooding Social social vulnerability to moderate flooding (categories 2 and (categories 2 and 3)
Duration of impact: Low vulnerability to flooding (categories social (categories 2 3)
flooding – moderate. flooding 2, 3 and 4) vulnerability to and 3) No significant
Typically (categories 2, 3 flooding Minor increase in increase in depth,
SFVI and 4) Small increase in (categories 2, No significant depth, duration duration and
categories 2 depth, duration and 3 and 4) increase in and velocity of velocity of flooding.
and 3. Small increase velocity of flooding depth, duration flooding will occur
in depth, will occur. Minor increase and velocity of outside of areas Depths are less
duration and in depth, flooding. defended. than 1m at the vast
velocity of Generally increase duration and majority of
flooding will in depth is up to velocity of Depths are less Flood defences residential
occur. 0.30m though flooding will than 1m at the protect some of properties. Less
typically less. occur. vast majority of the few properties than 5 properties
Generally Depths are less residential that are flooded to between Billing and
increase in than 1m at the Generally properties. Less depths of greater Wellingborough are
depth is up to majority of increase in than 5 than 1m. Minor flooded to depths of
0.35m though residential depth is up to properties increases in greater than 1m.
typically less. properties. Small 0.25m though between Billing depth, velocity
Depths are less handful of typically less. and and duration of Developing storage
than 1m at the properties (less Depths are Wellingborough flooding outside of in this policy unit will
majority of than 5) between less than 1m are flooded to these areas. lead to a reduction
residential Billing and at the majority depths of in the number of
properties. Wellingborough of residential greater than 1m. residential and
Environment Agency

flooding
Small handful of flooded to depths of properties. commercial
properties (less greater than 1m. Small handful properties at risk in
than 5) between of properties downstream policy
Billing and (less than 5) units.
Wellingborough between
flooded to Billing and Kettering:
depths of Wellingboroug Reduction in the
greater than 1m. h flooded to number of
depths of residential and
greater than commercial
1m. properties at risk by
80 and 7
respectively.
Wellingborough:
Reduction in the
number of
residential and
commercial
properties at risk by
39 and 11
respectively.
River Nene (Oundle

to Water Newton):
Reduction in the
number of
residential and
commercial
37 and 5
respectively.
Peterborough:
Reduction in the
number of
residential and
Environment Agency

flooding
commercial
60 and 3
respectively.
£0.72M £0.78M £0.76M residential £0.76M £0.72M £0.35M residential £0.70M residential
ECO To minimise Residential residential residential damages and residential residential damages and damages and
N1 economic damages 1% damages at damages and £3.95M commercial damages and damages and £3.36M £1.85M commercial
impacts of flood 1% £4.13M damages at the 1% £3.53M £2.77M commercial damages at the 1%
flooding Commercial commercial AEP flood. commercial commercial damages at the AEP flood.
damages 1% £2.77M damages at the damages at damages at the 1% AEP flood.
flood commercial 1% AEP flood. No Grade 1 the 1% AEP 1% AEP flood. No Grade 1
Agricultural damages at agricultural land flood. No Grade 1 agricultural land
damages in 1% No Grade 1 affected by flooding. No Grade 1 agricultural land affected by flooding.
the 1% flood agricultural land No Grade 1 agricultural land affected by
Percentage No Grade 1 affected by At least 24.7% of agricultural affected by flooding. Greater than 19.9%
area of and 19.9% flooding. Grade 2 agricultural land affected flooding. of Grade 2
grade 1 and of Grade 2 land affected by by flooding. 24.7% of Grade 2 agricultural land
2 agricultural agricultural At least 24.7% flooding. 19.9% of Grade agricultural land affected by flooding,
land flooded land affected of Grade 2 24.7% of 2 agricultural affected by depending on
during the by flooding. agricultural land Grade 2 land affected by flooding. location of
1% flood affected by agricultural flooding. floodplain storage.
flooding. land affected
by flooding. Developing storage
in this policy unit will
lead to a reduction
in residential and
commercial
damages in
downstream policy
units:
Kettering:
Reduction in
residential and
commercial
damages at risk by
£1.52M and £8.94M
Environment Agency

flooding
respectively.
Wellingborough:
Reduction in
residential and
commercial
damages at risk by
£0.25M and
£10.03M
respectively.
River Nene (Oundle

to Water Newton):
Reduction in
residential and
commercial
damages at risk by
£1.17M and £1.12M
respectively.
Peterborough:
Reduction in
residential and
commercial
damages at risk by
£0.5M and £1.42M
respectively.
Ensure Expenditure Annual EA EA ceases Annual EA No increase in No capital cost Cost of Cost of developing
future on all FRM expenditure spending money expenditure on cost of associated with constructing storage in this
ECO investment activities. on on maintenance. maintenance maintenance this policy unit defences will be policy unit will be
N2 in the maintenance estimated at £122k in real terms – but costs approximately approximately
catchment is estimated at EA ceases in current prices. remains at incurred in £4M £32M.
proportional £243k. influencing and £243k in upstream policy
to the risks informing EA reduces current prices. units where Increase in EA
Environment Agency

flooding
reducing expenditure on storage expenditure on
expenditure influencing and No increase in developed. flood
significantly. informing. EA warning/flood
expenditure on Expanding awareness.
flood warning influencing and
in real terms. informing will
lead to a minor
increase in EA
expenditure.
Protect and Numbers of: Wadenhoe Less protection to historic assets. Less than 10% Current effects Less than 10% of Likely that current
ENV enhance • Scheduled Conservatio of the area of to the historic the area of both effects to the
1 significant Monument n Area These policies may result in: both environment Conservation historic environment
historic s affected – Conservation persist into the Areas flooded. persist into the
environment • Historic typically Conservation Areas: Increase in depth, Areas flooded. future. Pilton to 0.6m and future.
assets and Parks and flooded to frequency and area of flooding for both Pilton to 0.6m Wadenhoe up to
their settings Gardens depths of up CAs. Increase in depth of flooding of up and 2.5m.
• Historic to 0.5m, to 0.4m Wadenhoe up
Battlefield though up to to 2.5m. 10 Scheduled
s 2m in some Scheduled Monuments: Increase in Monuments
• Conservati areas. . depth, frequency and area of flooding at 10 Scheduled affected by
on Areas all 10 Scheduled Monuments. Increase Monuments flooding.
adversely Pilton in depth of flooding of up to 0.5m affected by Irthlingborough
affected by Conservatio flooding. Bridge, Ditchford
flooding or n Area Irthlingborough Bridge, Raunds
flood risk affected – Bridge, Bowl Barrow,
management typically Ditchford Bowl Barrow
activities flooded to Bridge, 530m North East
depths of up Raunds Bowl Of Rose Farm,
to 0.5m. Barrow, Bowl Bowl Barrow
Barrow 530m 700m North Of
Scheduled North East Of Woodford Mill,
Monuments Rose Farm, and
(10) Bowl Barrow Irthlingborough
• Nn178 700m North Of Bowl Barrow,
Roman Woodford Mill, 760m West Of
Environment Agency

flooding
Villa and Rutland Lodge.
• Nn61 Irthlingborough Increase in depth,
Irthlingbor Bowl Barrow, frequency and
ough 760m West Of duration of
Bridge Rutland flooding at all 10
• Nn65 Lodge. SMs. Increase in
Ditchford Increase in depth of flooding
Bridge depth, of up to 0.2m
• Nn136 frequency and generally.
Castle duration of
Earthwork flooding at all
s And 10 SMs.
Barn At Increase in
Thorpe depth of
Waterville flooding of up
to 0.2m
• Nn83 generally.
Roman
Station
• 13676
Raunds
Bowl
Barrow
• 13694
Mallows
Cotton
Deserted
Medieval
Village
• 17135
Bowl
Barrow
530m
North East
Of Rose
Farm
Environment Agency

flooding
• 17139
Bowl
Barrow
700m
North Of
Woodford
Mill
• 13667
Irthlingbor
ough Bowl
Barrow,
760m
West Of
Rutland
Lodge
Scheduled
monuments
flooded to
varying
depths, with
maximum
depths up to
2m.
ENV Protect and Area of Designated Less protection to designated sites This policy No increase in This policy may Likely that there will
2 contribute to SSSIs, sites may result in: depth or extent result in: be no increase in
the SPAs, SACs affected at These policies likely to result in: • Wadenhoe of flooding • Wadenhoe depth or extent of
improvement and Ramsar current 1% • Wadenhoe Marsh and Achurch Marsh and compared with Marsh and flooding compared
of sites flooded AEP flood: Meadows – >80% of site flooded. Achurch baseline. Achurch with baseline.
designated in a 1% flood Increase in flooding of up to 0.3m. Meadows – Meadows –
nature Reported • Wadenho Effect of flooding: Neutral - Positive >80% of site Duration of >80% of site
conservation condition e Marsh - Increased flooding could flooded. flooding likely to flooded. Adoption of P6 may
sites (SSSI, status of and potentially increase the extent of Increase in be significant Increase in result in the Gravel
SPA, SAC SSSIs, Achurch wetland habitats within the site, but flooding of (48-96 hours) for flooding of up to Pits (Upper Nene
and Ramsar) SPAs, SACs Meadow could be detrimental to the breeding up to 0.2m. Wadenhoe, 0.2m. Neutral to Gravel Pits SSSI)
and Ramsar SSSI - waders if it occurs in the spring or Neutral to Aldwinkle, positive effect being turned into
sites at risk Site area early summer. positive Upper Nene from flooding formal flood storage
Environment Agency

flooding
from a 1% 47ha. • Aldwinkle Marsh – Approx. 80% of effect from Gravel Pits. • Aldwinkle areas, resulting in
flood 79% area area flooded. Increase in depth of up flooding Marsh – more frequent
affected to 0.1m. Effect of flooding: unknown • Aldwinkle Approx. 90% of flooding. Increased
by • Wollaston Meadows – 100% flooded. Marsh – area flooded. flooding could
flooding. Increase in depth of up to 0.2m. Approx. Increase in potentially increase
Flooding Effect of flooding: Negative - 90% of area depth of up to the quality and
up to Increased flooding could be flooded. 0.1m Effect extent of fringing
depth of detrimental to the dry grassland plant Increase in from flooding wetland habitat
2m, communities within the site, although depth of up unknown. within and beyond
though an area of wet grassland may to 0.1m • Wollaston the site, but has
typically benefit. Effect from Meadows – potential for
less than • Upper Nene Gravel Pits – 100% of flooding 100% flooded. negative effect on
1.2m site flooded. Increase in depth of up unknown. Increase in some bird species.
Current to 0.25m though typically less. Effect • Wollaston depth of up to
condition of flooding: Positive - Increased Meadows – 0.1m. Negative
status: 30 flooding could potentially increase 100% effect from
% the quality and extent of fringing flooded. flooding
unfavoura wetland habitat within and beyond Increase in • Upper Nene
ble due to the site. depth of up Gravel Pits –
inappropri to 0.1m. 100% of site
ate Minor increases in duration beyond the Negative flooded.
grassland already substantial 48 to 96 hours. effect from Increase in
managem flooding depth of up to
ent. Effect • Upper Nene 0.1m, though
of Gravel Pits typically less.
flooding: – 100% of
Neutral – site flooded. Minor increases in
Positive - Increase in duration beyond
Increased depth of up the already
flooding to 0.1m, substantial 48 to
could though 96 hours.
potentially typically
increase less.
the extent
of wetland Minor
habitats increases in
within the duration
Environment Agency

flooding
site, but beyond the
could be already
detrimenta substantial 48
l to the to 96 hours.
breeding
waders if it
occurs in
the spring
or early
summer.
• Aldwincle
Marsh
SSSI -
Site area
2ha. 90%
of area
affected
by
flooding.
Flooding
up to
depth of
1.5m.
Current
condition
status:
100 per
cent
unfavoura
ble due to
under-
grazing.
Effect of
flooding:
unknown
• Wollaston
Meadows
Environment Agency

flooding
SSSI -
Site area
14ha.
100% of
area
affected
by
flooding.
Flooding
up to a
depth of
1.5m.
Current
condition
status:
100
percent
unfavoura
ble
recovering
where
grassland
managem
ent was
previously
the
problem.
Effect of
flooding:
Negative -
Increased
flooding
could be
detrimenta
l to the dry
grassland
plant
Environment Agency

flooding
communiti
es within
the site,
although
an area of
wet
grassland
may
benefit.
• Upper
Nene
Valley
Gravel
Pits SSSI,
potential
SPA - Site
area
1310ha.
100% of
area
affected
by
flooding.
Depth of
flooding
up to
2.5m.
Current
condition
status:
100
percent
favourable
. Effect of
flooding:
Positive -
Increased
Environment Agency

flooding
flooding
could
potentially
increase
the quality
and extent
of fringing
wetland
habitat
within and
beyond
the site.
ENV Enhance the The Extent and The following BAP habitats may be The following The following The following BAP P6 may lead to an
3 biodiversity distribution distribution affected: BAP habitats BAP habitats habitats are likely increase in the
of the and extent of of BAP are likely to be are likely to be to be affected: areas of some BAP
catchment the future habitats: Lowland Meadows – 100% of area still affected: affected: habitats – degree of
by improving UK BAP flooded. Small increases in the depth of Undetermined benefit will be
the quality of priority Undetermine flooding. A small increase in depth of Undetermined Undetermined Grassland: dependant on the
the river habitats (for d Grassland: flooding is unlikely to have any Grassland: Grassland: Total Area in PU: existing habitats
environment example, Total Area in measurable effect. Total Area in Total Area in 41ha affected.
and fens, wet PU: 41ha PU: 41ha PU: 41ha Area At Risk
contributing woodland, Area At Risk Undetermined Grassland – Increase in Area At Risk Area At Risk Future: 23ha, an
to UK reed bed, Current: the area affected of approximately 4ha. Future: 23ha, Current: 19ha increase of 4ha on
Biodiversity floodplain 19ha Total area affected approx. 23ha. Small an increase of % Area At Risk current 1%.
Action Plan grazing % Area At increases in the depth of flooding. 4ha on current Current: 46%
targets marsh) Risk Current: Effect is unknown, dependant on the 1%. Effect Lowland
46% plant communities present. Potential unknown, Lowland Meadows
for minor positive or negative effect. dependant on Meadows No future
Lowland plant Total Area in changes.
Meadows Fens – Increase in the area of Fens communities PU: 31ha
Total Area in flooded of greater than 3ha, total area present. Area At Risk Fens
PU: 31ha affected greater than 13ha. Small Current: 31ha Total Area in PU:
Area At Risk increases in the depth of flooding. Lowland %Area At Risk 19ha
Current: Unknown/ mixed effects; dependant of Meadows Current: 100% Area At Risk
31ha the type of fen and the duration of No future Future: 13ha, an
%Area At flooding. changes. Fens increase of 3ha on
Environment Agency

flooding
Risk Current: Total Area in current 1%.
100% Fens PU: 19ha Unknown/ mixed
Total Area in Area At Risk effects; dependant
Fens PU: 19ha Current: 10ha of the type of fen
Total Area in Area At Risk % Area At Risk and the duration
PU: 19ha Future: 13ha, Current: 53% of flooding.
Area At Risk an increase of
Current: 3ha on current
10ha 1%. Unknown/
% Area At mixed effects;
Risk Current: dependant of
53% the type of fen
and the
duration of
flooding.
ENV • Support WFD Article WFD surface Increases in the Increases in the Increases in Taking action to Taking action to Taking action to
4 the 5 pressures waters: frequency and frequency and the frequency sustain current reduce current reduce current level
achievem and impacts Overall Risk: extent of extent of flooding and extent of level of flood risk level of flood risk of flood risk at point
ent of assessments High flooding are are likely to flooding are at point and at point and and diffuse sources
good results likely to increase increase the levels likely to diffuse sources diffuse sources of of pollution could
status/pot WFD WFD the levels of of pollutants from increase the of pollution pollution could prevent potential
ential of ecological groundwater pollutants from sources in Kettering levels of could prevent prevent potential adverse effects on
surface and s: Overall sources in and other urban pollutants from potential adverse effects on water quality. This
and chemical Risk: Low, Kettering and areas and adjacent sources in adverse effects water quality. This could provide
groundwat status/potent small areas other urban agricultural land that Kettering and on water quality. could provide environmental
er bodies ial of water of High areas and are washed into the other urban This could environmental improvements
under the bodies. adjacent river with potential areas and provide improvements helping to achieve
WFD agricultural land adverse effects on adjacent environmental helping to achieve WFD environmental
Area of that are washed water quality. This agricultural improvements WFD objectives
contaminate into the river would not help to land that are helping to environmental
d or with potential achieve WFD washed into achieve WFD objectives
damaged adverse effects environmental the river with environmental
land restored on water quality. objectives. potential objectives
or protected This would not adverse
as a result of help to achieve effects on
flood risk WFD water quality.
Environment Agency

flooding
management environmental This would not
activities objectives help to
achieve WFD
environmental
objectives
Environment Agency
Form 12.7 Summary of overall gains and losses for each policy option Policy unit: River Nene Corridor

Policy Social Social Not preferred. Removal of flood risk
one management will see only a minimal
Medium: Increase in the number of people affected High: Flood warning and forecasting ceased. increase in risk to people and
– 7 more people at risk. Number of people at risk Medium: Significant impact on critical infrastructure – 3 property. However, this policy does
remains low. sewage treatment works at risk of flooding to increased not take account of the potential for
Medium: Increase in the number of residential depth and duration. Increase in depth of flooding of up opportunistic floodplain storage in
properties affected – 3 more at risk. Number of to 0.25m. 1 landfill site affected. this policy unit, to benefit
properties at risk remains low. Medium: Increase in impact at transport infrastructure – downstream policy units.
increased risk of Midland Mainline flooding. Increase in
Economic flooding at roads flooded, including A45, A6, A14, A509
and A605. Length of road flooded, duration of flooding
High: No EA expenditure on maintenance – and depth of flooding will increase.
reduction of £243k p.a. Low: Increased flooding in areas with a moderate social
Medium: Minor increase in residential damages of vulnerability to flooding (categories 2, 3 and 4).
£0.06M. Damages remain low. Low: No change in the number of commercial properties
Low: Increase in commercial damages of £1.36M. affected. Number at risk is relatively high given the
Despite increase damages remain relatively low. nature of the policy unit.
Low: Small increase in depth, duration and velocity of
Environmental flooding likely. Generally increase in depth is up to
0.35m though typically less. Depths are less than 1m at
Low – Medium: Potential for an increase in the the majority of residential properties.
extent of the Wadenhoe Marsh and Achurch
Meadows SSSI. Economic
Low – Medium: Low: Potential for an increase in Low: Increase in area of Grade 2 agricultural land
the extent of fringe wetland habitat surrounding the flooded – at least 24.7% of Grade 2 land in this policy
Upper Nene Gravel Pits SSSI. unit is affected by flooding. Significant area of Grade 2
land flooded in this policy unit.
Environmental
Medium: Increase in the depth of flooding at Wollaston

Meadows SSSI may cause further loss of dry grassland
habitat
Environment Agency

High: Increase in depth and area of flooding to
scheduled monuments. Most notably Irthlingborough
Bridge, Ditchford Bridge, Raunds Bowl Barrow, Bowl
Barrow 530m North East Of Rose Farm, Bowl Barrow
700m North Of Woodford Mill, and Irthlingborough Bowl
Barrow, 760m West Of Rutland Lodge, which all show
an increase of 100% on the current 1%.
Policy Social Social Not preferred. Reduction in

two expenditure on flood risk
Medium: Increase in the number of people affected Medium: Significant impact on critical infrastructure – 3 management will see only a minimal
– 7 more people at risk. Number of people at risk sewage treatment works at risk of flooding to increased increase in risk to people and
remains low. depth and duration. Increase in depth of flooding of up property. However, this policy does
Medium: Increase in the number of residential to 0.20m. 1 landfill site affected. not take account of the potential for
properties affected – 3 more at risk. Number of Medium: Increase in impact at transport infrastructure – opportunistic floodplain storage in
properties at risk remains low. increased risk of Midland Mainline flooding. Increase in this policy unit, to benefit
flooding at roads flooded, including A45, A6, A14, A509 downstream policy units.
Economic and A605. Length of road flooded, duration of flooding
and depth of flooding will increase.
Medium: Minor increase in residential damages of Low: Increased flooding in areas with a moderate social
£0.04M. Damages remain low. vulnerability to flooding (categories 2, 3 and 4).
Low: Increase in commercial damages of £1.18M. Low: No change in the number of commercial properties
Despite increase damages remain relatively low. affected. Number at risk is relatively high given the
Low: Reduction in EA expenditure on maintenance nature of the policy unit.
– reduction of £122k p.a. Low: Small increase in depth, duration and velocity of
flooding likely. Generally increase in depth is up to
Environmental 0.30m though typically less. Depths are less than 1m at
the majority of residential properties.
Low – Medium: Potential for an increase in the Low: Flood forecasting and warning maintained at the
extent of the Wadenhoe Marsh and Achurch same level. Likely to see increase in risk to community
Meadows SSSI.
Economic
Low – Medium: Low: Potential for an increase in
the extent of fringe wetland habitat surrounding the Low: Increase in area of Grade 2 agricultural land
Upper Nene Gravel Pits SSSI. flooded – at least 24.7% of Grade 2 land in this policy
unit is affected by flooding. Significant area of Grade 2
Environment Agency

land flooded in this policy unit.
.
Environmental

habitat
Environment Agency

Policy Social Social Not preferred. This policy will see
three only a minimal increase in risk to
Medium: Increase in the number of people affected Medium: Significant impact on critical infrastructure – 3 people and property. However, this
– 7 more people at risk. Number of people at risk sewage treatment works at risk of flooding to increased policy does not take account of the
remains low. depth and duration. Increase in depth of flooding of up potential for opportunistic floodplain
Medium: Increase in the number of residential to 0.20m. 1 landfill site affected. storage in this policy unit, to benefit
properties affected – 3 more at risk. Number of Medium: Increase in impact at transport infrastructure – downstream policy units.
properties at risk remains low. increased risk of Midland Mainline flooding. Increase in
flooding at roads flooded, including A45, A6, A14, A509
Economic and A605. Length of road flooded, duration of flooding
and depth of flooding will increase.
Medium: Minor increase in residential damages of Low: Increased flooding in areas with a moderate social
£0.04M. Damages remain low. vulnerability to flooding (categories 2, 3 and 4).
Low: Increase in commercial damages of £0.76M. Low: No change in the number of commercial properties
Despite increase damages remain relatively low. affected. Number at risk is relatively high given the
Low: No change in EA expenditure on nature of the policy unit.
maintenance – kept at £243k p.a. Low: Small increase in depth, duration and velocity of
flooding likely. Generally increase in depth is up to
Environmental 0.25m though typically less. Depths are less than 1m at
the majority of residential properties.
Low: Potential for an increase in the extent of the Low: Flood forecasting and warning maintained at the
Wadenhoe Marsh and Achurch Meadows SSSI. same level. Likely to see increase in risk to community
Low: Potential for an increase in the extent of Economic

fringe wetland habitat surrounding the Upper Nene
Gravel Pits SSSI. Low: Increase in area of Grade 2 agricultural land
flooded - 24.7% of Grade 2 land in this policy unit is
affected by flooding. Significant area of Grade 2 land
flooded in this policy unit.
Environmental

habitat.
Environment Agency

scheduled monuments. Most notably Irthlingborough
Bridge, Ditchford Bridge, Raunds Bowl Barrow, Bowl
Barrow 530m North East Of Rose Farm, Bowl Barrow
700m North Of Woodford Mill, and Irthlingborough Bowl
Policy Social Social Not preferred. This policy will see no

four increase in risk to people and
Medium: No change in the number of people Medium: Significant impact on critical infrastructure – 3 property. However, this policy does
affected – 68 people are at risk. sewage treatment works at risk of flooding. No increase not take account of the potential for
Medium: No change in the number of residential in depth of flooding, though all three are at risk of opportunistic floodplain storage in
properties affected – 27 are at risk. flooding to significant depths. 1 landfill site affected. this policy unit, to benefit
Medium: Flood Warning and Forecasting Delivery Medium: No change in impact of flooding at transport downstream policy units.
plan and Flood Awareness plan increase coverage infrastructure – Midland mainline railway and a number
and effectiveness of flood warning. of roads, including A45, A6, A14, A509 and A605, are at
Low: No change in depth, duration or velocity of risk of flooding.
flooding at residential properties. Depths are less Low: No change in the number of commercial properties
than 1m at the vast majority of residential affected. Number at risk is relatively high given the
properties. Less than 5 properties between Billing nature of the policy unit.
and Wellingborough are flooded to depths of
greater than 1m. Economic
Low: Areas that are flooded have a typically
moderate social vulnerability to flooding Low: No change in area of Grade 2 agricultural land
(categories 2, 3 and 4). affected – 19.9% at risk of flooding, constituting a
significant area of land.
Economic
Environmental
Medium: No change in residential damages – Low: Damages and degradation to the historic
£0.72M of residential damages incurred. environment persist into the future at the current level.
Medium: No change in commercial damages -
£2.77M of commercial damages incurred.
incurred in River Nene (Weedon – Kislingbury)
Environment Agency

policy unit.
Environmental
Low: Potentially some positive effects on the

Upper Nene Gravel Pits, extended duration of
flooding here may encourage further development
of fringe wetland habitats.
Policy Social Social Not preferred. The significantly
five increased expenditure on flood risk
High: Reduction in the number of people affected – Medium: Significant impact on critical infrastructure – 3 management cannot be justified by
33 less people at risk. sewage treatment works at risk of flooding to increased the minimal levels of risk in this
High: Reduction in the number of residential depth and duration. Increase in depth of flooding of up policy unit.
properties affected – 13 less at risk. to 0.20m. 1 landfill site affected.
Medium: Flood Warning and Forecasting Delivery Medium: Increase in impact at transport infrastructure –
plan and Flood Awareness plan increase coverage increased risk of Midland Mainline flooding. Increase in
and effectiveness of flood warning. flooding at roads flooded, including A45, A6, A14, A509
Medium: Flood defences protect some of the few and A605. Length of road flooded, duration of flooding
properties that are flooded to depths of greater and depth of flooding will increase.
than 1m. Minor increases in depth, velocity and
duration of flooding outside of these areas. Economic
Low: Reduction in the number of commercial
properties affected – 3 less at risk. Number of High: Significant increase in the level of expenditure on
commercial properties at risk is moderately low. flood defence – cost of capital works to reduce impact
Low: Areas benefiting from defence have a low- of flooding estimated at £4M.
moderate social vulnerability to flooding (Category Low: Increase in area of Grade 2 agricultural land
2). flooded - 24.7% of Grade 2 land in this policy unit is
affected by flooding. Significant area of Grade 2 land
Economic flooded in this policy unit.
High: Reduction in residential damages of £0.37M. Environmental

Residential damages reduced to low level. High: there is potential for significant loss of deciduous
Low: Increase in commercial damages of £0.59M. woodland through soil erosion and reduced tree survival
Despite this increase commercial damages remain as a result of a substantial increase in the area of these
moderately low. BAP habitats flooded.
Environment Agency

Environmental scheduled monuments. Most notably Irthlingborough
Medium: Fens/ fen bog mires: There is potential for Bridge, Ditchford Bridge, Raunds Bowl Barrow, Bowl
a degree of habitat creation from increased area of Barrow 530m North East Of Rose Farm, Bowl Barrow
flooding. 700m North Of Woodford Mill, and Irthlingborough Bowl
Policy Social Social PREFERRED OPTION. This policy

six sees no significant risk in this policy
High: Significant benefits to people in downstream Medium: Significant impact on critical infrastructure – 3 unit. More importantly developing
policy units. 541 less people at risk – 200 in sewage treatment works at risk of flooding. No increase storage in this policy unit will see
Kettering, 99 in Wellingborough, 92 in River Nene in depth of flooding, though all three are at risk of significant reductions in the risk to
(Oundle – Water Newton), and 150 in flooding to significant depths. 1 landfill site affected. people and property in downstream
Peterborough. Medium: No change in impact of flooding at transport policy units.
High: Significant benefits to residential properties infrastructure – Midland mainline railway and a number
in downstream policy units. 216 less properties at of roads, including A45, A6, A14, A509 and A605, are at
risk – 80 in Kettering, 39 in Wellingborough, 37 in risk of flooding.
River Nene (Oundle – Water Newton) and 60 in Low: Reduction in the number of commercial properties
Peterborough. affected by 1. Number at risk is relatively high given the
Medium: Benefits to commercial properties in nature of the policy unit.
downstream properties. 26 less commercial
properties at risk – 7 in Kettering, 11 in Economic
Wellingborough, 5 in River Nene (Oundle – Water
Newton) and 3 in Peterborough. High: Large increase in the level of expenditure on flood
Medium: Residual benefits to people and property defence – estimated that construction of flood storage in
in Thrapston. Developing storage capable of this policy unit is likely to cost £32M.
maintaining the standard of protection of flood Low: Minor increases in areas of Grade 2 agricultural
defences in Thrapston. land likely, depending on location of floodplain storage.
Medium: No change in the number of people
affected in this policy unit – 68 people are at risk.
Medium: No change in the number of residential Environmental
properties affected in this policy unit – 27 are at
risk.
Environment Agency

Low: No change in depth, duration or velocity of
flooding at residential properties. Depths are less
than 1m at the vast majority of residential
properties. Less than 5 properties between Billing
and Wellingborough are flooded to depths of
greater than 1m.
Low: Areas that are flooded have a typically
(categories 2, 3 and 4).
Economic
High: Significant reduction in residential damages
in downstream policy units as a result of this
policy. Reduction of £3.44M - £1.52M in Kettering,
£0.25M in Wellingborough, £1.17M in River Nene
(Oundle– Water Newton), and £0.5M in
Peterborough.
High: Significant reduction in commercial damages
in downstream policy units as a result of this
policy. Reduction of £21.51M - £8.94M in
Kettering, £10.03M in Wellingborough, £1.12M in
River Nene (Oundle – Water Newton), and £1.42M
in Peterborough.
Medium: Minor reduction in residential damages
of£0.02M in this policy unit.
Medium: Reduction in commercial damages
of£0.92M in this policy unit.
Environmental
Medium: Potentially increase the quality and extent

of fringing wetland habitat within and beyond the
site.
Environment Agency
Form 12.8 Summary of the Preferred Policy Policy unit: River Nene Corridor
The River Nene corridor policy unit is largely rural in nature. It covers the middle reach of River
Policy Unit Nene floodplain downstream of Northampton from east of Billing Aquadrome to just upstream of
6 – River Nene Oundle, together with the River Ise corridor upstream from the Nene then continuing along the
corridor Slade Brook upstream catchments to above Kettering. It excludes the more urban areas within
Wellingborough (PU10), Kettering (PU8) and Thrapston (PU12) but includes a number of smaller
villages.
The River Nene corridor downstream from Northampton flows east and then north-east, heading
towards Oundle (PU14) and then to Peterborough (PU15). Flows from three main upper tributaries
of the Nene: the Kislingbury Branch, Brampton Branch and Wootton Brook, combine in
Northampton before being controlled at the Northampton Washlands just upstream from Billing.
This restricts flood flows passing downstream through this policy unit up to approximately the 1%
AEP flood, by which time it is likely to be full to its design capacity. The policy unit has a low
population density and is primarily made up of grade 3 agricultural land.
The main source of flooding is fluvial, due to high flows in the River Nene. Significant flooding was
recorded in the policy unit area during 1947 (Mar) and more recently in 1998 (Apr) and 2003 (Jan).
Groundwater and surface water flooding are not thought to pose a risk to people and properties
Problem / Risk here, though it is presently difficult to quantify this risk accurately. The area benefited from
construction of the Northampton Washlands in the 1970s, and to a lesser extent from more recent
storage schemes further upstream at Weedon and Kislingbury.
causing £3.49 million property damages, concentrated at undefended properties in Bugbrooke and
other commercial property.
up to 10%), causing £4.29 million property damages (a rise of over 20%).
Policy P6 – Take action with others to store water or manage runoff in locations that provide
overall flood risk reduction or environmental benefits locally or elsewhere in the catchment (which
may constitute an overall risk reduction e.g. for habitat inundation).
Chosen Policy
The social and economic impacts within this policy unit are maintained at the current level and
lead to major social and economic gains in downstream policy units. Significant environmental
gains could occur as a result of the development of flood storage in this policy unit.
The broadscale model was run with increased floodplain storage at three locations along the River
Nene and one (split between two possible sites) on the River Ise. This could comprise changes to
floodplain topography, perhaps through raising or lowering bank heights, or use of control
structures. It was simply represented by reducing and delaying the flows into the model from the
River Ise, based on detailed modelling of similar flood storage currently under construction, with
Generic
the addition of flood storage reservoirs into the model for the sites along the River Nene (see
Responses
modelling summary after Form 12.5). The results show significant benefits for towns through the
modelled area and downstream. Some further reduction in damages may be gained from other
related enhancements measures to flood warning, development control and emergency response
planning (for example for infrastructure), while locally some defences may be required as
mitigation for the flood storage works.
Adopting policy P6 will focus efforts on creating flood storage to the benefit of downstream areas
(for example 1% AEP future flood risk reductions at: Kettering, 200 people, 87 properties and
£10.5 million; Wellingborough 99 people, 50 properties and £10.3 million; River Nene (Oundle to
Water Newton), 92 people, 42 properties and £2.29 million; Peterborough, 150 people, 63
Justification properties and £1.92 million). It will give 1% AEP future flood risk reductions for the River Nene
corridor of 7 people, 4 properties and £1.74 million. The above will be achieved through the
generic responses outlined above, altering the shape and peak of the downstream flood
hydrograph to help offset the effects of future climate and development change. Implementation
Environment Agency
should continue to be largely promoted and funded through linking the requirements to any further
development in the catchment, where this is appropriate, working in partnership with developers
and planners.
Within the River Nene corridor policy unit, policy P6 will allow present actions to control flood risk
to be continued (for example maintaining the channels, and flood warning). The resulting future
flood risk (reduction of 0 people, 1 property and £0.94 million property damages at 1% AEP) is not
a significant change, this policy unit representing less than 2% of total future 1% AEP flood risk for
Justification the CFMP area, and is set against the potential to reduce downstream flood damages for this
(cont.) event by up to approximately £25 million as set out above. This reduces flood risk for thousands of
people, as well as for critical infrastructure and other important assets; the residual flood risk in
Thrapston is also reduced.
The new flood storage provision will require appropriate enhancements to flood warning,
development control and emergency response planning (for example for infrastructure), together
with appropriate land use planning.
Policy P6 supports economic, social and environmental sustainability by making best use of the
Nene floodplain for storage. It prioritises offsetting future impacts, from climate and development
change, in many areas with the highest flood risk. The objectives which are met by this policy (1%
AEP future flood impact compared to current baseline; ‘future’ reduction downstream) are:
• To minimise flood related risks to the population (no more people in PU6; reduction of 541
people downstream).
4 sites locally; reduced risk to numerous sites downstream).
• To minimise community disruption from flooding (1 more property in PU2; reduction of 242
properties downstream).
• To minimise economic impacts of flooding (local increase of £1.04 million property
damages).
• Ensure future investment in the catchment is proportional to the risks (estimated £32
million cost of works with small increase in maintenance costs, both partially set against
future development; reduction in future flood damage of £25 million achieved
downstream).
• Protect and enhance significant historic environment assets and their settings (no change)
change).
environment, contributing to UK Biodiversity Action Plan targets (creation of BAP habitat).
Other policies were rejected for the River Nene corridor due to (1% AEP future flood impact,
Policy P1 - no active intervention; significant increases in economic and social losses (increases
of 7 people, 3 properties, and £1.42 million property damages).
Policy P2 - reduce existing flood risk management actions; significant increases in economic and
social losses (increases of 7 people, 3 properties, and £1.22 million property damages).
Alternative
allowing flood risk to rise with future change will not lead to significant increases in flood risk and
policies
additional flood risk management responses are unlikely to be justified locally; however
considered
strategically P6 is preferred as it could offer measurable benefits to policy units downstream.
economic and social losses are presently considered relatively limited, and are therefore unlikely
to justify additional responses on their own with a potential £0.8 million damage reduction, costing
roughly £8 million, though under P6 some local benefits may be achieved.
are attractive but difficult to justify against likely costs, such that any major response here is
Environment Agency
unlikely to be sustainable and affordable with approximately £0.6 million future damage reduction,
costing roughly £4 million; higher flood risk priorities exist elsewhere.
Main opportunities
• Use of existing or new mineral extraction sites and influencing their reinstatement plans.
Main constraints
• Land availability is a constraint for responses requiring changes in land use or management.
Opportunities
Increased flooding and appropriate management could enable creation of new valuable grassland.
Constraints
Catchment- Changes to the flood regime or land management may alter the composition of the grassland
wide communities. Increased flooding may mean that management practices need to change.
opportunities & Aldwincle Marsh SSSI
constraints Opportunities
Appropriate management of the site could be used to raise the lowering water levels.
Constraints
Changes to the flooding regime may alter the composition of the grassland communities.
Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits SSSI, pSPA/Ramsar site
Opportunities
Increased flooding and appropriate management could lead to enlarged/improved wetland habitat.
Constraints
Further flooding may result in an increase in the displacement of golden plover, in the winter, from
rough grassland to surrounding agricultural land outside of the designated area. If excessive
flooding of reedbeds were to occur, this could be detrimental to wintering bittern.
Scheduled Monuments
Opportunities
Constraints
Landfill sites
Risks, Significant uncertainty surrounds climate change effects, as well as surface water and
Uncertainties & groundwater influence on flood events though these are not thought to be significant. Further
Dependencies uncertainty surrounds the ground levels and property threshold levels obtained from the DTM, and
The estimates of flood damage within the River Nene corridor are considered sufficiently accurate
Environment Agency
to inform the selection of the proposed policy and response. However, the uncertainty over the
detailed application of P6 storage needs to be investigated more at a strategic level.
Environment Agency
Grendon Brook Villages
Environment Agency
Policy unit: Grendon Brook Villages
policy unit? The Grendon Brook Villages benefit from a number of flood
storage schemes:
• Yardley Hasting flood storage reservoirs (North, East, West),
EA responsibility
• Denton Flood Storage reservoir, responsibility unknown.
• Bozeat Flood storage reservoir, EA responsibility.
• Potentially some informal/ private defences
Flood Warning
The Grendon Brook Villages are covered by a flood watch and a
flood warning area.
sites: Washlands and Southbridge. Rate of uptake in this
503 people (201 properties) can apply for flood warnings in this
policy unit.
Maintenance:
annual expenditure:
Standards of service The north Yardley Hastings flood storage reservoir has a standard
that apply to flood of protection approximately equal to the 2% flood event.
defences within the
policy unit? The east and west Yardley Hastings flood storage reservoirs have
a standard of protection approximately equal to the 4% flood
event.
Denton flood storage reservoir has a standard of protection

approximately equal to the 4% event.
Bozeat flood storage reservoir has a standard of protection equal

to the 2% flood event.
exposed to flooding? The Grendon Brook Villages are at risk from fluvial flooding from
the Grendon Brook. The duration of flooding is moderate (typically
up to 24 hours) and depths are generally low (typically <0.5m).
The channel gradient is moderate to steep and the valley is
narrow in some places indicating that high velocities may occur,
however in general it is not thought that velocities on the Grendon
Brook are significant.

Flood storage areas in the upper reaches of the Grendon Brook

catchment protect properties in the major villages during the lower
magnitude events (for example the 10% event).
Environment Agency
52 properties affected at the 1% event: 46 residential, 6

Infrastructure

• Sewage Treatment Works (STW): Yardley Hastings STW
Transport Infrastructure affected by flooding: none
Economic
the catchment). Majority of damages comes from commercial
properties.
AAD: £0.29m

- Grade 1: 0%
- Grade 2: 1.0%
Environmental
There are three Conservation Areas, one registered park/garden
and one Scheduled Monument within policy unit. Denton,
Grendon and Yardley Hastings Conservation Areas, Castle Ashby
(registered park/ garden) and the Medieval Cross (Scheduled
Monument) are all affected by flooding (1% event probability).
Flood depths typically between 0.3 and 1m.
International or national ecological sites: None
BAP habitat:

Total area: 3.3ha
Area at risk (current): 0
%Area at risk (current): 0

species.

currently most • 115 people affected by flooding and long duration of flooding.
Environment Agency
vulnerable to flood • Flood storage areas protect significant number of properties
damage and losses? in the catchment in lower magnitude flood events.
Economic
• Majority of economic damages comes from commercial
properties – these commercial damages are moderately high
given the rural nature of the catchment.
Environmental
• Three Conservation Areas, one registered park/garden and
one Scheduled Monument.


future levels of flood Increase in depth, duration, velocity and frequency of flooding in
risk under the main the future. Increase in the depth of flooding of up to 0.5m.
scenarios? Maximum depths in future expected to be 0.75m. Increases in
duration, frequency and velocity likely to be minor.

AEP flood.
The flood storage areas in the upper reaches of the catchment

continue to protect properties in low magnitude events, however it
is likely that there standard of protection will fall in the future
offering less protection.
73 properties affected by flooding at the 1% event: 66 residential,

flood.
Infrastructure

• Sewage Treatment Works (STW): 2 (Yardley Hastings STW
and Bozeat STW). Small increases in depth of flooding of
approximately 0.15m expected at Yardley Hastings STW.
Bozeat STW becomes flooded to small depth (approx.
0.15m). Castle Ashby STW is at risk of flooding.
Economic
Environment Agency
AAD: £0.60m

- Grade 1: 0h%
- Grade 2: 4.2%
Environmental
Small increases in the area and depth of flooding at Denton,
Grendon and Yardley Hastings Conservation Areas, Castle Ashby
(registered park/ garden) and the Medieval Cross (Scheduled
Monument).
National ecological sites:

At future 1% event Bozeat Meadows SSSI would be affected by
flooding. Negative effect on site from flooding: terrestrial
grassland communities present are sensitive to flooding.
BAP habitat:
Total area: 3.3ha
Area at risk (future): 0.2ha
% Area at risk (future): 6%
What potential • Best farming practices
responses (or groups • River maintenance
of responses) are • Defences (to restrict floodplain)
being considered to • Localised defences
• Flood awareness
• Studies
in knowledge and what • The analysis of flood risk in this policy unit was carried out
assumptions have using our JFLOW flood extents. Therefore the results in this
been made? policy unit may be less reliable than for other policy units.
the 1% AEP flood.
uncertainties.
management.
Environment Agency
deposition.
Environment Agency
POLICY UNIT 7: GRENDON BROOK VILLAGES
Description: Because Grendon Brook is beyond the boundaries of the broad-scale model,
the impact of flooding was determined using Flood Zones 2 and 3and it was not possible to
model the impact of a reduction in conveyance caused by stopping maintenance. Therefore it
was assumed that the change in damages, number of people affected etc. compared with the
baseline is the same as for the modelled reaches. Policy 1 was simulated on the modelled
reaches by assuming an increase in channel and floodplain roughness of 20%.
(+59%) (+54%) (+142%)
Conclusions

conveyance
Description: As for Policy 1 it was not possible to model the impact of a reduction in
conveyance. It was assumed that the change in damages, number of people affected etc.
compared with the baseline is the same as for the modelled reaches. Policy 2 was simulated
on the modelled reaches by assuming an increase in channel and floodplain roughness of
10%.
(+55%) (+50%) (+128%)
Conclusions

Description: The effect of maintaining the current level of flood risk management into the
future was estimated for Chapter 4. For the estimate, weassumed that maintenance is kept at
the same level and that no alternative intervention occurs. Flood risk is anticipated to increase
(+43%) (+40%) (+110%)
Conclusions
Environment Agency
continued.

Description: Because Grendon Brook is not within the broad-scale model, the impact of
flooding was determined using Flood Zones 2 and 3and it was not possible to model the
impact of an increase in conveyance caused by increasing maintenance. Therefore it was
baseline is the same as for the modelled reaches. This generic response was simulated on
the modelled reaches by assuming a reduction in channel and floodplain roughness of 20%.
(+38%) (+38%) (+86%)
Conclusions

Generic Response: Policy 4 – Increase conveyance by increasing maintenance, rural
land use change by improved farming practices, increasing upstream storage and
creating localised protection.
Conclusions
cost £3 million.
Conclusion: Developing upstream storage, increasing maintenance, improving farming
practices and creating localised protection can counteract increases in peak flow expected in
the future.
Environment Agency
areas that would be defended were defences to be built. Defences were constructed through
the village of Yardley Hastings as shown in the diagram below.

(-32%) (-33%) (+34%)
Conclusions
Conclusion: The results of this generic response show a reduction in the people and
properties at risk. Defences through Yardley Hastings protect a significant number of
residential properties which are at risk. There is an increase in the total damages compared
with the baseline, caused by large increases in damages at a handful of commercial sites in
other parts of the Grendon Brook catchment.

Description: Storage already exists in this policy unit aimed at reducing the impact of
flooding during low magnitude events in a number of villages. The development of storage to
protect areas downstream is not feasible, however, as the Grendon Brook has only a minimal
influence on the peak flow of the River Nene at the downstream end of this policy unit.
Strategic storage not feasible, therefore no further modelling undertaken.
Environment Agency

4 Reduce conveyance by increasing maintenance, rural land use change by
improved farming practices, increasing upstream storage and creating localised
protection.
Environment Agency
Form 12.6 Policy Appraisal Policy unit: Grendon Brook Villages

flooding
Generic responses: • Cease flood • Maintain flood • Maintain flood • Review flood • Review flood Opportunities
warning and warning and warning and warning and warning and for additional
• Cease • Reduce • Continue • Combined • Construct developments
maintenance maintenance of maintenance of generic localised have been
of river channel, river channel, response, defences in identified in
channel and structures and structures and involving: Yardley the River Nene
structures. flood storage flood storage o Increased Hasting (from Weedon
• Remove flood areas areas river • Emergency to Kislingbury)
storage areas • Emergency • Emergency maintenance Response policy unit and
Response plans Response plans o Construction plans the River Nene
of local Corridor policy
defences unit. Very little
o Creation of scope to apply
upstream in this policy
storage unit therefore
o Rural land use no
change assessment of
through better gains and
farming losses was
• Emergency undertaken.
Response plans
SO To minimise Number of 115 people 183 people 178 people affected 165 people affected 115 people 78 people
C1 flood related people at affected by affected by by flooding at 1% by flooding at 1% affected at 1% affected by
risks to the risk in the flooding at 1% flooding at 1% AEP flood. event. AEP flood. flooding at 1%
population 1% flood AEP flood AEP flood. AEP flood.
Numbers of Review flood Review flood Increased
people 503 people (201 Cease flood warning through a warning through a maintenance, Review flood
covered by properties) warning and Flood Warning and Flood Warning and expansion of warning through
flood within policy unit forecasting, with Forecasting Forecasting existing upstream a Flood Warning
warning or that can apply increased risk to development plan. development plan. storage, better and Forecasting
emergency / for flood community. farming practices, development
evacuation warnings and localised plan.
plans protection
measures capable Develop a Flood
Environment Agency

flooding
of maintaining Awareness plan
level of risk at to encourage
current level. more people to
sign up to flood
Review flood warning.
warning through a
Flood Warning
and Forecasting
development plan.
Develop a Flood
Awareness plan to
encourage more
people to sign up
to flood warning.
To minimise Numbers Critical Increase in Increase in depth of Increase in depth of Yardley Hastings Increase in
risks to critical and type of infrastructure depth of flooding flooding of up to flooding of up to STW flooded to depth of flooding
SO infrastructure critical asset. affected by of up to 0.3 m at 0.25 m at Yardley 0.15 m at Yardley depth of approx. of up to 0.15 m
C2 and community Critical flooding: Yardley Hastings STW. Hastings STW. 0.1m at Yardley
facilities infrastructure • Yardley Hastings and Hastings STW.
includes: Hastings Bozeat STW Bozeat STW Emergency
• Electricity Sewage Bozeat STW becomes affected – becomes affected - Response plans Bozeat STW
Sub- Treatment becomes flooded to depth of flooded to depth of may help to becomes
stations/p Works (STW) affected – up to 0.25m. < 0.15m manage risk to affected -
ower flooded to flooded to depth infrastructure. flooded to depth
supply depth of of up to 0.25m. Castle Ashby STW Emergency of < 0.15m
• Sewage approx. 0.1m. at risk of flooding. Response plans
Treatment Castle Ashby may help to Emergency
Works No major STW at risk of Emergency manage risk to Response plans
(STW) transport flooding. Response plans infrastructure. may help to
• Waste infrastructure or may help to manage risk to
Treatment community Oakfield Care manage risk to infrastructure.
Works facilities Home at risk of infrastructure.
(STW) affected. flooding.
• Waste
Managem
Environment Agency

flooding
ent Sites
• IPPC
Sites
• Transport:
Railway,
Roads,
Canals
(particularl
y consider
ability to
use other
routes)
Community
facilities
include:
• Hospitals
• Emergenc
y
Response
Centres
• Care
Homes
• Schools
SO To minimise Number of 46 residential 73 residential 71 residential 66 residential 46 residential 31 residential

C3 community properties properties and 6 properties properties flooded properties flooded properties flooded properties
disruption from affected in commercial flooded and 7 and 7 commercial and 7 commercial and 6 commercial flooded and 4
flooding the 1% flood properties commercial properties flooded properties flooded properties flooded commercial
Category of affected by properties at 1% AEP flood. at 1% AEP flood. at 1% AEP flood. properties
social flooding at 1% flooded at 1% flooded at 1%
vulnerability AEP flood. AEP flood. Increase in risk of Minor increase in Areas at risk of AEP flood.
areas flooding occurs in risk of flooding flooding typically
affected in Social impact: Increase in risk areas with a occurs in areas with have moderate Increases in
the 1% flood Moderate - of flooding moderate-low social a moderate-low social vulnerability flood risk
Extent of typically SFVI occurs in areas vulnerability to social vulnerability to flooding management
flooding category 3 with a moderate- flooding (Category to flooding (category 3) reduce the risk
Environment Agency

flooding
Duration of low social 2) (Category 2) of flooding in
flooding vulnerability to No significant areas with a
flooding Increase in depth, Minor increase in change in depth, typically
(Category 2) duration and depth, duration and duration and moderate social
frequency of frequency of frequency of vulnerability to
Increase in flooding will occur. flooding will occur. flooding will occur. flooding
depth, duration (category 3).
and frequency of It is likely that all All properties Depths of flooding
flooding will properties are flooded to less than are low, less than Minor increases
occur. flooded to depths of 1m, with majority 0.5m, with a in depth,
less than 1m, with flooded to depths of handful of duration and
It is likely that all majority flooded to less than 0.5m. properties flooded frequency of
properties are depths of less than Velocities may up to depths of flooding will
flooded to 0.5m. Velocities increase, however, 1m. High occur in areas
depths of less may increase to it is thought they are velocities may that are not
than 1m, with significant levels, unlikely to be high occur, however it defended.
majority flooded however, this is in areas of is thought that
to depths of less thought to be residential flooding. velocities on the All properties
than 0.5m. unlikely to happen Grendon Brook flooded to less
Velocities may in areas with are unlikely to be than 1m, with
increase to residential areas. high. majority flooded
significant to depths of less
levels, however, than 0.5m.
this is thought to Velocities may
be unlikely to increase,
happen in areas however, it is
with residential thought they are
areas. unlikely to be
high in areas of
residential
flooding.
To minimise Residential £1.10m £2.05m £1.95m residential £1.84m residential £1.10m residential £0.87m
EC economic damages 1% residential residential damages and damages and damages and residential
ON impacts of flood property damages and £8.34M commercial £7.64M commercial £3.41m damages and
1 flooding Commercial damages at 1% £8.86M damages at 1% damages at 1% commercial £5.18m
damages 1% AEP flood commercial AEP flood. AEP flood. damages at 1% commercial
Environment Agency

flooding
flood damages at 1% AEP flood. damages at 1%
Agricultural £3.41m AEP flood. No Grade 1 land No Grade 1 land AEP flood.
damages in commercial affected. affected. No Grade 1 land
the 1% flood property No Grade 1 land affected. No Grade 1 land
Percentage damages at 1% affected. Greater than 4.2% 4.2% of Grade 2 affected.
area of event probability of Grade 2 land land affected 1% of Grade 2
grade 1 and Greater than affected. land affected 4.2% of Grade 2
2 agricultural No Grade 1 and 4.2% of Grade 2 land affected
land flooded 1% of Grade 2 land.
during the land affected in
1% flood 1% AEP flood
Ensure future Expenditure Annual EA EA ceases Annual EA No increase in cost Expanding Cost of
investment in on all FRM expenditure on spending money expenditure on of maintenance in influencing and constructing
EC the catchment is activities. maintenance on maintenance. maintenance real terms – informing will lead defences will be
ON proportional to estimated at estimated at £22k in remains at £44k in to a minor approximately
2 the risks £44k. EA ceases current prices. current prices. increase in EA £10M
influencing and expenditure.
informing EA reduces No increase in EA Increase in EA
reducing expenditure on expenditure on Cost of expenditure on
expenditure influencing and flood warning in real implementing flood
significantly. informing. terms. combined works warning/flood
of conveyance, awareness.
storage and
increase EA
expenditure by
£3M.
Protect and Numbers of: Denton Reduction in protection to historic This policy may No increase in This policy may
enhance • Scheduled Conservation assets under these policies. lead to: depth or extent of lead to:
EN significant Monument Area affected – • Conservation flooding compared • Conservation
V1 historic s depth of flooding These policies may result in: Areas – Increase with baseline for Areas –
environment • Historic typically up to • Conservation Areas - Increase in in depth of features affected. Increase in
assets and their Parks and 1m. depth of flooding of up to 0.7m, flooding of up to depth of
settings Gardens though increase in depth typically 0.5m, though flooding of up
• Historic Yardley less. Increase in extent of <5% for increase in depth to 0.5m at
Environment Agency

flooding
Battlefield Hastings Denton and Yardley Hastings. typically less. Denton and
s Conservation Approx. 1 -2ha. of Grendon Increase in extent Grendon CAs.
• Conservati Area affected – Conservation Area flooded. of less than 5% Yardley
on Areas depth of flooding • Scheduled Monument - Increase in for Denton and Hastings CA
adversely typically up to depth of flooding of SM of approx. Yardley Hastings. not flooded.
affected by 0.5m. 0.8m. . Approx. 1 ha. of • Scheduled
flooding or • Park and Garden - Significant Grendon CA Monument -
flood risk Castle Ashby increase in area of Castle Ashby flooded. Increase in
management (registered park/ flooded – greater than 40 ha flooded. • Scheduled depth of
activities garden) affected Increase in depth of over 1m, but Monument - flooding at SM
– depth of typically 0.7m Increase in depth of approx.
flooding typically of flooding at SM 0.6m.
up to 1m. of approx. 0.6m. • Park and
• Park and Garden Garden -
Grendon - Significant Significant
Conservation increase in area increase in
Area – <1ha of of Castle Ashby area of Castle
site flooded to flooded – approx. Ashby park
shallow depth. 40ha flooded. and garden
Increase in depth flooded –
Medieval Cross of over 1m in approx. 40ha
Scheduled parts though flooded.
Monument typically about Increase in
affected – depth 0.5m. depth of over
of flooding 0.3m. 1m in parts
though
typically about
0.5m.
EN Protect and Area of No designated Small area of Bozeat Meadows flooded Very small area No designated Very small area
V2 contribute to the SSSIs, sites affected at to max. depth of 0.2m. Negative effect (<5%) of Bozeat sites affected so (<5%) of Bozeat
improvement of SPAs, SACs current 1% AEP on site from flooding: terrestrial Meadows affected no further Meadows
designated and Ramsar flood. grassland communities present are flooded to depth of appraisal affected flooded
nature sites flooded sensitive to flooding. < 0.05m. Negative undertaken. to depth of <
conservation in a 1% flood effect on site: 0.05m. Negative
sites (SSSI, Reported terrestrial grassland effect on site:
SPA, SAC and condition communities terrestrial
Ramsar) status of present are grassland
Environment Agency

flooding
SSSIs, sensitive to communities
SPAs, SACs flooding. present are
and Ramsar sensitive to
sites at risk flooding.
from a 1%
flood
EN Enhance the The BAP habitat: Less protection for BAP habitats. No significant area No significant No significant
V3 biodiversity of distribution Grassland These policies likely to lead to: of BAP habitat area of BAP area of BAP
the catchment and extent of Networks: • Lowland Calcareous Grassland: affected. habitat affected. habitat affected.
by improving the the future Lowland Small area flooded (< 1ha). Flooded
quality of the UK BAP Calcareous to max depth of 0.2m
river priority Grassland: • Grassland Networks: Small area
environment and habitats (for Total area: flooded (< 3ha). Flooded to max
contributing to example, 3.3ha depth of 0.5m, there may be some
UK Biodiversity fens, wet Area at risk minor habitat loss.
Action Plan woodland, (current): 0
targets reed bed, %Area at risk
floodplain (current): 0
grazing
marsh)
EN • Support the WFD Article WFD Increases in the Increases in the Increases in the Taking action to Taking action to
V4 achievement 5 pressures frequency and frequency and frequency and sustain current reduce current
of good and impacts Category: At extent of extent of flooding extent of flooding level of flood risk level of flood risk
status/potenti assessments risk flooding are are likely to are likely to at point and at point and
al of surface results likely to increase increase the levels increase the levels diffuse sources of diffuse sources
and WFD Applicable the levels of of pollutants from of pollutants from pollution could of pollution
groundwater ecological factors: Point pollutants from sources in Kettering sources in Kettering prevent potential could prevent
bodies under and source pollution, sources in and other urban and other urban adverse effects on potential
the WFD chemical diffuse pollution, Kettering and areas and adjacent areas and adjacent water quality. This adverse effects
status/potent physical or other urban agricultural land that agricultural land that could provide on water quality.
ial of water morphological areas and are washed into the are washed into the environmental This could
bodies. alterations, alien adjacent river with potential river with potential improvements provide
species. agricultural land adverse effects on adverse effects on helping to achieve environmental
Area of that are washed water quality. This water quality. This WFD improvements
contaminate into the river would not help to would not help to environmental helping to
d or with potential achieve WFD achieve WFD objectives achieve WFD
Environment Agency

flooding
damaged adverse effects environmental environmental environmental
land restored on water quality. objectives objectives objectives
or protected This would not
as a result of help to achieve
flood risk WFD
Environment Agency
Form 12.7 Summary of overall gains and losses for each policy option Policy unit: Grendon Brook Villages

Policy Social Social Not preferred. Risk to people,
one property and economy does not
High: No major transport infrastructure at risk. High: Flood forecasting and warning ceased. increase much more significantly
Medium: Small increase in the number of Medium: Increase in impact on critical infrastructure. than under P2. However, removal of
commercial properties at risk – increase of 1. Bozeat STW becomes affected, increase in impact at all flood risk management activities
Number of commercial properties at risk remains Yardley Hastings STW, and Castle Ashby STW is at in this policy unit is inadvisable,
low compared with the rest of the catchment. risk of flooding. given that current flood risk
Low: Areas at risk have a low-moderate social Low: Increase in the number of people affected – 68 management provides benefits to a
vulnerability to flooding (category 2). more at risk. number of properties for lower
Low: Increase in depth, duration and velocity of Low: Increase in risk to residential properties – 27 more magnitude events.
flooding. Likely that all properties are flooded to properties at risk.
depths of less than 1m, with majority flooded to
depths of less than 0.5m. Velocities may increase Economic
to significant levels, however, this is thought to be
unlikely to happen in areas with residential areas. Medium: Significant increase in the level of commercial
damages – increase of £5.45M.
Economic Low: Increase in the level of residential damages,
however, they still remain relatively low. Increase of
High: No EA expenditure on flood risk £0.95M.
management – reduction in expenditure of £44k.
Low: Increase in the area of Grade 2 agricultural
land affected – at least 4.2% of the Grade 2 land in
this policy unit is affected. The vast majority of
agricultural land affected in this policy unit is lower
quality though.
Low: Increased flooding could be beneficial if Low: Less protection for historic assets.
additional wet grassland habitat was created. High: Increase in depth and extent of flooding for three
Low: Decreasing conveyance should ultimately CAs affected (Denton, Grendon and Yardley Hastings),
make the river become more natural. which may result in increased damage and degradation.
High: Increase in depth of flooding of Medieval Cross
Scheduled Monument of approx 0.8m may result in
damage to this monument.
High: Significant increase in area of Castle Ashby park
Environment Agency

and garden flooded (>40 ha flooded), may cause
significant losses/damage and limitations to visitation.
Medium: Small area of Bozeat Meadows SSSI (outside
PU but affected by its actions) flooded to max. depth of
0.2m, the terrestrial grassland communities present are
sensitive to flooding.
Low: Less protection for BAP habitats.
Low: Small area of Lowland Calcareous Grassland
flooded.
.Low: May increase the diffuse pollution for adjacent
Policy Social Social PREFERRED OPTION: Reducing

two flood risk management beyond the
High: No major transport infrastructure at risk. Medium: Increase in impact on critical infrastructure. present level does not lead to a
Medium: Small increase in the number of Bozeat STW becomes affected, increase in impact at significant increase in the level of
commercial properties at risk – increase of 1. Yardley Hastings STW, and Castle Ashby STW is at risk. Reduction in costs associated
Number of commercial properties at risk remains risk of flooding. with reduced flood risk management
low compared with the rest of the catchment. Low: Increase in the number of people affected – 63 ensures that expenditure is
Low: Areas at risk have a low-moderate social more at risk. Number at risk in this policy unit is proportional to the level of risk.
vulnerability to flooding (category 2). moderately high.
Low: Increase in depth, duration and velocity of Low: Increase in risk to residential properties – 25 more
flooding. Likely that all properties are flooded to properties at risk. Number at risk in this policy unit is
depths of less than 1m, with majority flooded to moderately high.
depths of less than 0.5m. Velocities may increase
to significant levels, however, this is thought to be
unlikely to happen in areas with residential areas. Economic
will manage flood forecasting more effectively on Low: Increase in the level of commercial damages –
existing budget. increase of £4.93M.
Economic
Medium: Reduction in EA expenditure as a result

of scaling back maintenance, flood warning –
estimated that EA expenditure will reduce by
Environment Agency

approx. £22k.
land affected – at least 4.2% of the Grade 2 land in
this policy unit is affected. The vast majority of
quality though.
Low: Increase in the level of residential damages,
however, they still remain relatively low. Increase
of £0.85M.
Low: Increased flooding could be beneficial if Low: Less protection for historic assets.
additional wet grassland habitat was created. High: Increase in depth and extent of flooding for three
Low: Decreasing conveyance should ultimately CAs affected (Denton, Grendon and Yardley Hastings),
make the river become more natural. which may result in increased damage and degradation.
Medium: Small area of Bozeat Meadows SSSI flooded
to max. depth of 0.2m, the terrestrial grassland
communities present are sensitive to flooding.
Low: Small area of Lowland Calcareous Grassland
flooded.
Environment Agency

Policy Social Social Not preferred. At present there is
three significant expenditure on flood risk
High: No major transport infrastructure at risk. Medium: Increase in impact on critical infrastructure maintenance given the size of the
Medium: Small increase in the number of with Bozeat STW affected, and an increase in impact on catchment and the risk within it.
commercial properties at risk – increase of 1. Yardley Hastings STW, which is affected at present. Reducing the flood risk management
Number of commercial properties at risk remains Low: Areas where increase in risk occurs are generally leads to only increases in flood risk,
low compared with the rest of the catchment. those with low to moderate social vulnerability to but more significant gains through
Low: Minor increases in depth, duration and flooding (category 2). reduced expenditure.
velocity of flooding. All properties flooded to less Low: Increase in the number of people affected – 50
than 1m, with majority flooded to depths of less more people at risk.
than 0.5m. Velocities may increase, however, it is Low: Increase in the number of residential properties
thought they are unlikely to be high in areas of affected – 20 more at risk.
residential flooding.
Low: Flood Warning and Forecasting delivery plan Economic
existing budget. Low: Increase in the level of commercial damages –
increase of £4.23M.
Economic
Low: EA expenditure on flood risk management

maintained at present rate – approx £44k p.a.
Low: Increase in the level of residential damages,
however, they still remain relatively low. Increase
of £0.74M.
land affected – 4.2% of the Grade 2 land in this
policy unit is affected. The vast majority of
quality though.
Low: Increased flooding could be beneficial if Medium: Increase in depth and extent of flooding for
additional wet grassland habitat was created. three CAs affected (Denton, Grendon and Yardley
Low: No significant area of BAP habitat affected. Hastings), which may result in increased damage and
degradation.
Environment Agency

Low: Very small area of Bozeat Meadows SSSI flooded
to max. depth of 0.2m, the terrestrial grassland
communities present are sensitive to flooding.
Low: Small area of BAP habitats affected.
Policy Social Social Not preferred. Increasing flood risk

four management in this policy unit will
High: No major transport infrastructure at risk. Low: Impact on critical infrastructure remains at the incur significant costs, but for limited
Medium: Number of commercial properties at risk same level – Yardley Hastings STW flooded. benefits. There is not a significant
maintained at the same level – 6 properties at risk. risk in this policy unit to warrant such
Medium: No increase in depth, velocity or duration Economic investment in flood risk
of flooding. Depths less than 0.5m for most management.
properties. Velocities unlikely to be high. High: Significant increase in EA expenditure on flood
Medium: Flood Warning and Forecasting Delivery risk management – estimated that capital works to
plan and Flood Awareness plan increase coverage maintain risk at the same level will total £3M.
Low: Number of people affected maintained at the
same level – 115 people at risk.
Low: Number of residential properties at risk
maintained at the same level – 46 properties at
risk.
Economic
Medium: Residential damages maintained at the

same level - £1.1M of damages.
Medium: No change in the area of Grade 2
agricultural land affected – 1% of the Grade 2 land
Environment Agency

in this policy unit is at risk of flooding. The vast
majority of land affected is of lower quality.
same level - £3.41M of damages.
Low: Damages and degradation to historic Medium: Yardley Hastings and Denton CAs are still
environment remain at the same baseline level. affected which may cause damage and degradation.
Low: No significant area of BAP habitat affected. Only a small area of Grendon CA is affected.
Low: May provide environmental improvements Medium: Medieval Cross Scheduled Monument still
helping to achieve WFD environmental objectives. affected which may cause damage and degradation.
High: Castle Ashby Park and Garden still affected which
may cause significant losses/ damage and limitations to
visitation.
Policy Social Social Not preferred. Increased

five expenditure on flood risk
High: No major transport infrastructure at risk. Medium: Increase in impact on critical infrastructure management cannot be justified by
High: Reduction in the number of commercial with Bozeat STW affected, and an increase in impact on the benefits gained. Construction of
properties at risk – 2 less properties at risk. Yardley Hastings STW, which is affected at present. defences will still see an increase in
Medium: Reduction in the number of residential Increase in impact on STWs caused by choice of commercial damages.
properties at risk – 15 less properties at risk. generic response under P5, and in reality the risk to
Medium: Reduction in the number of people at risk STWs under a P5 may decrease.
– 37 less people at risk.
Medium: Flood Warning and Forecasting Delivery Economic
and effectiveness of flood warning. High: Significant increase in the level of expenditure on
Low: Benefits occur to those areas with moderate flood defence – cost of capital works to reduce impact
social vulnerability (category 3). of flooding estimated at £10M.
Low: Minor increases in depth, duration and
velocity of flooding outside of defended areas. All
properties flooded to less than 1m, with majority
flooded to depths of less than 0.5m. Velocities may
Environment Agency

increase, however, it is thought they are unlikely to
be high in areas of residential flooding.
Economic

£0.23M.
policy unit is affected. The vast majority of
quality though.
Despite increase these commercial damages are
relatively low.
Environment Agency
Low: Yardley Hastings CA not flooded. Medium: Damage to historic environment still remains;
Medium: There may be improvements in the river increase in depth of flooding of up to 0.5m at Denton
environment through maintenance. and Grendon CAs.
Low: No significant area of BAP habitat affected. High: Increase in depth of flooding of Medieval Cross
Low: May provide environmental improvements Scheduled Monument of approx 0.6m may result in
helping to achieve WFD environmental objectives. damage to this monument.
Low: Very small area (<5%) of Bozeat Meadows SSSI
affected flooded to depth of < 0.05m, terrestrial
grassland communities present are sensitive to
flooding.
Environment Agency
Form 12.8 Summary of the Preferred Policy Policy unit: Grendon Brook Villages
The Grendon Brook villages policy unit is a largely rural catchment containing no major
Policy Unit settlements, but a small number of villages, of which the main ones are Grendon, Bozeat and
7 – Grendon Yardley Hastings. The policy unit covers the entire Grendon Brook catchment with the exception
Brook Villages of the headwaters, which form part of the Upper and Middle Nene catchment policy unit. The
network of tributaries covered by the policy unit flow directly into the River Nene downstream of
Billing.
The Grendon Brook villages policy unit covers a network of small streams in the middle reaches of
the River Nene. The policy unit is predominantly rural, with no large settlements.
The main source of flooding is fluvial, due to high flows in the watercourses. Moderate/major
fluvial flooding was recorded in this policy unit at Yardley Hastings in 1981. It is considered that
there is a risk of groundwater flooding in this policy unit, though there are no recorded incidents of
flooding from this source.
A number of settlements in this policy unit are protected by flood storage areas. Yardley Hastings
is protected by three flood storage reservoirs: The north Yardley Hastings flood storage reservoir
has a 2% AEP flood standard; the east and west Yardley Hastings flood storage reservoirs have a
4% AEP flood standard. Denton flood storage reservoir protects Denton to the 4% AEP flood
Problem / Risk standard. Bozeat flood storage reservoir protects Bozeat to the 2% AEP flood standard.
Our analysis suggests that a 1% AEP flood event would affect 115 people, 52 properties, and
cause property damages of £4.51 million, with the majority of damages arising from commercial
properties.
analysis suggests that a 1% AEP future flood would affect 165 people and 73 properties (an
increase of approximately 40%) causing £9.48 million property damages (an increase of 110%).
The future increase in flood risk is moderate, changing from contributing 3.2% of the present
CFMP area total damages to a contribution of 3.1% in the future). The large increase in property
damages can be attributed to increases at a handful of commercial sites.
Policy P2 – Reduce existing flood risk management actions (accepting that flood risk will increase
over time).
Flood risk in the future in the Grendon Brook villages policy unit is not at a significant level. The
Chosen Policy increase in flood risk in the future will not worsen significantly with reduced flood risk
management, but this will allow us to achieve expenditure levels more appropriate to the scale of
flood risk across the policy unit. The current flood risk management policies will be reviewed and
modified as appropriate under this policy.
No broadscale model was run, but we considered where defences and other localised protection
measures may help reduce damages in areas of concentrated flood risk (see modelling summary
after Form 12.5). However these were not considered to be sustainable. Under policy P2, future
Generic
climate and development change alongside a reduction in maintenance result in moderate
Responses
increases to the present flood risk. Maintenance of the flood storage areas will continue, whereas
reductions in maintenance levels will be found elsewhere. Flood warning and development control
will also continue close to current levels.
Adopting policy P2 here will accept some future minor losses within the Grendon Brook villages
policy unit. It will give total 1% AEP future flood risk increases for the policy unit of approximately
13 people, 5 properties and £0.81 million. Our flood risk management will include the generic
responses outlined above. We will reduce our existing flood risk management actions overall, but
maintain the level of those actions which we consider are effective and sustainable, giving an
Justification appropriate level of flood risk. Future changes in flood risk will be monitored such that further
action needs can be reviewed, and we will work in partnership to ensure that new responses are
set against future development where appropriate.
Environment Agency
increased future losses within the Grendon Brook villages policy unit, allowing resources to be
allocated to those areas where the risk of flooding becomes unacceptably high in the future. The
objectives which are met by this policy (1% AEP future flood impact compared to current baseline)
are:
• To minimise flood related risks to the population (63 more people at risk).
• Minimise risks to critical infrastructure and community facilities (minor increase in risk to
Yardley Hastings STW. Bozeat STW becomes at risk).
• To minimise community disruption from flooding (26 more residential properties at risk).
Justification • To minimise economic impacts of flooding (increase of £5.78 million property damages).
(cont.) • Ensure future investment in the catchment is proportional to the risks (a reduction in
maintenance will result in relatively limited increase in the future level of flood risk
compared with other policy unit areas).
• Protect and enhance significant historic environment assets and their settings (increased
impact of flooding at conservation areas, a scheduled monument and a park and garden).
• Protect and contribute to the improvement of designated nature conservation sites (minor
positive impact at Bozeat Meadows SSSI).
environment, contributing to UK Biodiversity Action Plan targets (small area of BAP
habitats become affected – minor negative impact).
Other policies were rejected for the Grendon Brook villages policy unit due to (1% AEP future
Policy P1 - no active intervention; significant economic and social losses, especially given the
increased flooding in lower magnitude events occurring as a result of loss of existing defences
(increases of 68 people, 28 properties, and £6.40 million property damages).
Policy P3 – continue with existing or alternative actions to manage flood risk at the current level;
social and economic losses (increases of 50 people, 21 properties, and £4.97 million property
damages) are moderate, however the expenditure on flood risk management is not considered to
be proportional to the risk relative to other policy units.
Policy P4 - take further action to sustain the current level of flood risk into the future; potential
Alternative economic benefits are attractive with £4.97 million reduction in damages compared with future,
policies against likely costs of £3 million. However, benefits to people and property are relatively limited
considered compared to other areas, and higher flood risk priorities exist elsewhere.
Policy P5 - take further action to reduce flood risk (now and / or in the future); potential benefits to
people and property are attractive, however an increase in property damages due to commercial
properties outside of the defended areas, alongside likely costs of £10 million, make it unlikely to
be sustainable and affordable (37 less people, 17 less properties, but increase in property
damages of £1.46 million). Higher flood risk priorities exist elsewhere.
this policy as the contribution of Grendon Brook to peak flows on the River Nene is too small to
consider strategic storage.
Main opportunities
Catchment-
wide
opportunities & • Opportunities to work with local authorities and regional development agencies to influence
constraints
Main constraints
Environment Agency

Scheduled Monuments
Opportunities
The reduction in flood risk to Scheduled Monument will reduce the likelihood of flood damage and
enable the long term preservation of these historical assets
Constraints
Increased flooding frequency or duration may increase the damaged to Scheduled Monuments
associated with flooding events
Landfill sites
Opportunities
The reduction of flood risk to landfill sites will consequently reduce the water pollution problems
associated with flood events
Constraints
Discharges
Abstractions
JFLOW model output, of reduced accuracy compared to elsewhere, was used on the Grendon
Brook. Significant uncertainty surrounds climate change effects, as well as surface water and
groundwater influence on flood events; groundwater flooding could be an issue for the policy unit.
Risks, DTM, and also the type and distribution of contaminated land within the policy unit.
Uncertainties &
Dependencies The estimates of flood damage within this policy unit are considered sufficiently accurate to inform
the selection of the proposed policy and response.
Environment Agency
Kettering
Environment Agency
Policy unit: Kettering
flood risk within the Kettering benefits from a flood storage scheme on the Slade
policy unit? Brook:
• Kettering Leisure Village flood storage reservoir, Kettering BC
responsibility.
Flood Warning
Kettering is covered by flood watch and flood warning areas:
• Slade Brook in the Venture Park area of Kettering - trigger
sites Islip, Slade Brook. Rate of uptake in this flood warning
area is 33.90%.
• River Ise and tributaries from Clipston to Wellingborough -
trigger sites Barford Bridge. Rate of uptake in this flood
948 people (379 properties) can apply for flood warnings in the
policy unit.
Maintenance:
annual expenditure:
Standards of service Kettering Leisure Village flood storage reservoir has an estimated
that apply to flood standard of protection of 1%.
defences within the
policy unit?

exposed to flooding? Kettering is at risk of fluvial flooding from the Slade Brook
predominantly, with a small number at risk from the River Ise. The
duration of flooding is typically short to moderate (from 6 - 18
hours), with a relatively quick speed of onset of approximately 12
hours. Depths are generally less than 0.5m, but some areas do
experience depths of up to 2m. The Slade Brook is relatively
steep, and floodplain narrow, indicating that moderate to high
velocities may be expected in some areas.

A moderate number of properties (over 50) at risk of frequent

flooding (10% event probability), serious flooding occurs relatively
infrequently though (1% event probability).
208 properties are at risk of flooding in a 1% flood event: 194

residential, 14 commercial (properties affected equates to 9.7% of
the total properties affected in the catchment).
Environment Agency
Social impact: Moderate - High - typically SFVI category 3

predominantly with some areas of category 4.
Infrastructure


• A14 at risk of flooding at the 1% flood event. A number of
locally important roads in the centre of Kettering are also at
risk.
• The Midland Mainline may be at risk of flooding from the
Slade Brook during the 1% flood event.
Community facilities affected: none
Economic
the catchment). Damages from residential and commercial
properties are fairly equal.
AAD: £0.33m

- Grade 1: 0%
- Grade 2: 3.3%
Environmental
Wicksteed Park is (registered parks and gardens) within the policy
unit and is affected by flooding (1% event probability, typically
flooded up to a depth of 1.5m).

• Southfield Farm Marsh SSSI. Site area 9.2ha. Area affected
due to flooding: 5.9ha (1% event probability), up to a depth of
2m. Current condition status: 57 per cent unfavourable, due
to drainage, water pollution - discharge – all units subject to
management agreements.
potentially restore the designated wetland plant communities
within the site.
• Previous constraints identified: Changes to the flooding
regime may alter the composition of the tall grass washland
communities. The altered flooding regime may also alter the
conditions required by the specialised invertebrate
assemblages (particularly soldier flies Stratiomyidae,
craneflies Tipulidae and hoverflies Syrphidae).
Fens:
Total area: 9ha
Area at risk (current): 2.8ha
Environment Agency
%Area at risk (current): 31%
Total area: 18.7ha
Lowland Meadows:
Total area: 1.9ha

pollution, physical or morphological alterations.

vulnerable to flood • A moderate number of properties at risk of frequent flooding.
• Moderate economic damages, with both commercial and
residential properties contributing.
Environmental
• Wicksteed Park (registered parks and gardens) within the
policy unit is both affected by flooding (1% event probability).
• Southfield Marsh Farm SSSI. Site area 9.17ha. Area
affected due to flooding: 5ha (1% event probability)
Urban Growth – urban growth in the River Ise catchment may

increase flood risk in the future. See relevant appendix for urban
growth predictions for the River Ise catchment.

future levels of flood Flooding information: small increase of between 0.25m – 0.5m in
risk under the main depth. Most properties still flooded to depth of less than 0.5m,
scenarios? though a very small number flooded up to depths of 3m.

AEP flood.
311 properties are at risk of flooding at the 1% event: 275

the total properties affected in the catchment). This figure
indicates a 49.5% increase in properties affected at the current
1% AEP flood. Approx. 60 properties at risk of frequent flooding
Environment Agency
(10% AEP flood).
Social impact: Moderate - High typically SFVI category 3 but with

a significant area of category 4.
Infrastructure

• Electricity Sub-stations/power supply: 5, increase of 1 from
current 1% flood event.
• Waste Management Sites: 1 (a Non Hazardous Waste Site
becomes affected)

• A14 at risk of flooding at the 1% flood event. A number of
locally important roads in the centre of Kettering are also at
risk.
• Increased risk of flooding of Midland Mainline from Slade
Brook compared with current 1% flood event.
• Increase in depth, duration and frequency of flooding
expected at key transport infrastructure in the future.
Community facilities affect: None
Economic
In contrast with the damages estimated for the current condition,

the majority of these damages come from commercial properties.
AAD: £0.72m, an increase of £0.39m

- Grade 1: 0%
- Grade 2: 5.9%
Environmental
Wicksteed Park Registered Park and Garden is affected at the
1% event.

• Southfield Marsh Farm SSSI. Site area 9.2ha. 64% area
(5.9ha) area affected due to flooding. There is a very small
increase in the area affected from the current 1% AEP flood
(<1% increase).
Fens:
Total area: 9ha
Environment Agency
Total area: 18.7ha
Lowland Meadows:
Total area: 1.9ha

manage flood risk? • Flood awareness
• Studies
the 1% AEP flood.
uncertainties.
management.
deposition.
Environment Agency
POLICY UNIT 8: KETTERING
coefficient by 20%.
(+53%) (+60%) (+206%)
Conclusions

conveyance
Description The broadscale model was run with an increase in the roughness coefficient of
10% to simulate the effect of maintenance being reduced. Reducing maintenance would
result in a reduction in conveyance that can be approximated by increasing the roughness
coefficient by 10%.
(+48%) (+56%) (+183%)
Conclusions

(+42%) (+50%) (+149%)
Conclusions
Environment Agency
continued.

the roughness coefficient by 20%.
(+30%) (+38%) (+92%)
Conclusions
Conclusion: The results of this generic response show an increase in the impact on people,
property and damages. It is felt that the alternative P4 generic response provides a more
realistic generic response than this one.

Generic Response: Policy 4 – Create upstream storage by creating channel
Description: Developing storage upstream of Kettering on the Slade Brook in the River Nene
Corridor policy unit was investigated using the broadscale model. The inflow hydrograph into
the broadscale model was adjusted, so as to reflect the effect that storage may have. The
hydrograph was lagged and attenuated based on detailed modelling of a flood storage
scheme currently being developed at Kislingbury. The annotated hydrograph demonstrates
how the inflow into the broadscale model was lagged and attenuated.
Original
hydrograph
Hydrograph with
Lag storage
Attenuation
Flow
Time
Environment Agency
The results of the broadscale modelling suggested that there was sufficient storage upstream
of Kettering on the Slade Brook to maintain the flood risk at the present level. To carry out a
P4 in Kettering a P6 would be required in the River Nene Corridor policy unit.
Conclusions
units. Maintainance continues at present level.
Conclusion: The results from the modelling of this generic response show that upstream
storage within the natural floodplain can reduce the future risk to the level of the risk at
present.

the Slade Brook as shown in the diagram below.

(-24%) (-27%) (-76%)
Conclusions
Environment Agency
Conclusion: Constructing these defences prevents flooding in the areas with the highest
flood risk in the catchment. As a result of this the number of people and properties affected,
and the damages incurred, reduces significantly.


4 Create upstream storage by creating channel obstructions to increase
Environment Agency
Form 12.6 Policy Appraisal Policy unit: Kettering

objective No active Reduce Maintain current Sustain Reduce current Increase frequency
intervention existing risk current risk risk of flooding
actions
Generic responses: • Cease flood • Reduce • Maintain flood • Review • Review flood Opportunities for
warning and influencing warning and flood warning and additional storage
forecasting and forecasting warning and forecasting developments have
• Cease informing of • Continue forecasting • Construct been identified in the
maintenance planning maintenance of • Develop localised River Nene (from
of river policy river channel, upstream defences Weedon to
channel and • Maintain structures and storage by • Emergency Kislingbury) policy
structures flood flood storage creating Response unit and the River
• Remove flood warning and area channel plans Nene Corridor policy
storage area forecasting obstructions unit. Very little scope
• Reduce to increase to apply in this policy
maintenanc inundation unit therefore no
e of of the assessment of gains
channel, natural and losses was
structures floodplain. undertaken.
and flood • Increase
storage maintenanc
area e of
channel,
structures
and flood
storage
area in this
policy unit.
• Emergency
Response
plans
1 flood related people at risk affected by affected at the affected by affected by affected by the affected by
risks to the in the 1% flood flooding at 1% 1% AEP flood. flooding at 1% flooding at the 1% 1% AEP flood. flooding at the
population Numbers of AEP flood AEP flood. AEP flood. 1% event.
people Cease flood Implementatio
covered by 948 people warning and Flood warning Flood warning n of upstream Review flood
flood warning (379 forecasting, with coverage coverage storage warning
Environment Agency

actions
or emergency / properties) can increased risk to maintained at maintained at the capable of coverage
evacuation apply for flood community. the same same level. maintaining through a Flood
plans warnings in level. flood risk at Warning and
the policy unit. current level. Forecasting
delivery plan.
Review flood
warning Develop a Flood
coverage Awareness plan
through a to encourage
Flood Warning people to sign
and up to flood
Forecasting warning.
delivery plan.
Develop a
Flood
Awareness
plan to
encourage
people to sign
up to flood
warning.
To minimise Numbers and Critical 5 Electricity 5 Electricity 5 Electricity 4 electricity 1 Electricity

risks to critical type of critical infrastructure substations substations substations substations substation
SOC infrastructure asset. affected by flooded, with flooded, with flooded, with affected. No flooded, with
2 and Critical flooding: depth of up to depth of up to depth of up to increase in depth of up to
community infrastructure • 4 Electricity 1.6m. 1.4m. 1.3m. depth of 1.3m. 3
facilities includes: Sub-stations flooding Electricity sub-
• Electricity 1 non- 1 non- 1 non-hazardous compared with stations and 1
Sub- Transport hazardous hazardous waste transfer present. non-hazardous
stations/pow infrastructure waste transfer waste transfer stations becomes waste transfer
er supply affected by station becomes station flooded, up to No increase in station become
• Sewage flooding: flooded up to becomes depth of 0.1m. depth and protected by
Treatment • Midland depth of 0.4m. flooded up to duration of defences.
Works mainline depth of Minor increase in flooding at key
(STW) railway. Increase in 0.25m. depth and transport Emergency
Environment Agency

actions
• Waste • A14, A6003 depth and duration of infrastructure Response plans
Treatment duration of Increase in flooding at may help to
Works No community flooding at depth and transport Emergency manage risk to
(STW) facilities transport duration of infrastructure. Response infrastructure.
• Waste affected by infrastructure. flooding at plans may
Managemen flooding. transport help to
t Sites infrastructure. manage risk to
• IPPC Sites infrastructure.
• Transport:
Railway,
Roads,
Canals
(particularly
consider
ability to use
other
routes)
Community
facilities
include:
• Hospitals
• Emergency
Response
Centres
• Care
Homes
• Schools
3 community properties properties and properties and properties and properties and 36 properties and properties and 7
disruption from affected in the 14 commercial 37 commercial 37 commercial commercial 14 commercial commercial
flooding 1% flood properties properties properties properties flooded properties properties
Category of affected by flooded at 1% flooded at 1% at 1% AEP flood. flooded at 1% flooded at 1%
social flooding at 1% AEP flood. AEP flood. AEP flood. AEP flood.
areas affected Increase in risk Increase in flooding occurs in Areas at risk of Benefit of
Environment Agency

actions
in the 1% flood Social impact: of flooding risk of flooding areas with flooding have increased flood
Extent of Moderate – occurs in areas occurs in moderate to high a typically risk
flooding High. with moderate to areas with social vulnerability moderate to management felt
Duration of Predominantly high social moderate to to flooding high social in areas with
flooding SFVI category vulnerability to high social (categories 3 and vulnerability to moderate to
3 with some flooding vulnerability to 4) flooding high social
areas of (categories 3 flooding (categories 3 vulnerability to
category 4. and 4) (categories 3 Minor increase in and 4) flooding
and 4) depth, duration (categories 3
Increase in and velocity of No significant and 4)
depth, duration Increase in flooding will occur. increase in
and velocity of depth, duration depth, duration Minor increase
flooding will and velocity of Small increase in and frequency in depth,
occur. flooding will the number of of flooding. duration and
occur. properties flooding frequency of
Large depths to depths of Flooding is flooding will
(>1m) Large depths greater than 1m – typically less occur outside of
experienced at a (>1m) between 10 and than 0.5m, areas defended.
greater number experienced at 20 properties with only a
of properties (> a greater flooded to depths handful of Defences
20 properties). number of of greater than properties protect those
Velocities may properties (> 1m. Velocities (less than 10) residential areas
pose a risk to 20 properties). may pose a risk to experiencing where high
life in some Velocities may life in some areas. flooding to depths and
areas. pose a risk to depths of velocities occur.
life in some greater than Depth of
areas. 1m. Velocities flooding typically
remain less than 0.5m.
moderate.
To minimise Residential £3.47m £5.62m £5.35m £5.04m residential £3.47m £1.20m
ECO economic damages 1% residential residential residential damages and residential residential
N1 impacts of flood damages damages and damages and £12.52m damages and damages and
flooding Commercial £15.98m £14.59m commercial £3.58M £0.50m
damages 1% £3.58m commercial commercial damages at the commercial commercial
flood commercial damages at the damages at 1% AEP flood. damages at damages at the
Agricultural damages 1% AEP flood. the 1% AEP the 1% AEP 1% AEP flood.
damages in flood. No Grade 1 and flood.
Environment Agency

actions
the 1% flood No Grade 1 No Grade 1 and 5.9% of Grade 2 No Grade 1 and
Percentage and 3.3% of greater than No Grade 1 land affected at No Grade 1 5.9% of Grade 2
area of grade Grade 2 5.9% of Grade 2 and greater the 1% AEP flood. and 3.3% of land affected at
1 and 2 agricultural land affected at than 5.9% of Grade 2 land the 1% AEP
agricultural land affected the 1% AEP Grade 2 land affected in 1% flood.
land flooded in 1% AEP flood. affected at the AEP flood
during the 1% flood 1% AEP flood.
flood
Ensure future Expenditure Annual EA EA ceases Annual EA No increase in Expanding Cost of
investment in on all FRM expenditure on spending money expenditure on cost of influencing constructing
ECO the catchment activities. maintenance on maintenance. maintenance maintenance in and informing defences will be
N2 is proportional estimated at estimated at real terms – will lead to a approximately
to the risks £35k. EA ceases £18k in current remains at £35k in minor increase £8M
influencing and prices. current prices. in EA
informing expenditure. Increase in EA
reducing EA reduces No increase in EA expenditure on
expenditure expenditure on expenditure on No capital flood
significantly. influencing flood warning in costs incurred warning/flood
and informing. real terms. in this policy awareness.
unit, though
costs incurred
in upstream
policy units.
Protect and Numbers of: Wicksteed Less protection Less Small increase in No increase in
enhance • Scheduled Park Historic for historic protection for flooding of up to depth of Small increase
ENV significant Monuments Park and assets. historic assets. 0.15m and flooding at the in flooding of up
1 historic • Historic Garden increase in area registered park to 0.15m and
environment Parks and affected – Increase in Increase in flooded of <5% and gardens. increase in area
assets and Gardens typically flooding of up to flooding of up may result in an flooded of <5%;
their settings • Historic flooded to 0.3m and to 0.25m and increase extent of this increase is
Battlefields depth of up to increase in area increase in damages, not likely to be
• Conservatio 1.5m. flooded of < 5%. area flooded of however, this is significant.
n Areas The extent of < 5%. The likely to not be a
adversely damages to extent of significant
affected by Wicksteed Park damages to increase.
flooding or may be greater. Wickstead
flood risk Park may be
Environment Agency

actions
management greater.
activities
ENV Protect and Area of SSSIs, Southfield Less protection Less Limited increase No increase in Limited increase
2 contribute to SPAs, SACs Farm Marsh for designated protection for in many areas, depth of in many areas,
the and Ramsar SSSI affected sites. designated though in others flooding. though in others
improvement sites flooded in – typically sites. increase in depth increase in
of designated a 1% flood flooded to Limited increase of up to 0.1m, and depth of up to
nature Reported depth of up to in many areas, Limited a small increase 0.15m, and a
conservation condition 2m. though in others increase in in area flooded of small increase in
sites (SSSI, status of increase in many areas, <1%. This may area flooded of
SPA, SAC and SSSIs, SPAs, Effect of depth of up to though in potentially restore <1%. This may
Ramsar) SACs and shallow 0.3m (due to others designated potentially
Ramsar sites flooding is obstruction to increase in wetland plant restore
at risk from a positive – flow caused by depth of up to communities designated
1% flood Increase in the bridge increase 0.25m, and an within the site. wetland plant
area of in water level is increase in communities
frequent not uniform), area flooded of within the site.
flooding could and an increase up to 10%.
potentially in area flooded This may
restore the of up to 10%. potentially
designated This increased restore
wetland plant flooding may designated
communities potentially wetland plant
within the site. restore communities
designated within the site.
wetland plant
communities
within the site.
ENV Enhance the The Extent and Less protection for BAP habitats. This policy would No increase in This policy
3 biodiversity of distribution distribution of result in the depth or extent would result in
the catchment and extent of BAP habitats: These policies would result in the following BAP of flooding the following
by improving the future UK following changes to BAP habitats being compared with BAP habitats
the quality of BAP priority Fens: habitats: affected: baseline. being affected:
the river habitats (for Total area: • Fens – Extent of flooding • Fens - Area • Fens -
environment example, fens, 9ha slightly greater than 7.5ha, affected of Increase in
and wet woodland, Area at risk increase in depth of up to 0.3m. 7.5ha. area affected
Environment Agency

actions
contributing to reed bed, (current): Unknown/ mixed effect, Unknown/ of 4.5ha.
UK floodplain 2.8ha dependant on the type of fen mixed effect, Unknown/
Biodiversity grazing marsh) %Area at risk and duration of flooding. dependant on mixed effect,
Action Plan (current): 31% • Undetermined Grassland – the type of fen dependant on
targets Extent of flooding slightly and duration of the type of fen
greater than 3.2ha, increase in flooding. and duration
depth of up to 0.3m • Undetermined of flooding.
Undetermined • Lowland Meadow – Extent of Grassland – • Undetermined
Grassland: flooding slightly greater than Area affected of Grassland –
Total area: 0.37ha. Small increase in depth 3.2ha, increase Area affected
18.7ha of flooding. in depth of of 3.2ha,
Area at risk approximately increase in
(current): 0.3m. depth of
3.8ha • Lowland approximately
%Area at risk Meadow – Area 0.3m.
(current): 20% affected of • Lowland
0.37ha. Small Meadow –
Lowland increase in Area affected
Meadows: depth of of 0.37ha.
Total area: flooding. Small
1.9ha increase in
Area at risk depth of
(current): flooding.
0.23ha
%Area at risk
(current): 12%
ENV • Support the WFD Article 5 Category: At Increases in the Increases in Increases in the Taking action Taking action to
4 achievemen pressures and risk frequency and the frequency frequency and to sustain reduce current
t of good impacts extent of and extent of extent of flooding current level of level of flood risk
status/poten assessments Applicable flooding are flooding are are likely to flood risk at at known point
tial of results factors: Point likely to increase likely to increase the known point sources of
surface and WFD source the levels of increase the levels of pollutants sources of pollution could
groundwater ecological and pollution, pollutants from levels of from sources in pollution could prevent potential
bodies chemical diffuse sources in pollutants from Kettering and prevent adverse effects
under the status/potentia pollution, Kettering and sources in other urban areas potential on water quality.
WFD l of water physical or other urban Kettering and and adjacent adverse This could
Environment Agency

actions
bodies. morphological areas and other urban agricultural land effects on provide
alterations adjacent areas and that are washed water quality. environmental
Area of agricultural land adjacent into the river with This could improvements
contaminated that are washed agricultural potential adverse provide helping to
or damaged into the river land that are effects on water environmental achieve WFD
land restored with potential washed into quality. This would improvements environmental
or protected as adverse effects the river with not help to helping to objectives
a result of on water quality. potential achieve WFD achieve WFD
flood risk This would not adverse environmental environmental
management help to achieve effects on objectives objectives
activities WFD water quality.
environmental This would not
objectives help to
achieve WFD
environmental
objectives
Environment Agency
Form 12.7 Summary of overall gains and losses for each policy option Policy unit: Kettering

one property and the economy would
No social gains identified. High: Flood forecasting and warning ceased. increase to significant levels.
High: Significant increase in the number of people
Economic affected - 255 more people at risk.
High: Significant increase in the number of residential
High: No EA expenditure on maintenance – properties affected – 102 more properties at risk.
reduction of £35k p.a. Medium: Increase in the number of commercial
Low: Increase in the area of Grade 2 agricultural properties affected – 23 more properties at risk.
land affected – at least 5.9% of the Grade 2 land Medium: Increase in depth and duration of flooding at key
in this policy unit is at risk. The majority of transport infrastructure, including the A14 and Midland
agricultural land affected is lower quality. mainline railway.
Medium: Increase in depth, duration and velocity of
Environmental flooding. Large depths (>1m) experienced at a greater
number of properties (> 20 properties). Velocities may
Low: Increased flooding may potentially restore pose a risk to life in some areas.
designated wetland plant communities within Medium: Increase in risk to areas with typically moderate
Southfield Farm Marsh social vulnerability (category 3)
Medium: Increase in impact on critical infrastructure - 5
electricity substations and 1 other waste management
site affected.
Economic
High: Increase in residential damages of £2.15M.

Residential damages are high on catchment wide basis.
Medium: Significant increase in commercial damages of
£12.40M. Damages are moderately high on catchment
wide basis.
Environment Agency
Environmental
Low: Small increase in extent of damages to the historic

environment through, specifically increased extent and
depth of flooding in Wicksteed Park..
Low: May increase the diffuse pollution from Kettering’r
urban areas, and adjacent agricultural land and increase
risk under WFD
two property and the economy would
No social gains identified. Medium: Significant increase in the number of people increase to significant levels.
affected - 233 more people at risk.
Economic: Medium: Significant increase in the number of residential
Medium: Reduction in EA expenditure on Medium: Increase in the number of commercial
maintenance – reduction of £17k p.a. properties affected – 23 more properties at risk.
Low: Increase in the area of Grade 2 agricultural Medium: Increase in depth and duration of flooding at key
land affected – at least 5.9% of the Grade 2 land transport infrastructure, including the A14 and Midland
in this policy unit is at risk. The majority of mainline railway.
agricultural land affected is lower quality. Medium: Increase in depth, duration and velocity of
flooding. Large depths (>1m) experienced at a greater
Environmental number of properties (> 20 properties). Velocities may
pose a risk to life in some areas.
Low: Increased flooding may potentially restore Medium: Increase in risk to areas with typically moderate
designated wetland plant communities within to high social vulnerability (categories 3 and 4)
Southfield Farm Marsh Medium: Increase in impact on critical infrastructure - 5
site affected.
Low: Flood forecasting and warning maintained at the
Economic

wide basis.
Environment Agency
Environmental

environment through, specifically increased extent and
depth of flooding in Wicksteed Park. Low: May increase
the diffuse pollution from Kettering’r urban areas, and
adjacent agricultural land and increase risk under WFD
Policy Social Social Not preferred. Maintaining the
three current level of flood risk
No social gains identified. Medium: Increase in the number of people affected - 203 management would lead to
more people at risk. significant increases in risk to
Economic Medium: Increase in the number of residential properties people, property and the economy
affected – 81 more properties at risk. in particular.
Medium: EA expenditure on maintenance kept at Medium: Increase in the number of commercial
same level - £35k p.a. properties affected – 22 more properties at risk.
Low: Increase in the area of Grade 2 agricultural Medium: Increase in depth and duration of flooding at key
land affected – 5.9% of the Grade 2 land in this transport infrastructure, including the A14 and Midland
policy unit is at risk. The majority of agricultural mainline railway.
land affected is lower quality. Medium: Increase in risk to areas with typically moderate
to high social vulnerability (categories 3 and 4)
Environmental Medium: More frequent flooding to great depths and for
longer durations. Small increase in the number of
Low: Increased flooding may potentially restore properties flooding to depths of greater than 1m –
designated wetland plant communities within between 10 and 20 properties flooded to depths of
Southfield Farm Marsh greater than 1m. Velocities may pose a risk to life in
some areas.
Medium: Increase in impact on critical infrastructure - 5
site affected.
Economic

wide basis.
Environment Agency
Environmental

environment through specifically increased extent and
depth of flooding in Wicksteed Park.
Low: May increase the diffuse pollution from Kettering’s
urban areas, and adjacent agricultural land and increase
risk under WFD
Policy Social Social PREFERRED OPTION: To avoid
four the significant increase that would
Medium: Depth and duration of flooding remains Low: Flooding at key transport infrastructure still exists, occur if the current flood risk
the same as at present. Flooding is typically less including the A14 and Midland mainline railway. management continued, the
than 0.5m, with only a handful of properties (less Low: Number of people affected maintained at the same management should be increased
than 10) experiencing flooding to depths of greater level – 485 people at risk. to maintain the risk at its present
than 1m. No increase in velocities. As such there is Low: Number of residential properties affected level. Although significant numbers
a limited risk to life at present. maintained at the same level – 194 properties at risk. of people and properties would
Medium: Flood Warning and Forecasting Delivery This is considered to constitute a significant impact on remain at risk, the risk to life
plan and Flood Awareness plan increase coverage property. would be limitedan Environment
and effectiveness of flood warning. Low: Areas at risk have typically moderate-high social Agency priority.
Low: Number of commercial properties affected vulnerability (categories 3 and 4).
remains at the same low level – 14 properties at Low: Impact on critical infrastructure maintained at the
risk. same level – 4 electricity substations at risk of flooding.
Economic Economic
Medium: Commercial damages maintained at the Low: Residential damages maintained at £3.47M.
same level - £3.58M of damages. This is low when
considered on a catchment wide basis. Environmental
flood risk at the present level – costs will be No environmental losses identified.
incurred in River Nene Corridor policy unit.
Low: No change in the area of Grade 2 agricultural
land affected – 3.3% of the area of Grade 2 land in
this policy unit are at risk.
Environmental

Environment Agency
Policy Social Social Not preferred. Reducing the flood
five risk from its present level is not
Medium: Defences protect those residential areas Medium: Increase in depth and duration of flooding at key considered justifiable when the
where high depths and velocities occur. Depth of transport infrastructure, including the A14 and Midland significant increase in expenditure
flooding typically less than 0.5m. mainline railway. is taken into account.
Medium: Benefits of defences will occur in areas Low: Increase in depth and duration of flooding in areas
where social vulnerability is at its highest (category not protected by defences.
4)
Medium: Reduction in the number of commercial Economic
properties affected – 7 less properties at risk.
Medium: Defences protect 3 of the 4 electricity High: Significant increase in the level of expenditure on
substations currently affected by flooding. flood defence – cost of capital works to reduce impact of
Medium: Flood Warning and Forecasting Delivery flooding estimated at £8M.
and effectiveness of flood warning. Environmental
Low: Reduction in the number of people affected –
115 less people at risk. Low: Small increase in extent of damages to the historic
Low: Reduction in the number of residential environment through specifically increased extent and
properties affected – 46 less properties at risk. depth of flooding in Wicksteed Park.
Economic
High: Significant reduction in commercial damages

of £3.08M.
£2.27M.
policy unit is at risk. The majority of agricultural
land affected is lower quality.
Environmental
Low: Increased flooding may potentially restore

designated wetland plant communities within
Southfield Farm Marsh
Environment Agency
Environment Agency
Form 12.8 Summary of the Preferred Policy Policy unit: Kettering
The policy unit for Kettering is by nature largely urban. The policy unit extends from north of the
Policy Unit town on the River Ise and Slade Brook floodplains, through the urban area to where these two
8 – Kettering main channels meet on the southern edge of the town. It contains other minor urban streams
within Kettering, draining to the two main rivers.
Kettering is located midway along the River Ise catchment, sitting between the floodplain of this
main tributary of the River Nene and one of its own tributaries, the Slade Brook. This mostly urban
policy unit therefore has a relatively high population density, containing little open land apart from
the some active floodplain which largely lies on the River Ise.
The main source of flooding is fluvial, arising from the high flows in the River Ise and Slade Brook,
together with some smaller tributary watercourses and a degree of tidal influence in extreme
events. Significant flooding was recorded in Kettering during 1947 (Mar), 1981 (Jun) and more
recently in 1998 (Apr), 2004 (Aug, sewer flooding) and 2007 (Jun) when 30 properties were
affected, 29 of them commercial. Surface water flooding could pose some risk to people and
properties here, though this risk is difficult to quantify. The flooding to 5 properties in Kettering in
2004 however was mostly caused by flooding from surcharging of sewers.
There are generally only some informal/ private flood defences within Kettering though the town,
with variable defence standard, though there is some benefit locally from Kettering Leisure Village
Problem / Risk
flood storage reservoir. The town previously benefited to a small extent from construction of the
flood storage area at Clipstone, though this is in the headwaters of the River Ise and so does not
provide a significant benefit to Kettering. The main flood risk is that from the Slade Brook tributary.
Our analysis suggests that a 1% AEP flood event would affect 485 people and 208 properties (14
commercial), causing £7.05 million property damages split fairly equally between residential and
commercial properties, also causing some disruption to major infrastructure. While property
numbers affected are approximately 10% of the CFMP total, the damages contribute only 5%.
analysis suggests that a 1% AEP future flood would affect 688 people and 311 properties (a rise
of nearly 50%, with 36 commercial properties now), causing £17.56 million property damages (a
rise of 150%, now dominated more by commercial properties). The future flood risk in this policy
unit represents 6-8% of that over the total CFMP area.
The social and economic impacts within Kettering are sustained close to the present level by
Chosen Policy offsetting future impacts from climate and development change by making best use of natural
storage on the Slade Brook and River Ise upstream through enhanced floodplain storage.
Significant environmental gains could occur as a result of flood storage creation.
The broadscale model was run with increased floodplain storage upstream (PU6) on the Slade
Brook tributary, where flood damages are concentrated. This could comprise changes to
floodplain topography, perhaps through raising or lowering bank heights, or use of control
structures. It was simply represented by reducing and delaying the flows into the model upstream
Generic of Kettering, based on detailed modelling of similar flood storage currently under construction
Responses elsewhere (see modelling summary after Form 12.5). The results show significant benefits for
Kettering, sufficient to return flood risk here to current levels. Some further reduction in damages
may be gained from other measures such as improved flood warning, development control and
emergency response planning, or potentially some localised protection measures such as
defences.
Adopting policy P4 will focus efforts on creating flood storage in other policy unit areas, such as
Justification upstream along the Slade Brook floodplain as outlined above (giving total 1% AEP future flood risk
reductions at Kettering of 203 people, 103 properties and £10.51 million). This will be achieved
through the generic responses outlined above, altering the shape and peak of the flood
hydrograph as it progresses through the River Ise catchment to help offset the effects of future
Environment Agency
climate and development change. Additional flood risk reductions are achieved within other policy
units (see PU6) as a result of these actions.
Within the policy unit for Kettering, policy P4 will allow present actions to control flood risk to be
continued and enhanced (for example maintaining the defences, and flood warning). The resulting
future flood risk then remains at the current level and avoids the significant increase in risk that
Justification would if no further action were taken. In addition, some selective local protection measures may
(cont.) prove feasible, particularly for the urban drainage issues (though these require further
assessment), but other reductions in future flood risk should ideally be achieved mostly through
actively influencing land use planning and the take up of flood resilience measures.
Adopting policy P4 for Kettering supports economic, social and environmental sustainability by
looking to make best use of the floodplain upstream on the Slade Brook, or other contributing
watercourses, to manage flood risk through the town and downstream. It aims to offset future
impacts, from climate and development change, in areas with the highest flood risk. The
objectives which are met by this policy (1% AEP future flood impact, compared to current
baseline) are:

• To minimise risks to critical infrastructure and community facilities (no change).
million cost of works in other policy units (PU6), partially set against future development,
delivers £25 million reduction in damages overall, with £10.5 million of that in
Peterborough).
change).
change).
Other policies were rejected for Kettering due to (1% AEP future flood impact, compared to current
baseline):
properties, and £14.55 million property damages) with loss of current defences leading to high risk
Policy P2 - reduce existing flood risk management actions; significant large economic and social
allowing flood risk to rise with future change would lead to significant increases in risks on the
Alternative same scale as for policies P1 and P2, with high flood event damages and risks to people
policies (moderate to high social vulnerability).
considered Policy P5 - take further action to reduce flood risk (now and / or in the future); potential benefits
are attractive but may be difficult to justify £16 million (1% AEP flood) future damage reduction
against likely costs of £8 million (115 less people, 53 less properties, and £3.35 million damage
reduction) as defence standard is presently relatively high in general and any major response here
is unlikely to be sustainable and affordable in the long term; it is considered that higher flood risk
this policy as too far downstream, and therefore not assessed.
Environment Agency
Main opportunities
Main constraints
Catchment- is deep and prolonged in spring and summer months or if flood risk management measures
wide isolate the river from its floodplain.
opportunities &
constraints Landfill sites
Discharges
Abstractions
groundwater influence on flood events; surface water flooding could be an issue for Kettering.
Risks, The estimates of flood damage within Kettering are considered sufficiently accurate to inform the
Uncertainties & selection of the proposed policy and response. However, the uncertainty over present flood risk
Dependencies from the urban drainage systems may need to be investigated more locally and the uncertainty
over the detailed application of P6 storage to benefit Kettering needs to be investigated more at a
strategic level.
Environment Agency
Corby
Environment Agency
Policy unit: Corby
policy unit? Corby benefits from the following flood storage schemes:
• Willow Brook, Weldon flood storage reservoir, EA
responsibility
• Gretton Brook flood storage reservoir, EA responsibility
• Crucible Road flood storage reservoir, Corby BC
responsibility
Flood Warning
Corby is a within a flood watch and a flood warning area.
• River Nene tributaries between Thrapston and the Dog-in-a-
Doublet sluice in Peterborough – trigger sites: Harrowden and
Harpers Brook. The rate of uptake in this flood warning area
is 49.08%
• Willow Brook in Weldon and Kings Cliffe – trigger sites:
Willow Brook flood storage reservoir. The rate of uptake in
135 people (54 properties) can apply for flood warning in this
policy unit.
Maintenance:
annual expenditure:
budget for 2006/07 was £32.1.
Standards of service Weldon flood storage reservoir has a standard of protection equal
that apply to flood to the 2% event.
defences within the
policy unit? Gretton Brook flood storage area has a standard of protection
equal to the 10% event.
The standard of protection of Crucible Road flood storage area is

unknown.

exposed to flooding? Corby is at risk of fluvial flooding from the upstream tributaries of
the Willow Brook and Harpers Brook. The duration of flooding is
though to be moderate (typically around 12 hours) and the depth
of flooding is generally low (<0.5m typically, though up to 1.5m in
some areas). Low depths of flooding, and broad valley floors are
broadly suggestive of low velocities, though high velocities as a
result of surface runoff may occur in some areas.

A large number of properties (over 150) at risk of frequent

flooding (10% AEP flood), serious flooding occurs relatively
Environment Agency
Policy unit: Corby
infrequently (1% AEP flood).

Social impact: Moderate - High typically SFVI categories 3 and 4.
Infrastructure

• Sewage Treatment Works (STW): Corby STW flooded to
depth of approximately 0.1m.
• Waste Management Sites: 1 Metal Recycling Site

• The following roads are affected by flooding at the 1% flood
event: A6116, A6086, A427, A6014

• Care Homes: Maple House care home flooded to depth of
less than 0.5m.
Economic
Total damages incurred £20.46m: £6.45m residential and
£14.01m commercial (damages equates to 14.7% of the total
damages for the catchment).
AAD: £1.11m – high AAD can be attributed to relatively high

damages for lower magnitude events.

- Grade 1: 0%
- Grade 2: 0%
Environmental
There are two Conservation Areas within the policy unit affected
by flooding (1% event probability): Great Oakley (typically less
<0.5m) and Weldon (typically <0.5m but can be flooded up to 1m)
National ecological sites: None
Total area: 3.2ha
Area at risk (current): 0
% Area at risk (current): 0
Lowland Meadows:
Total area: 1.9ha
Environment Agency
Policy unit: Corby
pollution, physical or morphological alteration.

currently most • 835 people and 381 properties affected by flooding at the 1%
vulnerable to flood event
damage and losses? • A large number of properties at risk of frequent flooding.
• High to moderate disruption to road network and critical
infrastructure.
Economic
• High economic damages. Commercial damages make up the
majority of these damages but residential damages are also
high.
Environmental
• Two Conservation Areas affected by flooding.
Urban Growth – urban growth has not been considered as a

driver in this catchment.

future levels of flood Small increase in depth of flooding of < 0.25m. Depths of flooding
risk under the main expected to be < 0.5m for most properties still, though some
scenarios? properties flooded to depths of up to 1.75m
3828 people affected by flooding (people affected equates to

42.5% of the total people affected in the catchment). This figure
AEP flood.
Approx. 650 properties, and over 1500 people are at risk of

frequent flooding (10% AEP flood).
1694 properties affected by flooding: 1531 residential, 163

flood.
Social impact: Moderate to high - typically SFVI category 3 and 4
Infrastructure

• Electricity Sub-stations/power supply: 18 become affected at
the 1% flood event in the future.
• Sewage Treatment Works (STW): Corby STW. Increase in
depth of flooding at STW of approximately 0.3m.
Environment Agency
Policy unit: Corby
• Waste Management Sites: 3. As well as Metal Recycling Site,
two Waste Transfer Stations become affected.
• IPPC Sites: 1 Biofuel Power Station, and 1 Food
Manufacturing site become affected at the 1% flood event in
the future.
Transport Infastructure affected by flooding:

• Increase in depth, duration and frequency of flooding
compared with present at the following roads: A6116, A6086,
A427, A6014.

• Care Homes: Increase in depth, duration and frequency of
flooding at Maple House care home.
• Schools: Hazel Ley School becomes affected by flooding at
the 1% event in the future.
Economic
There is a large increase in the economic damages for low

magnitude events (10% flood event) in the future. Damages of
£8.27m are estimated for a 10% future flood event.
AAD: £4.57m. This is significantly greater than the estimated AAD

for the present condition, and can be attributed to large increases
in damages for low magnitude events.

- Grade 1: 0%
- Grade 2: 0%
Environmental
There are two Conservation Areas within the policy unit affected
by flooding (future 1% event probability): Great Oakley and
Weldon
Extent and distribution of BAP habitats
Total area: 3.2ha
Lowland Meadows:
Total area: 1.9ha
Environment Agency
Policy unit: Corby
being considered to • Flood awareness
• Studies
in knowledge and what • The analysis of flood risk in this policy unit has largely been
assumptions have carried out using our JFLOW flood extents. Therefore the
been made? results in this policy unit may be less reliable than for other
policy units.
the 1% AEP flood.
uncertainties.
management.
deposition.
Environment Agency
POLICY UNIT 9: CORBY
Description: Because most of the watercourses in this policy unit are beyond the boundaries
of the broad-scale model, the impact of flooding was determined using Flood Zones 2 and 3.
A small reach of the Willow Brook in Weldon was modelled. Policy 1 was simulated on this
reach by assuming an increase in channel and floodplain roughness of 20%. Stopping
maintenance would result in a reduction in conveyance that can be approximated by
increasing the roughness coefficient by 20%. For the watercourses beyond the boundaries of
the broad-scale model, it was not possible to model the impact of a reduction in conveyance
caused by ceasing maintenance. Therefore it was assumed that the change in damages,
number of people affected etc. compared with the baseline is the same as for the modelled
reaches.
(+411%) (+393%) (+473%)
Conclusions

conveyance
conveyance for the majority of watercourses in this policy unit. On these reaches it was
reaches, including the short section of the modelled Willow Brook which falls in this policy
unit, by assuming an increase in channel and floodplain roughness of 10%. Reducing
maintenance would result in a reduction in conveyance which can be approximated by
increasing the roughness coefficient by 10%.
(+397%) (+379%) (+442%)
Conclusions

Environment Agency
(+358%) (+344%) (+402%)
Conclusions
continued.

Description: Because most of the watercourses in this policy unit are beyond the boundaries
of the broad-scale model, the impact of flooding was determined using Flood Zones 2 and 3.
A small stretch of the Willow Brook in Weldon was modelled. This generic response was
simulated on this reach by assuming a reduction in channel and floodplain roughness of 20%.
Increasing maintenance would result in an increase in conveyance that can be approximated
by reducing the roughness coefficient by 20%. For the watercourses beyond the boundaries
of the broad-scale model, it was not possible to model the impact of a reduction in
conveyance caused by ceasing maintenance. Therefore it was assumed that the change in
damages, number of people affected etc. compared with the baseline is the same as for the
modelled reaches.
(+342%) (+336%) (+356%)
Conclusions
Cost: Increase in annual expenditure on maintenance to approximately £64k.

increasing upstream storage and creating localised protection
Conclusions
Environment Agency
Cost: Cost of combined works will be approximately £4 million.

Corby as shown in the diagram below.

(-86%) (-65%) (+1%)
Conclusions
Conclusion: The results of this generic response show a reduction in the people and
properties at risk. There is an increase in the total damages compared with the baseline,
which would not normally be typical of a P5 option. This can be attributed to large increases in
damages at a handful of commercial sites in other parts of Corby. As this is the case, and
there is a significant reduction in the number of people and properties affected, it is felt that
this generic response is appropriate for P5.
Environment Agency
insufficient floodplain area to make storage effective. Further to this, delaying the peak flow
on the Willow Brook and Harpers Brook using floodplain storage is likely to increase the flood
risk on the River Nene in areas between the confluence with the Harpers Brook and the tidal
limit (including Peterborough). Therefore it is felt that Corby is not an appropriate location to
develop strategic storage.

4 Increase conveyance by increasing maintenance, increasing upstream storage
Environment Agency
Form 12.6 Policy Appraisal Policy unit: Corby

objective No active Reduce existing Maintain current Sustain current Reduce Increase
intervention actions risk risk current risk frequency of
flooding
Generic responses: • Cease flood • Maintain flood • Maintain flood • Review flood • Review Opportunities
warning and warning and warning and warning and flood for additional
forecasting forecasting. forecasting forecasting warning and storage
• Cease • Reduce • Continue • Combined forecasting developments
maintenance of maintenance of maintenance of generic • Construct have been
river channel and channel, river channel, response, localised identified in
structures structures and structures and involving: defences the River Nene
• Remove flood flood storage flood storage o Increased • Implement (from Weedon
storage areas areas areas river Corby to Kislingbury)
maintenance Water Cycle policy unit and
o Construction Strategy the River Nene
of local • Emergency Corridor policy
defences Response unit. Very little
o Creation of plans scope to apply
upstream in this policy
storage unit therefore
• Emergency no
Response assessment of
plans gains and
losses was
undertaken.
SOC To minimise Number of people 835 people 4270 people 4146 people 3828 people 835 people 115 people
1 flood related at risk in the 1% affected by affected at the 1% affected at the 1% affected at the 1% affected at 1% affected at the
risks to the flood flooding at 1% AEP flood. AEP flood. AEP flood. AEP flood. 1% AEP flood.
population Numbers of people AEP flood
covered by flood Cease flood Flood warning Flood warning Increased Review flood
warning or 135 people (54 warning and coverage coverage maintenance, warning
emergency / properties) can forecasting, with maintained at the maintained at the creation of small coverage
evacuation plans apply for flood increased risk to same level same level scale upstream through a
warnings in community. storage and Flood Warning
the policy unit. localised and
protection Forecasting
measures delivery plan.
capable of
maintaining level Develop a
of risk at current Flood
Environment Agency

flooding
level. Awareness
plan to
Review flood encourage
warning people to sign
coverage up for flood
through a Flood warning.
Warning and
Forecasting Recommendat
delivery plan. ions of Corby
Water Cylce
Develop a Flood Strategy
Awareness plan implemented.
to encourage Reduction in
people to sign risk of flooding
up for flood from surface
warning. water,
drainage and
river flooding.
To minimise Numbers and type Critical At least 18 At least 18 18 Electricity 1 Electricity 10 Electricity
risks to of critical asset. infrastructure Electricity Electricity substations substation, substations
SOC critical Critical affected by substations flooded, substations flooded, up to Corby STW and flooded, with
2 infrastructure infrastructure flooding: up to depth of flooded, up to depth of approx. 1 Metal depth of up to
and includes: • 1 Electricity approx. 1.55m. depth of approx. 1.4m. Recycling site 0.95m.
community • Electricity Sub- Sub-station 1.5m. affected by
facilities stations/power • Corby Increase in depth of Increase in depth flooding. No Increase in
supply Sewage flooding at Corby Increase in depth of flooding at change in depth depth of
• Sewage Treatment STW of up to of flooding at Corby STW of up or duration of flooding at
Treatment Works Works 0.45m. Corby STW of up to 0.3m. flooding. Corby STW of
(STW) (STW) to 0.4m. up to 0.3m.
• Waste Treatment flooded to Increase in depth of Increase in depth No increase in
Works (STW) depth of flooding at Metal Increase in depth of flooding at depth or Metal
• Waste approx. Recycling site of up of flooding at Metal Metal Recycling duration of Recycling Site
Management 0.1m. to 0.75m. Recycling site of site of up to 0.6m. flooding at key flooded at
Sites • Waste up to 0.7m. transport present
• IPPC Sites Managemen 2 non-hazardous 2 non-hazardous infrastructure. becomes
t Sites: 1 waste transfer 2 non-hazardous waste transfer protected by
Environment Agency

flooding
• Transport: Metal stations become waste transfer stations become No change in defences.
Railway, Roads, Recycling flooded, with depths stations become flooded, with depth or
Canals site. potentially greater flooded, with depths potentially duration of Defences
(particularly than 2m. depths potentially greater than 2m. flooding at Care protect A6116,
consider ability Transport greater than 2m. Home. A6014, A427
to use other infrastructure Increase in depth of 2 IPPC sites and A6086
routes) affected by flooding at 2 IPPC Increase in depth previously not at Emergency from flooding
Community flooding: sites, up to depth of of flooding at the 2 risk at present Response plans in the centre of
facilities include: • Roads approx 0.75m. IPPC sites, up to become affected, may help to Corby. Other
• Hospitals present that depth of approx up to depth of manage risk to key river
• Emergency are affected Increase in depth 0.7m. approx 0.6m. infrastructure. crossings in
Response by flooding and duration of the centre of
Centres at 1% event flooding at key Increase in depth Minor increase in Corby become
• Care Homes probability: transport and duration of depth and protected.
• Schools A6116, infrastructure. flooding at key duration of
A6086, transport flooding at key Care home at
A427, Increase in depth of infrastructure. transport risk at present
A6014 flooding at care infrastructure. is protected by
home of up to 0.2m. Increase in depth defences.
Community of flooding at care Increase in depth
facilities 1 school previously home of up to of flooding at care Emergency
affected by not at risk becomes 0.15m. home of up to Response
flooding: affected. Depth of 0.05m. plans may
• Maple flooding unknown. 1 school previously help to
House care not at risk 1 school manage risk to
home Ambulance station becomes affected. previously not at infrastructure.
flooded to affected, flooded up Depth of flooding risk becomes
depth of to depth of approx unknown. affected. Depth of
less than 1.55m. flooding unknown.
0.5m. Ambulance station
affected, flooded 1 Ambulance
up to depth of station previously
approx 1.5m. not at risk at
present becomes
affected, up to
depth of approx
1.4m.
Environment Agency

flooding
3 community properties affected properties and properties and 171 properties and 168 properties and properties and properties and
disruption in the 1% flood 47 commercial commercial commercial 163 commercial 47 commercial 86 commercial
from flooding Category of social properties properties affected properties affected properties properties properties
vulnerability areas affected by at the 1% AEP at the 1% AEP affected at the 1% affected at the affected at the
affected in the 1% flooding at 1% flood. flood. AEP flood. 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood.
flood AEP flood.
Extent of flooding Increase in risk of Increase in risk of Increase in risk of Areas at risk of Benefit of
Duration of flooding Social impact: flooding occurs in flooding occurs in flooding occurs in flooding have a increased
Moderate - areas with areas with areas with typically flood risk
High typically moderate to high moderate to high moderate to high moderate to management
SFVI social vulnerability social vulnerability social vulnerability high social felt in areas
categories 3 to flooding to flooding to flooding vulnerability to with moderate
and 4 (category 4) (category 4) (category 4) flooding to high social
(categories 2, 3 vulnerability to
Increase in depth, Increase in depth, Minor increase in and 4) flooding
duration and duration and depth, duration (category 4).
frequency of frequency of and frequency of No significant
flooding will occur. flooding will occur. flooding will occur. increase in Minor increase
depth, duration in depth,
Majority of Majority of Majority of and frequency of duration and
properties still properties still properties still flooding. frequency of
flooded to depths of flooded to depths flooded to depths flooding will
less than 0.5m, of less than 0.5m, of less than 0.5m, Depth of occur outside
though a small though a small though a small flooding is of areas
number are now number are now number are now generally low, defended.
flooded to depths flooded to depths flooded to depths typically less
estimated as estimated as estimated as than 0.5m. Defences
greater than 1.5m. greater than 1.5m. greater than 1.5m. protect most
properties
flooded to
depths of
greater than
1m. Depth,
velocity and
duration of
flooding likely
Environment Agency

flooding
to increase in
areas not
defended,
though unlikely
to pose a risk
to life.
To minimise Residential £6.45m £47.60m residential £45.18m £42.64m £6.45m £1.00m
ECO economic damages 1% flood residential damages and residential residential residential residential
N1 impacts of Commercial damages at £69.71m damages and damages and damages and damages and
flooding damages 1% flood 1% commercial £65.63m £60.11m £14.01m £19.58m
Agricultural damages at the 1% commercial commercial commercial commercial
damages in the 1% £14.01m AEP flood. damages at the damages at the damages at the damages at
flood commercial 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood. the 1% AEP
Percentage area of damages at No Grade 1 and flood.
grade 1 and 2 1% Grade 2 land at risk No Grade 1 and No Grade 1 and No Grade 1 and
agricultural land of flooding. Grade 2 land at Grade 2 land at Grade 2 land at No Grade 1
flooded during the No Grade 1 risk of flooding. risk of flooding. risk of flooding. and Grade 2
1% flood and Grade 2 land at risk of
land at risk of flooding.
flooding.
Ensure Expenditure on all Annual EA EA ceases Annual EA No increase in Expanding Cost of
future FRM activities. expenditure on spending money on expenditure on cost of influencing and constructing
ECO investment maintenance maintenance. maintenance maintenance in informing will defences will
N2 in the estimated at estimated at £16k real terms – lead to a minor be
catchment is £32k. EA ceases in current prices. remains at £32k in increase in EA approximately
proportional influencing and current prices. expenditure. £29m
to the risks informing reducing EA reduces
expenditure expenditure on No increase in EA Cost of Increase in EA
significantly. influencing and expenditure on implementing expenditure on
informing. flood warning in combined works flood
real terms. of conveyance, warning/flood
storage and awareness.
protection likely
to increase EA
expenditure by
£5m.
Protect and Numbers of: Great Oakley Less protection for Less protection for Approximately No increase in 100% increase
Environment Agency

flooding
enhance • Scheduled Conservation historic assets. historic assets. 100% increase in depth or extent in the area of
ENV significant Monuments Area affected the area of Great of flooding Great Oakley
1 historic • Historic Parks – typically Greater than 100% Greater than 100% Oakley CA compared with CA affected by
environment and Gardens flooded to increase in area of increase in area of affected and a baseline (approx flooding, with a
assets and • Historic shallow depths Great Oakley CA Great Oakley CA smaller increase 0.5ha of Great smaller
their settings Battlefields (<0.5m) flooded, and greater flooded, and in the area of Oakley CA and increase in
• Conservation outside of river than 50% increase greater than 50% Weldon CA 2.5ha of Weldon area of
Areas channel. in area of Weldon increase in area of affected by CA affected by Weldon CA
adversely affected CA flooded. Weldon CA flooding (increase flooding). affected
by flooding or flood Weldon Increase in depth of flooded. Increase in depth of (increase in
risk management Conservation approx. 0.7m. in depth of approx. approx. 0.5m). depth of
activities Areas affected Wider degradation 0.7m. resulting in approx. 0.5m).
– flooded to and damages are additional
depths of up to likely without damage.
1m, though intervention.
typically less
than 0.5m.
ENV Protect and Area of SSSIs, No designated No designated sites present so no further No designated No designated No designated
2 contribute to SPAs, SACs and sites present appraisal undertaken. sites present so sites present so sites present
the Ramsar sites no further no further so no further
improvement flooded in a 1% appraisal appraisal appraisal
of flood undertaken. undertaken. undertaken.
designated Reported condition
nature status of SSSIs,
conservation SPAs, SACs and
sites (SSSI, Ramsar sites at
SPA, SAC risk from a 1%
and Ramsar) flood
ENV Enhance the The distribution Lowland Less protection for BAP habitats. No significant No increase in No significant
3 biodiversity and extent of the Meadows: increase in the depth or extent increase in the
of the future UK BAP Total area: These policies likely to: area of BAP of flooding area of
catchment priority habitats (for 1.9ha • Undetermined Grassland: Small area habitats affected compared with Undetermined
by improving example, fens, wet Area at risk flooded (area of between 0.5 and 1 ha). (largest increase baseline Grassland and
the quality of woodland, reed (current): Depth of flooding of up to 0.5m. 16%) Lowland
the river bed, floodplain 0.23ha • Lowland Meadows: Small increase in Meadows BAP
Environment Agency

flooding
environment grazing marsh) %Area at risk area flooded (increase of < 0.5ha). habitats
and (current): 12% Increase in depth of flooding of up to affected
contributing Undetermined 0.7m. The habitat is already flooded to
to UK Grassland: an extent and further flooding may have
Biodiversity Total area: positive through habitat creation.
Action Plan 3.2ha
targets Area at risk
(current): 0
% Area at risk
(current): 0
ENV • Support WFD Article 5 WFD Increases in the Increases in the Increases in the Taking action to Taking action
4 the pressures and Category: At frequency and frequency and frequency and sustain current to reduce
achievem impacts Risk extent of flooding extent of flooding extent of flooding level of flood risk current level of
ent of assessments are likely to increase are likely to are likely to where diffuse flood risk
good results Applicable the levels of increase the increase the sources of where diffuse
status/pot WFD ecological factors: Diffuse pollutants from levels of pollutants levels of pollutants pollution are sources of
ential of and chemical pollution, sources in Corby from sources in from sources in known could pollution are
surface status/potential of physical or and other urban Corby and other Corby and other prevent potential known could
and water bodies. morphological areas and adjacent urban areas and urban areas and adverse effects prevent
groundwat alteration. agricultural land that adjacent adjacent on water quality. potential
er bodies Area of are washed into the agricultural land agricultural land This could adverse
under the contaminated or river. This would not that are washed that are washed provide effects on
WFD damaged land help to achieve WFD into the river. This into the river. This environmental water quality.
restored or environmental would not help to would not help to improvements This could
protected as a objectives achieve WFD achieve WFD helping to provide
result of flood risk environmental environmental achieve WFD environmental
management objectives s objectives environmental improvements
activities objectives. helping to
achieve WFD
environmental
objectives
Environment Agency
Form 12.7 Summary of overall gains and losses for each policy option Policy unit: Corby

one property, the economy and the
No social gains identified. High: Significant increase in the number of people affected environment would increase,
– 3435 more at risk. exacerbating the currently
Economic High: Significant increase in risk to residential and significant level of flood risk.
commercial properties – 1374 more residential and 124
High: No EA expenditure on flood risk more commercial properties at risk.
management – reduction of approx. £32k p.a. High: Significant increase in impact on electricity
High: No Grade 1 and 2 agricultural land affected. substations -at least 19 more affected.
High: Increase in impact at other critical infrastructure –
critical infrastructure flooded at present flooded to greater
Environmental depth and for longer duration. In addition to sites flooded at
present: 1 IPPC site, 1 ambulance station, 1 school and 2
Low: Increased flooding could increase the extent extra waste management sites affected.
lowland meadow habitat (BAP). However, the High: Flood warning and forecasting ceased.
increase in area is small and the extent of habitat Medium: Increase in depth of flooding at Corby STW.
creation is therefore minor. Increase of approx. 0.45m.
Medium: Increase in depth of flooding at care home
affected. Increase of approx. 0.2m.
Medium: Increase in depth and duration of flooding at key
Low: Significant increase in risk to areas with moderate-high
social vulnerability (category 4)
Low: Increase in depth, duration and velocity of flooding,
though duration still remains relatively short, and depth
relatively low. Majority of properties still flooded to depths of
less than 0.5m, though a small number are flooded to
depths estimated as greater than 1.5m.
Economic
High: Very significant increase in commercial damages –

High: Very significant increase in residential damages –
Environment Agency

Environmental
Low: Less protection for historic assets.

High: Significantly increased damage to historic
environment particularly through greater flooding in the
Conservation Areas of Great Oakley (100% increased area)
and Weldon (50% increased area).
Low: Less protection for BAP habitats.

two property, the economy and the
No social gains identified. High: Reduction in public preparedness for flooding will environment would increase,
have a significant impact in this policy unit. exacerbating the currently
Economic High: Significant increase in the number of people affected significant level of flood risk.
– 3311 more people at risk.
High: No Grade 1 and 2 agricultural land affected. High: Significant increase in risk to residential and
Medium: Reduction in EA expenditure on flood risk commercial properties – 1324 more residential and 116
management – reduction of approx. £16k p.a. more commercial properties at risk.
High: Significant increase in impact on electricity
Environmental substations – at least 19 more affected.
Low: Increased flooding could increase the extent critical infrastructure flooded at present flooded to greater
lowland meadow habitat (BAP). However, the depth and for longer duration. In addition to sites flooded at
increase in area is small and the extent of habitat present: 1 IPPC site, 1 ambulance station, 1 school and 2
creation is therefore minor. extra waste management sites affected.
Medium: Increase in depth of flooding at Corby STW.
Increase of approx. 0.40m.
Medium: Increase in depth of flooding at care home
affected. Increase of approx. 0.15m.
Medium: Significant increase in risk to areas with moderate-
high social vulnerability (category 4)
Environment Agency

Low: Flood forecasting and warning maintained at the same
level. Likely to see increase in risk to community.
Economic

Environmental
Low: Planning policy would not afford more protection for

historic assets.
and Weldon (50% increased area).
Low: Planning policy would not afford more protection for
BAP habitats.
affected.

three current level of flood risk
No social gains identified. High: Significant increase in the number of people affected management would lead to
– 2993 more at risk. increases in risk to people,
Economic High: Significant increase in risk to residential and property and the economy in
commercial properties – 1197 more residential and 124 particular, exacerbating the
High: No Grade 1 and 2 agricultural land affected. more commercial properties at risk. currently significant level of
Low: No change in EA expenditure on High: Significant increase in impact on electricity flood risk.
Environment Agency

maintenance – maintained at £32k p.a. substations - 19 more affected.
Environmental critical infrastructure flooded at present flooded to greater
depth and for longer duration. In addition to sites flooded at
Low: No significant increase in the area of BAP present: 1 IPPC site, 1 ambulance station, 1 school and 2
habitats affected. extra waste management sites affected.
Low: Increased flooding could increase the extent Medium: Increase in depth of flooding at Corby STW.
lowland meadow habitat (BAP). However, the Increase of approx. 0.35m.
increase in area is small and the extent of habitat Medium: Significant increase in risk to areas with
creation is therefore minor. moderate-high social vulnerability (category 4)
Medium: Reduction in public preparedness for flooding will
have a significant impact in this policy unit.
Low: Increase in depth of flooding at care home affected.
Increase of approx. 0.05m.
Low: Flood forecasting and warning maintained at the same
level. Likely to see increase in risk to community.
Economic

Environmental

Environment Agency

and a smaller area of Weldon.
Policy Social Social Not preferred. Expanding flood

four risk management to this level
Medium: Flood Warning and Forecasting Delivery High: No change in the number of people affected – would still result in significant
plan and Flood Awareness plan increase coverage maintained at 835 people. This is a significant number of risk to people, property and the
and effectiveness of flood warning. people at risk. economy.
Low: depth and duration of flooding remain High: Large number of residential properties still affected –
relatively low and short respectively. 334 properties at risk.
Low: Moderate number of commercial properties still at risk
Economic – 47 properties at risk.
Low: Areas at risk are those with moderate-high social
High: No Grade 1 and 2 agricultural land affected. vulnerability (categories 3 and 4).
Low: Impact on critical infrastructure remains at same level
Environmental – 1 electricity substation, 1 waste management site and 1
STW affected.
Low: Damages and degradation to historic Low: 1 care home affected by flooding.
Low: No increase in the area of BAP habitats Economic
affected.
Low: Flooding could increase the extent lowland Medium: Increase in expenditure needed to maintain risk at
meadow habitat (BAP). However, the area is present level – estimated that capital costs to maintain
small and the extent of habitat creation is therefore standard of protection will total £5M.
minor. Medium: Residential damages do not increase from the
Low: May provide environmental improvements present, but remain relatively high on a catchment wide
that could contribute toward achieving basis - £6.45M of residential damages.
environmental objectives under WFD. Medium: Commercial damages do not increase from the
present, but remain relatively high on a catchment wide
basis - £14.01M of commercial damages.
Environmental
Low: Great Oakley and Weldon CAs are still affected which
Environment Agency

may cause damage and degradation.
Policy Social Social PREFERRED POLICY:

five Expanding flood risk
High: Significant reduction in the number of people Medium: Increase in the number of commercial properties at management would significantly
affected –720 less people at risk. risk beyond current level – increase of 40 properties. reduce the risk to people,
High: Significant reduction in the number of Increase due to the choice of generic response for P5, and property and the economy.
residential properties affected – 288 less in reality the number of commercial properties at risk under Taking action to reduce the
properties at risk. a P5 may decrease. flood risk would be economically
High: Recommendations of Corby Water Cycle Medium: Increase in the number of electricity substations justifiable in Corby.
Strategy implemented, reducing risk of surface and other critical infrastructure at risk – increase in the
water, drainage and river flooding. number of electricity sub-stations at risk by 9. Increase in
Medium: Flood Warning and Forecasting Delivery the number of electricity substations at risk is due to the
plan and Flood Awareness plan increase coverage choice of generic response for P5, and in reality the number
and effectiveness of flood warning. at risk may decrease under a P5.
Medium: Significant reduction in risk to areas with
moderate-high social vulnerability (category 4) Economic
Medium: Reduction in the impact on transport
infrastructure through the centre of Corby. Number High: Significant increase in the level of expenditure on
of road links protected by defences. flood defence – cost of capital works to reduce impact of
Medium: Expansion of flood warning systems and flooding estimated at £29M.
influencing and informing would be of benefit to Medium: Increase in commercial damages – increase in
those people remaining at risk of flooding. damages of £5.57M. Increase due to the choice of generic
Medium: Defences protect those properties response for P5, and in reality the commercial damages
flooded to depths of greater than 1m. Depth, may decrease under a P5.
velocity and duration of flooding likely to increase
in areas not defended, though unlikely to pose a Environmental
risk to life.
Low: Defences protect waste management site. High: Significantly increased damage to historic
Low: Care home protected by defences. environment particularly through greater flooding in the
Economic and a smaller area of Weldon.
Low to Medium: Small to moderate loss of deciduous
High: Significant reduction in the level of woodland networks (BAP). Smaller losses arise from the
residential property damages – reduction of construction of defences along Willow Brook.
Environment Agency

£5.45M.
High: No Grade 1 and 2 agricultural land affected.
Environmental
Low: No significant increase in the area of Mire,

Bog and Fens, Undetermined Grassland and
Lowland Meadows BAP habitats affected
Low: Increased flooding could increase the extent

lowland meadow habitat (BAP). However, the
increase in area is small and the extent of habitat
creation is therefore minor.

that could contribute toward achieving
environmental objectives under WFD
Environment Agency
Form 12.8 Summary of the Preferred Policy Policy unit: Corby
The policy unit for Corby is by nature largely urban. The policy unit extends across the full urban
Policy Unit area of the town, from Great Oakley in the south to Weldon in the east, at the headwaters of the
9 – Corby Harpers Brook and Willow Brook. It contains many other minor urban streams within Corby,
draining to the two main rivers.
Corby is located at the top of the Harpers Brook and Willow Brook catchments. These two main
watercourses largely drain from west to east, with Harpers Brook passing from north of
Desborough through the Great Oakley area and Willow Brook largely emerging from the urban
drains within the town. This mostly urban policy unit therefore has a high population density,
containing little open land apart from the some active floodplain on the two rivers.
The main source of flooding is fluvial, arising from the high flows in the Harpers Brook and Willow
Brook, together with a large number of minor tributary watercourses as well as the urban drainage
that feeds to them. Significant flooding was recorded in Corby during 1947 (Mar), 1981 (Jun),
1982 (Jul) and more recently in 1998 (Apr). Surface water flooding could pose some risk to people
and properties here, either directly due to rainfall intensity or the surcharging of drains, though this
risk is difficult to quantify.
The town of Corby benefits from flood storage reservoirs for Weldon (2% AEP standard) on the
Willow Brook, on the Gretton Brook to the north (10% AEP standard) and at Crucible Road, near
Problem / Risk St James industrial estate west of Weldon where the defence standard is uncertain. Elsewhere
through the town there are other informal/ private defences, with variable defence standards.
commercial), causing £20.46 million property damages (over 60% commercial). This flood risk is
very significant, with the largest number of properties at risk in any policy unit and representing
between 15% and 20% of the total CFMP area flood risk, also causing significant disruption to
major infrastructure.
analysis suggests a major increase in risk under a 1% AEP future flood, that would affect 3828
people and 1694 properties (a rise of over 300%, with 163 commercial properties now), causing
£102.75 million property damages (a rise of 400%, still with more arising from commercial
properties). This is now one third of the total CFMP area damages from approximately 40% of the
properties at risk, and there would also now be widespread disruption to major infrastructure.
Policy P5 - Take further action to reduce flood risk (now and/or in the future)
The social and economic impacts within Corby are reduced from the present level, with very
Chosen Policy significant benefits from justifiable local works. A series of local protection measures across the
flood risk areas are required, as a result of the urban development sitting across several urban
drainage systems in the catchment headwaters.
after Form 12.5). The results show significant benefits for Corby, sufficient to return flood risk here
Generic
to current levels or below. Some further reduction in damages may be gained from other
Responses
measures such as improved flood warning, development control and emergency response
planning (for example for infrastructure), plus active land use planning to ensure that property at
flood risk is appropriate to such locations and takes on appropriate flood resilience measures.
Adopting policy P5 will focus flood risk management efforts on achieving significant risk reductions
within the Corby policy unit. It will give total 1% AEP future flood risk reductions at Corby of 3713
people, 1562 properties and £82.17 million. This will be achieved through the generic responses
outlined above, implementing localised flood protection measures but also considering how to
Justification change the urban fabric to be less impacted by flood events and to recover more quickly.
Within the policy unit for Corby, policy P5 will allow present actions to control flood risk to be
Environment Agency
continued and enhanced (for example maintaining the defences, and flood warning). The resulting
future flood risk is then reduced below the current level. Various selective local protection
measures may prove feasible, particularly for the urban drainage issues, as outlined in the Water
Cycle Strategy for Corby, though they require further assessment in order to identify and develop
into working solutions. An element of additional flood storage is likely to be required, to offset any
increased flood peak downstream on the Harpers and Willow Brooks that might result from other
measures that improve flood conveyance. Other reductions in future flood risk should ideally be
achieved through actively influencing land use planning and the take up of flood resilience
measures.
Adopting policy P5 for Corby supports economic, social and environmental sustainability by
carrying out critical local flood protection works to enable the urban infrastructure to operate
effectively without the risk of losses now growing into excessive flood losses and risks to people
and the communities in which they live in the future. This policy unit presently has the largest
number of properties at risk in the CFMP area at the 1% AEP flood, with future economic flood
damages becoming excessive if there is no increase in flood risk management. The objectives
which are met by this policy (1% AEP future flood impact, compared to current baseline) are:
Justification • To minimise flood related risks to the population (720 less people).
(cont.) • To minimise risks to critical infrastructure and community facilities (flood risk reduced at
many assets, though may increase at some undefended assets, such as 9 electricity sub-
stations).
• To minimise community disruption from flooding (up to 288 fewer residential properties but
possibly 39 more commercial properties).
• To minimise economic impacts of flooding (£5.45 million less residential damages but
possible increase of £5.57 million in commercial damages).
million cost of works, partially set against future development, delivers approximately £82
million reduction in damages in Corby).
• Protect and enhance significant historic environment assets and their settings (likely
increased risk to conservation areas).
change).
environment, contributing to UK Biodiversity Action Plan targets (no significant change).
Other policies were rejected for Corby due to (1% AEP future flood impact, compared to current
baseline):
Policy P1 - no active intervention; major economic and social losses (increases of 3435 people,
1498 properties, and £96.85 million property damages) with high risk to public health and safety.
Policy P2 - reduce existing flood risk management actions; major economic and social losses
(increases of 3311people, 1440 properties, and £90.35 million property damages).
Alternative allowing flood risk to rise with future change would exacerbate the current unsatisfactory level of
policies flood risk, leading to extremely high predicted future flood event damages and risks to people
considered (increases of 2993 people with moderate to high social vulnerability, 1321 properties, and £82.29
million property damages).
economic and social losses would occur, but present flood risk is considered to justify further
reductions beyond those required to offset future climate and development change.
Environment Agency
Main opportunities
Main constraints
Catchment- isolate the river from its floodplain.
wide
opportunities & Landfill sites
constraints Opportunities: The reduction of flood risk to landfill sites will consequently reduce the water
Discharges
Abstractions
JFLOW model output, of reduced accuracy compared to elsewhere, was used on these
watercourses. Significant uncertainty surrounds climate change effects, as well as surface water
and groundwater influence on flood events; surface water flooding could be an issue for Corby.
Risks, The estimates of flood damage within Corby are considered sufficiently accurate to inform the
Uncertainties & selection of the proposed policy and response. However, the uncertainty over present flood risk
Dependencies from the urban drainage systems will need to be investigated further to develop the understanding
of the flood risk issues and their appropriate responses. It is likely that responses will need to
include an element of additional storage within the urban drainage systems and the related river
corridors, such that downstream flood risk on the Harpers and Willow Brooks is not increased.
Environment Agency
Wellingborough
Environment Agency
Policy unit : Wellingborough
flood risk within the Wellingborough benefits from a single flood storage scheme
policy unit? upstream along Harrowden Brook.
• Harrowden flood storage reservoir, EA responsibility.
• Wilby flood storage reservoir, EA responsibility.
Flood Warning
Wellingborough is covered by a number of flood watch and flood
warning areas.
Primary Dissemination method: FWD.
sites Washlands, South Bridge. Rate of uptake in this flood
• River Ise and tributaries from Clipston to Wellingborough –
trigger site Barford Bridge. Rate of uptake in this flood
950 people (380 properties) can apply for flood warnings in

Wellingborough
Maintenance:
annual expenditure:
Standards of service Harrowden flood storage reservoir has a standard of protection

that apply to flood equal to the 2% flood event.
defences within the
policy unit? Wilby flood storage reservoir has a standard of protection equal to
the 2% flood event.

exposed to flooding? Fluvial flooding from River Nene, River Ise, Harrowden Brook and
Swanspool Brook. Duration of flooding moderate to long from
River Nene (up to 48 hours), less from the other watercourses.
Velocities and depths generally low (all residential properties
flooded to depths of less than 1m, with the majority flooded to
depths of significantly less than 0.5m).

A significant number of commercial properties (approx. 65) are at

risk of flooding at the 10% flood event in Wellingborough. These
properties are predominantly found in the floodplains of the River
Ise and River Nene.
206 properties are at risk of flooding at the 1% flood event: 123

the total properties affected in the catchment).
Environment Agency
Infrastructure

• Metal Recycling site: 1
• IPPC Sites: 1 (Food Manufacturing Site)

• Midland Mainline (from London to Sheffield) at risk of flooding at
the 1% flood event.
• A45, A510, A5128, A5193 as well as locally important roads in
Wellingborough are at risk of flooding at the 1% event.
No community facilities are at risk of flooding.
Economic
Total damages incurred £30.50m: £0.89m residential and
£29.61m commercial (damages equates to 21.9% of the total
damages for the catchment). The vast majority of damages come
from commercial properties.
AAD: £1.15m. Relatively high AAD is caused by significant

commercial damages at lower magnitude flood events.

- Grade 1: 0%
- Grade 2: 0%
Environmental
Historic Environment: no historic assets present in policy area.

pollution, physical or morphological alterations.

currently most • 308 people affected by flooding and long duration of flooding.
vulnerable to flood Economic
damage and losses? • Majority of economic damages comes from commercial
properties.
Environmental
• No international environmental features affected.
Environment Agency
Urban Growth – urban growth in the Upper River Nene and River
Ise catchment may increase flood risk in the future. See relevant
appendix for urban growth predictions for the River Nene and Ise
catchments.

future levels of flood Minimal increase in depth of flooding from the Nene and the Ise.
risk under the main Larger increase on smaller watercourses. Flooding likely to be <
scenarios? 0.5m in the future for all but a few properties. Small increases in
velocity and duration of flooding may occur.

indicates an 72.4% increase in people affected at the current 1%
AEP flood.
A significant number of commercial properties (approx. 70) are at

risk of flooding at the 10% flood event in Wellingborough. These
properties are predominantly found in the floodplains of the River
Ise and River Nene.
306 properties at risk of flooding at the 1% future flood event: 212

the total properties affected in the catchment). This figure
1% AEP flood.
Infrastructure

• Metal Recycling site: 1
• IPPC Sites: 1 (Food Manufacturing Site)
Transport Infrastructure affected at the 1% event:

• Midland Mainline (from London to Sheffield) at risk of flooding at
the 1% future event. Increased risk of flooding compared with
the present.
• A45, A510, A5128, A5193 as well as locally important roads in
Wellingborough are at risk of flooding at the 1% event.
Small increases in depth, duration and frequency of flooding will

occur at transport infrastructure affected.
Community Facilities affected at the 1% event:

• One Ambulance Station, One Fire Station and a School
become affected at the 1% flood event in the future.
Economic
Environment Agency
AAD: £2.75m. As with the current conditions the high AAD is

caused by high commercial damages at low magnitude events.

- Grade 1: 0%
- Grade 2: 0%
Environmental
International or national ecological sites: none
being considered to • Individual protection to properties
• Flood awareness
• Building regulations (resilience)
• Studies
• Emergency response plans
the 1% AEP flood.
uncertainties.
management.
deposition.
Environment Agency
• The analysis of flood risk in some of the areas in this policy
unit was carried out using our JFLOW flood extents.
Therefore the results in this policy unit may be less reliable
than for other policy units.
Environment Agency
POLICY UNIT 10: WELLINGBOROUGH
coefficient by 20%. For the unmodelled reaches in this policy unit (Swanspool Brook and
Harrowden Brook) it was assumed that the change in damages, number of people affected
etc. relative to the baseline would be of the same magnitude as the change observed for the
modelled reaches.
(+101%) (+67%) (+98%)
Conclusions

conveyance
10%. For the unmodelled reaches in this policy unit (Swanspool Brook and Harrowden Brook)
it was assumed that the change in damages, number of people affected etc. relative to the
baseline would be of the same magnitude as the change observed for the modelled reaches.
(+93%) (+62%) (+86%)
Conclusions

Environment Agency
(+72%) (+49%) (+69%)
Conclusions
continued.

Generic Response: Policy 4 –Develop upstream storage by creating channel
River Nene and tributaries. Five broad areas where floodplain storage was considered
feasible were identified. These were:
5. Upstream of Northampton on the Kislingbury branch of the River Nene;

6. Along the River Ise between Kettering and Wellingborough;
The former two were modelled by adjusting the inflow hydrographs into the broadscale model.
The inflow hydrographs were lagged and attenuated based on detailed modelling of a flood
storage scheme currently being constructed at Kislingbury. The annotated hydrograph below
attenuated.
Original
hydrograph
Hydrograph with
Lag storage
Attenuation
Flow
Time
The latter three storage areas were modelled by assuming that 20% of the 1% annual
probability floodplain could be utilised as natural floodplain storage. An average depth of
storage of 0.5m was assumed. Storage reservoirs of this size were then incorporated into the
broadscale model to represent natural floodplain storage on each of the three reaches of the
River Nene considered.
Of the five broad areas where storage was considered, four are located in the River Nene
Corridor policy unit, whilst one is located in the River Nene (Weedon – Kislingbury) policy unit.
To carry out a P4 in Wellingborough a P6 policy option would be needed in the River Nene
Corridor, and the River Nene (Weedon – Kislingbury) policy units.
Environment Agency
The figure below shows the location of storage within the catchment.

(+24%) (+12%) (+18%)
Conclusions
Cost: No capital costs associated with this policy unit but costs incurred in upstream policy
units where storage developed. Current level of maintenance continues.
Conclusion: Developing storage in the upstream policy units of River Nene Corridor, and
River Nene (Weedon to Kislingbury) is capable of maintaining the flood risk in Wellingborough
at about the same level into the future.

the roughness coefficient by 20%. For the unmodelled reaches in this policy unit (Swanspool
Brook and Harrowden Brook) it was assumed that the change in damages, number of people
affected etc. relative to the baseline would be of the same magnitude as the change observed
for the modelled reaches.
Environment Agency
(+44%) (+53%) (+46%)
Conclusions

generic response in the areas shown in the diagram below:

(-42%) (-53%) (-65%)
Conclusions
Cost: Capital costs to improve the standard of defence in this policy unit estimated at £10
million.
Conclusion: Constructing defences in Wellingborough prevents flooding in an area where
there is both risk to commercial and residential property. As a result of this the number of
people and properties affected, and the damages incurred, reduces significantly.
Environment Agency

Environment Agency
Form 12.6 Policy Appraisal Policy unit: Wellingborough

flooding
warning and warning and warning and warning and warning and additional
• Cease • Reduce • Continue • Develop • Construct developments
maintenance maintenance of maintenance upstream localised have been
of river river channel, of river storage by defences along identified in the
channel and structures, flood channel, creating the River Nene River Nene
structures storage areas structures, channel and River Ise (from Weedon to
• Remove flood flood storage obstructions to • Emergency Kislingbury)
storage areas areas increase Response plans policy unit and
inundation of the River Nene
the natural Corridor policy
floodplain. unit. Very little
• Increase scope to apply
maintenance of in this policy unit
channel, therefore no
structures and assessment of
flood storage gains and losses
areas in this was undertaken.
policy unit.
• Relocate or
improve
resilience of
industrial sites
in the River
Nene floodplain
• Emergency
Response plans
1 flood related people at affected by affected at the affected at the 1% affected at the affected at the 1% affected at the 1%
risks to the risk in the flooding at 1% 1% AEP flood. AEP flood. 1% AEP flood. AEP flood. AEP flood.
population 1% flood AEP flood Flood warning
Numbers of Cease flood coverage Flood warning Review flood Review flood
people 950 people (380 warning and maintained at the coverage warning coverage warning coverage
Environment Agency

flooding
covered by properties) can forecasting, with same level. maintained at through a Flood through a Flood
flood apply for flood increased risk to the same level. Warning and Warning and
warning or warnings in community. Forecasting Forecasting
emergency / Wellingborough delivery plan delivery plan
evacuation
plans Develop a Flood Develop a Flood
Awareness plan to Awareness plan to
encourage people encourage people
to sign up for flood to sign up for flood
warning. warning.
To minimise Numbers Critical At least 5 At least 5 5 Electricity 4 Electricity 4 Electricity

risks to and type of infrastructure Electricity Electricity substations substations substations
SOC critical critical asset. affected by substations substations flooded, up to flooded, with flooded, with
2 infrastructure Critical flooding: flooded, up to flooded, up to depth of approx. depths of up to depth of up to
and infrastructure • 4 electricity depth of approx. depth of approx. 1.05m. 0.7m. 1.0m.
community includes: sub-stations. 1.20m. 1.15m. Increase in
facilities • Electricity • 1 Metal depth of flooding Increase in 1 Metal recycling Increase in depth
Sub- recycling site. Increase in at Metal Recycling depth of flooding site affected by of flooding at
stations/p • 1 IPPC site depth of flooding Site of up to at Metal flooding. Metal Recycling
ower (food at Metal 1.15m. Increase in Recycling Site of site of up to 1.0m.
supply manufacturing Recycling Site of depth of flooding up to 1.05m. 1 IPPC site
• Sewage site) up to 1.2m. at IPPC site of up affected by IPPC Site flooded
Treatment to 1.35m. Increase in flooding. at present
Works Transport Increase in depth of flooding becomes
(STW) infrastructure depth of flooding Increase in depth at IPPC site of Decrease in depth protected by
• Waste affected by at IPPC site of and duration of up to 1.25m. and duration of defences.
Treatment flooding: up to 1.4m. flooding at key flooding at key
Works • Midland transport Minor increase transport Minor increase in
(STW) Mainline (from Increase in infrastructure. in depth and infrastructure. depth and
• Waste London to depth and duration of duration of
Managem Sheffield) at risk duration of School flooded to flooding at key Emergency flooding at key
ent Sites of flooding. flooding at key depth of up to transport Response plans transport
• IPPC • A45, A510, transport 0.8m infrastructure. may help to infrastructure.
infrastructure. manage the risk to Defences protect
Environment Agency

flooding
Sites A5128, A5193 School flooded infrastructure. part of A5193.
• Transport: as well as School flooded to depth of up to
Railway, locally to depth of up to 0.7m Increase in depth
Roads, important roads 0.85m of flooding at
Canals in school of up to
(particularl Wellingborough 0.7m.
y consider are at risk of
ability to flooding. Emergency
use other Response plans
routes) may help to
Community manage the risk to
facilities infrastructure.
include:
• Hospitals
• Emergenc
y
Response
Centres
• Care
Homes
• Schools
3 community properties properties and 83 properties and properties and 97 properties and properties and 78 properties and 24
disruption affected in commercial 97 commercial commercial 94 commercial commercial commercial
from flooding the 1% flood properties properties properties properties properties properties
Category of affected by affected at the affected at the 1% affected at the affected at the 1% affected at the 1%
social flooding at 1% 1% AEP flood. AEP flood. 1% AEP flood. AEP flood. AEP flood.
vulnerability AEP flood.
areas Increase in risk Increase in risk of Increase in risk Areas at risk of Benefit of
affected in Social impact: of flooding flooding occurs in of flooding flooding have a increased flood
the 1% flood Moderate - occurs in areas areas with occurs in areas typically moderate risk management
Extent of typically SFVI with moderate moderate social with moderate social vulnerability felt in areas with
flooding category 3 social vulnerability to social to flooding. low to moderate
Duration of vulnerability to flooding (category vulnerability to social vulnerability
flooding flooding 3) flooding No change in to flooding
Environment Agency

flooding
(category 3) (category 3) depth and velocity (category 2&3).
Increase in depth, of flooding, though
Increase in duration and Minor increase duration of Minor increase in
depth, duration velocity of flooding in depth, flooding likely to depth, duration
and velocity of will occur. duration and increase slightly. and velocity of
flooding will velocity of flooding will occur
occur. Increase in depth flooding will Depth of flooding outside of areas
of flooding, occur. in residential defended.
Increase in however depth of areas is low, less
depth of flooding from the Small increase than 1m for all Depth of flooding
flooding, River Ise and in depth of properties, and remains low, and
however depth Nene remains flooding, significantly less typically less than
of flooding from less than 0.5m at however depth than 0.5m for the 0.5 m. Small
the River Ise residential of flooding vast majority of increase in
and Nene properties. Some remains low, properties. The velocities may
remains less properties may be and typically depth of flooding occur, however,
than 0.5m at flooded to depths less than 0.5m and nature of the velocities are not
residential of greater than 1m at residential area suggests that likely to be
properties. on the Swanspool properties. velocities will be significant. No
Some properties Brook, where Small increase very low. As such, significant risk to
may be flooded velocities may be in velocities may there is likely to life.
to depths of moderate. Limited occur, however, be a very limited
greater than 1m risk to life overall. velocities are risk to life.
on the not likely to be
Swanspool significant. No
Brook, where significant risk to
velocities may life.
be moderate.
Limited risk to
life overall.
Environment Agency

flooding
To minimise Residential £0.89m residential £3.06m £2.81m residential £2.58m £2.20m residential £2.04m residential
ECO economic damages 1% at 1% event residential damages and residential damages and damages and
N1 impacts of flood probability damages and £53.79m damages and £33.82m £8.71m
flooding Commercial £57.41m commercial £48.86m commercial commercial
damages 1% £29.61m commercial damages at the commercial damages at the damages at the
flood commercial at 1% damages at the 1% AEP flood. damages at the 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood.
Agricultural event probability. 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood.
damages in No Grade 1 or Industrial sites in No Grade 1 or
the 1% flood No Grade 1 or No Grade 1 or Grade 2 No Grade 1 or the River Nene Grade 2
Percentage Grade 2 Grade 2 agricultural land Grade 2 catchment agricultural land
area of agricultural land agricultural land affected agricultural land relocated, and affected
grade 1 and flooded. affected affected where not
2 agricultural possible made
land flooded resilient.
during the
1% flood No Grade 1 or
Grade 2
agricultural land
affected
Ensure Expenditure EA annual EA ceases Annual EA No increase in No cost Capital costs to

future on all FRM expenditure on spending money expenditure on cost of associated with improve the
ECO investment activities. maintenance on maintenance. maintenance maintenance in this policy unit but standard of
N2 in the estimated at £51k. estimated at £26k real terms – costs incurred in defence in this
catchment is EA ceases in current prices. remains at £51k upstream policy policy unit
proportional influencing and in current prices. units where estimated at
to the risks informing EA reduces storage £10M.
reducing expenditure on No increase in developed.
expenditure influencing and EA expenditure Increase in EA
significantly. informing. on flood warning Expanding expenditure on
in real terms. influencing and flood
informing will lead warning/flood
to a minor awareness.
increase in EA
expenditure.
Protect and Numbers of: No historic assets Less protection for historic assets. No historic No historic assets No historic assets
Environment Agency

flooding
enhance • Scheduled at risk at the assets at risk so at risk so no at risk so no
ENV significant Monument current 1% AEP Possibility that Tithe Barn Scheduled no further further appraisal further appraisal
1 historic s flood Monument may flood, which may appraisal undertaken. undertaken.
environment • Historic cause damage and degradation. undertaken.
assets and Parks and
• Historic
Battlefield
s
• Conservati
on Areas
adversely
affected
by
flooding or
flood risk
managem
ent
activities
ENV Protect and Area of No designated No designated sites present so no No designated No designated No designated
2 contribute to SSSIs, sites present further appraisal undertaken. sites present so sites present so sites present so
the SPAs, SACs no further no further no further
improvement and Ramsar appraisal appraisal appraisal
of sites flooded undertaken. undertaken. undertaken.
designated in a 1% flood
nature Reported
conservation condition
sites (SSSI, status of
SPA, SAC SSSIs,
and Ramsar) SPAs, SACs
and Ramsar
sites at risk
from a 1%
flood
ENV Enhance the The Undetermined Less protection for BAP habitats. This policy likely Damages Area of
3 biodiversity distribution Grassland: to lead to an maintained at the undetermined
Environment Agency

flooding
of the and extent of Total Area In PU: These policies likely to lead to: increase in current level. grassland affected
catchment the future UK 7.6ha - Area of undetermined grassland depth of flooding reduced to < 1ha
by improving BAP priority Area At Risk affected approx. 3.5 ha. - Increase in of 0.3m and the Reduction in area as a result of
the quality of habitats (for Future: 42% depth of flooding up to 0.5m. following BAP of undetermined defences on the
the river example, Approximately 50% of all habitats at risk:: grassland flooded Main Nene.
environment fens, wet undetermined grassland in PU Undetermined from River Nene,
and woodland, affected. Grassland: but increase in
contributing reed bed, Total Area In area flooded from
to UK floodplain PU: 7.6ha minor tributaries,
Biodiversity grazing Area At Risk so overall no
Action Plan marsh) Future: 42% change in area
targets (which is a large affected.
increase from
current). Undetermined
Grassland:
Total Area In PU:
7.6ha
Area At Risk
Current: 13%
ENV • Support WFD Article Category: At Risk Increases in the Increases in the Increases in the Taking action to Taking action to
4 the 5 pressures frequency and frequency and frequency and sustain current reduce current
achievem and impacts Applicable factors: extent of extent of flooding extent of level of flood risk level of flood risk
ent of assessments Point source flooding are are likely to flooding are at point and at point and
good results pollution, diffuse likely to increase increase the levels likely to increase diffuse sources of diffuse sources of
status/pot WFD pollution, physical the levels of of pollutants from the levels of pollution could pollution could
ential of ecological or morphological pollutants from sources in pollutants from prevent potential prevent potential
surface and chemical alterations sources in Kettering and sources in adverse effects on adverse effects on
and status/potent Kettering and other urban areas Kettering and water quality. This water quality. This
groundwat ial of water other urban and adjacent other urban could provide could provide
er bodies bodies. areas and agricultural land areas and environmental environmental
under the adjacent that are washed adjacent improvements improvements
WFD Area of agricultural land into the river with agricultural land helping to achieve helping to achieve
contaminate that are washed potential adverse that are washed WFD WFD
d or into the river effects on water into the river environmental environmental
damaged with potential quality. This would with potential objectives objectives
land restored adverse effects not help to adverse effects
or protected on water quality. achieve WFD on water quality.
Environment Agency

flooding
as a result of This would not environmental This would not
flood risk help to achieve objectives help to achieve
management WFD WFD
activities environmental environmental
objectives objectives
Environment Agency
Form 12.7 Summary of overall gains and losses for each policy option Policy unit: Wellingborough

one property, the economy and the
Low: Increase in depth, duration and velocity of High: Flood warning and forecasting ceased. environment increases to significant
flooding. Increase in depth of flooding, however High: Increase in the number of commercial properties levels with a particular increase to
depth of flooding from the River Ise and Nene affected – 14 more affected. Number of commercial people at risk.
remains less than 0.5m at residential properties. properties at risk is very significant.
Some properties may be flooded to depths of High: Significant risk to critical infrastructure – At least
greater than 1m on the Swanspool Brook, where five electricity substation at risk, one metal recycling site
velocities may be moderate. Limited risk to life and one IPPC site. Increase in depth and duration of
overall. flooding at all critical infrastructure.
Medium: Increase in risk to transport infrastructure –
Economic increase in risk to Midland mainline. Increased length of
road, depth of flooding and duration of flooding at roads
High: No Grade 1 or Grade 2 agricultural land at affected, including A45, A510, A5128, A5193.
risk of flooding. Medium: One school affected by flooding – depth of
High: No EA expenditure on maintenance – flooding at school estimated as up to 0.85m.
reduction of £52k p.a. Medium: Significant increase in the number of people
affected – 310 more at risk.
Medium: Significant increase in the number of residential
Low: Increase in depth of flooding, however depth
remains relatively low and does not pose a significant
risk to life.
Low: Increase in risk occurs in areas with a moderate
social vulnerability to flooding (category 3).
Economic
High: Significant increase in commercial damages of

£27.80M. Damages are very high in comparison with the
rest of the catchment.
Damages are moderately high when considered against
the rest of the catchment.
Environment Agency

No environmental gains identified. for historic assets.
Medium: Does not promote appropriate (sustainable)
land use changes.
Low – Medium: Possibility that Tithe Barn SM may flood,
which may cause damage and degradation.
for BAP habitats.
Medium: Increase of flooding of up to 0.5m for 3.5ha of
undetermined grassland, which equates to 50% of all
undetermined grassland in PU.

two property, the economy and the
Low: Increase in depth, duration and velocity of High: Increase in the number of commercial properties environment increases to significant
flooding. Increase in depth of flooding, however affected – 14 more affected. Number of commercial levels with a particular increase to
depth of flooding from the River Ise and Nene properties at risk is very significant. people at risk.
remains less than 0.5m at residential properties. High: Significant risk to critical infrastructure – At least
Some properties may be flooded to depths of five electricity substation at risk, one metal recycling site
greater than 1m on the Swanspool Brook, where and one IPPC site. Increase in depth and duration of
velocities may be moderate. Limited risk to life flooding at all critical infrastructure.
overall. Medium: Increase in risk to transport infrastructure –
increase in risk to Midland mainline. Increased length of
Economic road, depth of flooding and duration of flooding at roads
affected, including A45, A510, A5128, A5193.
High: No Grade 1 or Grade 2 agricultural land at Medium: One school affected by flooding – depth of
risk of flooding. flooding at school estimated as up to 0.80m.
Medium: Reduction in EA expenditure on Medium: Significant increase in the number of people
maintenance – reduction of £26k p.a. affected – 285 more at risk.
Medium: Significant increase in the number of residential
Environment Agency

Economic
High: Significant increase in commercial damages of

£24.18M. Damages are very high in comparison with the
rest of the catchment.
Damages are moderately high when considered against
the rest of the catchment.
Medium: Increased flooding could be beneficial if Low: Planning policy would not afford more protection
additional wet grassland habitat was created. for historic assets.
Medium: Decreasing conveyance should Medium: Does not promote appropriate (sustainable)
ultimately make the river become more natural. land use changes.
Low – Medium: Possibility that Tithe Barn SM may flood,
which may cause damage and degradation.
for BAP habitats.
Policy Social Social Not preferred. Maintaining flood risk

three management at the same level
Medium: Minor increase in depth, duration and High: Significant increase in the number of commercial leads to an significant increase in
velocity of flooding. Small increase in depth of properties affected – 11 more at risk. Number of risk to people, property, and the
flooding, however depth of flooding remains low, commercial properties at risk is very significant. economy.
and typically less than 0.5m at residential High: Significant risk to critical infrastructure –Five
properties. Small increase in velocities may occur, electricity substation at risk, one metal recycling site and
however, velocities are not likely to be significant. one IPPC site. Increase in depth and duration of flooding
Environment Agency

No significant risk to life. at all critical infrastructure.
Economic increase in risk to Midland mainline. Increased length of
road, depth of flooding and duration of flooding at roads
High: No Grade 1 or Grade 2 agricultural land at affected, including A45, A510, A5128, A5193.
risk of flooding. Medium: One school affected by flooding – depth of
Low: EA expenditure on maintenance kept at the flooding at school estimated as up to 0.70m.
same level - £52k p.a. Medium: Increase in the number of people affected –
222 more at risk.
Environmental Medium: Increase in the number of residential properties
at risk of flooding – 89 more at risk.
Medium: Increased flooding could be beneficial if Low: Areas at risk have a typically moderate social
additional wet grassland habitat was created. vulnerability to flooding (category 3).
Medium: No damage to historic environment Low: Flood forecasting and warning maintained at the
assets. same level. Likely to see increase in risk to community.
Economic
Medium: Increase in commercial damages of £19.25M.

Residential damages moderately high when compared
with the rest of the catchment.
Environmental
Low: Does not promote appropriate (sustainable) land

use changes.

Environment Agency

Policy Social Social PREFERRED POLICY: Majority of
four risk under this policy is to
High: Depth of flooding in residential areas is low, High: Reduction in the number of commercial properties commercial properties and critical
less than 1m for all properties, and significantly affected – 5 less at risk. Number of commercial infrastructure. Risk to people and
less than 0.5m for the vast majority of properties. properties at risk remains very significant though. property is moderate, with no
The depth of flooding and nature of the area Medium: Risk to critical infrastructure, maintained at the serious risk to life.
suggests that velocities will be very low. As such, same level – 4 electricity substations, one waste
there is likely to be a very limited risk to life. management site and one IPPC site affected. No The Environment Agency is primarily
Medium: Flood Warning and Forecasting Delivery significant change in the depth or duration of flooding. concerned with reducing the risk to
plan and Flood Awareness plan increase Low: Increase in the number of people affected – 75 life, and as depths and velocities in
coverage and effectiveness of flood warning. more at risk. The number of people affected is this policy unit are typically low, it is
Medium: Relocation and resilience measures considered to be moderate. not a priority to reduce the risk from
taken at industrial sites in the River Nene Low: Increase in the number of properties affected – 30 the present level.
floodplain reduce the impact of flooding on more at risk. The number of properties affected is
industry significantly. considered to be moderate.
Medium: School affected under other policy Low: Risk to transport infrastructure maintained at the
options is not flooded. same level – small risk of Midland Mainline railway
Low: Areas at risk of flooding have a typically flooding. No change in duration or length of roads
moderate social vulnerability to flooding (category flooded.
3).
Economic
Economic
High: No Grade 1 or Grade 2 agricultural land at Commercial damages are high when considered on a
risk of flooding. catchment wide basis.
Low: Increase in residential damages of £1.31M. Environmental
Despite this increase, residential damages remain
low. Low: Flooding of 13% of undetermined grassland in PU.
Low: Increase in expenditure needed to maintain Medium: Creation of upstream storage should maintain
flood risk at the present level – costs will be flood risk at current levels within the policy unit but there
incurred in River Nene Corridor and River Nene may be pollution and land take (for storage) issues
(Weedon – Kislingbury) policy units. upstream that need to be considered further.
Environmental
Medium: Flooding could be beneficial if additional

wet grassland habitat was created.
Environment Agency

Low: No increase in damage to historic
environment assets.
Low: Should not result in increased flood risk and
diffuse pollution.
Policy Social Social Not preferred. The main risk in this

five policy unit is to commercial
Medium: Small increase in depth of flooding Medium: One school affected by flooding – depth of properties. Large costs will be
outside of those areas protected. Depth of flooding at school estimated as up to 0.70m. incurred by developing flood storage
flooding remains low, and typically less than 0.5 Low: Reduction in the impact on critical infrastructure – 3 and constructing defences, and this
m. Small increases in velocity may occur, electricity substations and 1 metal recycling site cost is not felt to be in proportion to
however, not though to be significant. No affected. 1 IPPC site and 1 electricity substation the size or nature of risk in this
significant risk to life. protected. policy unit.
Medium: Flood Warning and Forecasting Delivery Low: Reduction in risk to transport infrastructure –
plan and Flood Awareness plan increase A5193 protected by defences. Minor increases in risk to
coverage and effectiveness of flood warning. Midland Mainline and other roads affected.
Low: Significant reduction in the number of Low: Reduction in the number of commercial properties
people affected – 128 less people at risk. Number at risk, however the number still remains high when
of people affected is moderately low when compared with the rest of the catchment.
considered on a catchment wide basis.
Low: Significant reduction in the number of Economic
residential properties affected – 51 less properties
at risk. High: Significant increase in the level of expenditure on
Low: Areas benefiting from defence have a flood defence – cost of capital works to reduce impact of
typically moderate social vulnerability to flooding flooding estimated at £10M.
(category 3).
Economic
High: No Grade 1 or Grade 2 agricultural land at

risk of flooding.
Low: Reduction in commercial damages of
£20.9M. This constitutes relatively low damages.
Despite increase residential damages remain low.
Increase due to the choice of generic response for
Environment Agency

P5, and in reality residential damages may
decrease under a P5.
Medium: Promotion of appropriate (sustainable) Low: Area of undetermined grassland affected reduced
land use changes. to < 1ha as a result of defences on the Main Nene.
Medium: There may be improvements in the river
environment through maintenance.
environment assets.
Environment Agency
Form 12.8 Summary of the Preferred Policy Policy unit: Wellingborough
Policy Unit The policy unit for Wellingborough is by nature largely urban. It extends around the urban limits of
10 – the town, fringing onto the edges of the floodplain of the River Nene and River Ise and including
Wellingboroug the portion of the Swanspool Brook that passes through the town and alongside the village of
h Wilby upstream. It contains other minor urban streams within Wellingborough, draining to the two
main rivers, including the Harrowden Brook.
Wellingborough is located roughly midway along the River Nene catchment, sitting between the
floodplain of the River Nene and that of one of its main tributaries, the River Ise. This mostly urban
policy unit therefore has a relatively high population density, containing little open land apart from
the some active floodplain which largely lies on the River Swanspool Brook and Harrowden Brook.
The main source of flooding is fluvial, arising from the high flows in the River Nene and River Ise,
together with the smaller tributary watercourses. Significant flooding was recorded in
Wellingborough during 1947 (Mar), 1981 (Jun) and more recently in 1998 (Apr), with records of
flooding in the town back to 1940. Surface water flooding could pose some risk to people and
properties here, though this risk is difficult to quantify.
There are generally only some relatively informal or private flood defences within Wellingborough,
with variable defence standard, though there is some benefit locally from flood storage reservoirs
at Wilby on the Swanspool Brook and on the Harrowden Brook. The town has also previously
Problem / Risk benefited from construction of flood storage areas upstream, particularly the Northampton
Washlands which control flows continuing down the River Nene from Northampton.
commercial), causing £30.5 million property damages with a great majority of those from
commercial properties, also causing significant disruption to major infrastructure. While property
numbers affected are less than 10% of the CFMP total, the damages contribute over 20%.
analysis suggests that a 1% AEP future flood would affect 530 people and 306 properties
(potential increases of 50% or more, with 94 commercial properties now), causing £51.43 million
property damages (a rise of 70%, but still dominated by commercial properties). This future flood
risk represents 6-7% of the total people and properties numbers for the CFMP area, but 17% of
the 1% AEP future flood damages.
The social and economic impacts within Wellingborough are sustained close to the present level,
Chosen Policy by offsetting future impacts from climate and development change by making best use of natural
storage on the River Nene, River Ise and Slade Brook upstream through enhanced floodplain
storage. Significant environmental gains could occur as a result of flood storage creation.
River Nene (PU2), and also along the River Nene corridor (PU6) which includes the River Ise.
This could comprise changes to floodplain topography, perhaps through raising or lowering bank
heights, or use of control structures. It was simply represented by reducing and delaying the flows
into the model from Northampton and the River Ise, based on detailed modelling of similar flood
Generic
storage currently under construction, with the addition of flood storage reservoirs into the model
Responses
for the sites along the River Nene downstream of Northampton (see modelling summary after
Form 12.5). The results show significant benefits for Wellingborough, though not fully returning
flood risk here to current levels. Some further reduction in damages may be gained from other
planning, or potentially some localised protection measures such as defences.
Adopting policy P4 will focus efforts on creating flood storage in other policy unit areas upstream
Justification along the River Nene and River Ise floodplain as outlined above (giving total 1% AEP future flood
risk reductions at Wellingborough of 147 people, 75 properties and £15.42 million). This will be
achieved through the generic responses outlined above, altering the shape and peak of the flood
Environment Agency
hydrograph as it progresses through the catchment to help offset the effects of future climate and
development change. Additional flood risk reductions are achieved within other policy units (see
Within the policy unit for Wellingborough, policy P4 will allow present actions to control flood risk to
be continued and enhanced (for example maintaining the defences, and flood warning). The
resulting future flood risk then remains at the current level, avoiding the increase in risk,
Justification particularly to people, that would occur if no further action were taken. In addition, some selective
(cont.) local protection measures may prove feasible, particularly for the tributaries through
Wellingborough and local urban drainage issues (though these require further assessment), but
other reductions in future flood risk should ideally be achieved mostly through actively influencing
land use planning and the take up of flood resilience measures.
Adopting policy P4 for Wellingborough supports economic, social and environmental sustainability
by looking to make best use of the floodplain upstream on the River Nene and River Ise
floodplains, or other contributing watercourses, to manage flood risk through the town and
downstream. It aims to offset future impacts, from climate and development change, in areas with
the highest flood risk. The objectives which are met by this policy (1% AEP future flood impact,

• To minimise risks to critical infrastructure and community facilities (minor change).
• To minimise community disruption from flooding (up to 30 more residential and 5 less
• To minimise economic impacts of flooding (increase of £1.31 million residential damages
and £4.21 million commercial damages).
million cost of works in other policy units (PU2 and PU6), partially set against future
development, might deliver £40 million reduction in future damages overall, with £15.42
million in Wellingborough).
change).
change).
Other policies were rejected for Wellingborough due to (1% AEP future flood impact, compared to
current baseline):
properties, and £29.97 million property damages) with high risk to public health and safety.
Policy P2 - reduce existing flood risk management actions; large economic and social losses
(increases of 285 people, 128 properties, and £26.1 million property damages).
allowing flood risk to rise with future change would lead to significant increases in risks almost on
Alternative the scale as for policies P1 and P2, with high flood event damages and risks to people (moderate
policies social vulnerability).
are attractive but may be difficult to justify up to approximately £40 million (1% AEP flood) future
damage reduction against likely costs of £10 million (128 less people, 110 less properties, and
£19.75 million damage reduction) as defence standard is presently relatively high in general and
any major response here is unlikely to be sustainable and affordable in the long term; it is
considered that higher flood risk priorities exist elsewhere.
Environment Agency
Main opportunities
Main constraints
wide
Discharges
Abstractions
groundwater influence on flood events; surface water flooding could be an issue for
Wellingborough. Further uncertainty surrounds the ground levels and property threshold levels
obtained from the DTM, and also the type and distribution of contaminated land within the policy
unit.
Risks,
Uncertainties & The estimates of flood damage within Wellingborough are considered sufficiently accurate to
Dependencies inform the selection of the proposed policy and response. However, the uncertainty over present
flood risk from the tributaries and urban drainage systems may need to be investigated more
locally and the uncertainty over the detailed application of P6 storage to benefit Wellingborough
needs to be investigated more at a strategic level.
Environment Agency
Rushden & Raunds
Environment Agency
Policy unit: Rushden and Raunds
flood risk within the No formal defences within this policy unit, though there may be
policy unit? some informal/ private defences.
Flood Warning
Rushden and Raunds are covered by a flood watch and flood
warning area.
• River Nene and tributaries from Billing to Thrapston - trigger
sites Washlands, Southbridge. Rate of uptake in this flood
150 people (60 properties) can apply for flood warnings in the
policy unit.
Maintenance:
annual expenditure:
• Maintenance of structures, £0
Standards of service No formal defences within this policy unit.

that apply to flood
defences within the
policy unit?

exposed to flooding? Flooding occurs in Rushden and Raunds from the Skew Bridge
Dyke and Raunds Hog Dyke respectively. These watercourses
are quite steep and relatively urbanised, with narrow valleys, so
would expect a moderate to fast response time, and moderate to
high velocities. Quick run off from urban areas likely to lead to
high velocities in parts. The depth of flooding is likely to be
between 0.5m and 1.5m, with the duration up to 24 hours.
342 people affected by flooding at the 1% flood event in Rushden

and Raunds (people affected equates to 8.0% of the total people
affected in the catchment).
Relatively frequent flooding of a handful of properties (approx. 55

at 10% AEP flood).

Social impact: Moderate – High. SFVI category 3 throughout most

of policy unit, though significant area of category 4 in Raunds.
Infrastructure
Environment Agency


• Disruption at 1% AEP flood to locally and regionally important
roads, including the A45 and a number of key roads in the
centre of Rushden and within Raunds.

• Rushden Hospital flooded to depth of approximately 1m at the
1% event.
• Raunds Ambulance station flooded to shallow depth in a 1%
AEP event.
Economic
the catchment). Large damages expected, with a significant
proportion of damages coming from commercial properties.
Damages are fairly evenly split between the towns of Raunds and
Rushden.
AAD: £0.46m

- Grade 1: 0%
- Grade 2: 0%
Environmental
NN199 (Deserted Settlement of West Cotton) Scheduled
Monument affected by flooding to a depth of up to 1.3m
Rushden is a proposed Conservation Area and Raunds is close to

other Conservation Areas.
No international or national ecological sites present within this

policy unit.
BAP habitats: N/A

species.

currently most • Moderate to fast response time and quick run off from urban
vulnerable to flood areas likely to lead to high velocities in parts.
damage and losses? • 342 properties affected at the 1% flood event.
• Moderate to high social vulnerability to flooding.
Economic
• Damages of £12.09m for 1% flood event, the majority of
Environment Agency
damages incurred by commercial properties.
Environmental
• One Scheduled Monument affected by flooding.
• Effect on Rushden proposed Conservation Area and
Conservation Areas close to Raunds.


future levels of flood Flooding in Rushden and Raunds from the Skew Bridge Dyke and
risk under the main Raunds Hog Dyke respectively. These watercourses are quite
scenarios? steep and relatively urbanised, with narrow valleys, so would
expect a moderate to fast response time, and moderate to high
velocities. Quick run off from urban areas likely to lead to high
velocities in parts.
In the future there is likely to be an increase in velocities, depth

and duration, with depth of flooding increasing by up to 1m in
parts. Depths of up to 2.5m may occur, though most flooding will
be to much lower depths.

AEP flood.
242 properties are at risk of flooding at the 1% event in the future:

203 residential, 39 commercial (properties affected equates to
5.7% of the total properties affected in the catchment). This figure
1% AEP flood.
Social impact: Moderate - typically SFVI category 3.
Infrastructure

• Raunds STW becomes affected at the 1% event in the future.

• Disruption at 1% AEP flood to locally and regionally important
roads, including the A45 and a number of key roads in the
centre of Rushden and within Raunds. Flooding of transport
infrastructure likely to see a small increase in duration, depth
and velocity of flooding in the future compared with present.

• Rushden Hospital - flooded to depth of c.1m at 1% AEP flood
• Raunds Ambulance Station flooded to shallow depth in a 1%
Environment Agency
AEP event.
Economic
Large damages expected at 1% AEP flood.
AAD: £0.52m

- Grade 1: 0%
- Grade 2: 1.2%
Environmental
NN199 (Deserted Settlement of West Cotton) Scheduled
Monument affected by flooding.
Likely to be an increased effect on Rushden proposed

Conservation Area.

policy unit.
BAP habitats:N/A

manage flood risk? • Flood awareness
• Studies
the 1% AEP flood.
uncertainties.
Environment Agency
management.
deposition.
POLICY UNIT 11: RUSHDEN AND RAUNDS

Description: Because the Raunds Hogs Dyke and Skew Bridge Dyke are beyond the
boundaries of the broad-scale model, the impact of flooding was determined using Flood
Zones 2 and 3and it was not possible to model the impact of a reduction in conveyance
caused by stopping maintenance. Therefore it was assumed that the change in damages,
reaches. Policy 1 was simulated on the modelled reaches by assuming an increase in
channel and floodplain roughness of 20%.
(+62%) (+49%) (+49%)
Conclusions

conveyance
10%.
(+60%) (+45%) (+40%)
Conclusions
Environment Agency
(+49%) (+36%) (+30%)
Conclusions
continued.

Description: Because the Raunds Hogs Dyke and Skew Bridge Dyke are beyond the
boundaries of the broad-scale model, the impact of flooding was determined using Flood
Zones 2 and 3 and it was not possible to model the impact of an increase in conveyance
caused by increasing maintenance. Therefore it was assumed that the change in damages,
reaches. This generic response was simulated on the modelled reaches by assuming a
reduction in channel and floodplain roughness of 20%.
(+43%) (+35%) (19%)
Conclusions

Generic Response: Policy 4 – Reduce conveyance by increasing maintenance,
developing upstream storage and creating localised protection
Environment Agency
Conclusions
increase EA expenditure by £2 million

Raunds as shown in the diagram below:

(-59%) (-58%) (-50%)
Conclusions
Cost Cost of constructing defences will be approximately £9 million,
Conclusion: Construction of defences in Raunds protects those areas most at risk of serious
flooding. As a result there is a significant reduction in damages, people at risk, and properties
at risk.
Environment Agency
Generic Response: Policy 6 – Develop storage to benefit areas downstream
Description: Not feasible in this Policy Unit. The policy unit is largely urbanised prohibiting
the development of large scale storage reservoirs. More importantly, the contribution of the
Raunds Hog Dyke and Skew Bridge Dyke to peak flow on the River Nene is minimal, and
therefore there is little potential for strategic storage.

4 Reduce conveyance by increasing maintenance, developing upstream storage
Environment Agency
Form 12.6 Policy Appraisal Policy unit: Rushden and Raunds

objective No active Reduce existing Maintain current risk Sustain current Reduce current Increase
flooding
Generic Responses: • Cease flood • Maintain flood • Maintain flood warning • Review flood • Review flood Opportunities for
warning and warning and and forecasting warning and warning and additional storage
forecasting forecasting • Continue maintenance forecasting forecasting developments
• Cease • Reduce of river channel, and • Combined • Construct have been
maintenance maintenance of structures generic localised identified in the
of river river channel response, defences in River Nene (from
channel and and structures involving: Raunds Weedon to
structures o Increased • Surface Water Kislingbury) policy
river Management unit and the River
maintenance Plan Nene Corridor
o Construction • Emergency policy unit. Very
of local Response plan little scope to
defences apply in this policy
o Creation of unit therefore no
upstream assessment of
storage gains and losses
• Surface was undertaken.
Water
Management
Plan
• Emergency
Response
plan
SO To minimise Number of 342 people 563 people 548 people 508 people affected by 342 people 140 people affected
C1 flood related people at risk affected by affected by affected by flooding in the 1% AEP affected at 1% by flooding in the
risks to the in the 1% flood flooding at 1% flooding in the flooding in the 1% flood. AEP flood. 1% AEP flood.
population Numbers of AEP flood 1% AEP flood. AEP flood.
people Flood warning coverage Expansion of Review flood
covered by 150 people Cease flood Flood warning maintained at the same existing warning coverage
flood warning (60 properties) warning and coverage level. upstream through a Flood
or emergency / can apply for forecasting, with maintained at the storage, Warning and
evacuation flood warnings increased risk to same level. Increased risk of surface localised Forecasting delivery
plans in the policy community. water flooding. protection plan.
unit. Increased risk of measures and
Environment Agency

flooding
surface water increased Develop a Flood
flooding. maintenance Awareness plan to
capable of encourage people
maintaining level to sign up for flood
of risk at current warning.
level.
Develop an Surface
Review flood Water Management
warning Plan to reduce the
coverage impact of surface
through a Flood water.
Warning and
Forecasting
delivery plan.
Develop a Flood
Awareness plan
to encourage
people to sign
up for flood
warning.
Develop an
Surface Water
Management
Plan to reduce
the impact of
surface water.
To minimise Numbers and Critical At least 2 At least 2 2 electricity substations 1 Electricity 2 electricity
risks to type of critical infrastructure electricity electricity flooded, with depth of up substation substations flooded,
SO critical asset. affected by substations substations to 2.7m. affected. with depth of up to
C2 infrastructure Critical flooding: flooded, with flooded, with 2.7m.
and infrastructure • 1 electricity depth of up to depth of up to Increase in depth and No increase in
community includes: sub-station 2.85m. 2.8m. duration of flooding at depth, duration Increase in depth
facilities • Electricity key transport or frequency of and duration of
Sub- Transport Increase in Increase in depth infrastructure. flooding at key flooding at key
Environment Agency

flooding
stations/pow infrastructure depth and and duration of transport transport
er supply affected by duration of flooding at key Increase in depth, infrastructure. infrastructure in
• Sewage flooding: flooding at key transport duration and frequency of Rushden.
Treatment • The A45 transport infrastructure. flooding at Rushden Rushden Defences protect
Works and a infrastructure. Hospital. Increase in Hospital flooded the centre of
(STW) number of Increase in depth, depth of flooding of up to to depths of Raunds.
• Waste key roads in Increase in duration and 0.6m. Maximum depth of approx. 1m.
Treatment the centre of depth, duration frequency of flooding up to 1.6m. Increase in depth,
Works Rushden and frequency of flooding at Raunds duration and
(STW) and flooding at Rushden Hospital. Raunds Ambulance Ambulance frequency of
• Waste Raunds. Rushden Increase in depth station flooded to depth station flooded flooding at Rushden
Managemen Hospital. of flooding of up to of up to 0.5m. to shallow Hospital. Increase
t Sites Community Increase in 0.7m. Maximum depth. in depth of flooding
• IPPC Sites facilities depth of flooding depth of flooding of up to 0.6m.
• Transport: affected by of up to 0.75m. up to 1.7m. Emergency Maximum depth of
Railway, flooding: Maximum depth Response plan flooding up to 1.6m.
Roads, • Rushden of flooding up to Increase in depth may help to
Canals Hospital 1.75m. of flooding at manage risk to Raunds Ambulance
(particularly flooded to Raunds infrastructure. station is defended.
consider depth of Increase in Ambulance
ability to use approx. 1m. depth of flooding station. Depth of Emergency
other • Raunds at Raunds flooding not Response plan may
routes) Ambulance Ambulance expected to help to manage risk
Community station station. Depth of exceed 0.5m. to infrastructure.
facilities flooded to flooding not
include: shallow expected to
• Hospitals depth. exceed 0.5m.
• Emergency
Response
Centres
• Care
Homes
• Schools
SO To minimise Number of 137 residential 225 residential 219 residential 203 residential properties 137 residential 56 residential
C3 community properties properties and properties and properties and 40 and 39 commercial properties and properties and 18
Environment Agency

flooding
disruption affected in the 41 commercial 41 commercial commercial properties affected at the 41 commercial commercial
from flooding 1% flood properties properties properties 1% AEP flood. properties properties affected
Category of affected by affected at the affected at the 1% affected at the at the 1% AEP
social flooding at 1% 1% AEP flood. AEP flood. Increase in risk of 1% AEP flood. flood.
vulnerability AEP flood. flooding occurs in areas
areas affected Increase in risk Increase in risk of with moderate to high Areas at risk of Benefit of increased
in the 1% flood Social impact: of flooding flooding occurs in social vulnerability to flooding have a flood risk
Extent of Moderate – occurs in areas areas with flooding, typically typically management felt in
flooding High. SFVI with moderate to moderate to high categories 3 and 4. moderate social areas with
Duration of category 3 high social social vulnerability vulnerability to moderate to high
flooding throughout vulnerability to to flooding, Minor increase in depth, flooding social vulnerability
most of policy flooding, typically duration and velocity of (category 3) in to flooding, typically
unit, though typically categories 3 and flooding will occur. Rushden and categories 3 and 4.
significant categories 3 and 4. moderate to
area of 4. Depths are generally less high (categories Minor increase in
category 4 in Increase in depth, than 1m at present, but 3 and 4) in depth, duration and
Raunds. Increase in duration and would increase under this Raunds. velocity of flooding
depth, duration velocity of flooding policy by up to 1m in will occur outside of
and velocity of will occur. parts. Significant number No significant areas defended.
flooding will of properties (>30) may increase in
occur. Depths are become flooded to depth, duration Defences will
generally less depths of greater than and velocity of protect the few
Depths are than 1m at 1m It is difficult to flooding. areas which are at
generally less present, but would quantify the increases in risk from deep
than 1m at increase under velocity likely, but the Depth of flooding (>1m) and
present, but this policy by up to characteristics of the flooding less high velocities.
would increase 1m in parts. catchment suggest that than 1m for
under this policy Significant moderate to high majority of
by up to 1m in number of velocities may occur. residential
parts. Significant properties (>30) areas. Policy
number of may become unit is steep and
properties (>30) flooded to depths urbanised so
may become of greater than 1m may expect
flooded to It is difficult to moderate to
depths of quantify the high velocities.
greater than 1m increases in Despite this, it is
It is difficult to velocity likely, but not considered
Environment Agency

flooding
quantify the the characteristics that there is a
increases in of the catchment significant risk to
velocity likely, suggest that life.
but the moderate to high
characteristics velocities may
of the catchment occur.
suggest that
moderate to
high velocities
may occur.
To minimise Residential £3.5m £8.00m £7.60m residential £7.17m residential £3.50m £2.51m residential
EC economic damages 1% residential residential damages and damages and £8.59m residential damages and
ON impacts of flood property damages and £9.38m commercial damages at damages and £3.57m commercial
1 flooding Commercial damages at £9.97m commercial the 1% AEP flood. £6.47m damages at the 1%
damages 1% 1% AEP flood commercial damages at the commercial AEP flood.
flood damages at the 1% AEP flood. No Grade 1 agricultural damages at the
Agricultural £8.59m 1% AEP flood. land affected. 1% AEP flood. No Grade 1
damages in commercial No Grade 1 agricultural land
the 1% flood property No Grade 1 agricultural land 1.2% of Grade 2 No Grade 1 or affected.
Percentage damages at agricultural land affected. agricultural land affected. Grade 2
area of grade 1% event affected. agricultural land 1.2% of Grade 2
1 and 2 probability At least 1.2% of flooded. agricultural land
agricultural At least 1.2% of Grade 2 affected.
land flooded No Grade 1 or Grade 2 agricultural land
during the 1% Grade 2 agricultural land affected.
flood agricultural affected.
land flooded.
Ensure Expenditure Current annual EA ceases Annual EA No increase in cost of Expanding Cost of constructing
future on all FRM EA spending money expenditure on maintenance in real influencing and defences will be
EC investment activities. expenditure on on maintenance. maintenance terms – remains at £3k in informing will approximately £9m
ON in the maintenance estimated at £1k current prices. lead to a minor
2 catchment is estimated at EA ceases in current prices. increase in EA Increase in EA
proportional £3k influencing and No increase in EA expenditure. expenditure on
to the risks informing EA reduces expenditure on flood flood warning/flood
reducing expenditure on warning in real terms. Cost of awareness.
expenditure influencing and implementing
significantly. informing. combined works
Environment Agency

flooding
of conveyance,
storage and
protection likely
to increase EA
expenditure by
£2m.
Protect and Numbers of: NN199 Less protection for historic assets. Increase in depth of No change in No change in area
enhance • Scheduled (Deserted flooding at Scheduled area of of Scheduled
EN significant Monuments Settlement of Increase in depth of flooding at Monument of up to 0.2m. Scheduled Monument or
V1 historic • Historic West Cotton) Scheduled Monument of up to 0.4m. Entire site (2ha) flooded. Monument or proposed CA
environment Parks and Scheduled Entire site (2ha) flooded. This may This may cause proposed CA flooded at the
assets and Gardens Monument cause significant adverse impacts. In significant adverse flooded at the current level. Depth
their settings • Historic affected – addition, there may be impact on impacts. In addition, current level. of flooding will
Battlefields flooded to Rushden proposed Conservation there may be impact on Depth of remain the same.
• Conservatio depth of up to Area. Rushden proposed flooding will
n Areas 1.3m. Conservation Area. remain the
adversely same.
affected by Rushden has
flooding or a proposed
flood risk Conservation
management Area.
activities
EN Protect and Area of SSSIs, No designated No designated No designated No designated sites No designated No designated sites
V2 contribute to SPAs, SACs sites present sites present so sites present so present so no further sites present so present so no
the and Ramsar no further no further appraisal undertaken. no further further appraisal
improvement sites flooded in appraisal appraisal appraisal undertaken.
of a 1% flood undertaken. undertaken. undertaken.
designated Reported
nature condition
conservation status of
sites (SSSI, SSSIs, SPAs,
SPA, SAC SACs and
and Ramsar) Ramsar sites
at risk from a
1% flood
Environment Agency

flooding
EN Enhance the The No BAP No BAP habitats affected No BAP habitats affected No BAP habitats No BAP habitats
V3 biodiversity distribution habitats within affected affected
of the and extent of the policy unit
catchment the future UK
by improving BAP priority
the quality of habitats (for
the river example, fens,
environment wet woodland,
and reed bed,
contributing floodplain
to UK grazing marsh)
Biodiversity
Action Plan
targets
EN • Support WFD Article 5 WFD: Entire length of Increases in the Increases in the Taking action to Taking action to
V4 the pressures and Category: At main river in this frequency and frequency and extent of sustain current reduce current level
achievem impacts Risk policy unit is extent of flooding flooding are likely to level of flood risk of flood risk at point
ent of assessments classified as at are likely to increase the levels of at point and and diffuse sources
good results Applicable risk under the increase the pollutants from sources in diffuse sources of pollution could
status/pot WFD factors: Point WFD from a levels of pollutants Kettering and other urban of pollution prevent potential
ential of ecological and source variety of from sources in areas and adjacent could prevent adverse effects on
surface chemical pollution, pressures. Kettering and agricultural land that are potential water quality. This
and status/potentia diffuse These are other urban areas washed into the river with adverse effects could provide
groundwat l of water pollution, principally and adjacent potential adverse effects on water quality. environmental
er bodies bodies. physical or diffuse and point agricultural land on water quality. This This could improvements
under the morphological source pollution that are washed would not help to achieve provide helping to achieve
WFD Area of alterations, and into the river with WFD environmental environmental WFD environmental
contaminated alien species physical/morpho potential adverse objectives improvements objectives
or damaged logical effects on water helping to
land restored alteration. quality. This would achieve WFD
or protected as Uncertainty not help to environmental
a result of regarding risks achieve WFD objectives
flood risk due to alien environmental
management species and objectives.
activities limited issues
relating to water
Environment Agency

flooding
abstraction and
flow regulation
Environment Agency
Form 12.7 Summary of overall gains and losses for each policy option Policy unit: Rushden and Raunds

one property and the environment
No social gains identified. High: Flood warning and forecasting ceased. increases to significant levels with a
High: Increase in risk to critical infrastructure, notably particular increase to people at risk.
Economic Rushden Hospital and Raunds Ambulance station.
Increase in depth of flooding at hospital of up to 0.75m.
High: No EA expenditure on maintenance – High: Increase in depth, duration and velocity of
reduction of £3k p.a. flooding. Depths are generally less than 1m at present,
Medium: Increase in the area of Grade 2 but would increase under this policy by up to 1m in
agricultural land affected – greater than 1.2% of parts. Significant number of properties (>30) become
the Grade 2 land in this policy unit is at risk. Vast flooded to depths of greater than 1m It is difficult to
majority of agricultural land flooded is of lower quantify the increases in velocity, but the characteristics
quality. of the catchment suggest that moderate to high
velocities may occur.
Environmental Medium: Increase in risk to areas with typically
moderate to high social vulnerability to flooding
No environmental gains identified. (category 3 and 4).
Medium: Significant increase in the number of people
Medium: Significant increase in the number of
residential properties affected – 88 more at risk.
Medium: Limited change in the number of commercial
properties at risk. Number of commercial properties at
risk remains high, however.
increase in depth, duration and frequency of flooding at
A45 and locally important roads in the centre of
Rushden and Raunds.
Medium: Increase in risk to critical infrastructure – 2
electricity substations at risk of flooding.
Environment Agency

Economic

Constitutes significant residential damages.
Constitutes moderately high commercial damages.
Environmental

land use changes.
for historic assets.
Low – High: Rushden proposed CA may be affected by
flooding
High: Significant increase in depth of flooding to the
Scheduled Monument may cause substantial
losses/damage. Entire site is flooded.
Environment Agency

two property and the environment
No social gains identified. High: Increase in risk to critical infrastructure, notably increases to significant levels with a
Rushden Hospital and Raunds Ambulance station. particular increase to people at risk.
Economic Increase in depth of flooding at hospital of up to 0.70m.
High: Increase in depth, duration and velocity of
High: No EA expenditure on maintenance – flooding. Depths are generally less than 1m at present,
reduction of £1k p.a. but would increase under this policy by up to 1m in
Medium: Increase in the area of Grade 2 parts. Significant number of properties (>30) become
agricultural land affected – greater than 1.2% of flooded to depths of greater than 1m It is difficult to
the Grade 2 land in this policy unit is at risk. Vast quantify the increases in velocity likely, but the
majority of agricultural land flooded is of lower characteristics of the catchment suggest that moderate
quality. to high velocities may occur.
Medium: Increase in risk to areas with typically
(category 3 and 4).
Medium: Significant increase in the number of people
Medium: Increase in frequency, depth and duration of
flooding.
Rushden and Raunds.
Environment Agency

No environmental gains identified. High: Increase in residential damages of £4.1M.

Environmental

land use changes.
flooding
High: Significant increase in depth of flooding to the
Scheduled Monument may cause substantial
losses/damage. Entire site is flooded.
Environment Agency

three current flood risk management
No gains identified. High: Increase in risk to Rushden Hospital and Raunds practices will lead to a large
Ambulance station. Increase in depth of flooding at increase in risk to people, property,
Economic hospital of up to 0.6m. the economy and the environment.
High: Increase in depth, duration and velocity of
High: EA expenditure on maintenance kept at the flooding. Depths are generally less than 1m at present,
same low level in the future - £3k p.a. but would increase under this policy by up to 1m in
Medium: Increase in the area of Grade 2 parts. Significant number of properties (>30) become
agricultural land affected – 1.2% of the Grade 2 flooded to depths of greater than 1m It is difficult to
land in this policy unit is at risk. Vast majority of quantify the increases in velocity likely, but the
agricultural land flooded is of lower quality. characteristics of the catchment suggest that moderate
to high velocities may occur.
Medium: Increase in the number of people affected –
Environmental 166 more people at risk.
No environmental gains identified. residential properties affected – 66 more at risk.
Medium: Increase in risk to areas with typically
Rushden and Raunds.
Environment Agency

Economic

Environmental

flooding
Medium: Moderate increase in depth of flooding to the
Scheduled Monument may cause substantial damage.
Policy Social Social PREFERRED POLICY: Maintaining

four the current level of risk is an
Medium: Flood Warning and Forecasting Delivery Medium: Number of commercial properties affected economically, socially and
plan and Flood Awareness plan increase coverage maintained at about the same level – 41 properties at environmentally sustainable option.
and effectiveness of flood warning. risk. This level is moderately high when considered Risk to people and property will not
Medium: Surface Water Management Plan against the rest of the catchment. increase significantly beyond the
reduces risk of surface water flooding. Medium: Risk of flooding at Rushden Hospital and present low level.
Low: Number of people affected maintained at the Raunds ambulance station maintained at the same
same level – 342 people at risk. The number of level.
people at risk is moderate. Low: Areas at risk of flooding have a moderate to high
Low: Number of residential properties affected social vulnerability to flooding.
maintained at the same level – 137 properties at Low: Number of electricity substations at risk
risk. The number of people at risk is moderate. maintained at the same level – 1 electricity substation
Low: No increase in depth, duration or velocity of affected.
flooding. Depth of flooding less than 1m for Low: Risk to transport infrastructure maintained at the
majority of residential areas. Policy unit is steep same level.
and urbanised so may expect moderate to high
velocities. Despite this, it is not considered that Economic
there is a significant risk to life.
Low: Increase in level of expenditure to maintain risk at
Environment Agency

Economic the same level – cost of capital works estimated at £2M.
Medium: No Grade 1 and 0.2% of Grade 2 land in Environmental

this policy unit at risk.
Low: Commercial damages maintained at the Medium: Scheduled Monument is still affected which
same level - £3.5M of damages. Damages are may cause damage and degradation.
moderate.
Low: Residential damages maintained at the same
level - £6.47M of damages.
Environmental

Policy Social Social Not preferred. The level of risk at

five present is not sufficient to warrant
Medium: Reduction in the number of people High: Increase in risk to Rushden Hospital. Increase in the increased expenditure on flood
affected – 202 less people at risk. depth of flooding at hospital of up to 0.6m. risk management.
Medium: Reduction in the number of residential Medium: Increase in risk to transport infrastructure –
properties affected – 81 less at risk. increase in depth, duration and frequency of flooding at
Medium: Areas benefiting from defences have a A45 and locally important roads in the centre of
moderate to high social vulnerability. Rushden and Raunds.
Medium: Defences will protect the few areas which Medium: Increase in risk to critical infrastructure – 2
are at risk from deep flooding (>1m) and high electricity substations at risk of flooding.
velocities.
Medium: Raunds Ambulance station becomes Economic
protected by defences.
Medium: Flood Warning and Forecasting Delivery High: Significant increase in the level of expenditure on
plan and Flood Awareness plan increase coverage flood defence – cost of capital works to reduce impact
and effectiveness of flood warning. of flooding estimated at £9M.
reduces risk of surface water flooding. Environmental
Environment Agency

Economic Medium: Scheduled Monument flooded to the same
extent as current 1% event probability (may still cause
Medium: Significant reduction in commercial damage and degradation).
damages - £2.9M less damages.
Medium: Increase in the area of Grade 2
agricultural land affected – 1.2% of the Grade 2
land in this policy unit is at risk. Vast majority of
agricultural land flooded is of lower quality.
Low: Reduction in residential damages - £0.99M
less damages. This constitutes moderately low
damages.
Environmental
Low: Low: May provide environmental

improvements helping to achieve WFD
Environment Agency
Form 12.8 Summary of the Preferred Policy Policy unit: Rushdens and Raunds
The policy unit for Rushden and Raunds is by nature largely urban, though it includes some more
Policy Unit open areas between the two towns. The policy unit extends along the south-eastern edge of the
11 – Rushden River Nene floodplain downstream from Wellingborough, from the southern edge of Rushden
and Raunds down to the urban fringes of Raunds to the north. It includes the settlements of Higham Ferrers
and Stanwick. The area covers a number of small watercourses draining to the River Nene, some
of which pass through the urban areas.
Rushden and Raunds are located roughly midway along the River Nene catchment, sitting on one
side of the River Nene floodplain. This mostly urban policy unit therefore has a relatively high
population density, containing little open land apart from some active floodplain through the towns
and some open rural land each side of Stanwick.
The main source of flooding is fluvial, arising from the high flows in the various River Nene
tributary watercourses as they pass through the towns and villages. Flooding was recorded in
Rushden and Raunds during 1947 (Mar), 1998 (Apr) and in 2002 (Oct) due to a blocked drain in
Rushden. Groundwater and surface water flooding are not thought to pose a significant risk to
people and properties here, though it is presently difficult to quantify this risk accurately.
There are generally only some informal/ private flood defences within Rushden and Raunds
though the town, with variable defence standard. The main flood risk is that from the Raunds Hogs
Problem / Risk Dyke and Skew Bridge Dyke watercourses through Rushden and Raunds.
causing £12.09 million property damages with most of that from approximately 40 commercial
properties, also causing significant disruption to major infrastructure, potentially including a
hospital. The present flood risk in the policy unit contributes approximately 8-9% of the overall
CFMP total.
of less than 50%), causing £15.76 million damages (a rise of only 30%) split fairly equally between
residential and commercial properties. The future flood risk in this policy unit represents 5-6% of
that over the total CFMP area.
The social and economic impacts within Rushden and Raunds are sustained close to the present
Chosen Policy reasonable level, by offsetting future impacts from climate and development change by applying a
range of local flood protection measures, potentially including improved flood storage and
increased levels of maintenance in locations where benefits result. Significant environmental gains
could occur as a result of flood storage creation or stream restoration through the urban corridors.
after Form 12.5). The results show significant benefits for Rushden and Raunds, sufficient to
Generic
return flood risk here to current levels. Some further reduction in damages may be gained from
Responses
other measures such as improved flood warning, development control and emergency response
planning (for example for infrastructure), plus active land use planning to ensure that property at
flood risk is appropriate to such locations and takes on appropriate flood resilience measures.
Adopting policy P4 will focus flood risk management efforts here on sustaining the current
Justification significant level of flood risk into the future, avoiding any rise. It will give total 1% AEP future flood
risk reductions at Rushden and Raunds of 166 people, 66 properties and £5.79 million. This will
be achieved through the generic responses outlined above, implementing localised flood
protection measures but also considering how to change the urban fabric to be less impacted by
flood events and to recover more quickly.
Within the policy unit for Rushden and Raunds, policy P4 will allow present actions to control flood
Environment Agency
risk to be continued and enhanced (for example maintaining the defences, and flood warning).
The resulting future flood risk then remains at the current reasonable level. Selective local
protection measures may prove feasible, particularly for the urban drainage issues, though these
Justification all require further assessment. Opening up of the flood channel routes through the towns, to
(cont.) create green corridors with associated river restoration aspects, should be considered. This
should take advantage of any urban regeneration or other land reallocation opportunities. Other
reductions in future flood risk should ideally be achieved through actively influencing land use
Adopting policy P4 for Rushden and Raunds supports economic, social and environmental
sustainability by looking to make best use of the channels and floodplains through the towns, to
manage flood risk through the urban areas. It aims to offset future impacts, from climate and
development change, in areas with the highest flood risk. The objectives which are met by this

cost, partially set against future development, delivers £5.79 million reduction in damages
in the Rushden and Raunds policy unit).
change).
change).
Other policies were rejected for Rushden and Raunds due to (1% AEP future flood impact,
properties, and £5.88 million property damages) with loss of current defences leading to high risk
Policy P2 - reduce existing flood risk management actions; unsatisfactorily large economic and
social losses (increases of 206 people, 82 properties, and £4.89 million property damages).
allowing flood risk to rise with future change would lead to significant increases in risks almost on
Alternative the scale as for policies P1 and P2, with high flood event damages and risks to people (moderate
policies to high social vulnerability).
are attractive but may be difficult to justify £9.68 million (1% AEP flood) future damage reduction
against likely costs of £9 million (202 less people, 104 less properties, and £6.00 million damage
reduction) as defence standard is presently relatively high in general and any major response here
is unlikely to be sustainable and affordable in the long term; it is considered that higher flood risk
Environment Agency
Main opportunities
Main constraints
come into conflict with the need to restrict development in and open up floodplains.
wide
Discharges
Abstractions
JFLOW model output, of reduced accuracy compared to elsewhere, was used on these
watercourses. Significant uncertainty surrounds climate change effects, as well as surface water
and groundwater influence on flood events though these are not thought to be significant. Further
Risks,
Uncertainties & The estimates of flood damage within Rushden and Raunds are considered sufficiently accurate
Dependencies to inform the selection of the proposed policy and response. However, the uncertainty over
present flood risk from the urban watercourses and drainage systems will need to be investigated
more locally.
Environment Agency
Thrapston
Environment Agency
Policy unit : Thrapston
flood risk within the • Thrapston flood walls and banks constructed in 2005, EA
policy unit? responsibility.
Flood Warning
Thrapston is covered by flood watch and flood warning areas.
• River Nene between Thrapston and Castor including low lying
mill properties - trigger sites Islip, Lilford. Rate of uptake in
sluice to the east of Peterborough - trigger sites Islip, Lilford.
policy area.
Maintenance:

annual expenditure:
budget for 2006/07 was £3.6k
Standards of service Thrapston flood walls and banks have a standard of protection
that apply to flood equal to the 0.5% flood event.
defences within the
policy unit?

Significant flooding as a result of overtopping only occurs for
events with a greater magnitude than the 0.5% event. If defences
are breached at lower return periods the impact of flooding is
risk to life.
No people or properties affected by flooding at 1% AEP flood,

because of defences.
Social impact: Areas that benefit from defences have a moderate

SFVI, typically category 3
Infrastructure
Critical infrastructure affected by flooding: flood defences prevent

significant disruption to critical infrastructure.
Transport Infrastructure affected by flooding: flood defences

prevent significant disruption to key transport infrastructure.
Environment Agency
Economic
No properties affected; therefore no damages incurred.

- Grade 1: 0%
- Grade 2: 0%
Environmental
Historic Environment: No assets at risk at the 1% event.

policy unit.
Extent and distribution of BAP habitats: None

Applicable factors: Point source pollution, diffuse pollution,
physical or morphological alterations, alien species.

currently most • Recently constructed defences prevent frequent flooding from
vulnerable to flood occurring. Significant flooding only occurs at 0.1% AEP flood
damage and losses? when defences are overtopped.
• Breaching of defences at lower return periods, though
unlikely, could lead to high velocities, and depths.
Economic
• No economic damages incurred.
Environmental
• No key environmental receptors noted.
Urban Growth – urban growth in the River Nene catchment may

growth predictions for the River Nene catchment.
future levels of flood Flood defences prevent frequent flooding from occurring.
risk under the main Significant flooding only occurs for events less frequent than the
scenarios? 1% event when defences are overtopped. If defences are
breached at lower return periods the impact of flooding is
risk to life. In the future the risk of breaching at the 1% flood event
will increase, as the standard of protection of the flood defences
will decrease.
No properties or people will be flooded at the 1% event, because

of defences.
Environment Agency
Social impact: Areas that benefit from defences have a moderate

SFVI, typically category 3
Infrastructure
Critical infrastructure affected by flooding: none
Transport Infrastructure affected at the future 1% flood event:

flood defences prevent significant disruption to key transport
infrastructure.
Economic
No properties affected; therefore no damages incurred and no
AAD figures.

- Grade 1: 0%
- Grade 2: 0%
Environmental
Historic Environment: No assets at risk at the 1% event.

policy unit.
What potential • Planning policy (future land use development)

responses (or groups • Withdraw defences
being considered to • Maintain/increase localised protection measures
manage flood risk? • Flood warning and evacuation
• Flood awareness
• Studies
the 1% AEP flood.
uncertainties.
Environment Agency
management.
deposition.
• The main risk in this policy unit at the 1% event is from
breaching of flood defences. The location, timing and
probability of breaching cannot easily be quantified, and thus
a qualitative analysis was undertaken.
Environment Agency
POLICY UNIT 12: THRAPSTON
Description: The effect of removing localised protection measures was not simulated using
the broadscale model. Rather the defended areas polygon tool in MDSF was not used to
blank out areas that were defended, simulating the removal of defences. All defences in
Thrapston were removed.
(+∞%) (+∞%) (+∞%)
Conclusions

conveyance
coefficient by 10%. It was found that the peak water level for this generic response was
greater than the crest level of the flood defences in Thrapston, and thus it was assumed that
the flood defences were completely overwhelmed.
(+∞%) (+∞%) (+∞%)
Conclusions
Conclusion: Reducing maintenance leads to a very significant increase in risk to people and
property.

level and that no alternative intervention occurs.
Conclusions
Conclusion: Under this policy there is no increase in the impact on people, property and
damages at the 1% annual AEP flood, as defences still protect all properties in this policy unit.
The standard of protection of the defences will decrease, however, meaning that there is an
Environment Agency
increased risk of breaching at the 1% event, and that the defences will be overtopped in the
0.5% event.

Generic Response: Policy 4 – Maintain defence standard of protection
Description: Developing storage upstream of this policy unit in the River Nene (Weedon –
Kislingbury) and River Nene Corridor policy units is capable of reducing the peak flows
through Thrapston to the present level. Therefore the standard of protection of the defences
in Thrapston are maintained at the same level, and there is no increase in flood risk.
Conclusions
Cost: No capital cost associated with this policy unit but costs incurred in upstream policy
units where storage developed. Level of maintenance remains at the present level.
Conclusion Under this policy there is no change in the risk to people, property and damages,
because the defence standard of protection is maintained at the same level.

Generic Response: Policy 5 – Increase localised protection measures
broadscale model. An increase in protection was achieved by increasing the crest level of the
defences through Thrapston, increasing the standard of protection of the defences, and
reducing the risk of breaching at the 1% event.

Conclusions
Cost: Capital costs to improve the standard of defence in this policy unit estimated at £1.5
million.
Conclusion: Under this policy there is no change in the number of people and properties
affected, though there is a reduction in the risk of breaching at the 1% flood event.

Generic Response: Policy 6 – Create/develop storage to benefit downstream areas.
Description: Not feasible in this Policy Unit. Thrapston is urbanised and protected to high
standard of protection by recently constructed defences. To develop natural floodplain
storage would require the removal of these defences leading to very high damages, and it is
unlikely that sufficient volumes of water would be able to be stored either.
Environment Agency

4 Maintain defence standard of protection
Environment Agency
Form 12.6 Policy Appraisal Policy unit: Thrapston

objective No active Reduce existing Maintain Sustain current Reduce Increase
intervention actions current risk risk current risk frequency of
flooding
Generic responses: • Cease flood • Maintain flood • Maintain • Review flood • Review Opportunities for
warning and warning and flood warning and flood additional
forecasting forecasting warning and forecasting warning and storage
• Cease • Reduce forecasting • Develop forecasting developments
maintenance of maintenance • Continue upstream • Increase have been
river channel of channel, maintenanc storage by standard of identified in the
and structures structures and e of river creating protection of River Nene
• Remove flood flood defences channel, channel defences (from Weedon to
defences in structures obstructions already in Kislingbury)
place and flood to increase place policy unit and
defences inundation of • Emergency the River Nene
• Emergency the natural Response Corridor policy
Response floodplain. plans unit. Very little
plans • Increase scope to apply
maintenance in this policy unit
of channel, therefore no
structures and assessment of
flood gains and losses
defences was undertaken.
• Emergency
Response
plans
SOC To minimise flood Number of No people 288 people 288 people No people No people No people
1 related risks to the people at risk in affected by affected by affected by affected by affected by affected by
population the 1% flood flooding due to flooding in the 1% flooding in the flooding in the flooding in the flooding in the
Numbers of flood defences. AEP flood. 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood.
people covered
by flood warning Cease flood Flood warning Reduction in Expansion of Increased
or emergency / 140 people (56 warning and coverage the standard of existing protection to
evacuation properties) can forecasting, with maintained at the protection will upstream Thrapston
plans apply for increased risk to same level. occur storage, as well beyond the
flooding community. increasing the as development already high
warnings within likelihood of of new storage standard of
the policy area. breaching and areas capable of protection
Environment Agency

flooding
overtopping. maintaining offered
present level. (current
Review flood defences have
warning Maintaining the standard of
through a standard of protection of
Flood Warning protection at the 0.5% event).
and current level will
Forecasting maintain the risk Increasing the
delivery plan. of breaching and standard of
overtopping at protection will
Emergency the current low reduce the risk
Response plan level. of breaching
developed to and
mitigate Review flood overtopping at
against risk warning through the 1% event.
posed by a Flood Warning
defence and Forecasting Review flood
breaching. delivery plan. warning
through a
Develop a Flood Flood Warning
Awareness plan and
to encourage Forecasting
people to sign delivery plan.
up for flood
warning. Develop a
Flood
Emergency Awareness
Response plan plan to
developed to encourage
mitigate against people to sign
risk posed by up for flood
defence warning.
breaching.
Emergency
Response plan
developed to
mitigate
Environment Agency

flooding
against risk
posed by
defence
breaching.
To minimise risks Numbers and No critical 1 Electricity 1 Electricity No critical No critical No critical
to critical type of critical assets at risk. substation substation assets at risk. assets at risk. assets at risk.
SOC infrastructure and asset. becomes flooded becomes
2 community Critical Flood defences to a depth of 0.2m flooded, up to a Emergency
facilities infrastructure prevent depth of 0.15m. Response plan
includes: significant Removing developed to
• Electricity disruption to key defences puts the Removing mitigate flood
Sub- infrastructure. A14 at risk of defences puts risk from
stations/powe flooding at the 1% the A14 at risk of
r supply AEP flood. flooding at the
• Sewage 1% AEP flood.
Treatment
Works (STW)
• Waste
Treatment
Works (STW)
• Waste
Management
Sites
• IPPC Sites
• Transport:
Railway,
Roads,
Canals
(particularly
consider
ability to use
other routes)
Community
facilities include:
• Hospitals
Environment Agency

flooding
• Emergency
Response
Centres
• Care Homes
• Schools
SOC To minimise Number of No properties 115 residential 115 residential No properties No properties No properties
3 community properties affected at the properties and 40 properties and affected at the affected at the affected at the
disruption from affected in the 1% flood event. commercial 40 commercial 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood.
flooding 1% flood properties properties
Category of Areas benefiting affected at the 1% affected at the Areas Areas defended Areas
social from defence AEP flood. 1% AEP flood. defended have have a typically defended have
vulnerability have a a typically moderate social a typically
areas affected in moderate SFVI, Areas at risk of Areas at risk of moderate vulnerability to moderate
the 1% flood typically flooding have a flooding have a social flooding social
Extent of category 3. typically moderate typically vulnerability to (category 3) vulnerability to
flooding social vulnerability moderate social flooding flooding
Duration of to flooding vulnerability to (category 3) (category 3)
flooding (category 3) flooding
(category 3)
Significant
increase in the Significant
depth, duration increase in the
and frequency of depth, duration
flooding. and frequency of
flooding.
Duration of
flooding likely to Duration of
be between 48 flooding likely to
and 96 hours. be between 48
Depth of flooding and 96 hours.
up to 1.5m, but Depth of flooding
only a handful of up to 1.5m, but
properties flooded only a handful of
to depths of properties
greater than 1m. flooded to depths
Potential for of greater than
Environment Agency

flooding
moderate 1m. Potential for
velocities in areas moderate
flooded to large velocities in
depths. areas flooded to
large depths.
To minimise Residential No economic £1.39m residential £1.39m No economic No economic No economic

ECO economic impacts damages 1% damages damages and residential damages at damages at the damages at
N1 of flooding flood incurred at the £5.44m damages and the 1% flood 1% flood event. the 1% flood
Commercial 1% event. commercial £5.44m event. event.
damages 1% damages at the commercial No Grade 1 or
flood No Grade 1 or 1% AEP flood. damages at the No Grade 1 or Grade 2 No Grade 1 or
Agricultural Grade 2 1% AEP flood. Grade 2 agricultural land Grade 2
damages in the agricultural land No Grade 1 or agricultural at risk of agricultural
1% flood flooded. Grade 2 No Grade 1 or land at risk of flooding at the land at risk of
Percentage area agricultural land at Grade 2 flooding at the 1% event. flooding at the
of grade 1 and 2 risk of flooding at agricultural land 1% event. 1% event.
agricultural land the 1% event. at risk of flooding
flooded during at the 1% event.
the 1% flood
Ensure future Expenditure on Current EA EA ceases Annual EA No increase in No cost Capital costs
investment in the all FRM annual spending money expenditure on cost of associated with to improve the
ECO catchment is activities. expenditure on on maintenance. maintenance maintenance this policy unit standard of
N2 proportional to the maintenance estimated at £2k in real terms – but costs defence in this
risks estimated at EA ceases in current prices. remains at £4k incurred in policy unit
£4k. influencing and in current upstream policy estimated at
informing reducing EA reduces prices. units where £1.5M.
expenditure expenditure on storage
significantly. influencing and No increase in developed. Increase in EA
informing. EA expenditure on
expenditure on Expanding flood
flood warning influencing and warning/flood
in real terms. informing will awareness.
lead to a minor
increase in EA
expenditure.
Protect and Numbers of: Thrapston Less protection for Less protection No historic No historic No historic
Environment Agency

flooding
enhance • Scheduled Conservation historic assets. for historic assets assets affected assets
ENV significant historic Monuments Area (Currently assets. affected so no so no further affected so no
1 environment • Historic Parks unaffected by Thrapston CA further appraisal further
assets and their and Gardens flooding). affected by Thrapston CA appraisal undertaken. appraisal
settings • Historic flooding. Less affected by undertaken. undertaken.
Battlefields than 10% of 5ha flooding. Less
• Conservation site flooded at 1%. than 10% of 5ha
Areas Flooded to max site flooded at
adversely depth of 0.5m. 1%. Flooded to
affected by max depth of
flooding or flood 0.5m.
risk
management
activities
ENV Protect and Area of SSSIs, No designated No designated No designated No designated No designated No designated
2 contribute to the SPAs, SACs sites present sites present so sites present so sites present sites present so sites present
improvement of and Ramsar no further no further so no further no further so no further
designated nature sites flooded in appraisal appraisal appraisal appraisal appraisal
conservation sites a 1% flood undertaken. undertaken. undertaken. undertaken. undertaken.
(SSSI, SPA, SAC Reported
and Ramsar) condition status
of SSSIs, SPAs,
SACs and
Ramsar sites at
risk from a 1%
flood
ENV Enhance the The distribution No UKBAP No UKBAP habitats effected. No UKBAP No UKBAP No UKBAP
3 biodiversity of the and extent of the habitats present habitats habitats habitats
catchment by future UK BAP within the policy effected. effected. effected.
improving the priority habitats unit.
quality of the river (for example,
environment and fens, wet
contributing to UK woodland, reed
Biodiversity Action bed, floodplain
Plan targets grazing marsh)
Environment Agency

flooding
ENV • Support the WFD Article 5 WFD Increases in the Increases in the Increases in Taking action to Taking action
4 achievement of pressures and frequency and frequency and the frequency sustain current to reduce
good impacts Category: At extent of flooding extent of and extent of level of flood risk current level of
status/potential assessments Risk are likely to flooding are flooding are at point and flood risk at
of surface and results increase the levels likely to increase likely to diffuse sources point and
groundwater WFD ecological Applicable of pollutants from the levels of increase the of pollution diffuse
bodies under and chemical factors: Point sources in pollutants from levels of could prevent sources of
the WFD status/potential source pollution, adjacent sources in pollutants from potential pollution could
of water bodies. diffuse pollution, agricultural land adjacent sources in adverse effects prevent
physical or that are washed agricultural land adjacent on water quality. potential
Area of morphological into the river with that are washed agricultural This could adverse
contaminated or alterations, alien potential adverse into the river land that are provide effects on
damaged land species. effects on water with potential washed into environmental water quality.
restored or quality. This would adverse effects the river with improvements This could
protected as a not help to achieve on water quality. potential helping to provide
result of flood WFD This would not adverse achieve WFD environmental
risk environmental help to achieve effects on environmental improvements
management objectives WFD water quality. objectives helping to
activities environmental This would not achieve WFD
objectives help to environmental
achieve WFD objectives
environmental
objectives.
Environment Agency
Form 12.7 Summary of overall gains and losses for each policy option Policy unit: Thrapston

Policy Social Social Not preferred. This policy would lead
one to flood risks to people, property and
No social gains identified Medium: Significant increase in number of people the environment above the currently
affected – 288 more at risk. insignificant level.
Economic Medium: Significant increase in number of residential
properties affected – 115 more at risk.
High: No EA expenditure on maintenance – Medium: Significant increase in number of commercial
reduction of £4k p.a. properties affected – 40 more at risk.
High: No Grade 1 or Grade 2 agricultural land Medium: Significant increase in depth, duration and
affected by flooding. frequency of flooding. Duration of flooding likely to be
between 48 and 96 hours. Depth of flooding up to 1.5m,
Environmental but only a handful of properties flooded to depths of
greater than 1m. Potential for moderate velocities in
No environmental gains identified. areas flooded to large depths.
Medium: Reduction in public preparedness to flooding
likely to impact significantly here alongside removal of
defences.
Low: Increase in risk to transport infrastructure, notably
the A14.
Low: Increase in risk to critical infrastructure – 1
electricity substation becomes affected.
Low: Increase in risk occurs in areas with a typically
low-moderate social vulnerability.
Economic

Constitute relatively small damages when considered
on a catchment wide basis.
Environment Agency

Environmental

Low: Small area of CA affected by flooding. There may
be minor damages.
Policy Social Social Not preferred. This policy would lead
two to flood risks to people, property and
No social gains identified Medium: Significant increase in number of people the environment above the currently
affected – 288 more at risk. insignificant level..
Economic Medium: Significant increase in number of residential
High: Reduction in EA expenditure on Medium: Significant increase in number of commercial
maintenance – reduction of £2k p.a. properties affected – 40 more at risk.
High: No Grade 1 or Grade 2 agricultural land Medium: Significant increase in depth, duration and
affected by flooding. frequency of flooding. Duration of flooding likely to be
between 48 and 96 hours. Depth of flooding up to 1.5m,
but only a handful of properties flooded to depths of
greater than 1m. Potential for moderate velocities in
areas flooded to large depths.
Medium: Reduction in public preparedness to flooding
likely to impact significantly here alongside reduction in
maintenance of defences.
Low: Increase in risk to transport infrastructure, notably
the A14.
Low: Increase in risk to critical infrastructure – 1
electricity substation becomes affected.
Low: Increase in risk occurs in areas with a typically
low-moderate social vulnerability.
Economic

Environment Agency

No environmental gains identified. Low: Planning policy would not afford more protection
Low: Small area of CA affected by flooding. There may
be minor damages.
Environment Agency

Policy Social Social PREFERRED POLICY. Maintaining
three flood risk management at the
Medium: No people affected at the 1% AEP flood, No social losses identified. present level is socially,
as at the moment. Standard of protection of economically and environmentally
defences will reduce, increasing the likelihood of Economic sustainable, although there would be
breaching. a reduction in the standard of
Medium: No commercial and residential properties No economic losses identified protection of the defences.
affected at the 1% AEP flood. Standard of
protection of defences will reduce, increasing the
likelihood of breaching. Environmental
Medium: Areas with a high social vulnerability to Low: May increase the diffuse pollution for adjacent
flooding will be protected at the 1% AEP flood. agricultural land and increase risk under WFD
Standard of protection of defences will reduce,
increasing the likelihood of breaching in areas with
a high social vulnerability.
Medium: Critical and transport infrastructure will be
protected at the 1% AEP flood. Standard of
protection of defences will reduce, increasing the
likelihood of breaching in and around
infrastructure.
Economic

Medium: No commercial and residential damages
incurred. Standard of protection of defences will
reduce, increasing the likelihood of breaching.
High: EA expenditure on maintenance kept at the
present level - £4k p.a.
Environmental
No environmental gains identified.
Environment Agency

Policy Social Social Not preferred. Investment in
four maintaining the current standard of
High: No change in risk to people at the 1% event. No social losses identified. protection through Thrapston likely
High: No change in risk to commercial and to bring no significant benefits.
residential properties affected at the 1% AEP flood. Economic
flooding will be protected at the 1% AEP flood, to No economic losses identified.
the same standard as at present.
Medium: Critical and transport infrastructure will be Environmental
protected at the 1% AEP flood to the same
standard as at present. None
Economic

incurred.
Low: No change in EA expenditure in this policy
unit. Development of storage upstream in River
Nene Corridor and River Nene (Weedon to
Kislingbury) will incur costs.
Environmental

Policy Social Social Not preferred. Increasing the
five standard of protection beyond the
High: No people affected at the 1% AEP flood, as No social losses identified. present level is not justifiable given
at the moment. Increased standard of protection of the high costs and minor benefits
defence will reduce likelihood of breaching. Economic that will be derived.
High: No commercial and residential properties
affected at the 1% AEP flood. Increased standard Medium: EA expenditure increased to increase
of protection of defence will reduce likelihood of standard of protection in Thrapston. Estimated that
breaching. capital works will total £1.5M.
Environment Agency

flooding will be protected at the 1% AEP flood. Environmental
Increased standard of protection of defence will
reduce likelihood of breaching in areas with high .None
social vulnerability.
High: Critical and transport infrastructure will be
protected at the 1% AEP flood. Increased standard
of protection of defences will reduce the likelihood
of breaching in and around infrastructure.
Economic

defences will reduce the chance of breaching.
Environmental

Environment Agency
Form 12.8 Summary of the Preferred Policy Policy unit: Thrapston
Policy Unit The Thrapston policy unit is largely urban or semi-urban in nature. It covers the town of Thrapston,
12 – Thrapston which sits on one side of the River Nene floodplain. It extends over the full built up area.
Thrapston is located roughly midway along the River Nene catchment, sitting largely in the
floodplain on the right bank, with some minor urban drains entering the reach. This small but
mostly urban policy unit therefore has a relatively high population density, containing little open
land apart from some active floodplain and parkland.
recorded in the Thrapston policy unit in 1947 (Mar) and 1998 (Apr), and also some localised
flooding in 2002 (Jul) due to a blocked culvert. Groundwater and surface water flooding are not
thought to pose a significant risk to people and properties here, though it is presently difficult to
Following the flooding in Thrapston and Islip in April 1998, a flood alleviation scheme involving
embankment and wall defences (plus a demountable defence) was constructed in 2005 to protect
Thrapston and Islip up to a 0.5% standard, controlling flows entering the Thrapston Dyke which is
a backwater channel of the River Nene that flows through the town. There are also a few informal
or private lengths of defence. In the past the town has benefited from construction of flood storage
Problem / Risk
areas upstream, particularly the Northampton Washlands which control flows continuing down the
River Nene from Northampton.
The 1% AEP flood event is defended against. However, for the 0.1% AEP flood event our analysis
suggests that this would affect 350 people and 189 properties (49 commercial), causing £14.74
million property damages (approximately 75% commercial), with the town defences assumed to
be overwhelmed.
analysis suggests that a 1% AEP future flood would still be defended against, though with much
reduced freeboard allowance on the defence heights. For the 0.1% AEP flood event our analysis
suggests that this would affect 385 people and 206 properties (a rise of only approximately 10%),
causing £16.69 million property damages (a rise of almost 15%). The future increase in flood risk
is therefore relatively limited in this policy unit, and at the 0.1% AEP future flood it contributes less
than 2% of the future CFMP area total damages.
Chosen Policy The future social and economic impacts within this policy unit are insignificant under the present
level of flood risk management. Modifications and enhancements to our responses will be
considered, in particular through actively influencing land use planning and the take up of flood
No broadscale modelling was carried out (see modelling summary after Form 12.5). Under policy
Generic P3, future climate and development change result in moderate increases to the present flood risk.
Responses Maintenance of the flood defences will continue, together with appropriate enhancements to flood
warning, development control and emergency response planning (for example for infrastructure).
Adopting policy P3 here will accept some future minor losses within the Thrapston policy unit, for
events less frequent than 0.5% AEP now, changing to roughly 1% AEP flood in 100 years time.
Our flood risk management will include the generic responses outlined above, continuing and
modifying or enhancing what we do at present including actively influencing land use planning and
Justification the take up of flood resilience measures. Future changes in flood risk will be monitored such that
further action needs can be reviewed, and we will work in partnership to ensure that new
responses are set against future development where appropriate, but the increasing residual risk
for Thrapston is likely to be offset to a degree by the adoption of policy P6 elsewhere (PU6).
Environment Agency
increased future losses within the Thrapston policy unit, with the current flood risk management
responses considered appropriate for the level of risk. The objectives which are met by this policy
(1% AEP future flood impact compared to current baseline) are:

Justification • Ensure future investment in the catchment is proportional to the risks (no change).
(cont.) • Protect and enhance significant historic environment assets and their settings (no
change).
change).
Other policies were rejected for the Thrapston policy unit due to (1% AEP future flood impact,
Policy P1 - no active intervention; significant economic and social losses, currently at insignificant
levels (increases of 288 people, 155 properties, and £6.83 million property damages), with risk to
public health and safety from urban nature of channel corridors.
Policy P2 - reduce existing flood risk management actions; significant economic and social losses,
currently at insignificant levels (increases of 288 people, 155 properties, and £6.83 million property
damages).
Alternative economic and social losses are presently considered relatively limited and are therefore unlikely to
policies justify additional responses on their own, however the enhancement of floodplain storage under
considered policy P6 upstream (PU2 and PU6) will actually largely offset any increase in flood risk within
Thrapston anyway.
might be attractive but very difficult to justify a further increase in defence standard against likely
costs of £1.5 million, such that any major response here is unlikely to be sustainable and
affordable; higher flood risk priorities exist elsewhere.
Main opportunities
Catchment- ‘Making space for water’ philosophy.
wide Main constraints
opportunities & • Demand for increased housing provision and associated infrastructure within the Milton
constraints Keynes – South Midlands (Northampton, Corby, Kettering, Wellingborough) growth areas may
Landfill sites
Environment Agency

Discharges
Abstractions
Risks, also the type and distribution of contaminated land within the policy unit.
Uncertainties &
Dependencies The estimates of flood damage within the Thrapston policy unit are considered sufficiently
accurate to inform the selection of the proposed policy and response.
Environment Agency
Barnwell
Environment Agency
Policy unit: Barnwell
policy unit? Barnwell flood storage area provides benefits to Barnwell, EA
responsibility.
Flood Warning
Barnwell is covered by a flood watch and a flood warning area.

sluice to the east of Peterborough- trigger sites Islip, Lilford.
The rate of uptake in this flood warning area is 7.75%.
203 people (81 properties) can apply for flood warnings within this
policy unit
Maintenance:

annual expenditure:
budget for 2006/07 was £17.2k. Most of the asset maintenance is
directed at the Barnwell flood storage area.
Standards of service Barnwell flood storage area has an estimated standard of

that apply to flood protection of 1%.
defences within the
policy unit?

Significant flooding only occurs for flood events with a magnitude
greater than the 1% flood event.
No people affected by flooding at the 1% flood event, due to

protection by Barnwell flood storage area. This storage area will
also provide some protection for events with a greater magnitude
than the 1% event, though people will be affected for such events.
Social impact: Areas benefiting from defence have a moderate

SFVI - typically category 3.
Infrastructure
Critical Infrastructure affected by flooding: none
Economic
No damages incurred at the 1% flood event.
Environment Agency
AAD: £0

- Grade 1: 0%
- Grade 2: 0%
Environmental
• NN185 (Site of a manor house and gardens) is the only
Scheduled Monument within policy unit and is not affected by
flooding (at the 1% event probability)
• The Barnwell Conservation Area is the only Conservation
Area within the unit. It is protected with the exception of the
area of the Conservation Area that covers the river channel.
BAP Habitats: none

Applicable factors:
• River Nene: Diffuse source pollution

currently most • No people or properties at risk of flooding at the 1% flood
vulnerable to flood event.
damage and losses?
Economic
• No economic damages at the 1% event.
Environmental
Barnwell Conservation Area affected by flooding.


risk under the main In the future the standard of protection of Barnwell flood storage
scenarios? area will decrease from the present standard of protection of 1%.
Whilst there will be some protection, it will mean that people and
property will be affected by flooding.
The duration of flooding from the Barnwell Brook is expected to

be short (< 24 hours). Velocities and depths will vary, however it
is unlikely that there will be large velocities and the majority of
Environment Agency
properties will be flooded to depths of less than 1m.
153 people affected by flooding at the future 1% event probability

(people affected equates to 1.69% of the total people affected in
the catchment).
64 properties affected by flooding at the future 1% event

probability: 61 residential, 3 commercial (properties affected
equates to 1.51% of the total properties affected in the
catchment).
Barnwell flood storage area continues to provide flood protection

at low magnitude events.
Infrastructure
Critical Infrastructure affected by flooding: none
Economic
Total damages incurred are £2.84m at the future 1% event
probability: £2.16m residential, £0.68m commercial (damages
equates to 0.92% of the total damages for the catchment).
AAD: £0.20 million

- Grade 1: 0%
- Grade 2: 0%
Environmental
Barnwell Conservation Area affected by flooding at the 1% event
probability. Increase in area and depth of flooding.
All Saints Manor (Barnwell) Park and Garden becomes affected in

a 1% AEP event in the future. Less than 1ha of the site is flooded
to a shallow depth.
BAP Habitat: none

responses (or groups • Modifications to existing flood defence structures
of responses) are • Flood awareness
manage flood risk? • Studies

Environment Agency
the 1% AEP flood.
uncertainties.
management.
deposition.
Environment Agency
POLICY UNIT 13: BARNWELL
Description: Because Barnwell Brook is beyond the boundaries of the broad-scale model,
the impact of flooding was determined using Flood Zones 2 and 3 and it was not possible to
model the impact of a reduction in conveyance caused by stopping maintenance. Therefore it
was assumed that the change in damages, number of people affected etc. compared with the
reaches by assuming an increase in channel and floodplain roughness of 20%.
(+∞%) (+∞%) (+∞%)
Conclusions

conveyance
Description: As for Policy 1 it has not been possible to model the impact of a reduction in
10%.
(+∞%) (+∞%) (+∞%)
Conclusions

already been appraised for Chapter 4. This assumes that maintenance was kept at the same
level and that no alternative intervention occurred. Barnwell is protected by a flood storage
area with a 1% standard of protection at present. Due to future drivers this standard of
protection will decrease in the future to below the 1% level. This policy assumes that the flood
storage area will offer no protection at the 1% event in the future, even though in reality it
would offer some. Therefore the results of this generic response may be an overestimate.
Environment Agency
(+∞%) (+∞%) (+∞%)
Conclusions
land use change will reduce the standard of protection of Barnwell flood storage area. The
flood storage area will not offer the same level of protection in the 1% AEP flood, and thus
some flooding would be expected.

Generic Response: Policy 4 – Maintain current level of flood risk by increasing the
capacity of Barnwell flood storage area
Description: Barnwell is protected by a flood storage area upstream of the village on the
Barnwell Brook. The standard of protection of this flood storage area is 1% at present. For
this generic response it was assumed that the standard of protection was maintained into the
future, by increasing the capacity of the flood storage area. Thus no properties are flooded.
Conclusions
Cost: Implementing combined works of conveyance, storage and protection likely to cost £1
million.
Conclusion: Increasing the capacity of Barnwell flood storage area can counteract increases
in peak flow expected in the future.

Description: All properties in Barnwell are protected at present by Barnwell flood storage
area which has a 1% standard of protection. For this policy it was assumed that the standard
of protection of the flood storage area was increased to the 0.5% event to provide protection
to Barnwell during higher magnitude events.

Conclusions
Cost: Increasing capacity of storage will cost approximately £2 million.
Conclusion: Increasing the standard of protection of Barnwell flood storage area will prevent
flooding in Barnwell up to and including the 0.5% standard event.
Environment Agency
Description: Not feasible in this Policy Unit. The Barnwell Brook has a relatively narrow
floodplain preventing the natural storage of sufficient volumes of water needed for a P6
option. In addition to this, the Barnwell Brook makes a very small contribution to the flow on
the River Nene, and thus there would be only a very limited reduction in peak flow in
downstream areas.

3 Maintaining the current level of flood risk management into the future
4 Reduce conveyance by increasing maintenance, rural land use change by
improved farming practices, and increase upstream storage
5 Create/increase localised protection measures
Environment Agency
Form 12.6 Policy Appraisal Policy unit: Barnwell

flooding
forecasting forecasting forecasting forecasting forecasting developments
• Cease • Reduce • Continue • Increase river • Increase have been
maintenance of maintenance of maintenance maintenance capacity of identified in the
river channel. channel and of river • Maintain standard upstream River Nene (from
• Remove Barnwell flood channel and of protection of storage area Weedon to
Barnwell flood storage area Barnwell flood Barnwell flood Kislingbury) policy
storage area storage area. storage area at unit and the River
the present level Nene Corridor
policy unit. Very
little scope to
apply in this policy
unit therefore no
assessment of
gains and losses
was undertaken.
SOC To minimise Number of No people 169 people Maximum of 165 Maximum of 153 No people affected No people
1 flood related people at affected by affected by people affected by people affected by flooding in the affected by
risks to the risk in the flooding in the flooding in the 1% flooding in the 1% by flooding in 1% AEP flood. flooding in the
population 1% flood 1% event AEP flood. AEP flood. Likely the 1% AEP 1% AEP flood.
Numbers of probability to be less than flood. Likely to Increased
people Cease flood this figure. be less than this maintenance Increasing the
covered by 203 people warning and figure. and maintained capacity of
flood can apply for forecasting, with Review flood standard of existing Barnwell flood
warning or flood increased risk to warning coverage Review flood upstream storage storage area will
emergency / warnings community. through a Flood warning capable of provide benefit
evacuation within the Warning and coverage maintaining level of to people in
plans policy unit. Forecasting through a Flood risk at current level. Barnwell in
delivery plan. Warning and higher
Forecasting Review flood magnitude
delivery plan. warning coverage events.
through a Flood
Warning and Review flood
Environment Agency

flooding
Forecasting delivery warning
plan. coverage
through a Flood
Develop a Flood Warning and
Awareness plan to Forecasting
encourage people delivery plan.
to sign up for
flooding warning. Develop a Flood
Awareness plan
to encourage
people to sign
up for flooding
warning.
To minimise Numbers No critical No critical assets No critical assets No critical No critical assets at No critical
risks to critical and type of assets at risk. at risk at risk assets at risk risk assets at risk
SOC infrastructure critical asset.
2 and Critical
community infrastructure
facilities includes:
• Electricity
Sub-
stations/p
ower
supply
• Sewage
Treatment
Works
(STW)
• Waste
Treatment
Works
(STW)
• Waste
Managem
ent Sites
Environment Agency

flooding
• IPPC
Sites
• Transport:
Railway,
Roads,
Canals
(particularl
y consider
ability to
use other
routes)
Community
facilities
include:
• Hospitals
• Emergenc
y
Response
Centres
• Care
Homes
• Schools
SOC To minimise Number of No properties 68 residential Maximum of 66 Maximum of 61 No properties at risk No properties at
3 community properties affected by properties and 3 residential residential of flooding at the risk of flooding
disruption from affected in flooding at 1% commercial properties and 3 properties and 3 1% event. at the 1% event.
flooding the 1% flood AEP flood. properties at risk commercial commercial
Category of of flooding at the properties at risk properties at risk Areas benefiting Benefits of
social Areas 1% AEP flood. of flooding at the of flooding at the from defence have increased flood
vulnerability benefiting 1% event. Likely 1% event. Likely a moderate social risk
areas from defence Increase in risk of to be less than to be less than vulnerability to management felt
affected in have a flooding occurs in this figure. this figure. flooding. in areas with a
the 1% flood moderate an area with a moderate social
Extent of SFVI - moderate social Increase in risk of Increase in risk vulnerability to
flooding typically vulnerability to flooding occurs in of flooding in an flooding.
Duration of category 3. flooding, category an area with a area with a
Environment Agency

flooding
flooding 3. moderate social moderate social
vulnerability to vulnerability to
Increase in depth, flooding, category flooding,
duration and 3. category 3.
velocity of flooding
will occur. Increase in depth, Minor increase
duration and in depth,
Majority of velocity of flooding duration and
properties are still will occur. velocity of
flooded to depths flooding will
of less than 1m. Majority of occur.
Despite this, properties are still
removal of flood flooded to depths Majority of
storage area likely of less than 1m. properties are
to lead to depths Retention of flood still flooded to
of greater than 1m storage area, depths of less
at a significant even with reduced than 1m. Flood
number of maintenance, will storage area will
properties (> 20). prevent flooding to prevent flooding
greater than 1m at to greater than
most properties. 1m at most
properties.
To minimise Residential No economic £2.41m residential Maximum of Maximum of No economic No economic

ECO economic damages 1% damages damages and £2.29m residential £2.16m damages incurred damages
N1 impacts of flood incurred. £0.79m damages and residential at the 1% AEP incurred at the
flooding Commercial commercial £0.74m damages and flood. 1% AEP flood.
damages 1% No Grade 1 or damages at the commercial £0.68m
flood Grade 2 1% AEP flood. damages at the commercial No Grade 1 or No Grade 1 or
Agricultural agricultural 1% AEP flood. damages at the Grade 2 agricultural Grade 2
damages in land flooded. No Grade 1 or 1% AEP flood. land flooded. agricultural land
the 1% flood Grade 2 No Grade 1 or flooded.
Percentage agricultural land Grade 2 No Grade 1 or
area of flooded. agricultural land Grade 2
grade 1 and flooded. agricultural land
2 agricultural flooded.
land flooded
Environment Agency

flooding
during the
1% flood
Ensure future Expenditure Current EA ceases EA expenditure on No change in Cost of Cost of
investment in on all FRM annual EA spending money maintenance cost of implementing increasing
ECO the catchment activities. expenditure on maintenance. reduced to maintenance in combined works of capacity of
N2 is proportional on approximately £9k real terms – conveyance, storage will be
to the risks maintenance EA ceases p.a. in current remains at £17k storage and approximately
estimated at influencing and prices. p.a. at current protection likely to £2M.
£17k. The informing reducing prices. cost £1M.
majority of expenditure EA reduces Increase in EA
this is spent significantly. expenditure on No increase in Expanding expenditure on
on recurring influencing and EA expenditure influencing and flood
asset informing. on flood warning informing will lead warning/flood
maintenance in real terms. to a minor increase awareness.
such as grass in EA expenditure.
cutting (32%)
and tree work
(33%). It is
thought that
most of this
asset
maintenance
is focussed on
Barnwell flood
storage area
Protect and Numbers of: Barnwell CA Less protection for Less protection for Small increase Barnwell CA Barnwell CA
enhance • Scheduled protected historic assets. historic assets. in damage to the protected from protected from
ENV significant Monument from flooding, Barnwell CA flooding, with flooding, with
1 historic s with exception Damage and Damage and through an exception of area of exception of
environment • Historic of area of CA degradation to degradation to increase in CA that covers river area of CA that
assets and Parks and that covers Barnwell CA Barnwell CA depth and extent channel. covers river
their settings Gardens river channel. through an through an of flooding channel.
• Historic increase in depth increase in depth (increase in
Battlefield and extent of and extent of depth of up to
s flooding (increase flooding (increase 0.75m though
• Conservati in depth of up to in depth of up to typically less,
1m, though 1m, though area flooded of
Environment Agency

flooding
on Areas typically less, area typically less, area 4ha).
adversely flooded of 4ha). flooded of 4ha).
affected by All Saints Manor
flooding or (Barnwell) park
flood risk All Saints Manor All Saints Manor and garden
management (Barnwell) park (Barnwell) park becomes
activities and garden and garden affected. Small
becomes affected. becomes affected. area of site
Small area of site Small area of site becomes
becomes flooded becomes flooded flooded to
to shallow depth. to shallow depth. shallow depth.
Risk of small area Risk of small area
of St Andrews of St Andrews
Manor park and Manor park and
garden becoming garden becoming
affected affected
ENV Protect and Area of No No designated No designated No designated No designated sites No designated
2 contribute to SSSIs, designated sites affected so sites affected so sites affected so affected so no sites affected so
the SPAs, SACs sites affected. no further no further no further further appraisal no further
improvement and Ramsar appraisal appraisal appraisal undertaken. appraisal
of designated sites flooded undertaken. undertaken. undertaken. undertaken.
nature in a 1% flood
conservation Reported
sites (SSSI, condition
SPA, SAC and status of
Ramsar) SSSIs,
SPAs, SACs
and Ramsar
sites at risk
from a 1%
flood
ENV Enhance the The No BAP No BAP habitat No BAP habitat No BAP habitat No BAP habitat No BAP habitat
3 biodiversity of distribution habitat affected so no affected so no affected so no affected so no affected so no
the catchment and extent of affected. further appraisal further appraisal further appraisal further appraisal further appraisal
by improving the future undertaken. undertaken. undertaken. undertaken. undertaken.
Environment Agency

flooding
the quality of UK BAP
the river priority
environment habitats (for
and example,
contributing to fens, wet
UK woodland,
Biodiversity reed bed,
Action Plan floodplain
targets grazing
marsh)
ENV • Support the WFD Article WFD Increases in the Increases in the Increases in the Taking action to Taking action to
4 achievemen 5 pressures Category : At frequency and frequency and frequency and sustain current level reduce current
t of good and impacts Risk Heavily extent of flooding extent of flooding extent of of flood risk at point level of flood risk
status/poten assessments modified are likely to are likely to flooding are and diffuse sources at point and
tial of results water body. increase the increase the likely to increase of pollution could diffuse sources
surface and WFD levels of pollutants levels of pollutants the levels of prevent potential of pollution
groundwater ecological from sources in from sources in pollutants from adverse effects on could prevent
bodies and adjacent adjacent sources in water quality. This potential
under the chemical agricultural land agricultural land adjacent could provide adverse effects
WFD status/potent that are washed that are washed agricultural land environmental on water quality.
ial of water into the river with into the river with that are washed improvements This could
bodies. potential adverse potential adverse into the river helping to achieve provide
effects on water effects on water with potential WFD environmental environmental
Area of quality. This would quality. This would adverse effects objectives improvements
contaminate not help to not help to on water quality. helping to
d or achieve WFD achieve WFD This would not achieve WFD
damaged environmental environmental help to achieve environmental
land restored objective objectives WFD objectives
or protected environmental
as a result of objectives
flood risk
management
activities
Environment Agency
Form 12.7 Summary of overall gains and losses for each policy option Policy unit: Barnwell

Policy Social Social Not preferred. Risk to
one people and property
High: No impact on critical or transport infrastructure. High: Flood warning and forecasting ceased. increases above the
Low: Small increase in the number of commercial Medium: Moderate increase in the number of people affected - currently insignificant level.
properties affected – 3 more at risk. Number affected is 169 more at risk. Removal of flood storage
small when considered on a catchment wide basis. Medium: Moderate increase in the number of residential area will lead to significant
properties affected - 68 more at risk. increases in the risk to
Economic Medium: Increase in depth, duration and velocity of flooding. people as a result of
Majority of properties are still flooded to depths of less than 1m. increased depth.
High: No EA expenditure on flood risk management - Despite this, removal of flood storage area likely to lead to
reduction of £17k p.a. depths of greater than 1m at a significant number of properties
High: No Grade 1 or Grade 2 agricultural land affected. (> 20).
Low: Small increase in commercial damages of £0.79M. Low: Increase in risk in areas with a moderate social
Despite increase commercial damages are relatively low. vulnerability to flooding (category 3).
Environmental
Economic
Medium: Increases in residential damages of £2.41M.
Environmental
Medium: Increase in depth and extent of flooding to Barnwell CA

may cause damage and degradation.
Medium: Increased risk to All Saints Manor and St Andrews
Manor park and gardens. This may have an adverse impact
including restricted access to the public.
Low: May not contribute toward the achievement good status
under WFD.
Policy Social Social Not preferred. Reducing the
two maintenance would
High: No impact on critical or transport infrastructure. Low: Moderate increase in the number of people affected - 165 contribute to a increase in
Low: Small increase in the number of commercial more at risk. This is likely to be an overestimate of the number flood risk although flood
properties affected – 3 more at risk. Number affected is of people at risk. depths in most affected
small when considered on a catchment wide basis. Low: Moderate increase in the number of residential properties properties would be less
Environment Agency

Low: Increase in depth, duration and velocity of flooding. affected - 66 more at risk. This is likely to be an overestimated than 1m. However, the
Majority of properties are still flooded to depths of less of the number of properties at risk. increase could be
than 1m. Retention of flood storage area, even with Low: Increase in risk in areas with a moderate social significant if the reduction in
reduced maintenance, will prevent flooding to greater than vulnerability to flooding (category 3). maintenance impaired the
1m at most properties. performance of the Banwell
Low: Flood Warning and Forecasting delivery plan will Economic flood storage reservoir.
manage flood forecasting more effectively on existing
budget. Medium: Increases to residential damages – increase of The number of people and
£2.29M. properties at risk given here
are likely to be
Economic Environmental overestimates, and in
reality the number of
High: No Grade 1 or Grade 2 agricultural land affected. Low: Planning policy would not afford more protection for people at risk will be less.
Medium: Reduction in EA expenditure on maintenance – historic assets.
reduction of approx. £8k p.a. Medium: Increase in depth and extent of flooding to Barnwell CA
Low: Minor increase to commercial damages – increase of may cause damage and degradation.
£0.74M. Commercial damages in Barnwell remain low Medium: Increased risk to All Saints Manor and St Andrews
when compared with the rest of the catchment they remain Manor park and gardens. This may have an adverse impact
low. including restricted access to the public.
Low: May not contribute toward the achievement of good status
under WFD.
Environmental
Environment Agency

Policy Social Social PREFERRED OPTION
three Maintaining the current
High: No impact on critical or transport infrastructure Low: Increase in risk to areas with typically moderate social maintenance regime is
Medium: Small increase in the number of commercial vulnerability (category 3). economically, socially and
properties affected – 3 more at risk. Number affected is Low: Increase in the number of people affected – 153 more at environmentally
small when considered on a catchment wide basis, and risk. Likely that this is an overestimate of the number at risk. sustainable. Flood risk to
this figure could be an overestimate. Low: Increase in the number of residential properties affected – people and property will not
Low: Minor reduction in public preparedness for flooding, 64 more at risk. Likely that this is an overestimate of the number increase significantly above
though this is unlikely to significantly increase risk in the at risk. its current low level.
policy unit.
Low: Increase in depth, duration and velocity of flooding. Economic
Majority of properties are still flooded to depths of less
than 1m. Flood storage area will prevent flooding to Low: Increases to residential damages – increase of £2.16M.
greater than 1m at most properties. Likely that this is an overestimate of the total damages.
Low: Flood Warning and Forecasting delivery plan will
manage flood forecasting more effectively on existing Environmental
budget.
Low: Less protection for historic assets.
Economic Low: Small increase in depth and extent of flooding to Barnwell
Conservation Area may cause damage and degradation. A
High: No Grade 1 or Grade 2 agricultural land affected. considerable area of the Barnwell Conservation Area flooded.
Medium: Minor increase to commercial damages – Low: Increased risk to All Saints Manor park and gardens. This
increase of £0.68M. Commercial damages in Barnwell may have an adverse impact including restricted access to the
remain low when compared with the rest of the catchment public.
they remain low, and it is likely that this figure is an Low: May not contribute toward the achievement of good status
overestimate. under WFD.
Low: EA expenditure maintained at the same level –
expenditure on maintenance approx. £17k p.a.
Environmental
Environment Agency

Policy Social Social Not preferred. The current
four level of risk in Barnwell is
High: No impact on critical or transport infrastructure No social losses identified. very low. To maintain this
High: No people affected. level of risk will require a
High: No commercial or residential properties affected. significant increase in EA
Medium: Flood Warning and Forecasting Delivery plan and Economic expenditure that is not
Flood Awareness plan increase coverage and proportional to the nature of
effectiveness of flood warning. Medium: Moderately large increase in EA expenditure relative to the risk in Barnwell.
Low: Areas at risk have a moderate social vulnerability to the level of flood risk – estimated that capital works to maintain
flooding (category 3). standard of protection will total £1M.
High: No Grade 1 or Grade 2 agricultural land affected. Low: Barnwell Conservation Area is still affected which may
High: No residential or commercial damages. cause damage and degradation.
Low: Policy would maintain the current risk under the WFD and
Environmental would not contribute to the achievement of good WFD status.
Low: Damages and degradation to Barnwell Conservation

Area remain at the same baseline level.
Policy Social Social Not preferred. The increase
five in expenditure associated
High: No impact on critical or transport infrastructure No social losses identified. with the construction of
High: No people affected. defences cannot be
High: No commercial or residential properties affected. Economic justified when compared to
High: Increased standard of protection will protect those at the limited benefits they will
risk in Barnwell in higher magnitude flood events. High: Large increase in EA expenditure relative to the level of bring.
Medium: Flood Warning and Forecasting Delivery plan and flood risk – estimated that capital works to increase the standard
Flood Awareness plan increase coverage and of protection will total £2M.
effectiveness of flood warning.
Low: Those areas protected in Barnwell have a moderate Environmental
Low: Despite the defences there is a small area of the Barnwell
Economic Conservation Area that is not protected, and will suffer losses.
High: No Grade 1 or Grade 2 agricultural land affected.
Environment Agency

High: No residential or commercial damages.
Environmental
Medium: The majority of Barnwell Conservation Area is

protected from flooding. Both parks and gardens at risk are
protected.
Low: this policy may contribute to the achievement of good
status under WFD by reducing the frequency of diffuse
pollution incidence.
Environment Agency
Form 12.8 Summary of the Preferred Policy Policy unit: Barnwell
The Barnwell policy unit is a small largely rural, though partly sub-urban policy unit, with Barnwell
Policy Unit being the only settlement contained within it. It covers a small portion of the Barnwell Brook
13 – Barnwell catchment, the Barnwell Brook forming a minor tributary of the River Nene which joins the river at
Oundle. The policy unit covers the brook from upstream of the Barnwell flood storage area to the
confluence of the stream with the River Nene, and extends laterally to cover the entire floodplain.
The main source of flooding is fluvial, due to high flows in the watercourses. Minor flooding was
recorded in Barnwell policy unit in 2003 (January). There is thought to be a potential for
groundwater flooding in this policy unit, though there are no recorded incidents of flooding from
this source.
Barnwell is protected by a flood storage area upstream of the village on the Barnwell Brook. The
flood storage area protects Barnwell to a 1% AEP flood standard.
Our analysis suggests that a 1% AEP flood event would affect no people and property, causing no
property damages, because of the protection provided by Barnwell flood storage area. For higher
Problem / Risk magnitude events people and property become affected, though the flood storage area continues
to provide some protection.
analysis suggests that a 1% AEP future flood would affect 153 people and 67 properties causing
£2.84 million property damages. The future increase in flood risk is significant, changing from
contributing no damages to the catchment total, to contributing approximately 1% of the damages.
The increase in flood risk occurs because the design standard of Barnwell flood storage area will
reduce in the future due to increases in peak flows. The future risk given here is thought to be a
conservative estimate, with the likely risk of flooding being less than this.
(accepting that flood risk will increase over time from this baseline)The flood storage reservoir is
the primary control on the level of risk in the policy unit now and in the future. At present,
Chosen Policy maintenance within this policy unit is not centred on the flood storage reservoir, but on other
activities. However, a reduction in maintenance could impair the performance of the reservoir
leading to a significant increase in flood risk. The current flood risk management responses will be
reviewed and modified as appropriate under this policy.
No broadscale model was run, but we considered the impact of Barnwell flood storage area and
how this may change in the future under different management regimes (see modelling summary
Generic after Form 12.5 for further details). Under policy P3, future changes will result in a reduction in the
Responses standard of protection provided by Barnwell flood storage area, and thus some damages at the
1% AEP flood. Maintenance will continue without any alternative intervention. Flood warning and
Adopting policy P3 will accept some future minor losses within the Barnwell policy unit. It will give
total 1% AEP future flood risk increases for Barnwell of approximately 153 people, 67 properties
and £2.84 million above current values. The current flood risk management responses will be
reviewed and modified as appropriate under this policy, maintaining those actions which we
consider are effective and sustainable to manage flood risk at the current level., giving an
Justification appropriate level of flood risk. Future changes in flood risk will be monitored such that further
action needs can be reviewed, and we will work in partnership to ensure that new responses are
set against future development where appropriate.
increased future losses within the Barnwell policy unit and accepting that the current flood risk
management responses are appropriate for the level of risk. . The objectives which are met by this
policy (1% AEP future flood impact compared to current baseline) are:
• To minimise flood related risks to the population (153 more people at risk, though this is
Environment Agency
considered to be a conservative estimate. Barnwell flood storage area will continue to

provide flood protection in lower magnitude events).
• To minimise risks to critical infrastructure and community facilities (no increase in critical
infrastructure and community facilities at risk).
Justification • To minimise community disruption from flooding (up to 67 more residential properties at
(cont.) risk, though this is considered to be a conservative estimate. Barnwell flood storage area
will continue to provide flood protection in lower magnitude events).
• To minimise economic impacts of flooding (increase of £2.84 million property damages,
though this is considered to be a conservative estimate. Barnwell flood storage area will
continue to provide flood protection in lower magnitude events).
• Ensure investment in the catchment is proportional to the risks
• Protect and enhance significant historic environment assets and their settings (small risk
to Barnwell conservation area).
sites at risk).
environment, contributing to UK Biodiversity Action Plan targets (no BAP habitats at risk).
Other policies were rejected for the Barnwell policy unit due to (1% AEP future flood impact,
Policy P1 - no active intervention; economic and social losses, currently at insignificant levels
(increases of 169 people, 71 properties, and £3.20 million property damages. These figures are
not considered to be conservative estimates).
Policy P2 – reduce flood risk management actions; increase economic and social losses
(increases of 165 people, 69 properties, and £3.03 million property damages; these figures are
considered to be conservative), potentially greater if the performance of the Barnwell flood storage
reservoir were impaired by the reduction in maintenance.
Policy P4 - take further action to sustain the current level of flood risk into the future; no people or
Alternative
properties affected in 1% AEP flood. Maintaining the standard of protection of Barnwell flood
policies
storage area would require expenditure out of proportion to the level of risk, and higher flood risk
considered
Policy P5 - take further action to reduce flood risk (now and / or in the future); no people or
properties affected in 1% AEP flood, standard of protection afforded to Barnwell increased beyond
present level. Improving the standard of protection of Barnwell flood storage area would require an
increase in expenditure out of proportion with the level of risk.
this policy as the contribution of Barnwell Brook to peak flows on the River Nene is too small to
consider strategic storage.
Main opportunities
Catchment- developing waterfronts and floodplains, fully embracing PPS25 recommendations and the
wide ‘Making space for water’ philosophy.
opportunities & Main constraints
constraints • Demand for increased housing provision and associated infrastructure within the London-
Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough growth areas may come into conflict with the need to
restrict development in floodplains.
• The presence of Scheduled Monuments and other heritage features such as Conservation
Areas may constrain the choice of options and locations throughout the river valley.
Environment Agency
Discharges
Abstractions
JFLOW model output, of reduced accuracy compared to elsewhere, was used on the Barnwell
Brook. Significant uncertainty surrounds climate change effects, as well as surface water and
groundwater influence on flood events; groundwater flooding could be an issue for the policy unit.
Risks,
Uncertainties & The estimates of flood damage within Barnwell are considered sufficiently accurate to inform the
Dependencies selection of the proposed policy and response. However, the uncertainty over the areas that
benefit from Barnwell flood storage area now and in the future may need to be investigated, and
the amount of protection that the flood storage area provides when its design standard is
surpassed may need to be investigated in the future.
Environment Agency
River Nene (Oundle to Water Newton)
Environment Agency
Policy unit: River Nene (Oundle to Water Newton)
policy unit? No formal defences within this policy unit, though there may be
some informal/ private defences.
Flood Warning
The River Nene Oundle to Water Newton is covered by flood
watch and flood warning areas.
• River Nene between Thrapston and Castor including low lying
mill properties – trigger sites Islip, Lilford Rate of uptake in
policy unit.
Maintenance:
annual expenditure:
budget for 2006/07 was £124k. Other activities in this policy unit
included, for that year, a non-recurring amount for asset
maintenance of £25.0k and £31.4k for incident response.
that apply to flood
defences within the
policy unit?

exposed to flooding? Flooding from the River Nene has a gradual onset. Flooding is
likely to occur 48 – 72 hours after rainfall, and the duration of
flooding can be very long (48 – 96 hours). Depths are generally
moderate, less than 0.5m, though a few residential and
commercial properties in the Oundle Marina area are flooded to
depths of up to 2m. Wide floodplain and shallow depths of
flooding at properties indicates that velocities are likely to be low
in general.


A small number of properties (approx. 75) at risk of frequent
Environment Agency
flooding (10% AEP flood).
Infrastructure

• Sewage Treatment Works (STW): Stibbington STW flooded to
depth of up to 1.75m.

• A427 at Oundle affected by flooding.
• A1 at Alwalton affected by flooding.
• A6118 at Wansford affected by flooding.
Economic
the catchment). Majority of damages comes from commercial
properties.
AAD: £0.31 million.

- Grade 1: 0%
- Grade 2: 25.3%
Environmental
Conservation Areas (5)
• Cotterstock – typically flooded up to a depth of 1m
• Fotheringhay - typically flooded up to a depth of 1m
• Ashton Wold - typically flooded up to a depth of 1m
• Wansford – flooded to depths of up to 2m
• Sutton – flooded to depths of up to 1.5m
Scheduled Monuments (16) – all monuments are flooded, some

to a maximum depth of 1.5m.
• Earthworks of Abbot of Ramsey’s Manor (CB246)
• Wansford Bridge (PE136)
• South Bridge (NN171)
• Fotheringhay Bridge (NN95)
• Roman Villa SW Castor Station (PE125)
• Ashton settlement site (NN169)
• Site of Roman villa SE Sibson Hollow (PE126)
• Site of Fotheringhay Priory NN94)
• Fotheringhay Motte and Bailey Castle (13641)
• Bowl Barrow (17125)
• Roman Fort and Roman Town of Durobivae (The Castles)
(Cb130)
• Lynch Farm Complex (Pe182)
• Ferry Bridge (Pe207)
• Roman Site in Normangate Field (Pe127)
• Longthorpe Roman Fort and Settlement (Pe135)
• Bowl Barrow 450m North East of Water Newton Mill (33357)
Environment Agency
Registered park/garden
• Elton Hall – typically flooded up to a depth of 1m

• Site area 41.8ha. 39.1ha affected (94% of area) affected by
flooding up to a depth of 1m. Current condition status: 91 per
cent unfavourable recovering – all units subject to
management agreements.
Undetermined Woodland
%Area At Risk Current: 0%
Lowland Meadows:

species.

vulnerable to flood • 191 properties affected, with a moderate number of properties
damage and losses? at risk of frequent flooding. Significant duration of flooding for
many properties.
Economic
• Moderate economic damages, with the majority coming from
commercial properties.
Environmental
• Three Conservation Areas, sixteen Scheduled Monuments
and a Park and Garden affected by flooding.
Environment Agency
growth predictions in the River Nene catchment.

future levels of flood In the future there are likely to be small increases in the depth,
risk under the main duration, frequency and velocity of flooding. Increases in depth
scenarios? are likely to be minor, typically less than 0.25m, with most
properties still flooded to less than 0.5m. Any increase in the
duration of flooding is likely to be minor compared with the
present duration of flooding (48-72 hours). Velocities may
increase in some areas, however, in general they are likely to be
low.

AEP flood.

flood.
Approximately 100 properties are at risk of frequent flooding (10%

flood event).
Infrastructure

• Sewage Treatment Works: Stibbington STW. Increase in
depth of flooding at Stibbington STW of up to 0.2m

• A427 at Oundle affected by flooding.
• A1 at Wansford and Alwalton affected by flooding.
• A6118 at Wansford affected by flooding.
• Flooding of transport infrastructure likely to see a small
increase in duration, depth and velocity of flooding in the
future 1% AEP flood compared with present.
Economic
AAD: £0.50 million, an increase in £0.19 million from present.

- Grade 1: 0% (no change from current)
- Grade 2: 47127.9% (an additional 43ha now affected)
Environment Agency
Environmental
In addition to the 16 Scheduled Monuments that are affected by
flooding at the current 1% event probability there is an additional
Scheduled Monument affected in the future 1% AEP flood:
Wansford Roman Site (CB137).
Small increase in area of flooding and depth of flooding at 5

Conservation Areas and 1 Park & Garden affected at present.

Wansford Pasture SSSI becomes affected at the future 1% AEP
flood (< 1ha of site becomes flooded to low depth). A small
amount/duration of flooding could be beneficial to the site.

• Site area 41.8ha. 39.3ha affected by flooding at future 1%
AEP flood. Small increase in the area affected of less than
1%.
% Area At Risk Future: 100%, an increase of 0.8ha on current 1%
Undetermined Woodland
%Area At Risk Future: 13%, an increase of 0.5ha on current 1%
Lowland Meadows
%Area At Risk Future: 98%. No change

manage flood risk? • Develop upstream storage
• Flood awareness
• Studies
Environment Agency
the 1% AEP flood.
uncertainties.
management.
deposition.
Environment Agency
POLICY UNIT 14: RIVER NENE (OUNDLE TO WATER NEWTON)
coefficient by 20%. For the unmodelled reaches in this policy unit (unnamed streams in
Oundle and Wansford) it was assumed that the change in damages, number of people
affected etc. relative to the baseline would be of the same magnitude as the change observed
for the modelled reaches.
(+14%) (+15%) (+57%)
Conclusions

conveyance
10%. For the unmodelled reaches in this policy unit (unnamed streams in Oundle and
Wansford) it was assumed that the change in damages, number of people affected etc.
relative to the baseline would be of the same magnitude as the change observed for the
modelled reaches.
(+13%) (+14%) (+46%)
Conclusions

Environment Agency
(+11%) (+12%) (+45%)
Conclusions
continued.

the roughness coefficient by 20%. For the unmodelled reaches in this policy unit (unnamed
streams in Oundle and Wansford) it was assumed that the change in damages, number of
people affected etc. relative to the baseline would be of the same magnitude as the change
observed for the modelled reaches.
(+38%) (+40%) (+62%)
Conclusions

1 Upstream of Northampton on the Kislingbury branch of the River Nene;

2 Along the River Ise between Kettering and Wellingborough;
3 Along the River Nene between Northampton and Wellingborough;
4 Along the River Nene between Wellingborough and Thrapston;
5 Along the River Nene between Thrapston and Oundle.
attenuated.
Environment Agency
Original
hydrograph
Hydrograph with
Lag storage
Attenuation
Flow
Time
The latter three were modelled by assuming that 20% of the 1% annual probability floodplain
could be utilised as natural floodplain storage. An average depth of storage of 0.5m was
assumed. Storage reservoirs of this size were then incorporated into the broadscale model to
represent natural floodplain storage on each of the three reaches of the River Nene
considered.
To carry out a P4 in River Nene (Oundle – Water Newton) policy unit a P6 policy option would
be needed in the Upper and Middle Nene Catchment, and the River Nene (Weedon –
Kislingbury) policy units.
Environment Agency
2

(-3%) (+3%) (-3%)
Conclusions
Cost: No costs associated with this policy unit, but costs incurred in upstream policy units
where storage is developed.
River Nene (Weedon to Kislingbury) is capable of maintaining the flood risk in the future at
about the same level.
Environment Agency
generic response in Oundle and Wansford, as shown in the diagram below:
Wansford defences Oundle defences

(-65%) (-63%) (-35%)
Conclusions
Conclusion: Constructing defences in Oundle and Water Newton prevents flooding in the
two most at risk locations in the policy unit. As a result of this the number of people and
properties affected, and the damages incurred, reduces significantly.

Description: Some preliminary modelling of floodplain storage was carried out in this policy
unit. It was found that developing floodplain storage in this policy unit did not reduce the risk
of flooding in downstream policy units, but increased the risk of flooding. This occurred
because the storage delayed the flood peaks from the Harpers Brook and Willow Brook,
causing them to coincide with the peaks from the River Ise and upper River Nene.
As a result no further modelling was carried out.
Environment Agency

3 Continue with existing flood risk management.
Environment Agency
Form 12.6 Policy Appraisal Policy unit: River Nene from Oundle to Water Newton

flooding
Generic responses: • Cease fllod • Maintain flood • Maintain flood • Review flood • Review flood Opportunities
warning and warning and warning and warning and warning and for additional
forecasting forecasting. forecasting forecasting forecasting storage
• Cease • Reduce • Continue • Develop • Construct developments
maintenance maintenance of maintenance of upstream localised have been
of river channel and river channel and storage by defences in identified in the
channel and structures structures creating Oundle and River Nene
structures channel Wansford (from Weedon
obstructions • Emergency to Kislingbury)
to increase Response plans policy unit and
inundation of the River Nene
the natural Corridor policy
floodplain. unit. Very little
• Increase scope to apply
maintenance in this policy unit
of river therefore no
channel and assessment of
structures gains and
• Emergency losses was
Response undertaken.
plans
SOC To minimise Number of 400 people 456 people 453 people affected 445 people affected 330 people 138 people
1 flood related people at affected by affected at the at the 1% AEP flood. at the 1% AEP affected by affected by
risks to the risk in the flooding at 1% 1% AEP flood. flood. flooding in the flooding in the 1%
population 1% flood AEP flood Flood warning 1% AEP flood. AEP flood.
Numbers of Cease flood coverage Flood Warning and
people 230 people (92 warning and maintained at the Forecasting delivery Review flood Review flood
covered by residential forecasting, with same level. plan to maintain warning warning coverage
flood properties) can increased risk to level of flood coverage through a Flood
warning or apply for flood community. warning at the same through a Flood Warning and
emergency / warnings level. Warning and Forecasting
evacuation within the Forecasting delivery plan.
plans policy unit. delivery plan.
Develop a Flood
Environment Agency

flooding
Develop a Flood Awareness plan to
Awareness plan encourage people
to encourage to sign up to flood
people to sign warning.
up to flood
warning.
To minimise Numbers Critical Increase in Increase in depth of 1 electricity No change in Electricity
risks to and type of infrastructure depth of flooding flooding at electricity substation depth of flooding substation
SOC critical critical affected by at electricity substation up to a previously not at at STW, becomes
2 infrastructure asset. flooding: substation up to depth of 0.2m. risk flooded to depth duration of protected by
and Critical • Stibbington a depth of of up to 0.1m. flooding likely to defences.
community infrastructur STW 0.25m. Increase in depth of increase slightly.
facilities e includes: flooded to flooding at STW of Increase in depth of Increase in depth
• Electricity depth of up Increase in up to 1.15m. flooding at STW of Minimal of flooding at STW
Sub- to 1.75m. depth of flooding up to 1.05m. increases in of up to 1.05m.
stations/p at STW of up to Increase in depth duration of
ower Transport 1.2m. and duration of Increase in depth flooding at key Part of A427 in
supply infrastructure flooding at key and duration of transport Oundle, A1 and
• Sewage affected by Increase in transport flooding at key infrastructure. A6118 in
Treatment flooding: depth and infrastructure. transport Wansford become
Works • A427 at duration of infrastructure. Emergency protected by
(STW) Oundle flooding at key Reducing Response plans defences.
• Waste • A1 at transport maintenance will Emergency may help to Increase in depth
Treatment Alwalton infrastructure. have a negative Response plans manage risk to and duration of
Works • A6118 at impact on navigation may help to infrastructure. flooding at other
(STW) Wansford Ceasing on the River Nene. manage risk to key key transport
• Waste maintenance will sites infrastructure. infrastructure.
Managem No community have a severe
ent Sites facilities negative impact Emergency
• IPPC affected by on navigation on Response plans
Sites flooding. the River Nene. may help to
• Transport: manage risk to
Railway, infrastructure.
Roads,
Canals
(particular
Environment Agency

flooding
ly
consider
ability to
use other
routes)
Community
facilities
include:
• Hospitals
• Emergenc
y
Response
Centres
• Care
Homes
• Schools
3 community properties properties and properties and properties and 36 properties and 35 properties and properties and 16
disruption affected in 31 commercial 37 commercial commercial commercial 29 commercial commercial
from flooding the 1% flood properties properties properties affected properties affected properties properties
Category of affected by affected at the at the 1% AEP flood. at the 1% AEP affected at the affected at the 1%
social flooding at 1% 1% AEP flood. flood. 1% AEP flood. AEP flood.
areas Increase in risk flooding occurs in Increase in risk of Areas at risk of Benefit of
affected in Social impact: of flooding areas with moderate flooding occurs in flooding have a increased flood
the 1% flood Moderate - occurs in areas social vulnerability to areas with typically risk management
Extent of typically SFVI with moderate flooding (category 3) moderate social moderate social felt in areas with
flooding category 3 social vulnerability to vulnerability to moderate social
Duration of vulnerability to Minor increase in flooding (category flooding vulnerability to
flooding flooding depth, duration and 3). (categories 3) flooding (category
(category 3) frequency of 3).
flooding will occur. Minor increase in No significant
Minor increase depth, duration and increase in Minor increase in
in depth, Depth of flooding frequency of depth, or depth, duration
duration and likely to increase by flooding will occur. frequency of and frequency of
frequency of up to 0.35m, though flooding, though flooding will occur
Environment Agency

flooding
flooding will typically lower. Increase in depth of small increases outside of areas
occur. Depth of flooding at flooding of up to in duration of defended.
most properties still 0.25m, though flooding may
Depth of lower than 0.5m. No typically much less. occur. Depth of flooding
flooding likely to significant increase Depth of flooding at at vast majority of
increase by up in velocity expected. vast majority of Depth of residential
to 0.40m, residential flooding at vast properties less
though typically Increase in duration properties less than majority of than 0.5m.
lower. Depth of beyond the already 0.5m. Nature of residential Defences protect
flooding at most significant 48-96 flooding (to shallow properties less those areas that
properties still hours. depth) suggests than 0.5m. are flooded to
lower than 0.5m. that velocity of flow Nature of depths of greater
No significant is likely to be low. flooding (to than 0.5m. Nature
increase in No significant risk to shallow depth) of flooding (to
velocity life. suggests that shallow depth)
expected. velocity of flow suggests that
is likely to be velocity of flow is
Increase in low. No likely to be low.
duration beyond significant risk to No significant risk
the already life. to life.
significant 48-96
hours.
To minimise Residential £1.58m £2.89m £2.67m residential £2.71m residential £1.25m £0.60m residential
ECO economic damages residential residential damages and damages and residential damages and
N1 impacts of 1% flood damages damages and £4.33m commercial £4.23m commercial damages and £2.52m
flooding Commercial £4.65m damages at the 1% damages at the 1% £2.84m commercial
damages £3.21m commercial AEP flood. AEP flood. commercial damages at the
1% flood commercial damages at the damages at the 1% AEP flood.
Agricultural damages 1% AEP flood. No Grade 1 No Grade 1 1% AEP flood.
damages in agricultural land agricultural land No Grade 1
the 1% flood No Grade 1 No Grade 1 affected. affected. No Grade 1 agricultural land
Percentage and 27.9% of agricultural land agricultural land affected.
area of Grade 2 land affected. At least 27.9% of 27.9% of Grade 2 affected.
grade 1 and affected in 1% Grade 2 agricultural agricultural land 27.9% of Grade 2
2 AEP flood At least 27.9% land affected. affected. 25.3% of Grade agricultural land
agricultural of Grade 2 2 agricultural affected.
land flooded agricultural land land affected.
Environment Agency

flooding
during the affected.
1% flood
Ensure Expenditure Annual EA EA ceases Annual EA No increase in cost No cost Cost of
future on all FRM expenditure on spending money expenditure on of maintenance in associated with constructing
ECO investment activities. maintenance on maintenance. maintenance real terms – this policy unit defences will be
N2 in the estimated at estimated at £62k in remains at £124k in but costs approximately
catchment is £124k EA ceases current prices. current prices. incurred in £4M
proportional influencing and upstream policy
to the risks informing EA reduces No increase in EA units where Increase in EA
reducing expenditure on expenditure on storage expenditure on
expenditure influencing and flood warning in real developed. flood
significantly. informing. terms. warning/flood
Expanding awareness.
influencing and
informing will
lead to a minor
increase in EA
expenditure.
Protect and Numbers of: 5 Conservatin Less protection for historic assets. Small increase in No increase in This policy would
enhance • Schedule Areas flooded: duration of flooding depth or extent result in the same
ENV significant d • Fotheringha Small increase in duration of flooding for for all assets: of flooding effects as for
1 historic Monumen y, all assets: • Fotheringhay CA compared with Policy 3, with the
environment ts • Cotterstock, • Fotheringhay CA – Small increase in – Small increase baseline (3 CAs, exception of
assets and • Historic • Ashton area of flooding. Increase in depth of in area of 16 SMs and 1 Wansford Bridge
their settings Parks and Wold, flooding of up to 0.1m. flooding. Increase park/garden SM which may
Gardens • Wansford, • Cotterstock CA – Small increase in in depth of affected). benefit from
• Historic • Sutton. area of flooding. Increase in depth of flooding of up to construction of
Battlefield flooding of up to 0.1m. 0.1m. defences in
s Typically • Ashton Wold CA – Small increase in • Cotterstock CA – Wansford.
• Conservat flooded to area of flooding. Increase in depth of Small increase in
ion Areas depths of up to flooding of up to 0.3m. area of flooding.
adversely 1m. Area of • Wansford CA – Small increase in Increase in depth
affected by each flooded < area of flooding. Increase in depth of of flooding of up
flooding or 5ha. flooding of up to 0.5m. to 0.1m.
flood risk • Sutton CA - Small increase in area of • Ashton Wold –
managemen 16 Scheduled flooding. Increase in depth of flooding Small increase in
t activities area of flooding.
Environment Agency

flooding
Monuments of up to 0.2m Increase in depth
(flooded to • Oundle CA - Very small area (< 1 ha) of flooding of up
depths of up to becomes flooded where previously to 0.2m.
1.5m in some wasn’t. • Wansford CA –
cases). • Scheduled Monuments – Increase in Small increase in
depth of flooding at SMs of up to area of flooding.
Elton Hall Park 0.5m, though typically less than this. Increase in depth
and Garden Small increase in area of following of flooding of up
affected SMs (the rest are already completely to 0.3m.
(<10ha of site flooded): both Roman Villas; • Sutton CA –
flooded earthworks of Abbot of Ramsey’s Small increase in
typically to Manor; Fotheringhay Castle and area of flooding.
depth of up to Priory; and Ashton settlement., Increase in depth
1m). Roman Fort and Roman Town of of flooding of up
Durobrivae, Lynch Farm Complex, to 0.1m.
Roman Site in Normangate Field, • Scheduled
Longthorpe Roman Fort and Monuments –
Settlement, Bowl Barrow nr. Water Increase in depth
Newton. of flooding at the
• Wansford Roman Site SM (which 16 SMs of up to
does not flood under existing regime) 0.5m, though
will experience minor flooding typically less than
• Elton Hall Park and Garden – small this. Small
increase in area of flooding. Increase increase in area
in depth of less than 0.1m. of SMs not
already
completely
flooded
• Wansford Roman
Site SM (which
does not flood
under existing
regime) will
experience minor
flooding
• Elton Hall Park
and Garden –
Environment Agency

flooding
small increase in
area of flooding.
Increase in depth
of less than 0.1m.
ENV Protect and Area of Castor Flood Less protection for designated sites. Wansford Pasture Castor Flood Wansford Pasture
2 contribute to SSSIs, Meadows SSSI becomes Meadows SSSI - SSSI becomes
the SPAs, SACs SSSI affected. Wansford Pasture SSSI becomes affected (<1ha of Site area affected (<1ha of
improvement and Ramsar Site area affected (<1ha of site becomes flooded site becomes 41.8ha. 94% site becomes
of sites flooded 41.8ha. Depth to low depth). This SSSI is designated flooded to low area affected by flooded to low
designated in a 1% of flooding up for its calcareous grassland, its current depth). A small flooding. depth). A small
nature flood to 1m. 94% condition is unfavourable recovering amount/duration of Current amount/duration
conservation Reported area affected and active management is required to flooding could be condition status: of flooding could
sites (SSSI, condition by flooding. maintain the species-rich sward and beneficial to the 91 per cent be beneficial to
SPA, SAC status of Current conservation interest of calcareous and site. unfavourable the site.
and Ramsar) SSSIs, condition wet grassland. A small amount/duration recovering – all
SPAs, SACs status: 91 per of flooding could be beneficial to the Increase in units subject to Increase in
and Ramsar cent site. frequency, depth management frequency, depth
sites at risk unfavourable and duration of agreements. and duration of
from a 1% recovering – Castor Flood Meadow SSSI – At least flooding at Castor flooding at Castor
flood all units 94% of area flooded. Increase in depth Flood Meadows Flood Meadows
subject to of up to 0.3m. Effect of flooding: SSSI.: SSSI.:
management Positive - Increased flooding would be
agreements. beneficial if additional wet grassland Castor Flood Castor Flood
habitat created. Meadows SSSI Meadows SSSI
• Site area 41.8ha. • Site area
39.3ha affected 41.8ha. 39.3ha
by flooding at affected by
future 1% AEP flooding at
flood which future 1% AEP
equates to a flood which
small increase in equates to a
the area flooded. small increase
• Effect of flooding: in the area
Positive flooded.
• Effect of
flooding:
Positive
Environment Agency

flooding
ENV Enhance the The Extent and Less protection for BAP habitats. The following BAP No increase in The following BAP
3 biodiversity distribution distribution of habitats may be depth or extent habitats may be
of the and extent BAP habitats: Undetermined Grassland – 100% of affected: of flooding affected:
catchment of the future area flooded. Slight increase in depth of compared with
by improving UK BAP Undetermined flooding. Undetermined baseline Undetermined
the quality of priority Grassland: Grassland: Grassland:
the river habitats (for Total Area in Undetermined Woodland – At least Total Area in PU: Total Area in PU:
environment example, PU: 8.5ha 0.5ha of 4ha site affected by flooding. 8.5ha 8.5ha
and fens, wet Area At Risk Slight increase in depth. Effect is Area At Risk Future: Area At Risk
contributing woodland, Current: 7.7ha unknown, dependant on plant 8.5ha Future: 8.5ha
to UK reed bed, % Area At communities present, there may be % Area At Risk % Area At Risk
Biodiversity floodplain Risk Current: minor positive or negative effects. Future: 100%, an Future: 100%, an
Action Plan grazing 91% increase of 0.8ha increase of 0.8ha
targets marsh) Lowland Meadows – No increase in on current 1%. on current 1%.
Undetermined area flooded (41ha of 42ha site). Slight Effect unknown, Effect unknown,
Woodland increase in depth of flooding. dependant on the dependant on the
Total Area in plant communities plant communities
PU: 4ha present. present.
Area At Risk
Current: 0ha Undetermined Undetermined
%Area At Risk Woodland Woodland
Current: 0% Total Area in PU: Total Area in PU:
4ha 4ha
Lowland Area At Risk Future: Area At Risk
Meadows: 0.5ha Future: 0.5ha
Total Area in %Area At Risk %Area At Risk
PU: 42ha Future: 13%, an Future: 13%, an
Area At Risk increase of 0.5ha increase of 0.5ha
Current: 41ha on current 1%. on current 1%.
% Area At unknown, unknown,
Risk Current: dependant on the dependant on the
98% plant communities plant communities
present. present.
The effect of
flooding on Lowland Meadows Lowland
Environment Agency

flooding
undetermined Total Area in PU: Meadows
grassland and 42ha Total Area in PU:
woodland is Area At Risk Future: 42ha
unknown, 41ha Area At Risk
dependant on %Area At Risk Future: 41ha
the plant Future: 98%. No %Area At Risk
communities change Future: 98%. No
present. change
ENV • Support WFD Article WFD Increases in the Increases in the Increases in the Taking action to Taking action to
4 the 5 pressures frequency and frequency and frequency and sustain current reduce current
achievem and impacts Category: At extent of flooding extent of flooding extent of flooding level of flood risk level of flood risk
ent of assessment Risk are likely to are likely to are likely to at point and at point and
good s results increase the increase the levels increase the levels diffuse sources diffuse sources of
status/pot WFD Applicable levels of of pollutants from of pollutants from of pollution pollution could
ential of ecological Factors: Point pollutants from sources in adjacent sources in adjacent could prevent prevent potential
surface and source sources in agricultural land agricultural land that potential adverse effects on
and chemical pollution, adjacent that are washed are washed into the adverse effects water quality. This
groundwat status/poten diffuse agricultural land into the river with river with potential on water quality. could provide
er bodies tial of water pollution, that are washed potential adverse adverse effects on This could environmental
under the bodies. physical or into the river with effects on water water quality. This provide improvements
WFD morphological potential adverse quality. This would would not help to environmental helping to achieve
Area of alterations, effects on water not help to achieve achieve WFD improvements WFD
contaminate alien species quality. This WFD environmental helping to environmental
d or would not help to environmental objectives achieve WFD objectives
damaged achieve WFD objectives environmental
land environmental objectives
restored or objectives
protected as
a result of
flood risk
managemen
t activities
Environment Agency
Form 12.7 Summary of overall gains and losses for each policy option Policy unit: River Nene from Oundle to Water Newton

one leads to a significant increase in risk
No social gains identified. High: Flood forecasting and warning ceased. to people, property and the
Medium: Increase in the number of people affected – 56 environment, particularly in the cost
Economic more at risk. of damages.
Medium: Increase in the number of residential
High: No EA expenditure on maintenance – properties affected – 22 more at risk.
reduction of £124k p.a. Medium: Increase in the number of commercial
Low: Increase in commercial damages of £1.44M. properties affected – 6 more at risk.
Despite increase, commercial damages remain Medium: Increase in impact on critical infrastructure –
relatively low when considered on a catchment increase in depth and frequency of flooding at
wide basis. Stibbington STW, one electricity substation affected.
Medium: Ceasing maintenance will have a significant
impact on navigation on the River Nene.
Medium: Increase in impact on transport infrastructure –
increased length of road and depth of flooding at key
roads including the A1.
social vulnerability (category 3).
Low: Minor increases in depth, duration and velocity of
flooding. Depth of flooding likely to increase by up to
0.40m, though typically lower. Depth of flooding at most
properties still lower than 0.5m. No significant increase
in velocity expected.
Economic
Medium: No Grade 1 land and at least 28% of Grade 2

land in this policy unit affected by flooding. This equates
to a relatively large area of Grade 2 land.
Low: Increase in residential damages o f £1.31M.
Residential damages are moderately high.
Environment Agency

Low: - Medium: Increased flooding could increase Low: Planning policy would not afford more protection
the extent of grassland habitat (BAP). for historic assets.
Low: Wansford Pasture SSSI becomes affected Medium: Small increase in area of flooding of 5
(<1ha of site becomes flooded to low depth); a Conservation Areas currently flooded (increase in depth
small amount/duration of flooding could be between 0.1 and 0.5m).
beneficial to this designated site. Low: Very small area of Oundle CA (< 1 ha) becomes
flooded where previously wasn’t.
Medium – High: Increase in depth of flooding of up t o
0.5m at 16 Scheduled Monuments currently flooded.
Low: Small increase in area of Elton Hall Park and
Garden flooded (with an increase in depth of <0.1m).
for BAP habitats.
Low: Small area of other BAP habitats affected.
two leads to a significant increase in risk
No social gains identified. Medium: Increase in the number of people affected – 53 to people, property and the
more at risk. environment, particularly in the cost
Economic Medium: Increase in the number of residential of damages.
High: Reduction in EA expenditure on Medium: Increase in the number of commercial
maintenance – reduction of £62k p.a. properties affected – 5 more at risk.
Low: Increase in commercial damages of £1.12M. Medium: Increase in impact on critical infrastructure –
Despite increase, commercial damages remain increase in depth and frequency of flooding at
relatively low when considered on a catchment Stibbington STW, one electricity substation affected.
wide basis. Medium: Increase in impact on transport infrastructure –
increased length of road and depth of flooding at key
roads including the A1.
Environment Agency

Low: Reduction in expenditure will have a moderate
impact on navigation on the River Nene.
Low: Minor increases in depth, duration and velocity of
flooding. Depth of flooding likely to increase by up to
0.35m, though typically lower. Depth of flooding at most
properties still lower than 0.5m. No significant increase
in velocity expected.
Economic
Medium: No Grade 1 land and at least 28% of Grade 2

land in this policy unit affected by flooding. This equates
to a relatively large area of Grade 2 land.
Low: Increase in residential damages o f £1.09M.
Residential damages are moderately high.
Low: - Medium: Increased flooding could increase Low: Planning policy would not afford more protection
the extent of grassland habitat (BAP). for historic assets.
Low: Wansford Pasture SSSI becomes affected Medium: Small increase in area of flooding of 5
(<1ha of site becomes flooded to low depth); a Conservation Areas currently flooded (increase in depth
small amount/duration of flooding could be between 0.1 and 0.5m).
beneficial to this designated site. Low: Very small area of Oundle CA (< 1 ha) becomes
flooded where previously wasn’t.
Medium – High: Increase in depth of flooding of up t o
0.5m at 16 Scheduled Monuments currently flooded.
Low: Small increase in area of Elton Hall Park and
for BAP habitats.
Environment Agency

Policy Social Social PREFERRED OPTION: Under this
three policy there is only a minor increase
Medium: Increase in depth, duration and velocity of Medium: Increase in impact on critical infrastructure – in the level of flood risk from the
flooding. Increase in depth of flooding of up to increase in depth and frequency of flooding at present. There is no significant
0.25m, though typically much less. Depth of Stibbington STW, one electricity substation affected. increase in the depth or velocity of
flooding at vast majority of residential properties Low: Increase in the number of people affected – 45 flooding, meaning that there is only
less than 0.5m. Nature of flooding (to shallow more at risk. a limited risk to life.
depth) suggests that velocity of flow is likely to be Low: Increase in the number of residential properties
low. No significant risk to life. affected – 18 more at risk. The Environment Agency’s priority is
Low: No significant negative impact on navigation Low: Increase in the number of commercial properties to reduce risk to life. The minor
on the River Nene. affected – 4 more at risk. increase in risk in this policy unit
Low: Flood warning and forecasting development Low: Small increase in impact on transport does not see a significant increase
plan will manage flood forecasting more effectively infrastructure – increased length of road and depth of in risk to life, and therefore there is
on existing budget. flooding at key roads including the A1. limited justification for increasing
Low: Increase in risk occurs in areas with a moderate flood risk management.
Economic social vulnerability (category 3).
Medium: EA expenditure on maintenance kept at

the same level - £124k p.a.
Low: Increase in commercial damages of £1.02M. Economic
Despite increase, commercial damages remain
relatively low when considered on a catchment Medium: No Grade 1 land and 28% of Grade 2 land in
wide basis. this policy unit affected by flooding. This equates to a
Low: Increase in residential damages o f £1.13M. relatively large area of Grade 2 land.
Residential damages are modest when the size of
the policy unit and number of properties affected is
taken into account.
Environment Agency

Low: - Medium: Increased flooding could increase Medium: Small increase in area of flooding of 5
the extent of grassland habitat (BAP). Conservation Areas currently flooded (increase in depth
Low: Wansford Pasture SSSI becomes affected between 0.1 and 0.3m).
(<1ha of site becomes flooded to low depth); a Medium – High: Increase in depth of flooding of up to
small amount/duration of flooding could be 0.5m at 16 Scheduled Monuments currently flooded.
beneficial to this designated site. Low: Small increase in area of Elton Hall Park and
Policy Social Social Not preferred. The expenditure
four required to maintain the current level
Medium: No significant increase in the depth, Low: No significant change to impact on transport of flood risk is disproportionate to
duration and velocity of flooding. Depth of flooding infrastructure – regionally and nationally important the benefits.
at vast majority of residential properties less than routes such as the A1 still at risk of flooding.
0.5m. Nature of flooding (to shallow depth) Low: Slight reduction in the number of commercial
suggests that velocity of flow is likely to be low. No properties affected – 2 less commercial properties at
significant risk to life. risk. Number of commercial properties at risk remains
Medium: Flood Warning and Forecasting Delivery moderately high.
plan and Flood Awareness plan increase coverage Low: Limited change in impact of flooding at critical
and effectiveness of flood warning. infrastructure – Stibbington STW flooded to depth of up
Low: Slight reduction in the number of people to 1.75m.
affected – 70 less people at risk.
Low: Slight reduction in the number of residential Economic
properties affected – 28 less residential properties
at risk. Medium: No increase in the area of Grade 2 agricultural
Low: No negative impact on navigation on the land affected. A significant proportion of the land at risk
River Nene. is Grade 2.
Economic
Medium: Reduction in commercial damages of

£0.37M.
Environment Agency

£0.33M.
incurred in River Nene Corridor and River Nene
(Weedon – Kislingbury) policy units.
Low: Damages and degradation to historic Medium: 5 Conservation Areas are still affected (and for
environment remain at the same baseline level. a long duration) which may cause damage and
Low: No increase in the area of BAP habitats degradation.
affected. Medium: 16 Scheduled Monuments are still affected
Low: Flooding could increase the extent of (and for a long duration) which may cause damage and
grassland habitat (BAP). degradation.
Low: May provide environmental improvements Low – Medium: 1 Registered Park and Garden is still
helping to achieve WFD environmental objectives. affected (and for a long duration) which may cause
damage and limitations to visiting.
Low: Small area of other BAP habitats still affected.
Policy Social Social Not preferred. The level of flood risk

five at present is not considered to be
Medium: Reduction in the number of people Low: Increase in impact on critical infrastructure – sufficient to warrant increased flood
affected – 262 less people at risk. increase in depth and frequency of flooding at risk management in this policy unit,
Medium: Reduction in the number of residential Stibbington STW. Electricity substation protected by or in other policy units.
properties affected – 105 less properties at risk. defences.
Medium: Reduction in the number of commercial
properties affected – 15 less at risk. Economic
Medium: No significant increase in the depth,
duration or velocity of flooding. Depth of flooding at High: Significant increase in the level of expenditure on
vast majority of residential properties less than flood defence – cost of capital works to reduce impact
0.5m. Defences protect those areas that are of flooding estimated at £4M.
flooded to depths of greater than 0.5m. Nature of Medium: No Grade 1 land and 28% of Grade 2 land in
flooding (to shallow depth) suggests that velocity of this policy unit affected by flooding. This equates to a
flow is likely to be low. No significant risk to life. relatively large area of Grade 2 land.
Environment Agency

Low: No negative impact on navigation on the
River Nene.
Low: Reduction in impact on transport
infrastructure – defences will protect a number of
roads at risk, including the A1 in Wansford.
Economic
High: Significant reduction in residential damages.

Medium: Slight reduction in commercial damages
beyond there already low level.
Low: - Medium: Increased flooding could increase Medium: Small increase in area of flooding of 5
the extent of grassland habitat (BAP). Conservation Areas currently flooded (increase in depth
Low: Wansford Pasture SSSI becomes affected between 0.1 and 0.3m).
(<1ha of site becomes flooded to low depth); a Medium – High: Increase in depth of flooding of up to
small amount/duration of flooding could be 0.5m at 16 Scheduled Monuments currently flooded.
beneficial to this designated site. Low: Small increase in area of Elton Hall Park and
Low - Medium: Wansford Bridge Scheduled Garden flooded (with an increase in depth of <0.1m).
Monument may benefit from construction of Low: Small area of other BAP habitats affected.
defences in Wansford.
Environment Agency
Form 12.8 Summary of the Preferred Policy Policy unit: River Nene from Oundle to Water Newton
Policy Unit
14 – River The River Nene (Oundle to Water Newton) policy unit is largely rural in nature. It covers the
Nene (Oundle floodplain of the River Nene from just upstream of Oundle, past Water Newton and Wansford,
to Water down to Orton just upstream of Peterborough.
Newton)
The River Nene (Oundle to Water Newton) policy unit is located towards the lower end of the
River Nene catchment, covering the floodplain above Peterborough, over the reach of the River
Nene in which the Willow Brook tributary joins. This mostly rural policy unit therefore has a
relatively low population density, containing largely open land apart from the fringes of smaller
settlements where they impinge of the floodplain.
recorded in the River Nene (Oundle to Water Newton) policy unit in 1947 (Mar), 1986 (May), 1998
(Mar) from surface water, 1998 (Apr), 2003 (Jan) and 2004 (Aug). Groundwater and surface water
flooding may pose a risk to people and properties here, as the March 1998 and August 2004
events are recorded as being due to surface water flooding, though it is presently difficult to
There are generally only some relatively informal or private flood defences within the River Nene
(Oundle to Water Newton) policy unit, with variable defence standard. In the past the town has
Problem / Risk
benefited from construction of flood storage areas upstream, particularly the Northampton
Washlands which control flows continuing down the River Nene from Northampton.
commercial), causing £4.79 million property damages with a majority of those from commercial
properties, also causing some disruption to major infrastructure. While people and property
numbers affected are approximately 9% of the CFMP total, the damages contribute less than 4%.
analysis suggests that a 1% AEP future flood would affect 445 people and 213 properties
(potential increases of up to 11-12%, with 35 commercial properties now), causing £6.94 million
property damages (a rise of 45%, but still with more commercial damage than residential). This
future flood risk represents 5% of the total people and properties numbers for the CFMP area, but
less than 3% of the 1% AEP future flood event damages.
Chosen Policy There is a relatively low increase in the future social and economic impacts within this policy unit if
the present level of flood risk management continues. Modifications and enhancements to our
responses will be considered, in particular through actively influencing land use planning and the
take up of flood resilience measures.
Broadscale modelling was carried out of various storage measures and differing maintenance
regimes (see modelling summary after Form 12.5). Under policy P3, future climate and
Generic
development change result in moderate increases to the present flood risk. Maintenance of the
Responses
flood defences will continue, together with appropriate enhancements to flood warning,
development control and emergency response planning (for example for infrastructure).
Adopting policy P3 here will accept some future minor losses within the River Nene (Oundle to
Water Newton) policy unit. It will potentially increase 1% AEP flood event losses in the policy unit
by 45 people, 22 properties and £2.15 million. Our flood risk management will include the generic
responses outlined above, continuing and modifying or enhancing what we do at present including
Justification actively influencing land use planning and the take up of flood resilience measures. Future
changes in flood risk will be monitored such that further action needs can be reviewed, and we will
work in partnership to ensure that new responses are set against future development where
appropriate, but the increasing residual risk for the River Nene (Oundle to Water Newton) policy
Environment Agency
unit is likely to be offset to a degree by the adoption of policy P6 elsewhere (PU6).
increased future losses within the River Nene (Oundle to Water Newton) policy unit, with the
current flood risk management responses considered appropriate for the level of risk. The
objectives which are met by this policy (1% AEP future flood impact compared to current baseline)
are:

• To minimise risks to critical infrastructure and community facilities (minor change).
Justification • To minimise community disruption from flooding (up to 18 more residential and 4 more
(cont.) commercial properties).
million cost of works in other policy units (PU2 and PU6), partially set against future
development, might deliver £40 million reduction in future damages overall, with £2.85
million in River Nene (Oundle to Water Newton)).
change).
change).
Other policies were rejected for the River Nene (Oundle to Water Newton) policy unit due to (1%
Policy P1 - no active intervention; locally significant economic and social losses (increases of 56
people, 28 properties, and £2.75 million property damages), with risk to public health and safety
from urban nature of channel corridors.
Policy P2 - reduce existing flood risk management actions; locally significant economic and social
economic and social losses are presently considered relatively limited and are therefore unlikely to
justify additional responses on their own, however the enhancement of floodplain storage under
policy P6 upstream (PU2 and PU6) will actually largely offset any increase in flood risk within
Alternative
River Nene (Oundle to Water Newton) policy unit anyway.
policies
considered
might be relatively attractive but very difficult to justify up to approximately £3.82 million (1% AEP
flood) future damage reduction against likely costs of £4 million (262 less people, 120 less
properties, and £1.67 million damage reduction) as defence standard is presently relatively high in
general and any major response here is unlikely to be sustainable and affordable in the long term;
it is considered that higher flood risk priorities exist elsewhere.
flood risk reduction or environmental benefits locally or elsewhere in the catchment. Investigation
with the broad-scale model showed how storage in this policy unit would detain floods arriving
from the Harper’s and Willow Brooks, bringing those floods nearly into coincidence with the main
flood arriving from the River Nene and combining to exacerbate flooding downstream.
Main opportunities
Catchment-
wide
opportunities &
constraints
Environment Agency

Main constraints
• Demand for increased housing provision and associated infrastructure within the London-
Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough (Peterborough) growth areas may come into conflict with
the need to restrict development in floodplains.

Opportunities
Increased flooding and appropriate management could enable the extension of the valuable
grassland into adjacent fields.
Constraints
changes in management may also affect the grassland composition.
Scheduled Monuments
Opportunities
Constraints
Landfill sites
Discharges
Abstractions
Risks, also the type and distribution of contaminated land within the policy unit.
Uncertainties &
Dependencies The estimates of flood damage within the River Nene (Oundle to Water Newton) policy unit are
considered sufficiently accurate to inform the selection of the proposed policy and response.
Environment Agency
Peterborough and the Nene Washes
Environment Agency
Policy unit: Peterborough and the Nene Washes
flood risk within the Peterborough benefits from the operation of the Northampton
policy unit? washlands. There are other flood storage areas which benefit
Peterborough:
• Whittlesey (Nene) Washes flood storage reservoir (for
Peterborough and Fen villages - Eldernell, Eastrea, Guyhirn),
EA responsibility.
• Thorpe Drain storage area, EA responsibility
and there are flood defences in the form of:
• the Dog-in-a-Doublet Sluice (a tidal defence)
• potentially some informal/ private defences.
Flood Warning
Peterborough is covered by a number of flood watch and flood
warning areas.
• North Bank Road alongside the River Nene, east of
Peterborough and west of Dog-in-a-Doublet Sluice - trigger
sites Wansford, Dog in a Doublet. Rate of uptake in this flood
warning area is 25%.
sluice to the east of Peterborough - trigger site Wansford.
2358 people (943 properties) can apply for flood warnings within
the policy area.
Maintenance:
annual expenditure:
Standards of service Standard of protection of Thorpe Drain storage area, and

that apply to flood Whittlesey flood storage reservoir are unknown.
defences within the
policy unit?

exposed to flooding? Fluvial flooding from River Nene and Stanground Lode, duration
of flooding very long (typically 48 – 96 hours). Depth of flooding
generally low (< 0.5m typically, though up to 1m at a very small
number of properties). Broad floodplain and low depth of flooding
is indicative of low velocities of flooding.

Environment Agency
A small number of properties (approx. 25) at risk of frequent
flooding (10% AEP flood). Serious flooding occurs relatively
infrequently – at the 0.1% flood event there is a large increase in
the number of people and properties affected.

Infrastructure


• East Coast mainline and Peterborough – Ely railway line
affected at the 0.1% event. Unlikely that flooding would occur
at 1% event but disruption may occur.
• A15 at Yaxley is affected at the 1% flood event.
Undeveloped floodplain provides access for local people to open

space – e.g. Ferry Meadows at Peterborough.
Economic
the catchment). Majority of damages comes from residential
properties.
AAD: £0.12m

- Grade 1: 83.1%
- Grade 2: 31.6%
Environmental
2 Scheduled Monuments are flooded in a current 1% AEP flood:

• PE195 (Old Custom House)
• 20804 (Roman Field System and Trackway with Later Field
Ditches and Drive on Whittlesey Washes).
Thorpe Hall Park and Gardens (ID 1036) within policy unit and
2 conservation areas are affected in a current 1% AEP flood:

• Longthorpe; and
• Peterborough City Centre.

Nene Washes SSSI, SPA, SAC, Ramsar site. Site area 1512ha.
Environment Agency
100% affected by flooding.
• Current condition status: 58 per cent unfavourable recovering
– all units subject to management agreements. Management
actions: Washland used for seasonal uptake of floodwaters
from River Nene and cattle grazing in summer – creates a
mosaic of rough grassland and wet pasture.
• Likely negative effects of flooding: sensitive to changes in
water levels and timing of flooding. Unmanaged flooding
could result in washing out of bird nests during breeding
seasons or make habitats less suitable.
• Likely positive effects of flooding: increased flooding would be
beneficial if additional wet grassland habitat created.
Orton Pit SSSI, SAC. Site area 146ha. 6% of area (9ha) affected
due to flooding.
• Current condition status: 100 per cent favourable.
Management actions: none relevant.
• No likely positive or negative effects of flooding anticipated.
• Opportunity: Appropriate management could extend the area
of designation by improving the adjacent areas.
• Previous constraint identified: Increased flooding may
adversely affect the water quality of the water bodies which
are currently rainwater fed.
Lowland Meadows:

species.

currently most • 396 people and 165 properties affected by flooding with long
vulnerable to flood duration
damage and losses? • Serious flooding occurs at the 0.1% flood event.
Economic
• Economic damages are relatively low, the majority coming
from residential properties.
Environmental
• Two Scheduled Monuments and a Park and Garden affected
by flooding.
• Nene Washes SSSI, SPA, SAC, Ramsar site currently whole
area (1310ha) affected due to flooding.
Environment Agency

growth predictions for the River Nene catchment.

future levels of flood Flooding information: small increase of < 0.25m in depth. Most
risk under the main properties flooded to depth of < 0.5m, though some flooded up to
scenarios? 1.25m. Small increases in the duration of flooding compared with
present, though not significant given the already long duration.

AEP flood.
As with the present 1% flood event, there are relatively few

people and properties affected at the 10% event (55 properties).
Serious flooding occurs at the 0.1% event, when a large increase
in the number of people and properties affected occurs.

69.4% increase in properties affected from the current 1% AEP
flood.
Infrastructure

• 2 electricity substations are at risk of flooding in the future 1%
event.

• East Coast mainline and Peterborough – Ely railway line
affected at the 0.1% event. Unlikely that flooding would occur
at 1% event but increased risk of disruption occurring.
• A15 at Yaxley is affected at the 1% flood event in the future.

in duration, depth and frequency of flooding in the future
Economic
damages from the current 1% event. In contrast with the damages
estimated for the current condition, the majority of these damages
come from commercial properties.
AAD: £0.35m
Environment Agency

- Grade 1: 85.6%
- Grade 2: 33.4%
Environmental
Increase in impact of flooding at the two Scheduled Monuments
and one Park and Garden affected at present.
Peterborough District has 29 designated Conservation Areas, four

of which are affected at the 1% flood event in the future. These
are:
• Longthorpe;
• Peterborough City;
• Queens Road; and
• Stanground.

• Nene Washes SSSI, SPA, SAC, Ramsar site, site area
1310ha. 100% of area affected due to flooding. This figure
equates to no change from the current 1% AEP flood.
• Orton Pit SSSI, SAC, site area 146ha. 26% of area (38ha)
affected due to flooding. This figure equates to greater than a
400% increase in the area affected from the current 1% AEP
flood.
Lowland Meadows:
% Area At Risk Future: 100%, no change on current 1%

manage flood risk? • Develop upstream storage
• Flood awareness
• Studies
the 1% AEP flood.
climate change and other drivers, the estimates of rise in sea
Environment Agency
level, and the responses of the catchment to these changes
are subject to significant uncertainties.
management.
deposition.
• The analysis of flood risk in parts of this policy unit was
carried out using our JFLOW flood extents. Therefore the
results in this policy unit may be less reliable than for other
policy units.
Environment Agency
POLICY UNIT 15: PETERBOROUGH AND THE NENE WASHES
coefficient by 20%. For the unmodelled Stanground Lode it was assumed that the change in
damages, number of people affected etc. would be of the same magnitude as the change
observed across the catchment.
(+76%) (+83%) (+280%)
Conclusions

conveyance
coefficient by 10%. For the unmodelled Stanground Lode we assumed that the change in
damages, number of people affected etc. would be of the same magnitude as the change
observed across the catchment.
(+69%) (+77%) (+258%)
Conclusions

363
(+61%) (+77%) (+235%)
Environment Agency
Conclusions
continued.

the roughness coefficient by 20%. For the unmodelled Stanground Lode we assumed that the
change in damages, number of people affected etc. relative to the baseline would be of the
same magnitude as the change observed across the catchment.
(+46%) (+54%) (+190%)
Conclusions
Conclusion: The results of this generic response show a large increase in the impact on
people, property and damages. This is not consistent with a P4, and as such this generic
response will not be carried forward to the policy appraisal.

10. Upstream of Northampton on the Kislingbury branch of the River Nene;

11. Along the River Ise between Kettering and Wellingborough;
attenuated.
Environment Agency
Original
hydrograph
Lag Hydrograph with
storage
Attenuation
Flow
Time
The latter three were modelled by assuming that 20% of the 1% annual probability floodplain
could be utilised as natural floodplain storage. An average depth of storage of 0.5m was
assumed. Storage reservoirs of this size were then incorporated into the broadscale model to
represent natural floodplain storage on each of the three reaches of the River Nene
considered.
To carry out a P4 in Peterborough a P6 policy option would be needed in the River Nene
Corridor, and the River Nene (Weedon – Kislingbury) policy units.
Environment Agency
2

(+14%) (+22%) (+100%)
Conclusions
Cost: No capital costs associated with this policy unit, but costs incurred in upstream policy
units. Maintenance will continue at the present level.
River Nene (Weedon to Kislingbury) can reduce the future flood risk in Peterborough. The
results of this generic response still show increases in risk against the baseline, most notably
increases in damages. Excluding the damages the overall level of risk is approximately the
same as for the baseline however.
Environment Agency
the River Nene through Peterborough as shown in the diagram below:

(+49%) (47%) (+77%)
Conclusions
Conclusion: The defences protect a large number of residential properties that are at risk of
flooding, and as a result the number of people and properties at risk reduces significantly.
Many of the commercial properties, which contribute significantly to the damages, are not
protected.

insufficient floodplain area to make storage effective. The tidal limit at Dog in a Doublet sluice
is immediately downsteam of this Policy Unit, and beyond this the flood risk is primarily tidal
meaning that fluvial storage would have a very limited impact.
Environment Agency

Environment Agency
Policy unit name/number: Peterborough
Form 12.6 Policy Appraisal Policy unit: Peterborough and the Nene Washes
flooding
Generic responses: • Cease flood • Maintain flood • Maintain flood • Review flood • Review Opportunities for
warning and warning and warning and warning and flood additional storage
forecasting forecasting forecasting forecasting warning and developments
• Cease • Reduce • Continue • Develop forecasting have been
maintenance of maintenance of maintenance of upstream • Construct identified in the
river channel channel, river channel, storage by localised River Nene (from
and structures structures and structures and creating defences in Weedon to
• Remove flood flood storage flood storage channel Peterboroug Kislingbury) policy
storage areas areas areas obstructions to h unit and the River
increase • Surface Nene Corridor
inundation of Water policy unit. Very
the natural Managemen little scope to
floodplain. t Plan apply in this policy
• Increase unit therefore no
maintenance of assessment of
channel, gains and losses
structures and was undertaken.
flood storage
areas in this
policy unit.
• Surface Water
Management
Plan
SOC To minimise Number of 396 people 697 people 671 people 639 people affected 452 people 202 people
1 flood related people at risk affected by affected by affected by by flooding in the affected by affected by
risks to the in the 1% flood flooding at flooding in the 1% flooding in the 1% 1% AEP flood. flooding in the 1% flooding in the
population Numbers of 1% AEP flood. AEP flood. AEP flood. 1% AEP flood.
people Flood warning
covered by 2358 people Cease flood Flood warning coverage Review flood Review flood
flood warning (943 warning and coverage maintained at the warning coverage warning
or emergency / properties) forecasting, with maintained at the same level. through a Flood coverage
evacuation can apply for increased risk to same level. Warning and through a
plans flood community. Increased risk of Forecasting Flood Warning
warnings Increased risk of surface water delivery plan. and
within the Increased risk of surface water flooding. Forecasting
Environment Agency
flooding
policy unit. surface water flooding. Develop a Flood delivery plan.
flooding. Awareness plan to
encourage people Develop a
to sign up for flood Flood
warning. Awareness
plan to
Develop an encourage
Surface Water people to sign
Management Plan up for flood
to reduce the warning.
impact of surface
water. Develop an
Surface Water
Management
Plan to reduce
the impact of
surface water.
To minimise • Numbers Increased risk to 2 Increased risk to 2 2 electricity sub- 1 electricity 2 electricity
risks to critical and type of Transport electricity sub- electricity substations affected. substation sub-stations
SOC infrastructure critical infrastructure stations. stations. Both flooded to affected. affected. Both
2 and community asset. affected: shallow depths. flooded to
facilities • Critical • A15 at Increase in depth Increase in depth Increase in depth shallow
infrastructur Yaxley is and duration of and duration of Increase in depth and duration of depths.
e includes: affected at flooding at key flooding at key and duration of flooding at key
• Electricity the 1% transport transport flooding at key transport Increase in
Sub- flood infrastructure. infrastructure. transport infrastructure. depth and
stations/pow event. infrastructure. duration of
er supply Critical Increased risk that Increased risk that Emergency flooding at key
• Sewage infrastructure East Coast East Coast Response plans transport
Treatment affected: mainline and mainline and may help to infrastructure.
Works • 1 Peterborough – Peterborough – manage risk to
(STW) electricity Ely railway line Ely railway line infrastructure. Emergency
• Waste substation will be affected at will be affected at Response
Treatment is affected the 1% event. the 1% event. plans may
Works at the 1% help to
(STW) flood manage risk to
• Waste event. infrastructure.
Environment Agency
flooding
Managemen
t Sites No
• IPPC Sites community
• Transport: facilities at
Railway, risk.
Roads,
Canals
(particularly
consider
ability to use
other
routes)
• Community
facilities
include:
• Hospitals
• Emergency
Response
Centres
• Care
Homes
• Schools
SOC To minimise Number of 158 279 residential 269 residential 256 residential 181 residential 81 residential
3 community properties residential properties and 24 properties and 24 properties and 24 properties and 20 properties and
disruption from affected in the properties commercial commercial commercial commercial 7 commercial
flooding 1% flood and 7 properties at risk properties at risk properties at risk of properties at risk properties at
Category of commercial of flooding at the of flooding at the flooding at the 1% of flooding at the risk of flooding
social properties 1% AEP flood. 1% event. event. 1% event. at the 1%
vulnerability affected by event.
areas affected flooding at Increase in risk of Increase in risk of Increase in risk of Areas at risk of
in the 1% flood 1% AEP flooding occurs in flooding occurs in flooding occurs in flooding have a Benefit of
Extent of flood. areas with areas with areas with typically moderate increased
flooding moderate social moderate social moderate social social vulnerability flood risk
Duration of Social vulnerability to vulnerability to vulnerability to to flooding management
flooding impact: flooding (category flooding (category flooding (category (categories 3) felt in areas
Moderate - 3) 3) 3) with moderate
Environment Agency
flooding
typically No significant social
SFVI Increase in depth, Increase in depth, Minor increase in increase in depth, vulnerability to
category 3 duration and duration and depth, duration and duration and flooding
frequency of frequency of frequency of velocity of (category 3).
flooding will occur. flooding will occur. flooding will occur. flooding.
Small increase
Majority of Majority of Vast majority of Depth of flooding in depth,
properties flooded properties flooded residential remains low – duration and
to depths of less to depths of less properties flooded nearly all velocity pf
than 1m, though a than 1m, though a to depths of less residential flooding
small number (5- small number (5- than 0.5m. Risk to properties are outside of
10 properties) are 10 properties) are people from deep flooded to depths those areas
flooded to depths flooded to depths flooding and high of less than 0.5m. defended.
of greater than of greater than velocities is Velocities are low. Majority of
1m. 1m. minimal. properties still
flooded to
Increase in Increase in depths of less
duration of duration of than 0.5m.
flooding beyond flooding beyond Velocities
the already the already unlikely to be
significant 48-96 significant 48-96 significant.
hours. hours.
To minimise Residential £1.43m £2.89m residential £2.75m residential £2.60m residential £1.97m residential £1.65m
ECO economic damages 1% residential damages and damages and damages and damages and residential
N1 impacts of flood damages £3.74m £3.56m £3.34m commercial £1.56m damages and
flooding Commercial commercial commercial damages at the 1% commercial £1.49m
damages 1% £0.33m damages at the damages at the AEP flood. damages at the commercial
flood commercial 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood damages at
Agricultural damages 85.6% of Grade 1 the 1% AEP
damages in At least 85.6% of At least 85.6% of agricultural land 83.1% of Grade 1 flood.
the 1% flood 83.1% of Grade 1 Grade 1 affected. agricultural land
Percentage Grade 1 and agricultural land agricultural land affected. 85.6% of
area of grade 31.6% of affected. affected. 33.4% of Grade 2 Grade 1
1 and 2 Grade 2 land agricultural land 31.6% of Grade 2 agricultural
agricultural affected in Greater than 61ha Greater than affected. agricultural land land affected.
land flooded 1% AEP of Grade 2 33.4% of Grade 2 affected.
during the 1% flood agricultural land agricultural land 33.4% of
flood affected. affected. Grade 2
Environment Agency
flooding
agricultural
land affected.
Ensure future Expenditure Current EA EA ceases Annual EA No increase in cost No cost Cost of
investment in on all FRM annual spending money expenditure on of maintenance in associated with constructing
ECO the catchment activities. expenditure on maintenance. maintenance real terms – this policy unit but defences will
N2 is proportional on estimated at £1k remains at £3k in costs incurred in be
to the risks maintenance EA ceases in current prices. current prices. upstream policy approximately
estimated at influencing and units where £7m
£3k informing reducing EA reduces No increase in EA storage
expenditure expenditure on expenditure on developed. Increase in EA
significantly. influencing and flood warning in real expenditure on
informing. terms. Expanding flood
influencing and warning/flood
informing will lead awareness.
to a minor
increase in EA
expenditure.
Protect and Numbers of: 2 Scheduled Less protection for Less protection for Increase in depth of Increase PE140 and
enhance • Scheduled Mounments historic assets. historic assets. flooding at PE195 of inundation of the PE195 would
ENV significant Monuments are affected approx. 0.2m, natural floodplain be protected
1 historic • Historic by flooding: Increase in depth Increase in depth PE140 on edge of under this policy by flood
environment Parks and • PE195 of flooding at of flooding at floodplain. Increase likely to lead to an defences
assets and Gardens (Old PE195 of approx. PE195 of approx. in depth of flooding increase in depth under this
their settings • Historic Custom 0.2m, PE140 on 0.2m, PE140 on at SM 20804 of up of flooding at policy option.
Battlefields House) edge of floodplain edge of floodplain. to 0.4m. PE195 to depth of Increase in
• Conservatio • 20804 Increase in depth Increase in depth approx.0.1m, depth of
n Areas (Roman of flooding at SM of flooding at SM Thorpe Hall flooded which may cause flooding at SM
adversely Field 20804 of up to 20804 of up to to depth of approx. significant 20804 of up to
affected by System 0.4m. 0.4m. 1.35m over area of adverse impact. 0.4m.
flooding or and < 10%. This may Whole of SM
flood risk Trackway Thorpe Hall Thorpe Hall cause significant 20804 flooded to Thorpe Hall
managemen with Later flooded to depth flooded to depth adverse impacts depth of up to flooded to
t activities Field of approx. 1.45m of approx. 1.4m including restricted 2.5m. depth of
Ditches over area of < over area of < public access. approx. 1.35m
and Drive 10%. This may 10%. This may Small area over area of <
on cause significant cause significant Increase in depth of (<10%) of Thorpe 10%. This may
Whittlesey adverse impacts adverse impacts flooding at Hall Park and cause
Environment Agency
flooding
Washes). including including Conservation Areas Garden flooded. significant
• Thorpe restricted public restricted public of up to 0.3m. Small adverse
Hall Park acess. access. areas of Small areas of impacts
and Stanground and Longthorpe and including
Gardens Minor increases in Minor increases in Queens Rd CAs Peterborough City restricted
(ID 1036) areas of 4 CAs areas of 4 CAs become affected Centre CAs public access.
within affected, although affected, although under this policy flooded to shallow
policy unit increase in depth increase in depth where they were not depth.
and of flooding of up to of flooding of up to affected in the
affected 0.4m at CAs, may 0.35m at CAs, current 1%
by cause damage may cause
flooding at and degradation. damage and
current degradation.
1% event.
Small areas
of
Longthorpe
and
Peterboroug
h City Centre
Conservatio
n Areas
flooded to
shallow
depths.
The
conservation
areas:
Stanground
and Queens
Road
become
affected
under P3 but
are not
affected in
Environment Agency
flooding
the current
1%.
ENV Protect and Area of SSSIs, Nene Less protection to Less protection to This policy likely to Increase Nene Washes:
2 contribute to SPAs, SACs Washes designated sites. designated sites. lead to: inundation of the Increase in
the and Ramsar SSSI, SPA, - Nene Washes: natural floodplain flooding of up
improvement of sites flooded in SAC, These policies These policies Increase in flooding under this policy to 0.3m,
designated a 1% flood Ramsar site. likely to lead to: likely to lead to: of up to 0.3m, likely to lead to: though
nature Reported Site area - Nene Washes: - Nene Washes: though typically less - Nene Washes: typically less
conservation condition 1512ha. Increase in Increase in than this. No Increase in than this. No
sites (SSSI, status of 100% flooding of up to flooding of up to increase in area flooding of up to increase in
SPA, SAC and SSSIs, SPAs, affected by 0.3m, though 0.3m, though flooded. Bird nests 0.3m, though area flooded.
Ramsar) SACs and flooding. typically less than typically less than may be washed out typically less than Bird nests may
Ramsar sites Depth of this. No increase this. No increase and habitats this. No increase be washed out
at risk from a flooding of in area flooded. in area flooded. become less in area flooded. and habitats
1% flood greater than Bird nests may be Bird nests may be suitable. Bird nests may be become less
3m in some washed out and washed out and - Orton Pits: washed out and suitable.
areas, habitats become habitats become 26% of area (38ha) habitats become - Orton Pits:
though less suitable. less suitable. affected due to less suitable. 26% of area
typically - Orton Pits: - Orton Pits: flooding, equates to - Orton Pits: 6% of (38ha)
about 2m. Increase in depth Increase in depth a 320% increase in area (9ha) affected due to
Likely of flooding of up to of flooding of up to the area affected affected due to flooding,
negative 0.5m. Likely 0.5m. Likely and an increase in flooding. No equates to a
effects of increase in area of increase in area of depth of up to effects expected. 320% increase
flooding: greater than 29ha. greater than 29ha. approx. 0.3m. No in the area
sensitive to No effects No effects effects expected. affected and
changes in expected. expected. an increase in
water levels depth of up to
and timing of approx. 0.3m.
flooding. No effects
Unmanaged expected.
flooding
could result
in washing
out of bird
nests during
breeding
seasons or
make
Environment Agency
flooding
habitats less
suitable.
- Likely
positive
effects of
flooding:
increased
flooding
would be
beneficial if
additional
wet
grassland
habitat
created
Orton Pit
SSSI, SAC.
Site area
146ha. 6%
of area (9ha)
affected due
to flooding.
Depth of
flooding
estimated as
up to 2m. No
likely
positive or
negative
effects of
flooding
anticipated.
ENV Enhance the The Lowland Less protection for BAP habitats. Increase in depth of Increased Increase in
3 biodiversity of distribution Meadows: flooding of 0.2m in inundation of the depth of
the catchment and extent of Total Area in These policies likely to lead to: Lowland Meadows, natural floodplain flooding of 0.
by improving the future UK PU: 1517 100% of the habitat under this policy Lowland
the quality of BAP priority Area At Risk Lowland Meadows – Increase in is affected with no likely to lead to an Meadows,
Environment Agency
flooding
the river habitats (for Current: flooding of up to 0.3m, though typically change on the increase in depth 100% of the
environment example, fens, 1517ha less than this. No increase in area current. Minor of flooding of 0.2m habitat is
and wet woodland, % Area At flooded. negative effect on Lowland affected with
contributing to reed bed, Risk Current: . habitat. Meadows, 100% no change on
UK Biodiversity floodplain 100% of the habitat is the current.
Action Plan grazing marsh) affected with no Minor negative
targets change on the effect on
current. Minor habitat.
negative effect on
habitat.
ENV • Support the WFD Article 5 WFD Increase in the Increase in the Increases in the Taking action to Taking action
4 achievement pressures and Category: At frequency and frequency and frequency and sustain current to reduce
of good impacts Risk extent of flooding extent of flooding extent of flooding level of flood risk current level of
status/potent assessments are and may are and may are likely to at point and flood risk at
ial of surface results Applicable increase the increase the increase the levels diffuse sources of point and
and WFD factors: Point levels of pollutants levels of pollutants of pollutants from pollution could diffuse
groundwater ecological and source from urban areas from urban areas sources in Kettering prevent potential sources of
bodies under chemical pollution, and adjacent and adjacent and other urban adverse effects on pollution could
the WFD status/potentia diffuse agricultural land agricultural land areas and adjacent water quality. This prevent
l of water source that are washed that are washed agricultural land that could provide potential
bodies. pollution, into the river with into the river with are washed into the environmental adverse
physical or potential adverse potential adverse river with potential improvements effects on
Area of morphologic effects on water effects on water adverse effects on helping to achieve water quality.
contaminated al alteration, quality. This would quality. This would water quality. This WFD This could
or damaged alien species not help to not help to would not help to environmental provide
land restored achieve WFD achieve WFD achieve WFD objectives. environmental
or protected as environmental environmental improvements
a result of objectives objectives helping to
flood risk achieve WFD
Environment Agency
Form 12.7 Summary of overall gains and losses for each policy option Policy unit: Peterborough and the Nene Washes
Gains (highlighted bits left in from before) Losses Preferred policy option
Policy Social Social Not preferred. Risk to people, property, the
one economy and the environment would
No social gains identified. High: Flood forecasting and warning ceased. increase significantly, particularly the cost
Medium: Significant increase in the number of people of damages.
Economic affected – 301 more at risk.
High: No EA expenditure on maintenance – residential properties affected – 121 more at risk.
reduction of £3k p.a. Medium: Increase in critical infrastructure affected – at
Low: Small increase in commercial damages of least 2 electricity substations at risk.
£3.41M. Commercial damages are low when Medium: Increased risk of flooding at transport
considered against the rest of the catchment, and infrastructure – in particular increased risk of the East
particularly low when considered against other Coast Mainline being affected.
urban areas in the catchment. Medium: Increased risk of surface water flooding.
Low: Increase in risk to areas with typically moderate
Environmental social vulnerability (category 3).
Low: Minor increase in the number of commercial
Medium: Increased flooding could be beneficial if properties at risk – 17 more at risk. Number of
additional wet grassland habitat was created. properties remains moderate when considered
Medium: Decreasing conveyance should alongside rest of catchment.
ultimately make the river become more natural. Low: Increase in duration of flooding beyond the
already significant 48-96 hours.
Low: Increase in depth and velocity of flooding.
Majority of properties flooded to depths of less than
1m, though a small number (5-10 properties) are
flooded to depths of greater than 1m.
Economic
Medium: greater than 86% of Grade 1 land, and

greater than 33% of Grade 2 land in this policy unit
Low: Moderate increase in residential damages of
£1.46M.
Environment Agency
Environmental
land use changes.
Medium: No protection to historic assets as patterns of
development that increase flood risk to other areas are
not discouraged.
High: Increase in depth of flooding of three SMs of up
to 0.4m may result in damage to these monuments.
Medium: Minor increases in areas of 4 CAs affected,
and increase in depth of flooding may cause damage
and degradation.
Medium: Increase in area of Thorpe Hall park and
garden flooded which may cause losses/damage and
limitations to visitation.
High: Negative effects of flooding on Nene Washes
SSSI, SPA, SAC, Ramsar site: sensitive to changes in
water levels and timing of flooding and could result in
washing out of bird nests during breeding seasons or
less suitable habitats.
Medium: Increase in flooding of up to 0.3m for small
areas of BAP habitats (Grassland Networks, Fen Bog
Mire networks, Deciduous Woodland, Lowland
Meadows).
High: May result in increased flood risk and diffuse
pollution.
Medium: Possible reduction in the quality of ground
and surface water bodies through conveyance of
pollutants.
Policy Social Social Not preferred. Risk to people, property, the
two economy and the environment would
No social gains identified. Medium: Significant increase in the number of people increase significantly, particularly the cost
affected – 275 more at risk. of damages.
Economic Medium: Significant increase in the number of
High: Reduction in EA expenditure on Medium: Increase in critical infrastructure affected – at
maintenance – reduction of £1k p.a. least 2 electricity substations at risk.
Environment Agency
Low: Small increase in commercial damages of Medium: Increased risk of flooding at transport
£3.23M. Commercial damages are low when infrastructure – in particular increased risk of the East
considered against the rest of the catchment, and Coast Mainline being affected.
particularly low when considered against other Medium: Increased risk of surface water flooding.
urban areas in the catchment. Low: Increase in risk to areas with typically moderate
Environmental Low: Minor increase in the number of commercial
Medium: Increased flooding could be beneficial if properties at risk – 17 more at risk. Number of
additional wet grassland habitat was created. properties remains moderate when considered
Medium: Decreasing conveyance should alongside rest of catchment.
ultimately make the river become more natural. Low: Increase in duration of flooding beyond the
already significant 48-96 hours.
Low: Increase in depth and velocity of flooding.
Majority of properties flooded to depths of less than
1m, though a small number (5-10 properties) are
flooded to depths of greater than 1m.
same level. Likely to see increase in risk to
community.
Economic
Medium: greater than 86% of Grade 1 land, and

greater than 33% of Grade 2 land in this policy unit
Low: Moderate increase in residential damages of
£1.32M.
Environmental
land use changes.
not discouraged.
High: Increase in depth of flooding of three SMs of up
Medium: Minor increases in areas of 4 CAs affected,
Environment Agency
and increase in depth of flooding may cause damage
and degradation.
Medium: Increase in flooding of up to 0.3m for small
areas of BAP habitats (Grassland Networks, Fen Bog
Mire networks, Deciduous Woodland, Lowland
Meadows).
High: May result in increased flood risk and diffuse
pollution.
pollutants.
Policy Social Social Not preferred. Maintaining current flood risk
three management practices will see a large
No social gains identified. Medium: Increase in the number of people affected – increase in the risk to people and property.
243 more at risk.
Economic Medium: Increase in risk to residential properties – 98
more at risk.
Medium: EA expenditure maintained at present Medium: Increased risk of flooding at transport
level - £3k p.a. infrastructure – in particular increased risk of the East
Low: Small increase in commercial damages of Coast Mainline being affected.
£3.01M. Commercial damages are low when Medium: increased risk of surface water flooding.
considered against the rest of the catchment, and Low: Increase in risk to areas with typically moderate
particularly low when considered against other social vulnerability (category 3).
urban areas in the catchment. Low: Minor increase in the number of commercial
properties at risk – 17 more at risk. Number of
Environmental properties remains moderate when considered
alongside rest of catchment.
Medium: Increased flooding could be beneficial if Low: Slight increase in duration of flooding beyond the
Environment Agency
additional wet grassland habitat was created. already significant 48-96 hours.
Low: Depth of flooding not likely to increase
significantly beyond the present low level – vast
majority of residential properties flooded to depths of
less than 0.5m. Risk to people from deep flooding and
high velocities is minimal.
Low: Increase in critical infrastructure affected – 2
electricity substations at risk.
same level. Likely to see small increase in risk to
community.
Economic
Medium: 85% of Grade 1 land and 33% of Grade 2

land in this policy unit affected.
Environmental
land use changes.
not discouraged.
High: Increase in depth of flooding at three SMs of up
Medium: Increase in depth of flooding at Conservation
Areas of up to 0.3m. Small areas of Stanground and
Queens Rd CAs also flooded.
Environment Agency
Low: Increase in flooding of up to 0.2m for small areas
of Lowland Meadows (UKBAP priority habitat).
Medium: May result in increased flood risk and diffuse
pollution.
pollutants.
Policy Social Social PREFERRED POLICY. Maintaining the

four level of risk at the present level is an
Medium: No increase in depth, duration and Low: Small increase in the number of people affected economically and socially sustainable
velocity of flooding. Depth of flooding remains low – 56 more at risk. Number of people affected remains option. Under this policy there will be no
– nearly all residential properties are flooded to moderately high when considered against the rest of change to the impact on the environment.
depths of less than 0.5m. Velocities expected to the catchment.
be low. Low: Small increase in the number of residential
Medium: Surface Water Management Plan properties affected – 23 more at risk. Number of
reduces risk of surface water flooding. residential properties affected remains moderately
Medium: Flood Warning and Forecasting Delivery high when considered against the rest of the
plan and Flood Awareness plan increase catchment.
coverage and effectiveness of flood warning.
Low: 1 electricity substation remains at risk. Low Economic
risk to critical infrastructure given the nature of
Peterborough. Low: No change in the area of Grade 1 and Grade 2
Low: Small increase in the number of commercial land affected, however, this is one of the few policy
properties affected – 13 more at risk. Number of units where Grade 1 land is affected.
commercial properties at risk is low when
considered against the rest of the catchment. Environmental
Low: No significant change in risk to transport Low: Damage to historic environment remains at
infrastructure – A15 at Yaxley is affected, and current 1% AEP flood.
small risk that railway lines may be affected. Medium: Increase in depth of flooding at SMs of up to
Overall risk to transport infrastructure remains approx 0.1m. May result in damage to these
moderately low. monuments.
Low: Small areas of Longthorpe and Peterborough
Economic City Centre CAs flooded to shallow depth.
Medium: Creation of upstream storage should
High: Small increase in commercial damages of maintain flood risk at current levels within the policy
Environment Agency
£1.23. Commercial damages are low when unit but there may be pollution and land take (for
considered against the rest of the catchment, and storage) issues upstream that need to be considered
particularly low when considered against other further.
urban areas in the catchment. Medium: No change in extent of flood water
Low: Small increase in residential damages of inundation, and therefore current ecological impacts
£0.54M. Residential damages remain low. persist at Nene Washes SSSI, SPA, SAC, Ramsar
Low: Increase in expenditure needed to maintain site.
incurred in River Nene Corridor policy unit.
Environmental Low: Sustaining the current level of conveyance will

not progress the objectives of the WFD.
Low: Provides promotion of appropriate Low: Thorpe Hall park and garden is affected by
(sustainable) land use changes at a rate flooding.
proportionate to the current level.
Low: Sustaining the current level of conveyance
and river maintenance into the future with have
little effect on water quality.
environment assets listed in baseline, damages
remain at current 1% AEP flood.
Low: Should not result in increased flood risk and
diffuse pollution.
Low: No change in extent of flood water
inundation at Nene Washes SSSI, SPA, SAC,
Ramsar site.
Medium: There may benefits through the
construction of a storage area if additional wet
grassland habitat was created.
Environment Agency
Policy Social Social Not preferred. Increasing the extent of flood
five risk management will bring with it
Medium: No change in the number of commercial Low: Increase in critical infrastructure affected – 2 significant increases in expenditure, but
properties affected – 7 at risk. Number of electricity substations at risk. Increase in the number only minor benefits to people, property and
commercial properties at risk remains low. of electricity substations at risk is due to the choice of the economy.
Medium: Small increase in depth and duration of generic response for P5, and in reality the number at
flooding outside of those areas defended. Majority risk may decrease under a P5.
of properties still flooded to depths of less than
0.5m. Velocities unlikely to be significant. Economic
reduces risk of surface water flooding. High: Significant increase in the level of expenditure
Medium: Flood Warning and Forecasting Delivery on flood defence – cost of capital works to reduce
plan and Flood Awareness plan increase impact of flooding estimated at £7M.
coverage and effectiveness of flood warning. Medium: 86% of Grade 1 land and 33% of Grade 2
Low: Reduction in the number of residential land in this policy unit affected.
properties affected – 77 less at risk.
Low: Reduction in the number of people affected Environmental
– 194 less people at risk.
Low: Construction of defences will reduce the risk Low: One SM in the Nene Washes still at risk of
of key transport links, particularly the railway flooding. Increased frequency of flooding may result in
lines. A15 at Yaxley remains at risk. damage to this monument.
Economic
Low: Small increase in residential and commercial

damages, however, damages remain low when
considered on a catchment wide basis.
Environmental
Medium: Localised protection of Peterborough’s

historic environment assets, which could
significantly reduce or remove flood damages
incurred.
Medium: Promotion of appropriate (sustainable)
Environment Agency
land use changes.
High: Reduced flood water inundation, and

improvement in the condition of the Nene Washes
SSSI, SPA, SAC, Ramsar site. In particular
localised protection could significantly reduce
flood water inundation, and result in an
improvement in the condition of the site.
More gains:
Medium: There may be improvements in the river
environment through maintenance. Inundation of
BAP habitats may also be reduced for the benefit
of BAP species.
Medium: Localised protection of surface and
ground water bodies will be beneficial to the
objective and should prevent or reduce incidence
of pollution.
Medium: Should reduce flood risk and incidents of
diffuse pollution. In particular localised protection
may be beneficial in reducing incidents of diffuse
pollution from contaminated sites.
Low: Should result in an improvement landscape
character.
Environment Agency
Form 12.8 Summary of the Preferred Policy Policy unit: Peterborough and the Nene Washes
Policy Unit The policy unit for Peterborough and the Nene Washes is by nature largely urban. It covers the
15 – town area, including the River Nene floodplain and a number of smaller urban drains which pass
Peterborough into the River Nene. As the name implies, it also includes the Nene Washes downstream, which is
and the Nene a rural managed washland that allows flood flows to pass from Peterborough into storage during
Washes high tide conditions. The policy unit ends at the outlet gates for the washland at Ring’s End Sluice.
Peterborough and the Nene Washes are located at the downstream end of the River Nene fluvial
catchment, at the limit of tidal influence. This mostly urban policy unit therefore has a relatively
high population density, containing little open land apart from the downstream washland.
some smaller tributary watercourses and a degree of tidal influence in extreme events. Significant
flooding was recorded in Peterborough during 1947 (Mar) and more recently in 1986 (May) and
1998 (Apr) with records of flooding in the town back to 1847. Surface water flooding could pose
some risk to people and properties here, though this risk is difficult to quantify. The flooding to 293
properties in Peterborough in 1986 however was caused by flooding from surcharging of sewers
and pumping stations due to combined fluvial and sewer flooding conditions.
There are generally only some informal/ private flood defences within Peterborough though the
Problem / Risk
town benefits from the Whittlesey (Nene) Washes downstream for flood storage at high tide
conditions and the Thorpe Drain storage area. The defence standards are uncertain. The town
has more recently benefited from construction of the Northampton Washlands in the 1970s.
causing £1.76 million property damages concentrated at residential properties in Peterborough,
though numbers of properties affected rise dramatically by over three times for a 0.1% AEP flood
event with damages rising tenfold, also causing widespread disruption to major infrastructure.
of 60-70%), causing £5.94 million property damages (a rise of 240%).
The social and economic impacts within Peterborough are sustained close to the present level, by
Chosen Policy offsetting future impacts from climate and development change by making best use of natural
storage on the River Nene upstream through enhanced floodplain storage. Significant
environmental gains could occur as a result of flood storage creation.
River Nene (PU2), and also along the River Nene corridor (PU6) which includes the River Ise.
This could comprise changes to floodplain topography, perhaps through raising or lowering bank
heights, or use of control structures. It was simply represented by reducing and delaying the flows
into the model from Northampton and the River Ise, based on detailed modelling of similar flood
Generic
storage currently under construction, with the addition of flood storage reservoirs into the model
Responses
for the sites along the River Nene downstream of Northampton (see modelling summary after
Form 12.5). The results show significant benefits for Peterborough, though not fully returning flood
risk here to current levels. Some further reduction in damages may be gained from other
planning, or potentially some local defences.
Adopting policy P4 will focus efforts on creating flood storage in other policy unit areas upstream
along the River Nene floodplain as outlined above (avoiding increase in 1% AEP future flood risk
at Peterborough of 187 people, 79 properties and £2.42 million). This will be achieved through the
Justification generic responses outlined above, altering the shape and peak of the flood hydrograph as it
progresses through the catchment to help offset the effects of future climate and development
change. Additional flood risk reductions are achieved within other policy units (see PU6) as a
result of these actions.
Environment Agency
Within the policy unit for Peterborough and the Nene Washes, policy P4 will allow present actions
to control flood risk to be continued and enhanced (for example maintaining the washlands and
other defences, and flood warning). The resulting future flood risk (increase of up to 56 people, 36
properties and £1.77 million property damages) is relatively low, while the predicted future 1%
AEP flood risk for the policy unit represents only approximately 2% of the total for the whole CFMP
Justification area, the risks rise dramatically at the 0.1% AEP flood and therefore justify avoiding significant
(cont.) increases.
Some further reduction in damages may be gained from other related measures such as improved
flood warning, development control and emergency response planning. Also at Thorpe Meadows
local protection measures may prove feasible.
Adopting policy P4 for Peterborough and the Nene Washes supports economic, social and
environmental sustainability by looking to make best use of the River Nene floodplain upstream to
manage flood risk through the catchment. It aims to offset future impacts, from climate and
development change, in areas with the highest flood risk. The objectives which are met by this

1 site).
• To minimise community disruption from flooding (up to 23 more residential and 13 more
million cost of works in upstream policy units (PU2 and PU6), partially set against future
development, delivers some £40 million reduction in future damages overall, with £2.42
million of that in Peterborough).
increase in flooding possible at 2 Conservation Areas, 2 SMs and 1 Park and Garden).
increase in flooding possible to 2 designated sites, negligible impacts).
Other policies were rejected for Peterborough and the Nene Washes due to (1% AEP future flood
Policy P1 - no active intervention; significant economic and social losses (increases of 301 people,
138 properties, and £4.87 million property damages) with loss of current defences leading to high
risk to public health and safety.
Policy P2 - reduce existing flood risk management actions; significant economic and social losses
(increases of 275 people, 128 properties, and £4.55 million property damages), with risk to public
health and safety.
Alternative Policy P3 - continue with existing or alternative actions to manage flood risk at the current level;
policies allowing flood risk to rise with future change is presently considered significant, particularly due to
considered very high extreme flood event damages and risks to people.
are attractive but difficult to justify £2.8 million future damage reduction against likely costs of £7
million (194 less people, 77 less properties, and £1.38 million damage reduction), such that any
major response here is unlikely to be sustainable and affordable; higher flood risk priorities exist
elsewhere.
Environment Agency
Main opportunities
• Linking the River Nene to the Fen Waterways Link at Peterborough presents opportunities for
the transfer, storage and benefit of using stored floodwaters outside the floodplain.
• Releasing stored winter floodwaters at times of low flow could address water quality issues,
for example between Peterborough and Dog-in-a-Doublet Sluice on the main River Nene.
Main constraints
Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough (Peterborough) growth areas may come into conflict with
the need to restrict development in floodplains.
This is a concern at the internationally important Nene Washes.
Catchment-
wide
opportunities &
constraints
Nene Washes SSSI, SPA and Ramsar

Opportunities
Creation of additional flood storage areas adjacent to the Nene Washes could increase the extent
of the valuable habitat used by the bird populations.
Constraints
Alterations to the water level management regime may reduce the areas of suitable habitat for the
support of the wildfowl and waders, as well as potentially affecting the habitat of spined loach in
Morton’s Leam.
Orton Pits SSSI and SAC

Opportunities
Appropriate management could extend the area of designation by improving the adjacent areas.
Constraints
Increased flooding may adversely affect the water quality of the rainwater fed waterbodies, and
the associated great crested newt populations and stonewort community.
groundwater influence on flood events; surface water flooding could be an issue for Peterborough.
Risks,
The estimates of flood damage within Peterborough and the Nene Washes are considered
Uncertainties &
sufficiently accurate to inform the selection of the proposed policy and response. However, the
Dependencies
uncertainty over present flood risk at Thorpe Meadows may need to be investigated more locally
and the uncertainty over the detailed application of P6 storage to benefit Peterborough needs to
be investigated more at a strategic level.
Environment Agency
The Fens
Environment Agency
Policy units: The Fens
Current Defences
responses to The Fens benefit from extensive flood defences:
flood risk • Wisbech flood walls and gates, EA responsibility.
within the • Agricultural fen – Wisbech to Dog in Doublet, EA responsibility.
policy unit? • Potentially some informal/ private defences.
Pumped storage allows drainage of the Fens, and prevents many areas becoming
permanently under water.
Flood Warning
The Fens are within a flood watch and a flood warning area.
Primary Dissemination method: Sirens and media, and FWD.
• River Nene between Thrapston and the Dog-in-a-Doublet sluice to the east of
Peterborough – trigger sites Islip and Lilford. Rate of uptake in this flood warning
area is 7.75%.
• North Bank Road alongside the River Nene, east of Peterborough and west of
Dog-in-a-Doublet Sluice- trigger sites Islip and Dog-in-a-Doublet. Rate of uptake in
this flood warning area of 25%.
• B1040 Thorney to Whittlesey Road to the South of the River Nene – trigger site
Little Bridge. There is no uptake in this flood warning area.
• River Nene between Wansford and the Dog-in-a-Doublet sluice to the east of
Peterborough – trigger site Wansford. Rate of uptake in this flood warning area is
5.01%.
• River Nene in the Yarwell Headland and West Delph areas of Whittlesey – trigger
site Little Bridge. The rate of uptake in this flood warning area is 45.51%.
• Tidal Nene including Sutton Bridge and Wisbech – trigger site West Lighthouse.
Level of uptake not applicable.
• Wash frontage from Frampton to Admiralty Point and the Tidal Nene up to Dog in
a Doublet – trigger site West Lighthouse. Level of uptake not applicable.
29270 people (11708 properties) can apply for flood warnings within the policy area.
Maintenance:
• Maintenance activities along the main rivers include, with annual expenditure:
• Maintenance of structures, £200k
With these and other maintenance activities, the maintenance budget for 2006/07 was
£303k. Other activities in this policy unit included, for that year, a non-recurring
amount for asset maintenance of £19.8k, £9.9k for minor defence repairs and £14.9k
for vermin control.
Standards of Wisbech flood walls and gates have a standard of protection equal to the 0.5% event.
service that
apply to flood Agricultural fen (Wisbech to Dog in Doublet) has a standard of protection equal to the
defences 0.5% event.
within the
policy unit?
What is Social
currently Main risk of flooding is tidal, from the tidal reach of the River Nene between Dog-in-a-
Environment Agency
exposed to Doublet sluice and West Lighthouse. Flood defences with a standard of protection of
flooding? 0.5% protect inundation from occurring at the 1% flood, though there is a risk of
breaching at the 1% flood. Although tidal flooding is unlikely the implications of
flooding could be very severe, given the low lying nature of the land compared with
peak tidal levels. If defences were breached there is a serious risk to life as a result of
high depths and velocities.
Flooding from drains in the Fens could occur in the event of pump failure.
10 people are affected at the 1% flood flood (this equates to less than 1% of the total
5 properties are affected at the 1% flood flood: 4 residential, 1 commercial (properties

affected equates to less than 1% of the total properties affected in the catchment).
If a breach were to occur, or very high magnitude flood event, there is the potential for
a large number of people and properties to be affected. Approx. 14,950 people
assessed as being at serious risk from high velocities and depths in the event of a
breach
Infrastructure
Transport infrastructure affected by flooding: None at 1% event. If defences were

breached then severe regional and local disruption would occur.
Critical infrastructure affected by flooding: None at 1% AEP flood. If defences were

Economic
Total damages incurred £0.41m: £0.18m residential, £0.24m commercial at the 1%

AEP flood.
AAD: £0.08m

- Grade 1: 0%
- Grade 2: 0.2%
The Fens contain the largest area of Grade 1 agricultural land in the country. At
present this is prevented from tidal flooding by flood walls alongside the River Nene.
Breaching of tidal flood defences could lead to a very large area of Grade 1
agricultural land flooding, with regional and national implications.
Environmental
No historic environment assets affected by flooding in this policy unit.

• Adventurers Land SSSI. 6.9ha of 10.1ha site flooded. Depth of flooding unknown,
though thought to be high (>1m) across much of site.
• Likely negative effects of flooding: Prolonged flooding could damage the site,
impacts unknown.
• Likely positive effects of flooding: None
Environment Agency
The Wash (Ramsar, SPA, SSSI) is adjacent to, but outside of, the northern boundary
of the Fens policy unit, however there is potential for changes resulting from the
implementation of policies in the catchment.
Baseline information from Record of Assessment of Likely Significant Effect On

European Sites (Stage 2)
The Wash is a large shallow bay with very extensive saltmarshes, intertidal sand and
mud, shallow water and deep channels:
Senitive Interest Feature: Potential Hazard: Potential exposure to
hazard and maximum
effect/impact if known:
The Wash (SPA; Ramsar) Adjacent to, but outside Hazards B, D, E and I.
of, the northern boundary The normal functioning of
3.4 Birds of lowland wet of Policy Unit 16 (The estuaries depends in part
gasslands Fens). Potential for on freshwater infloe and
changes resulting from the occurance of
3.6 Birds of lowland the implementation of ‘freshnets’, or short river
freshwaters and their policies in the catchment. floods, which influence
margins salinity gradients, turbidity
A – Habitat and organic matter inputs.
3.8 Birds of coastal loss/Physical damage; The “Regulation 33
habitats B – Changes in flood advice” for the Wash and
inundation/frequency; North Norfolk Coast
3.9 Birds of esturine C – Changes in pyscal European marine site
habitats regieme; states that “Changes in
D – Turbidity/Siltation; salinity through a
3.10 Birds of open sea E – Changes to water reduction in freshwater
and offshore rocks quality inputs may affect mudflats
F – Distubance (noise, and sandflats by by
Large shallow bay with visual); altering their biological
very extensive G – Changes to structure, particually
saltmarshes, intertidal groundwater levels; where salinity sensitive
sand and mud, shallow H – Land use change; species and communities
walter and deep I – Habitat/community occur.” It is also stated
channels. simplification. that “Reductions in river
flow are an issue on the
Inter-relationship between Norfolk coast.” Any
is various components potential changes to the
including saltmarshes, Nene river flow plume
intertidal sand and mud may, therefore, affect the
flats and esturine waters. inter-relationships
between the various
components of the Wash
Ramsar site.
The River Nene flows into

one of the low-tide bird-
rich ‘core’ areas in the
wash, for features 3.8 and
3.9. This area has high
densities of foraging
shelduck, oyster catcher,
knot, dunlin and bar-tailed
godwit. The importance of
this area for foraging birds
depends on the biological
Environment Agency
productivity of the
mudflats which, in turn, is
likely to be influenced in
part by the Nene river
flow plume.
There is potential for in-

combination effects with
the Nene Catchment
Abstraction Management
Strategy, and the CFMPs
for the great Ouse, the
River Wellard and the
River Witham.
Potential changes in the

river flow plume from the
River Nene are very
unlikely to affect features
3.4, 3.6, 3.7 and 3.10, nor
expose any birds in the
Wash to hazards A, C, F,
G and H.
Is the potential scale or magnitude of any effect likely to be significant?

a) Alone Yes
(explain concusion, e.g. in relation to (The risk of increased risk of the Upper
de mimisis criteria) Nene GravelPits may affect the SPA
interest features, and potential changes
to the River Nene flow plume may cause
changes to the current functioning and
biodiversity of the Wash.)
b) In combination with other Yes
Environment Agency permissions Nene Catchment Abstraction
and/or other plans or projects? Management Strategy
Great Ouse CFMP
River Wellard CFMP
River Witham CFMP
c) In combination with permissions Yes

and/or plans/projects of other As a result of its risk assessment, the
Competant Authorities? Agency can conclude that this plan
could act in combination with
permissions and/or plans/projects of
other Competant Authorities, e.g:
East Midlands Regional Plan (East

Midlands Regional Strategy)
Northampton Mineral and Waste

Development Framework (Northampton
County Council)
Conculsion: Yes
Environment Agency
Is the proposal likely to have a The plan could result in a range of
significant effect ‘alone and/or in unspecified land management and flood
combination’ on a European Site? risk management actions and alterations
to existing maintenance regiemes that
could affect two of the sires, as
assessed above.
• Current condition status: 26 per cent unfavourable principally due to depleted

shellfish populations and unsustainable fishing.
• Likely negative effects of flooding: potential changes in the river flow plume from
the River Nene are only likely to affect birds of coastal habitats, and birds of
estuarine habitats. A number of potential hazards have been identified and
include: B – Changes in flood inundation/ frequency; D – Turbidity/ Siltation; E -
Changes to water quality; and I - Habitat/ community simplification. Increased
freshwater flows could disrupt the freshwater/saline balance and cause potential
scouring of intertidal habitats.
• Likely positive effects of flooding: None.
• Nene Washes SSSI, SPA, SAC, Ramsar site – covered under Peterborough PU.
Extent and distribution of BAP habitats: None affected currently.
WFD and contaminated land

The River Nene is designated as a Sensitive Area (Eutrophic) under the Urban Waste
Water Treatment Directive.
Entire length of main river is a ‘heavily modified water body’ and classified as at risk
under the WFD from a variety of pressures. These are principally diffuse and point
source pollution and physical/morphological alteration.
• WFD SW Overall Risk: Moderate to High (50:50)
• WFD GW Overall Risk: has not been assessed
Who and what Social
are currently • A small number of people and properties are at risk of flooding at the 1% event. In
most the event of a breach, or high magnitude event, there would be a significant risk to
vulnerable to people and property.
flood damage Economic
and losses? • Economic damages at the 1% event are limited. Significant damages could be
accrued in the event of a breach.
Environmental
• No historic environment assets affected by flooding
• 70% of Adventurers Land SSSI (6.9ha of 10.1ha site) affected by flooding and
depth of flooding thought to be high (>1m) across much of site.
What are the Climate Change – climate change is predicted to cause an increase in peak river flows
key factors that will increase flood risk in the future in this policy unit. An increase in peak flows of
that could 15% is assumed in this policy unit. Climate change is also predicted to cause
drive future significant sea level rise on the east coast of England, with increases in sea level of up
flood risk? to 1m.
Rural Land Use – it was assumed that rural land use practices will not cause
significant change to the flood risk in the future.
Urban Growth – urban growth in the River Nene catchment may increase flood risk in
the future. See relevant appendix for urban growth predictions for the River Nene
catchment.
What are the Social

possible Main risk of flooding is tidal, from the tidal reach of the Nene between Dog-in-a-
future levels Doublet sluice and West Lighthouse. Flood defences have a standard of protection of
Environment Agency
of flood risk 0.5% at present, though this standard will deteriorate in the future. Minor overtopping
under the of defences is expected to occur at a number of locations between Guyhirn and Sutton
main Bridge, however, there is a limited risk to properties from this. There is a much
scenarios? increased risk of breaching at the 1% AEP flood in the future, and it is this that is likely
to pose the biggest risk to people and property. Due to the nature of breaching it is
difficult to quantify any impact. If defences were breached though, there would be a
serious risk to life from high velocities and depths.
Flooding from drains in the Fens could occur in the event of pump failure.
20 people affected by flooding (people affected equates to <1% of the total people
affected in the catchment). This figure indicates a 100% increase in people affected at
the current 1% AEP flood.
Total properties affected 11: 8 residential, 3 commercial (properties affected equates

to less than 1% of the total properties affected in the catchment). This figure indicates
a 120% increase in properties affected at the current 1% AEP floodAEP flood.
If a breach were to occur, or very high magnitude flood event, there is the potential for
a large number of people and properties to be affected. Approx. 14,950 people
assessed as being at serious risk from high velocities and depths in the event of a
breach
Transport infrastructure affected by flooding: None at 1% AEP flood. If defences were

Infrastructure
Critical infrastructure affected by flooding: None at 1% AEP floodAEP flood. If

defences were breached then severe regional and local disruption would occur.
Economic
Total damages incurred £0.97m: £0.15m residential, £0.81m commercial (damages
equates to less than 1% of the total damages for the catchment). This figure indicates
a 137% increase in damages from the current 1% event.
AAD: £0.08 million. No change from present.

- Grade 1: 0.1%
- Grade 2: 0.2%
The Fens contain the largest area of Grade 1 agricultural land in the country. At
present this is prevented from tidal flooding by flood walls alongside the River Nene.
Breaching of tidal flood defences could lead to a very large area of Grade 1
agricultural land flooding, with regional and national implications. In the future the
standard of protection of these defences will decrease due to sea level rise, meaning
an increased likelihood of breaching at the 1% flood event.
Environmental
No historic environment assets affected by flooding at future 1% AEP flood.
Environment Agency
• Adventurers Land SSSI. 7.0ha of 10.1ha site flooded. Depth of flooding unknown,
though thought to be high (>1m) across much of site. Increase in area flooded of
0.1ha.
• Likely negative effects of flooding: Prolonged flooding could damage the site,
impacts unknown.
• Likely positive effects of flooding: None
• The Wash (Ramsar, SPA, SSSI) – no future data available however flooding
expected to increase in the future.
• Likely negative effects of flooding: potential changes in the river flow plume from
the River Nene are only likely to affect birds of coastal habitats, and birds of
estuarine habitats. A number of potential hazards have been identified and
include: B – Changes in flood inundation/ frequency; D – Turbidity/ Siltation; E -
Changes to water quality; and I - Habitat/ community simplification. Increased
freshwater flows could disrupt the freshwater/saline balance and cause potential
scouring of intertidal habitats.
• Likely positive effects of flooding: None.
Extent and distribution of BAP habitats: None affected at future 1% AEP flood.
responses (or • Withdraw defences
groups of • Maintain/increase localised protection measures
responses) • Flood warning & evacuation
are being • Flood awareness
considered to • Studies
manage flood
risk?
What gaps • Number of people affected calculated by using a multiplier of 2.5 on each
and residential property at risk
uncertainties • Current and future flood risk given here is solely for fluvial and tidal risk from the
are there in River Nene. Surface water and groundwater flooding, and flooding as a result of
knowledge drainage pump failure are difficult to quantify and as such have not been
and what quantified here.
assumptions • The tidal reach of the River Nene is lined by defences with a 0.5% AEPstandard of
have been protection. These protect the Fens from flooding during a 1% AEP flood at
made? present. In the future these defences are overtopped in a number of locations,
and the flood risk as a result of this overtopping was mapped. The primary risk in
such a situation is from failure of the defences causing a breach, however. The
flood risk from breaching of the tidal defences has not been quantitatively
assessed here due to the specific nature of each breach event, but qualitative
statements on the risk posed by breaching have been made.
• The nature of the modelling carried out in this policy unit means that velocities are
difficult to quantify accurately. Velocities have been considered in a qualitative
way instead.
• The future level of flood risk is only an estimate – the level of climate change and
other drivers, and responses of the catchment to these changes are subject to
significant uncertainties.
• There is uncertainty in the costs assumed for future flood risk management.
• There is uncertainty in the influence of sediment erosion and deposition.
Environment Agency
POLICY UNIT 16: THE FENS
Description: Under this generic response the flood defences which line the River Nene from
the Dog-in-a-Doublet sluice to the West Lighthouse are removed. The Fens would be
unprotected with significant areas at risk of flooding. It was assumed that the future
undefended flood extent would be equal to the current 1000 AEP flood extent (i.e. Flood Zone
2). This may give an overestimate, however, it was considered to be acceptable as a generic
response. Damages for this scenario were calculated by determining the number of properties
which fell within Flood Zone 2, and applying catchment average damages per property for a
P1 scenario.
33,408 14,652 £808.95 million 2 SSSIs affected
(+>300,000%) (+>250,000%) (+>175,000%)
Conclusions

Generic Response: Policy 2 – Reduced maintenance leading to reduction in standard
of protection of flood defences
Description: Under this policy the flood defences would fall into a state of some disrepair,
providing limited protection. It was assumed that the future flood extent would be the same as
the current 100 % AEP undefended flood extent (i.e. Flood Zone 3). Damages for this
scenario were calculated by determining the number of properties which fell within Flood
Zone 3, and applying catchment average damages per property for a P2 scenario.
28,000 12,324 £669.21 million 2 SSSIs affected
(+280,000%) (+>240,000%) (+>150,000%)
Conclusions
Conclusion: Reducing maintenance leads to a very significant increase in risk to people,
property and the economy.

level and that no alternative intervention occurs. This was modelled for Chapter 4 using our
broadscale 1D model, and in locations where the flood defences were overtopped the 1D
model was linked to a 2D model to determine the extent of the overtopped flood water.
(+100%) (+120%) (+145%)
Environment Agency
Conclusions
Conclusion: Increases in peak water level due to increased river flows and sea level rise will
increase the risk of flooding, even if existing flood risk management is continued.

Generic Response: Policy 4 – Maintain defence standard of protection
Description: It was assumed that the defences along the River Nene have been raised so
that the standard of protection they provide is maintained at the same level.
Conclusions
Cost: Level of flood risk maintained by increasing crest level of flood defences in locations
where overtopping would occur. Estimated cost of £4 million.
Conclusion: Under this policy there is no change in the risk to people, property and
damages, because the defence standard of protection is maintained at the same level.

Generic Response: Policy 5 –Increase localised protection measures
Description: Raising the flood defences along the River Nene, or constructing a flood barrier
across the mouth of the River Nene would provide an increased standard of protection to the
Fens. It was assumed that all properties currently at risk of flooding in the Fens would be
protected by these measures to a standard of protection of greater than 0.5% AEP.

(-100%) (-100%) (-100%)
Conclusions
Cost: Standard of protection along the tidal stretch of the River Nene increased by raising
flood defences or constructing a flood barrier. Estimated cost of £40 million to implement
these protection measures.
Conclusion: Under this policy there is no risk at the 1% event to people and property, and no
damages are accrued.

Description: This policy unit is at the downstream limit of the River Nene, meaning that there
would be no areas to benefit from the creation of storage.
Environment Agency

2 Reduced maintenance leading to reduction in standard of protection of flood
defences
4 Maintain defence standard of protection
Environment Agency
Form 12.6 Policy Appraisal Policy unit: The Fens

flooding
Generic responses: • Cease flood • Maintain flood • Maintain • Review flood • Review flood Opportunities for
warning and warning and flood warning and warning and additional storage
forecasting forecasting warning and forecasting forecasting developments
• Cease • Reduce forecasting • Increase • Increase have been
maintenance maintenance of • Continue maintenance maintenance identified in the
of river channel, maintenanc of channel, of channels River Nene (from
channel and structures and e of river structures and and Weedon to
structures tidal flood channel, tidal flood structures. Kislingbury) policy
• Remove tidal defences structures defences • Increase unit and the River
flood and tidal • Maintain standard of Nene Corridor
defences in flood standard of protection of policy unit. Very
place defences protection of defences little scope to
defences already in apply in this policy
already in place unit therefore no
place • Implement assessment of
• Implement Fens Strategy gains and losses
Fens Strategy study was undertaken.
study
SOC To minimise flood Number of 10 people 33,408 people 28,000 people 20 people 10 people 0 people
1 related risks to the people at affected by affected by affected by affected by affected by affected by
population risk in the flooding at 1% flooding in the flooding in the 1% flooding in the flooding in the flooding in the
1% flood event. 1% AEP flood. AEP flood. 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood.
Numbers of
people 29270 people Cease flood Flood warning Standard of Standard of Standard of
covered by (11708 warning and coverage protection of protection protection
flood properties) can forecasting, with maintained at the defences maintained at increased - flood
warning or apply for flood increased risk to same level. significantly the same level. defences will not
emergency / warnings within community. reduced. Defences will be overtopped in
evacuation the policy unit. Defences are not be a 0.5% event,
plans overtopped in overtopped in a and there will be
a number of 0.5% event. In a reduced
locations the event of probability of
between defence failure defence failure
Guyhirn and 25,258 people at the 0.5%
Environment Agency

flooding
Sutton Bridge are assessed as event.
during a 1% being at severe
event. More risk. General
serious increase in
overtopping Flood warning public
during a 0.5% and forecasting preparedness
event. will expand to for flooding
meet increase in through more
Significant risk. developed flood
increase in risk warning and
of defence forecasting
failure at 1% system
event, posing
serious risk to
life. 25,258
people are
assessed as
being at
severe risk
should
breaching
occur.
To minimise risks Numbers No critical Extremely Extremely No critical No critical No critical

to critical and type of infrastructure significant significant assets at risk assets at risk at assets at risk.
SOC infrastructure and critical asset. affected. increase in risk increase in risk to at the 1% the 1% event.
2 community Critical to critical critical event. Defences
facilities infrastructure No transport infrastructure. infrastructure. Defences protect critical
includes: infrastructure Some critical protect critical infrastructure up
• Electricity affected. 9 waste 9 waste and transport and transport to and above the
Sub- management management sites infrastructure infrastructure 0.5% event.
stations/p No community sites affected. affected. may be at risk during a 0.5%
ower facilities during a 0.5% event.
supply affected. 8 telephone 5 telephone event.
• Sewage exchanges exchanges
Environment Agency

flooding
Treatment affected. affected. Increased risk
Works of breaching at
(STW) 4 sewage 4 sewage the 1% flood
• Waste treatment works treatment works event.
Treatment affected – Flag affected – Flag Breaching
Works Fen STW, Fen STW, poses
(STW) Parsons Drove Parsons Drove significant risk
• Waste STW, Sutton STW, Sutton to critical and
Managem Bridge STW, Bridge STW, and transport
ent Sites and Wisbech (W Wisbech (W infrastructure.
• IPPC Walton) STW. Walton) STW.
Sites
• Transport: 19 schools 17 schools
Railway, affected. affected.
Roads,
Canals 36 electricity 32 electricity
(particularl substations at substations at
y consider risk. risk.
ability to
use other 3 IPPC sites 3 IPPC sites
routes) affected. affected.
Community
facilities 4 emergency 2 emergency
include: response response centres
• Hospitals centres affected affected – 1 police
• Emergenc – 2 police station and 1 fire
y stations and 2 station.
Response fire stations.
Centres 8 care homes
• Care 8 care homes affected.
Homes affected.
Locally and
• Schools
Locally and regionally
regionally important
important transport links
transport links affected,
affected, including: A17,
Environment Agency

flooding
including: A17, A1101, A47,
A1101, A47, A1073, A16 and
A1073, A16 and A151.
A151. Peterborough to
Peterborough to Ely railway line
Ely railway line flooded.
flooded.
SOC To minimise Number of 4 residential 13,363 11,200 residential 8 residential 4 residential No properties at
3 community properties properties and 1 residential properties and properties and properties and 1 risk of flooding
disruption from affected in commercial properties and 1124 commercial 3 commercial commercial at the 1% AEP
flooding the 1% flood properties 1289 properties at risk properties at properties at risk flood.
Category of affected by commercial of flooding at the risk of flooding of flooding at the
social flooding at 1% properties at risk 1% AEP flood. at the 1% AEP 1% AEP flood. Defences
vulnerability AEP flood. of flooding at the flood. protect
areas 1% AEP flood. Increase in flood Standard of properties up to
affected in Social impact: risk affects areas Defences protection and above the
the 1% flood Moderate - Increase in flood with a wide range overtopped at maintained at 0.5% AEP flood.
Extent of typically SFVI risk affects of vulnerability to more locations the same level.
flooding category 3. areas with a flooding. during a 0.5% Defences will
Duration of wide range of flood event. not be
flooding vulnerability to Likely that a overtopped in a
flooding. significant 0.5% event.
number of
properties will Areas at risk
be flooded. have a typically
moderate social
Increase in vulnerability to
risk of defence flooding.
failure at 1%
event, posing
serious risk to
life. 6618
properties are
assessed as
being at
severe risk
should
Environment Agency

flooding
breaching
occur.
Areas at risk
have a
typically
moderate
social
vulnerability to
flooding.
To minimise Residential £1.43m £314.09m £257.02m £0.22m £0.18m No commercial

ECO economic impacts damages 1% residential residential residential residential residential and residential
N1 of flooding flood damages damages and damages and damages and damages and damages.
Commercial £494.86m £412.19m £0.81m £0.24m
damages 1% £0.33m commercial commercial commercial commercial No Grade 1
flood commercial damages at the damages at the damages at damages at the agricultural land
Agricultural damages 1% AEP flood. 1% AEP flood. the 1% AEP 1% AEP flood. and 0.2% of
damages in flood. Grade 2
the 1% flood No Grade 1 or Nearly 100% of Nearly 100% of No Grade 1 agricultural land
Percentage Grade 2 Grade 1 and Grade 1 and Defences agricultural land affected by
area of agricultural land Grade 2 Grade 2 overtopped at and 0.2% of flooding.
grade 1 and flooded. agricultural land agricultural land more locations Grade 2
2 agricultural affected. affected. during a 0.5% agricultural land
land flooded flood event. affected by
during the Likely that flooding.
1% flood significant
property
damages will
be accrued.
Increase in
risk of defence
failure at 1%
event, with
large damages
Environment Agency

flooding
likely if
breaching
does occur.
0.1% of Grade
1 agricultural
land and 0.2%
of Grade 2
agricultural
land affected
by flooding.
Ensure future Expenditure Current EA EA ceases Annual EA No increase in Level of flood Standard of
investment in the on all FRM annual spending money expenditure on cost of risk maintained protection along
ECO catchment is activities. expenditure on on maintenance. maintenance maintenance by increasing the tidal stretch
N2 proportional to the maintenance estimated at in real terms – crest level of of the River
risks estimated at EA ceases £152k in current remains at flood defences Nene increased
£303k influencing and prices. £303k in in locations by constructing
informing current prices. where a flood barrage
reducing EA reduces overtopping at the outfall of
expenditure expenditure on No increase in would occur. the River Nene.
significantly. influencing and EA Estimated cost Estimated cost
informing. expenditure on of £4m. of £40m to
flood warning construct flood
in real terms. barrier.
Protect and Numbers of: No sites These policies are likely to result in No historic No historic No historic
enhance • Scheduled affected in the the following 13 Scheduled environment environment environment
ENV significant historic Monument baseline. Monuments becoming affected, assets assets affected. assets affected.
1 environment s causing damage and degradation: affected.
assets and their • Historic • 22683 Boundary Cross, Manor Hill
settings Parks and Corner
Gardens • 22684 St Ives Cross
• Historic • 22685 Boundary Cross, old Fen
Battlefield Dyke
s • 22713 White Cross, 80m N of
• Conservati Poultry Farm
on Areas
Environment Agency

flooding
adversely • CB265 Cherry Tree Hill Round
affected by Barrow
flooding or • CB51 Ancient Sea Defence Called
flood risk Roman Bank, Stretching for 600yds
management (550m) NW of Little Dowgate,
activities Wisbech
• LI168 Romano British Settlement S
of Shell Bridge
• PE213 St Vincents Cross
• LI223 Settlement in Moulton West
Fen
• LI230 Settlement SE of Lower
Dowgate Farm
• L1285 Fleet Settlement Site nr.
Lambert Drain
• 22613 Ruin and Site of Crowland
Abbey
• 33379 Bowl Barrow Immediately
NE of Bank Farm
These policies are likely to result in

the following Historic Park and
Garden becoming affected, causing
damage and affecting any visits to the
site:
• 1620 Peckover House, Wisbech.
These policies are likely to result in a

number of Conservation Areas
becoming affected, causing damage
and degradation:
• Long Sutton
• Crowland
• Moulton
• Tydd Gote
• Tydd St Mary
Environment Agency

flooding
• Wisbech
ENV Protect and Area of • Adventurers Adventurers Land SSSI Adventurers Adventurers Adventurers
2 contribute to the SSSIs, Land SSSI - These policies are likely to result in Land SSSI Land SSSI Land SSSI
improvement of SPAs, SACs 7.0ha of greater than 7.0ha flooded. Depth of This policy is This policy This policy is
designated nature and Ramsar 10.1ha site flooding unknown, though thought to likely to result would maintain likely to result in
conservation sites sites flooded flooded. be high (>1m) across much of the in 7.0ha the current 7.0ha flooded.
(SSSI, SPA, SAC in a 1% flood Depth of site, and likely to cause a negative flooded. Depth baseline (6.9ha Depth of
and Ramsar) Reported flooding effect. of flooding of Adventurers flooding
condition unknown, unknown, Land SSSI unknown,
status of though The Wash (Ramsar, SPA, SSSI) though affected). though thought
SSSIs, thought to be These policies may result in potential thought to be to be high (>1m)
SPAs, SACs high (>1m) changes in the river flow plume from high (>1m) The Wash across much of
and Ramsar across much the River Nene , and cause a across much (Ramsar, SPA, site, and likely to
sites at risk of site. negative effect on intertidal habitats of site, and SSSI) cause a
from a 1% • The Wash (i.e. turbidity, siltation, changes to likely to cause This policy is negative effect.
flood (Ramsar, water quality) which in turn could a negative likely to maintain
SPA, SSSI) is affect birds of coastal habitats and effect. the current river The Wash
adjacent to, birds of estuarine habitats in the flow plume from (Ramsar, SPA,
but outside of, Wash. The Wash the River Nene SSSI)
the northern (Ramsar, SPA, into the Wash. This policy is
boundary of SSSI) likely to maintain
the Fens This policy (or reduce) the
policy unit, may result in current river flow
however there potential plume from the
is potential for changes in the River Nene into
changes river flow the Wash.
resulting from plume from the
the River Nene ,
implementatio and cause a
n of policies in negative effect
the on intertidal
catchment. habitats (i.e.
• Likely turbidity,
negative siltation,
effects of changes to
flooding: water quality)
potential which in turn
Environment Agency

flooding
changes in could affect
the river flow birds of
plume from coastal
the River habitats and
Nene are only birds of
likely to affect estuarine
birds of habitats in the
coastal Wash.
habitats, and
birds of
estuarine
habitats. A
number of
potential
hazards have
been
identified and
include: B –
Changes in
flood
inundation/
frequency; D
– Turbidity/
Siltation; E -
Changes to
water quality;
and I -
Habitat/
community
simplification.
Increased
freshwater
flows could
disrupt the
freshwater/sal
ine balance
and cause
Environment Agency

flooding
potential
scouring of
intertidal
habitats.
• Likely positive
effects of
flooding:
None.
ENV Enhance the The Limited BAP These policies are likely to result in No BAP No BAP habitats No BAP habitats
3 biodiversity of the distribution habitats in this 2.2ha of Lowland Calcareous habitats affected. affected.
catchment by and extent of policy unit. Grassland flooded (although the affected.
improving the the future depth of flooding is unknown).
quality of the river UK BAP 2.2ha of Unknown effect, dependant on the
environment and priority Lowland plant communities present, but may
contributing to UK habitats (for calcareous be negative.
Biodiversity Action example, grassland – not
Plan targets fens, wet affected at
woodland, baseline
reed bed,
floodplain 8.5ha of
grazing Lowland
marsh) meadows – not
affected at
baseline.
ENV • Support the WFD Article WFD Increases in the Increases in the Increases in Taking action to Taking action to
4 achievement of 5 pressures frequency and frequency and the frequency sustain current reduce current
good and impacts Category: At risk extent of extent of flooding and extent of level of flood risk level of flood
status/potential assessments flooding are are likely to flooding are at point and risk at point and
of surface and results Applicable likely to increase increase the likely to diffuse sources diffuse sources
groundwater WFD factors: Point the levels of levels of pollutants increase the of pollution could of pollution
bodies under ecological source pollution, pollutants from from sources in levels of prevent potential could prevent
the WFD and diffuse pollution, sources in urban urban areas and pollutants from adverse effects potential
chemical physical or areas and adjacent sources in on water quality. adverse effects
status/potent morphological adjacent agricultural land urban areas This could on water quality.
ial of water alterations, alien agricultural land that are washed and adjacent provide This could
bodies. species that are washed into the river. This agricultural environmental provide
into the river. would not help to land that are improvements environmental
Environment Agency

flooding
Area of This would not achieve WFD washed into helping to improvements
contaminate help to achieve environmental the river. This achieve WFD helping to
d or WFD objectives would not help environmental achieve WFD
damaged environmental to achieve objectives environmental
land restored objectives WFD objectives
or protected environmental
as a result of objectives
flood risk
management
activities
Environment Agency
Form 12.7 Summary of overall gains and losses for each policy option Policy unit: The Fens

Policy Social Social Not preferred. Very significant risk to people
one and property, large property and agricultural
No social gains identified. High: Very significant increase in the number damages expected.
of people affected – 33,398 more at risk
Economic High: Very significant increase in the number
of commercial and residential properties
High: No EA expenditure on maintenance – affected – 13,359 more residential, and 1288
reduction of £303k p.a. more commercial properties at risk.
High: Removal of defences will lead to
Environmental significant increases in the depth, duration and
velocity of flooding. Depth and velocity present
No environmental gains identified. a significant risk to life.
High: Flood warning and forecasting ceased.
infrastructure – 9 waste management sites, 8
telephone exchanges, 4 STWs, 36 electricity
substations, 3 IPPC sites and 4 emergency
response centres affected.
High: Increase in risk to community facilities –
8 care homes and 19 schools affected.
High: Increase in risk to transport
infrastructure – significant lengths of the
following roads affected: A17, A1101, A47,
A1073, A16 and A151. Peterborough to Ely
railway line flooded.
Medium: Significant increases in risk occur in
areas with a moderate social vulnerability to
flooding.
Economic
High: Very significant increase in commercial

and residential damages – increase in
residential damages of £314.09M and
commercial of £494.86M
Environment Agency

High: Greater than 20,000ha of Grade 1 and
20,000ha of Grade 2 agricultural land affected,
amounting to nearly 100% of Grade 1 and
Grade2 land in this policy unit.
Environmental
Low: Planning policy would not afford more

protection for historic assets.
High: 13 Scheduled Monuments become
affected by flooding (damage/degradation
result).
Low/Medium: Damage/disruption to Peckover
House, Wisbech Historic Park and Garden as
it becomes affected by flooding.
Medium: At least 6 Conservation Areas
become affected by flooding.
protection for BAP habitats.
Low/Medium: Increased flooding at
Adventurers Land SSSI (likely to cause a
negative effect as depth of flooding thought to
be high across much of site).
High: May result in potential changes in the
river flow plume from the River Nene , and
cause a negative effect on intertidal habitats
(i.e. turbidity, siltation, changes to water
quality) which in turn could affect birds of
coastal habitats and birds of estuarine habitats
in the Wash (Ramsar, SPA, SSSI).
Low/Medium: Small area of Lowland
Calcareous Grassland becomes affected by
flooding.
Low/Medium: Increases in the frequency and
extent of flooding are likely to increase the
levels of pollutants, which would not help to
Environment Agency

achieve WFD environmental objectives.
Policy Social Social Not preferred. Very significant risk to people

two and property, large property and agricultural
No social gains identified. High: Very significant increase in the number damages expected.
of people affected – 27,900 more at risk
Economic High: Very significant increase in the number
of commercial and residential properties
Medium: Reduction in EA expenditure on affected – 11,116 more residential, and 1123
maintenance – reduction of £151k p.a. more commercial properties at risk.
High: Reduction in maintenance will lead to
Environmental significant increases in the depth, duration and
velocity of flooding. Depth and velocity present
No environmental gains identified. a significant risk to life.
infrastructure – 9 waste management sites, 5
telephone exchanges, 4 STWs, 32 electricity
substations, 3 IPPC sites and 2 emergency
response centres affected.
High: Increase in risk to community facilities –
8 care homes and 17 schools affected.
High: Increase in risk to transport
infrastructure – significant lengths of the
following roads affected: A17, A1101, A47,
A1073, A16 and A151. Peterborough to Ely
railway line flooded.
Medium: Significant increases in risk occur in
areas with a moderate social vulnerability to
flooding.
maintained at the same level. Likely to see
increase in risk to community.
Economic
Environment Agency
High: Very significant increase in commercial

and residential damages – increase in
residential damages of £256.84M and
commercial of £412.19M
High: Greater than 20,000ha of Grade 1 and
20,000ha of Grade 2 agricultural land affected,
amounting to nearly 100% of Grade 1 and
Grade 2 land in this policy unit.
Environmental

protection for historic assets.
High: 13 Scheduled Monuments become
affected by flooding (damage/degradation
result).
Low/Medium: Damage/disruption to Peckover
House, Wisbech Historic Park and Garden as
it becomes affected by flooding.
Medium: At least 6 Conservation Areas
become affected by flooding.
protection for BAP habitats.
Low/Medium: Increased flooding at
Adventurers Land SSSI (likely to cause a
negative effect as depth of flooding thought to
be high across much of site).
Medium/High: May result in potential changes
in the river flow plume from the River Nene ,
and cause a negative effect on intertidal
habitats (i.e. turbidity,
siltation, changes to water quality) which in
turn could affect birds of coastal habitats and
birds of estuarine habitats in the Wash
(Ramsar, SPA, SSSI).
Environment Agency

Low/Medium: Small area of Lowland
Calcareous Grassland becomes affected by
flooding.
Low/Medium: Increases in the frequency and
levels of pollutants, which would not help to
achieve WFD environmental objectives.
Policy Social Social Not preferred. Increase in risk to people,

three property and the economy is small. Increased
Low: Small increase in the number of people High: Standard of protection of flood defences risk of defence failure poses a risk to life and
affected – 10 more at risk. Number of people in this policy unit will decrease in the future. significant risks to people and property, with
affected remains low. Standard of protection of Significant overtopping of flood defences large agricultural and property damages
defences decreases increasing the likelihood would occur in a 0.5% event, with a large expected.
of breaching. impact on people, property and infrastructure.
Low: Small increase in the number of High: Reduction in the standard of protection
commercial properties affected – 2 more at of flood defences likely to lead to a large
risk. Number of commercial properties affected increase in the risk of breaching. 25,258
remains low. Standard of protection of people and are considered to be a significant
defences decreases increasing the likelihood risk of high velocities and depths in the event
of breaching. of a breach.
Low: Small increase in the number of Low: Flood forecasting and warning
residential properties affected – 4 more at risk. maintained at the same level. Likely to see
Number of residential properties affected increase in risk to community.
remains low. Standard of protection of
defences decreases increasing the likelihood Economic
of breaching.
Low: No critical assets will be affected at the High: Reduction in the standard of protection
1% event. Standard of protection of defences of flood defences will lead to an increase in the
decreases increasing the likelihood of risk of breaching. If a breach occurred it could
breaching in and around critical assets. incur significant economic and agricultural
Low: Areas protected have a moderate social damages.
vulnerability to flooding. Medium: 0.1% of Grade 1 land, and 0.2% of
Grade 2 land in this policy unit affected.
Environment Agency

Economic
Environmental
Medium: Small increase in commercial and
residential damages of £0.57M and £0.04M Low/Medium: Increased flooding at
respectively. Property damages remain low Adventurers Land SSSI (likely to cause a
despite this increase. negative effect as depth of flooding thought to
Low: EA expenditure maintained at the same be high across much of site).
level. Annual expenditure on maintenance Medium: May result in potential changes in the
estimated at £303k p.a. river flow plume from the River Nene , and
cause a negative effect on intertidal habitats
(i.e. turbidity, siltation, changes to water
quality) which in turn could affect birds of
coastal habitats and birds of estuarine habitats
in the Wash (Ramsar, SPA, SSSI).
Environmental Low/Medium: Increases in the frequency and

High: No Scheduled Monuments affected. levels of pollutants, which would not help to
High: No Historic Parks and Gardens affected. achieve WFD environmental objectives.
Medium: No Conservation Areas affected.
Low/Medium: No BAP habitat affected by
flooding.
Policy Social Social PREFERRED OPTION: Maintaining the

four present level of risk into the future is
Medium: Standard of protection of defences No social losses identified. economically and socially sustainable at least
maintained at the same level. No people or for the short term. The present level of risk is
properties affected at the 0.5% event. Risk of Economic considered to be acceptable.
defence failure at the 1% event maintained at
the same level. Medium: Increase in expenditure needed to
Medium: No change in the number of people maintain risk at present level – estimated that
affected – 10 at risk. capital costs to maintain standard of protection
Medium: No change in the number of will total £4M.
commercial properties affected – 1 at risk.
Medium: No change in the number of Environmental
residential properties affected – 4 at risk.
Environment Agency

Medium: No critical assets will be affected at Medium: Adventurers Land SSSI still affected
the 1% event. Likelihood of breaching in and by flooding.
around critical assets maintained at the same
level.
warning.
Medium: Fens Strategy study will determine
the most appropriate means of maintaining the
flood risk in the future.
Low: Areas protected have a moderate social
Economic
Medium: No change to commercial and

residential damages – they remain at £0.24M
and £0.18M respectively.
Low: Less than 0.0% of Grade 1 land, and
0.2% of Grade 2 land in this policy unit
affected.
Environmental

environment remain at the same baseline level
(but no historic environment assets affected
anyway).
Low: Impacts to Adventurers Land SSSI
remain at the same baseline level.
Low: This policy is likely to maintain the

current river flow plume from the River Nene
Environment Agency

into the Wash (Ramsar, SPA, SSSI).
Low: No BAP habitats affected by flooding.
Low: Taking action to sustain current level of
flood risk may provide environmental
Policy Social Social Not preferred. Increasing the defence standard

Five of protection in the Fens is not justifiable given
High: No people affected at the 1% AEP flood, No social losses identified. the large cost of capital works, and the
as at the moment. Increased standard of minimal benefits that would be accrued.
protection of defence will reduce likelihood of Economic
breaching.
High: No commercial and residential High: Increase in the level of expenditure on
properties affected at the 1% AEP flood. flood defence – cost of capital works to
Increased standard of protection of defence construct flood barrier estimated at £40M.
will reduce likelihood of breaching.
High: Critical assets will be protected at the Environmental
1% AEP flood. Increased standard of
protection of defences will reduce the Low/Medium: Increased flooding at
likelihood of breaching in and around Adventurers Land SSSI (likely to cause a
infrastructure. negative effect as depth of flooding thought to
Medium: Flood Warning and Forecasting be high across much of site).
warning.
Medium: Fens Strategy study will determine
the most appropriate means of maintaining the
flood risk in the future.
Low: Areas protected have a moderate social
Economic

Environment Agency

defences will reduce the likelihood of
breaching.
Low: Less than 0.0% of Grade 1 land, and
0.2% of Grade 2 land in this policy unit
affected.
Environmental
Low: Historic environment assets remain

unaffected by flooding.
Low: This policy is likely to maintain (or
reduce) the current river flow plume from the
River Nene into the Wash (Ramsar, SPA,
SSSI).
Low: BAP habitats remain unaffected by
flooding.
Low: Taking action to reduce current level of
flood risk may provide environmental
Six Nene Corridor policy unit. Very little scope to apply in this policy unit therefore no assessment of gains and losses was undertaken.
Environment Agency
Form 12.8 Summary of the Preferred Policy Policy unit: The Fens
The Fens policy unit covers the flat expansive area downstream of Peterborough that is
largely drained by pumped drainage. The policy unit extends from Whittlesey in the south to
Policy Unit the Wash in the north, and from Wisbech in the east nearly as far as Spalding in the west. It
16 – The Fens excludes the Nene Washes. The catchment boundary is not defined by the watershed with
neighbouring catchments, rather it is defined by the administrative and internal boundaries of
the internal drainage boards. A small area of the policy unit freely drains into the River Nene
from slightly higher land around Sutton Bridge.
The tidal reach is contained between embankments which carry the River Nene above the
level of the fenland. The tidal limit is at the Dog-in-a-Doublet Sluice. The embankments
currently protect the Fens from flooding up to the 0.5% AEP surge tide. The main source of
the flooding of the Fens is tidal, arising from the overtopping of the tidal embankments in a
surge tide and from the breaching of the embankments. The Fens are at risk from all the
fenland rivers, not from the River Nene alone. Other sources of flooding from within the area
of the CFMP are:
1) a flood in the River Nene through Peterborough which overtops or breaches the
embankment of the Nene Washes
2) storm rainfall on the Fens which overwhelms the pumped drainage system, possibly
in conjunction with pump failure.
3) Tidally controlled gravity drainage from certain areas of the Fens and from urban
areas along the embankments being impeded by high tides. This detention of
drainage is sometimes recorded as tidal flooding. Incidents of tidal flooding have
occurred in Wisbech and Sutton Bridge.
Problem / Risk
Our analysis indicates that a 1% AEP flood would affect 10 people and 5 properties, causing
property damages of £0.46 million. The risk rises dramatically for a 0.1% AEP flood, when
defences between the Dog-in-a-Doublet sluice and the West Lighthouse become overtopped.
There is a risk of defences being breached in a 1% AEP flood, and although this is unlikely
the implication of this sort of flooding could be very severe, given the low lying nature of the
land compared with peak tidal levels. If defences were breached there could be a serious risk
to life as a result of high depths and velocities.
effects from future development, could increase peak flows by up to approximately 20%, and
see sea level rise in the region of 1 metre. Our analysis indicates that a 1% AEP future surge
would see localised overtopping at a few locations between Guyhirn and Sutton Bridge. 20
people and 11 properties would be affected, causing property damages of £1.03 million. The
risk of breaching caused by defence failure in a 1% AEP flood would be much higher in the
future than at present. The breaching of defences would pose a serious risk to life,
particularly in the 1km margins either side of the tidal embankments.
The social and economic impacts within the Fens are sustained close to the present level.
Chosen Policy The increased risk of defence breaching in the future would lead to the significant risk to life
presented by high depths and velocities. A P4 is likely to be achieved in the Fens by locally
increasing defence crest levels to reduce the risk of defence failure.
The broadscale model was run with a revised tidal boundary to take into account sea level
rise. The effect of rising sea level and increased flows were then investigated along with a
Generic number of generic responses including increasing defence crest level and removing
Responses defences. The results showed significant benefits to The Fens when the standard of
protection was maintained at the present level. Further reduction in damages may be gained
from other measures such as improved flood warning, development control and emergency
response planning.
Policy P4 is adopted for the short term to the next CFMP review and the completion of a flood
Environment Agency
risk management strategy for the Fens. There is a serious risk to life in the future as a result
Justification of large flood depths and velocities. This policy will remove the significant risk of defence
breaching and overtopping during a future surge tide.
example maintaining defences and flood warning), avoiding an increase in the serious
residual risks arising from defence failure. Some further reduction in damages may be gained
from other related measures such as improved flood warning, development control and
emergency response planning. It is envisaged that a cross-catchment approach to find the
most suitable way of sustaining the high level of flood defence will be most appropriate.
Adopting policy P4 for The Fens supports economic, social and environmental sustainability
by sustaining the high standard of protection. It aims to offset future impacts, from climate
and development change. The objectives which are met by this policy (1% AEP future flood
impact, compared to current baseline) are:
Justification
• To minimise flood related risks to the population (defence standard maintained, no
change in people at risk).
• To minimise risks to critical infrastructure and community facilities (major assets
protected).
• To minimise community disruption from flooding (defence standard maintained, no
change in properties at risk).
• To minimise economic impacts of flooding (no change in property damages).
million cost of works, reduction in property damages likely to be accrued as a result
of breaching).
change).
(no change).
under the WFD (likely reduction in pollutants resulting from enhanced land
management).
Other policies were rejected for The Fens due to (1% AEP future flood impact, compared to
current baseline):
Policy P1 - no active intervention; major economic and social losses (increases of 33,398
people, 13,358 properties, and £807 million property damages) with loss of current defences
leading to extremely high risk to public health and safety.
Policy P2 - reduce existing flood risk management actions; major economic and social losses
(increases of 27,990 people, 11,190 properties, and £669 million property damages), with
high risk to public health and safety.
Policy P3 - continue with existing or alternative actions to manage flood risk at the current
Alternative level; moderate increases in recorded social and economic impact (increases of 10 people, 6
policies properties, and £0.57 million property damages). Significant increase in risk of breaching at
considered 1% AEP flood, and large scale overtopping for more extreme events leading to a serious
increase in the risk to life as well as an increase in the risk to property..
Policy P5 - take further action to reduce flood risk (now and / or in the future); potential
benefits would be attractive for the extreme events but difficult to justify against likely costs of
£40 million with flood defence standards already at the 0.5% AEP.
Policy P6 - take action with others to store water or manage runoff in locations that provide
overall flood risk reduction or environmental benefits locally or elsewhere in the catchment;
little scope for this policy as the area is not at risk of fluvial flooding primarily; no downstream
areas to benefit.
Environment Agency
Main opportunities
• Releasing stored winter floodwaters at times of low flow could address water quality
issues.
• Opportunities to work with local authorities and regional development agencies to
influence developing waterfronts and floodplains, fully embracing PPS25
Catchment-
Main constraints
wide
opportunities &
Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough (Peterborough) growth areas may come into conflict
constraints
with the need to restrict development in floodplains.
• Designated sites may be a constraint if special interest features are sensitive to flood
levels. This is particularly relevant to the Wash which is sensitive to flow of water draining
from the River Nene.
• Negative impacts may be experienced on existing biodiversity within the floodplain if
flooding is deep and prolonged in spring and summer months or if flood risk management
measures isolate the river from its floodplain.

Opportunities
The reduction in flood risk to Adventurers Land SSSI will consequently reduce current
adverse impacts from flooding on the site and its features
Constraints
Increased flooding frequency or duration may cause additional adverse effects on
The Wash SSSI, SPA, SAC, Ramsar site

Opportunities
Sustaining current flood risk may maintain the baseline river flow plume from the River Nene
into the Wash
Constraints
Catchment-
The Wash (Ramsar, SPA, SSSI) is adjacent to, but outside of, the northern boundary of the
wide
Fens policy unit, however there is potential for changes resulting from the implementation of
opportunities &
policies in the catchment
constraints
Reducing or increasing flood risk may result in potential changes in the river flow plume from
(cont.)
the River Nene, and cause a negative effect on intertidal habitats (i.e. turbidity, siltation,
changes to water quality) which in turn could affect birds of coastal habitats and birds of
estuarine habitats in the Wash
Increased freshwater flows could disrupt the freshwater/saline balance and cause potential
scouring of intertidal habitats
Scheduled Monuments
Opportunities
The reduction in flood risk to Scheduled Monument will reduce the likelihood of flood damage
and enable the long term preservation of these historical assets
Constraints
Monuments associated with flooding events
Environment Agency
Landfill sites
Opportunities
The reduction of flood risk to landfill sites will consequently reduce the water pollution
problems associated with flood events
Constraints
Discharges
Opportunities
Appropriate management of flows and storage of winter floodwaters may provide greater
dilution of the numerous discharges from trade and sewage treatment works discharges,
therefore improving water quality
Constraints
Alterations to the flooding regime may reduce the available water for dilution of discharges
during summer months if inappropriately managed
Abstractions
Opportunities
Appropriate management of flows and storage of winter floodwaters may provide additional
supplies to supplement agricultural requirements and the public water abstractions from the
various reservoirs within the catchment
Constraints
groundwater influence on flood events; surface water flooding could be an issue for the Fens.
Further uncertainty surrounds the ground levels and property threshold levels obtained from
the DTM, and also the type and distribution of contaminated land within the policy unit.
Risks, The estimates of flood damage within The Fens are considered sufficiently accurate to inform
Uncertainties & the selection of the proposed policy and response, though the uncertainty over present flood
Dependencies risk from embankment failure may need to be investigated more in the future. In a future
analysis, we would make use of more information about the fenland catchments. We would
obtain the information from the IDBs.
frequency and duration of flooding within the designated sites of this policy unit. The changes
to wetland habitat areas that might result from different policy options are also unclear,
together with the biodiversity losses and gains that might occur.
Environment Agency
Annex B: Appropriate Assessment
Environment Agency
Form HR01: Proforma for
new applications within
Stage 2 criteria.
Environment Agency Record of Assessment of Likely Significant Effect On European
Sites (Stage 2)
The River Nene Catchment Flood Management Plan detailed below is within the Stage 1
criteria which may impact a European Site(s) and in order to progress the plan a Stage 2
assessment and consultation with Natural England is required.
PART A
To be completed by relevant technical/project officer in consultation with
Conservation/Ecology section and Natural England
1. Type of River Nene Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP)
permission/activity:
2. Brief description of The River Nene CFMP (July 2008) is a high level strategic
proposal: document setting out long-term (50-100 years) flood risk
2
management policies for the Nene catchment – a 2267km area
extending from the Northamptonshire uplands to the Wash.
The Nene CFMP documents our understanding of the
mechanisms and history of flooding in the catchment, both now
and into the future, and identifies how flood risk is currently
managed.
The main source of flooding in the catchment is from rivers (up to
66% of flood incidents). Other less significant sources include
tidal waters, sewers and surface water. The main flood risk areas
are Northampton, Wellingborough, Oundle, Wootton and
Peterborough. The main driver of future flood risk for the
catchment is likely to be our changing climate.
Based on this understanding, the CFMP tested a range of six
flood risk management polices against a suite of ten sustainability
objectives to identify preferred flood risk management policies. A
preferred policy was identified for each of 15 specific geographic
areas covering the entire catchment called policy units (see
Figure 1). These were identified based on the levels of current
and future flood risk.
There are six key policy units which, with their preferred flood risk
management policies, are particularly relevant to the European
sites and, therefore, to this assessment. These are units in which
the European sites are located, or which are adjacent to
European sites and have policy options which are considered to
have the potential for adverse or beneficial effects:
• River Nene (Weedon to Kislingbury): implement Policy 6
= Take action to increase the frequency of flooding to
deliver benefits locally or elsewhere.
• Northampton Central: implement Policy 4 = take further
action to sustain current level of flood risk into the future.
• River Nene Corridor: implement Policy 6 = Take action to
increase the frequency of flooding to deliver benefits
locally or elsewhere.
• River Nene (Oundle to Water Newton): implement Policy
3 = Continue with existing or alternative actions to
manage flood risk at the current level.
• Peterborough & the Nene Washes: implement Policy 4 =
take further action to sustain the current level of flood risk
into the future.
Environment Agency
• The Fens: implement Policy 4 = take further action to
sustain current level of flood risk into the future.
The remaining nine policy units and their policy options are:
• Upper and Middle Nene catchment: Policy 2 = reduce
existing flood risk management actions.
• Wootton: Policy 3.
• Northampton Outer: Policy 4.
• Kettering: Policy 4.
• Corby: Policy 5 = Take further action to reduce flood risk
(now and/or in the future).
• Wellingborough; Policy 4.
• Rushden and Raunds: Policy 4.
• Thrapston: Policy 3.
• Barnwell: Policy 3.
None of these units encompasses a European site and they are
not considered to have any potential to affect any of the European
sites in the catchment. Any potential impact of the preferred
policy option for these units, on the other policy units, has been
incorporated into the policy choice for those units. The six key
policy units have, therefore, been considered to be discrete
entities for the purpose of this assessment.
Consultation with Natural England has occurred throughout the

development of this CFMP, and has included a review of a
previous draft of this stage 2 assessment.
3. European site name(s) and status:
• Upper Nene Gravel Pits (pSPA; Ramsar)
• Orton Pit (SAC)
• Nene Washes (SAC; SPA; Ramsar)
• The Wash and North Norfolk Coast (SAC)
• The Wash (SPA; Ramsar)
4. European site Qualifying Features of International Importance:
name(s) and status:
Upper Nene Gravel Pits EU Birds Directive
(pSPA; Ramsar)
• Populations of European importance of regularly occurring
3.4 Birds of lowland wet Annex 1 bird species (under Article 4.1 of Directive
grasslands
79/409/EEC):
3.6 Birds of lowland o Bittern Botaurus stellaris (wintering) [3.6]
freshwaters and their margins o Golden plover Pluvialis apricaria (wintering) [3.4]

migratory bird species (under Article 4.2 of Directive
79/409/EEC):
o Gadwall Anas strepera (wintering) [3.6]
• Internationally important waterfowl assemblage of >23,000

birds [3.6]
Ramsar Convention Criteria
• Criterion 5: Waterfowl assemblage of international importance

(i.e.>20,000 birds)
Environment Agency
• Criterion 6: Species/populations occurring at levels of
international importance:
o Mute swan Cygnus olor
o Gadwall Anas strepera
Orton Pit (SAC) EU Habitats Directive
1.5 Standing waters (not • Annex 1 habitats

sensitive to acidification)
3140 Hard oligo-mesotrophic waters with benthic vegetation
2.10 Amphibia of Chara spp. [1.5]
• Annex 2 species
1166 Great crested newt Triturus cristatus [2.10]
Nene Washes (SAC; EU Habitats Directive

SPA; Ramsar)
• Annex 2 species
2.6 Non-migratory fish and 1149 Spined loach Cobitis taenia [2.6]
invertebrates of rivers
3.4 Birds of lowland wet

EU Birds Directive
grasslands
3.6 Birds of lowland Annex 1 bird species (under Article 4.1 of Directive
freshwaters and their margins
79/409/EEC):
Nationally important wetland o Ruff Philomachus pugnax (breeding & over-wintering) [3.4]
plant species o Spotted crake Porzana porzana (breeding season) [3.6]
o Bewick’s swan Cygnus bewickii (over-wintering) [3.4, 3.6]
Nationally important wetland
migratory bird species (under Article 4.2 of Directive
79/409/EEC):
o Black-tailed godwit Limosa l. limosa (breeding) [3.4]
o Pintail Anas acuta (over-wintering) [3.6]
o Shoveler Anas clypeata (over-wintering) [3.6]
• Internationally important assemblage of over-wintering

waterfowl [3.4, 3.6]
• Criterion 2: Vulnerable, endangered, or critically endangered

species or threatened ecological communities:
o An important assemblage of nationally rare breeding birds
(although none listed).
o A wide range of raptors throughout the year.
o Nationally important plant species, including: Fringed
water-lily Nymphoides peltata, Hairlike pondweed
Potamogeton trichoides, Marsh dock Rumex palustris,
Fries’/Flat-stalked pondweed Potamogeton friesii, Narrow-
leaved water-plantain Alisma lanceolatum, Sea barley
Hordeum marinum
o Nationally important invertebrate species, including:
Agabus undulates (a water beetle), Scarce chaser
dragonfly Libellula fulva, Anasimyia interpuncta (a
hoverfly).

Environment Agency
o Tundra/Bewick’s swan Cygnus columbianus bewickii
o Pintail Anas acuta
o Black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa islandica
The Wash and North EU Habitats Directive

Norfolk Coast (SAC)
Primary reasons for site selection:
1.10 Coastal habitats • Annex 1 habitats
1.11 Coastal habitats
1110 Sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all
(sensitive to abstraction) the time [1.13]
1140 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low
1.12 Estuarine and intertidal tide [1.12]
habitats
1160 Large shallow inlets and bays [1.12]
1.13 Submerged marine 1170 Reefs [1.13]
habitats 1310 Salicornia and other annuals colonising mud and sand
[1.12]
2.9 Mammals of riverine 1330 Atlantic salt meadows (Glauco-Puccinellietalia
habitats
maritimae) [1.12]
2.12 Marine mammals 1420 Mediterranean and thermo-Atlantic halophilous scrubs
(Sarcocornetea fruticosi) [1.10]
• Annex 2 species
1365 Common seal Phoca vitalina [2.12]
Qualifying features:
• Annex 1 habitats
1150 Coastal lagoons (a priority habitat) [1.11]
• Annex 2 species
1355 Otter Lutra lutra [2.9]
The Wash (SPA; EU Birds Directive

Ramsar)
3.4 Birds of lowland wet Annex 1 bird species (under Article 4.1 of Directive
grasslands 79/409/EEC):
3.6 Birds of lowland
freshwaters and their margins o Common tern Sterna hirundo (breeding) [3.8, 3.9, 3.10]
o Little tern Sterna albifrons (breeding) [3.8, 3.9, 3.10]
3.7 Birds of farmland
o Marsh harrier Circus aeruginosus (breeding) [3.6, 3.7, 3.8]
3.8 Birds of coastal habitats o Avocet Recurvirostra avosetta (over-wintering) [3.6, 3.8, 3.9]
3.9 Birds of estuarine habitats o Bar-tailed godwit Limosa lapponica (over-wintering) [3.7,
3.8, 3.9]
3.10 Birds of open sea and o Golden plover Pluvialis apricaria (over-wintering) [3.4, 3.7,
offshore rocks 3.8, 3.9]
o Whooper swan Cygnus Cygnus (over-wintering) [3.4, 3.6,
3.7, 3.8]
Large shallow bay with very
extensive saltmarshes,
intertidal sand and mud, • Populations of European importance of regularly occurring
shallow water and deep migratory bird species (under Article 4.2 of Directive
channels. 79/409/EEC):
Inter-relationship between its
various components. o Ringed plover Charadrius hiaticula (on passage) [3.6, 3.8,
3.9]
o Sanderling Calidris alba (on passage) [3.6, 3.8, 3.9]
o Black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa islandica (over-
wintering) [3.4, 3.8, 3.9]
o Curlew Numenius arquata (over-wintering) [3.4, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9]
o Dark-bellied brent goose Branta bernicla bernicla (over-
wintering) ) [3.4, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9]
o Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina (over-wintering) ) [3.4, 3.7, 3.8,
3.9]
Environment Agency
o Grey plover Pluvialis squatarola (over-wintering) ) [3.4, 3.7,
3.8, 3.9]
o Knot Calidris canutus (over-wintering) [3.4, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9
o Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus (over-wintering) )
[3.4, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9]
o Pink-footed goose Anser brachyrhynchus (over-wintering)
[3.4, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9]
o Pintail Anas acuta (over-wintering) [3.6, 3.8, 3.9]
o Redshank Tringa totanus (over-wintering) ) [3.4, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9]
o Shelduck Tadorna tadorna (over-wintering) [3.6, 3.8, 3.9]
o Turnstone Arenaria interpres (over-wintering) [3.8, 3.9]
• Internationally important waterfowl assemblage (over 400,000

birds)
• Criterion 1: A large shallow bay comprising very extensive

saltmarshes, major intertidal banks of sand and mud, shallow
water and deep channels.
• Criterion 3: Inter-relationship between its various components

including saltmarshes, intertidal sand and mud flats and
estuarine waters.
• Criterion 5: Waterfowl assemblage of international importance.

o Pink-footed goose Anser brachyrhynchus
o Dark-bellied brent goose Branta bernicla bernicla
o Shelduck Tadorna tadorna
o Pintail Anas acuta
o Oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus
o Lapwing Vanellus vanellus
o Grey plover Pluvialis squatarola
o Golden plover Pluvialis apricaria
o Ringed plover Charadrius hiaticula
o Knot Calidris canutus
o Sanderling Calidris alba
o Curlew Numenius arquata
o Redshank Tringa totanus
o Turnstone Arenaria interpres
o Dunlin Calidris alpina alpina
o Bar-tailed godwit Limosa lapponica
o Black-tailed godwit Limosa limosa islandica
5. Is the proposal directly connected with or necessary to the No

management of the site for nature conservation?
Environment Agency
6. What potential hazards are likely to affect the interest features? (Refer to relevant sensitivity
matrix and only include those to which the interest features are sensitive). Are the interest features
potentially exposed to the hazard?
Sensitive Interest Feature: Potential hazard: Potential exposure to hazard and

mechanism of effect/impact if known:
Upper Nene Gravel Pits Site spans two policy units Northampton Central
(pSPA; Ramsar) (Northampton Central & Hazards A, B, E
River Nene Corridor), The application of policy 4 in the
3.4 Birds of lowland wet although most of it is in Northampton Central policy unit may not
grasslands
River Nene Corridor: have any effect on the gravel pits within
3.6 Birds of lowland freshwaters that unit, provided that there is no local
and their margins Northampton Central, increase in frequency, seasonality,
Implement Policy 4 = take depth and duration of flooding in the pits.
further action to sustain The current conservation status of the
current level of flood risk pits, based on the current level of flood
into the future. risk, has been assessed as favourable.
However, if the overall delivery of policy
River Nene Corridor, 4 in the policy unit required the use of
Implement Policy 6 = Take the gravel pits for the discharge of flood
action to increase the water, there may be the potential for an
frequency of flooding to adverse effect on the habitats of the
deliver benefits locally or designated species.
elsewhere. Potential for a likely significant effect.
The choice of policy for the River Nene Corridor

two units takes into account Hazards A, B, E
the potential implications of The application of policy 6 to increase
policies for the upstream the frequency of flooding could be of
units, particularly River benefit to gadwall and the general
Nene (Weedon to wintering waterfowl assemblage (feature
Kislingbury). The 3.6). However, excessive flooding of
downstream units are not reedbeds could be detrimental to
considered to have any wintering bittern, and this should be
implications for the site avoided through careful strategy and
because of their scheme design. In addition, policy 6
geographical/ hydrological may result in an increase in the
position. displacement of interest feature 3.4
(golden plover), in the winter, from rough
A – Habitat loss/ Physical grassland in the pSPA to surrounding
damage; agricultural land outside the pSPA.
B – Changes in flood However, although golden plover occur
inundation/ frequency in winter on wet grasslands, they are not
C – Changes in physical dependent on them, and they roost and
regime; feed on both rough pastures and
D – Turbidity/ Siltation; agricultural land. As the birds already
E - Changes to water spend time feeding and roosting on this
quality agricultural land, the potential impact of
F – Disturbance (noise, this policy is considered to be low.
visual); Potential for a likely significant effect.
G – Changes to
groundwater levels; The potential for upstream storage in the
H – Land use change; River Nene (Weedon to Kislingbury), as
I – Habitat/ community a result of Policy Option 6, may reduce
simplification. the risk of excessive flooding of the
Upper Nene Gravel Pits. Additional
effects are unlikely to arise from the
remaining upstream policy units, for
reasons explained in section 2. These
units are:
Environment Agency
• Upper and Middle Nene
catchment
• Wootton
• Kettering
• Wellingborough
No likely significant effect.
The remaining policy units are located

downstream of the site, i.e.:
• Corby
• Rushden & Raunds
• Thrapston
• Barnwell
• Oundle to Water Newton
• Peterborough and the Nene
Washes
• The Fens
Additional effects are, therefore, unlikely
to arise from these policy units.
The potential hazards C, D, F, H, & I

are unlikely to arise as a result of
changes in the flood management
regime.
Potential for in-combination effects

with the Nene Catchment Abstraction
Management Strategy, the draft East
Midlands Regional Plan (regional spatial
strategy), and the Northamptonshire
Mineral and Waste Development
Framework.
Orton Pit (SAC) Policy Unit: Peterborough & Peterborough & the Nene Washes
the Nene Washes, Hazards A, B, D, E
1.5 Standing waters (not sensitive Implement Policy 4 = take Orton Pit does not currently receive
to acidification)
further action to sustain the surface waters from the River Nene
2.10 Amphibia current level of flood risk catchment, and the application of policy
into the future. 4 in the policy unit may not have any
effect on this status. However, if the
The choice of policy 4 for overall delivery of policy 4 in the policy
this unit is directly linked to unit required the use of the pit for the
(and dependent on) the discharge and storage of flood water,
choice of policy 6 (take there may be the potential for an
action to increase the adverse effect on the designated habitat
frequency of flooding to and species, and a risk to the integrity of
deliver benefits locally or the site. The current condition of the site
elsewhere) for the River is favourable, but, as the habitat is
Nene Corridor policy unit. characterised by a low level of nutrients,
flooding by nutrient-rich flood waters
A - Habitat loss/ Physical could result in an irreversible change.
damage; Potential for a likely significant effect.
B – Changes in flood
inundation/ frequency The choice of policy for Peterborough &
C - Changes in physical the Nene Washes, takes into account
regime; the potential implications of policies for
D – Turbidity/ Siltation; the upstream units listed below,
Environment Agency
E - Changes to water particularly for Oundle to Water Newton.
quality The potential for upstream storage in
F - Disturbance (noise, River Nene Corridor may reduce the risk
visual); of flooding of Orton Pit via Oundle to
G - Changes to Water Newton. Additional effects are,
groundwater levels; therefore, unlikely to arise from these
H – Land use change; policy units, i.e.:
I - Habitat/ community • Upper and Middle Nene
simplification. catchment
• River Nene – Weedon to
The choice of policy for Kislingbury
Peterborough and the Nene • Wootton
Washes takes into account • Northampton Central
the potential implications of • Northampton Outer
policies for upstream units, • River Nene Corridor
particularly River Nene • Kettering
(Oundle to Water Newton).
• Corby
The Fens unit is not
• Wellingborough
considered to have any
implications for the site as it • Rushden & Raunds
is positioned downstream. • Thrapston
• Barnwell
The Fens policy unit is located

downstream of the site. Additional
effects are, therefore, unlikely to arise
from this policy unit.
Nene Washes (SAC; SPA; Policy Unit: Peterborough & Peterborough & the Nene Washes
Ramsar) the Nene Washes, Hazards A, B, D, E
Implement Policy 4 = take Policy 4 to sustain the current level of
2.6 Non-migratory fish and further action to sustain the flooding would be expected to have a
invertebrates of rivers
current level of flood risk neutral effect on the conservation status
into the future. of the listed interest features, provided
grasslands that the current frequency, seasonality,
3.6 Birds of lowland freshwaters The choice of policy 4 is depth and duration are maintained.
and their margins directly linked to (and However, if the overall delivery of policy
dependent on) the choice of 4 in the policy unit required an increase
Nationally important wetland plant
policy 6 (take action to in the use of the Washes for the
species
increase the frequency of discharge of flood water, there is the
Nationally important wetland flooding to deliver benefits potential for an adverse effect.
invertebrate species locally or elsewhere) in the
River Nene Corridor policy The designated bird community (3.4 &
unit. 3.6) requires shallow winter flooding of
the Nene Washes to maintain the wash
A - Habitat loss/ Physical grassland communities that provide
damage; feeding and roosting areas. Breeding
B – Changes in flood ruff, godwits and spotted crake would be
inundation/ frequency impacted by flooding in breeding
C - Changes in physical season. All would be impacted by lack
regime; of flooding in winter. Although the recent
D – Turbidity/ Siltation; conservation status review assessed
E - Changes to water some areas as unfavourable, this is not
quality attributed to the frequency, depth and
F - Disturbance (noise, extent of flooding.
visual);
G - Changes to Feature 2.6 (spined loach) is a fish living
Environment Agency
groundwater levels; in Morton’s Leam and probably also in
H – Land use change; other ditches. It is accustomed to the
I - Habitat/ community present frequency and degree of
simplification. flooding. However, if there were an
increase in the use of Morton’s Leam for
The choice of policy for unit the discharge of flood water, there may
Peterborough and the Nene be the potential for an adverse effect on
Washes takes into account the species. Although the conservation
the potential implications of status of Morton’s Leam was recently
policies for other units, assessed as unfavourable recovering,
particularly River Nene this is a result of channel management
(Oundle to Water Newton). problems, rather than flood frequency. It
These units have not, is now being managed, following an
therefore, been considered agreed EA plan for routine maintenance
separately. The Fens unit operations, notably weed cutting and
is also not considered dredging. On occasion, water quality
further, as it is unlikely to fails to meet the conservation objective
have an effect on the site target of below 0.1mg/l for total
owing to its position phosphorus. However, water quality of
predominantly downstream, the River Nene has been improved, and
and the absence of any subsequently the water quality of
predicted risk of tidal Morton’s Leam is continuing to improve
breaching in the future. over time.
The nationally important wetland plant

species are aquatic or semi-aquatic, and
are adapted to flooding.
The wetland invertebrate species listed

are fauna of the drainage ditches and
any ponds. They would be affected by
habitat loss and damage, or water
pollution.
Potential for a likely significant effect.
The choice of policy for Peterborough

and the Nene Washes takes into
account the potential implications of
policies for other units, particularly for
Oundle to Water Newton (which is a
potential source of floodwater to the
washes). The potential for upstream
storage in River Nene Corridor may
reduce the risk of flooding of the Nene
Washes via Oundle to Water Newton.
Additional effects are, therefore, unlikely
to arise from these policy units:
• Upper and Middle Nene
catchment
• River Nene – Weedon to
Kislingbury
• Wootton
• Northampton Central
• River Nene Corridor
• Kettering
• Corby
• Wellingborough
• Rushden & Raunds
Environment Agency
• Thrapston
• Barnwell
• The Fens
Potential for in-combination effects

with the Nene Washes Water Level
Management Plan, but these are likely
to be favourable as the plan is designed
to support the designated site.
The Wash and North Adjacent to, but outside of, Although the site is adjacent to (but
Norfolk Coast (SAC) the northern boundary of outside of) the northern boundary of The
The Fens policy unit. The Fens policy unit, the key policy unit in
1.10 Coastal habitats Peterborough and Nene relation to the Wash is Peterborough &
1.11 Coastal habitats (sensitive to
Washes unit is particularly the Nene Washes. The River Nene
abstraction) important, being situated at Corridor is also relevant because of its
the tidal limit of the Nene- potential for upstream flood storage.
1.12 Estuarine and intertidal Wash estuary. Although
habitats
the choice of policy for Hazards B, D, E, I
1.13 Submerged marine habitats Peterborough and the Nene The biodiversity of estuaries (feature
Washes takes into account 1.12) is maintained in part by the
2.9 Mammals of riverine habitats the potential implications of occurrence of ‘freshets’, or short river
policies for upstream units, floods, and their influence on salinity
2.12 Marine mammals
the River Nene Corridor gradients, turbidity and organic matter
unit should be considered inputs. The “Regulation 33 advice” for
individually. the Wash and North Norfolk Coast
European marine site states that
River Nene Corridor, “Changes in salinity through a reduction
Implement Policy 6 = Take in freshwater inputs may affect mudflats
action to increase the and sandflats by altering their biological
frequency of flooding to structure, particularly where salinity
deliver benefits locally or sensitive species and communities
elsewhere. occur.” It is also highlights the fact that
“Reductions in river flow are an issue on
Peterborough & Nene the Norfolk coast.” In addition, the
Washes, and The Fens: “Regulation 33 advice” states that the
Implement Policy 4 = take submerged marine habitats (1.13) are
further action to sustain sensitive to moderate exposure to
current level of flood risk organic enrichment mainly from large
into the future. riverine input, and potential changes to
the Nene river flow plume may change
A – Habitat loss/ Physical this exposure. As the Peterborough and
damage; the Nene Washes unit encompasses the
B – Changes in flood tidal limit of the River Nene it is the key
inundation/ frequency location for controlling freshwater input
C – Changes in physical into the tidal system, in conjunction with
regime; the River Nene Corridor policy unit
D – Turbidity/Siltation; where there is potential for upstream
E – Changes to water flood storage.
quality Potential for a likely significant effect.
F - Disturbance (noise,
visual); Potential exposure to hazards A, C, F, G
G – Changes to and H is not likely to be affected by any
groundwater levels; changes in the Nene river flow plume
H – Land use change; that may occur.
I – Habitat/ community
simplification. Features 1.10 and 1.11 are supra-tidal
habitats mainly located on the North
Environment Agency
Norfolk Coast and at Gibraltar Point, at
least 14 miles from the mouth of the
River Nene. They are very unlikely to be
exposed to any hazards as a result of
any potential changes in the river flow
plume from the River Nene. The coastal
lagoons of the Wash (1.11) (mainly at
Snettisham) are also supra-tidal features
unlikely to be affected by any potential
changes in the River Nene.
Similarly, the riverine habitats of the

otter (2.9) are located on the North
Norfolk Coast, at least 14 miles from the
mouth of the River Nene, and are very
unlikely to be affected by changes in
river flow from the River Nene. In
additional, any potential changes to the
Nene river flow plume are very unlikely
to significantly raise the exposure of
common seals (2.12) to the potential
hazards listed.
There is potential for in-combination

effects with the Nene Catchment
Abstraction Management Strategy, and
the CFMPs for the Great Ouse, the
River Welland and the River Witham.
The Wash (SPA; Ramsar) Adjacent to, but outside of, Although the site is adjacent to (but
the northern boundary of outside of) the northern boundary of The
The Fens policy unit. The Fens policy unit, the key policy unit in
grasslands Peterborough and Nene relation to the Wash is Peterborough &
Washes unit is particularly the Nene Washes. The River Nene
3.6 Birds of lowland freshwaters
and their margins important, being situated at Corridor is also relevant because of its
the tidal limit of the Nene- potential for upstream flood storage.
3.7 Birds of farmland
Wash estuary. Although
3.8 Birds of coastal habitats the choice of policy for Hazards B, D, E & I
3.9 Birds of estuarine habitats Peterborough and the Nene The normal functioning of estuaries
Washes takes into account depends in part on freshwater inflow and
3.10 Birds of open sea and
offshore rocks
the potential implications of the occurrence of ‘freshets’, or short
policies for upstream units, river floods, which influence salinity
the River Nene Corridor gradients, turbidity and organic matter
Large shallow bay with very unit should be considered inputs. The “Regulation 33 advice” for
extensive saltmarshes, intertidal individually. the Wash and North Norfolk Coast
sand and mud, shallow water and
deep channels.
European marine site states that
River Nene Corridor, “Changes in salinity through a reduction
Inter-relationship between its Implement Policy 6 = Take in freshwater inputs may affect mudflats
various components including action to increase the and sandflats by altering their biological
saltmarshes, intertidal sand and
mud flats and estuarine waters.
frequency of flooding to structure, particularly where salinity
deliver benefits locally or sensitive species and communities
elsewhere. occur.” It is also stated that “Reductions
in river flow are an issue on the Nortfolk
Peterborough & Nene coast.” Any potential changes to the
Washes, and The Fens: Nene river flow plume may, therefore,
Implement Policy 4 = take affect the inter-relationship between the
further action to sustain various components of the Wash
current level of flood risk Ramsar site. As the Peterborough and
into the future. the Nene Washes policy unit
encompasses the tidal limit of the River
Environment Agency
A – Habitat loss/ Physical Nene it is the key location for controlling
damage; freshwater input into the tidal system, in
B – Changes in flood conjunction with the River Nene Corridor
inundation/ frequency policy unit.
C – Changes in physical
regime; The River Nene flows into one of the
D – Turbidity/ Siltation; low-tide bird-rich ‘core’ areas in the
E - Changes to water Wash, for features 3.8 and 3.9. This
quality area has high densities of foraging
F – Disturbance (noise, shelduck, oystercatcher, knot, dunlin
visual); and bar-tailed godwit. The importance
G – Changes to of this area for foraging birds depends
groundwater levels; on the biological productivity of the
H – Land use change; mudflats which, in turn, is likely to be
I – Habitat/ community influenced in part by the Nene river flow
simplification. plume.
Potential for a likely significant effect.
There is potential for in-combination

effects with the Nene Catchment
Abstraction Management Strategy, and
the CFMPs for the Great Ouse, the
River Welland and the River Witham.
Potential changes in the river flow plume

from the River Nene are very unlikely to
affect features 3.4, 3.6, 3.7 (which are all
supra-tidal) and 3.10 (birds in the open
sea), nor expose any birds in the Wash
to hazards A, C, F, G and H.
Environment Agency
10. Is the potential scale or magnitude of any effect likely to be significant?
a) Alone? Yes
(explain conclusion, e.g. in relation to de There is potential for a significant effect on all five designated
minimis criteria) sites: Upper Nene Gravel Pits SPA/Ramsar site, Orton Pit SAC,
Nene Washes SAC/SPA/Ramsar site, The Wash and North
Norfolk Coast SAC, and The Wash SPA/Ramsar site.
As a result of the application of Policy 6 in the River Nene

Corridor policy unit, there is a risk of increased flooding of the
Upper Nene Gravel Pits which may affect SPA interest features
through the loss of use of their habitats. There is also a risk that
the application of Policy 4 in Northampton Central policy unit
may affect the section of the Upper Nene Gravel Pits within that
unit.
There is a risk that the application of Policy 4 in the

Peterborough and the Nene Washes policy unit could affect
Orton Pit SAC and the Nene Washes SAC/SPA/Ramsar site if
these sites were required for local flood water discharge.
There is risk a that potential changes to the River Nene flow

plume, resulting from catchment flood management actions,
especially in the River Nene Corridor, Peterborough and the
Nene Washes, and the Fens units, may cause changes to the
current functioning and biodiversity of the Wash and thereby
affect its SAC, SPA and Ramsar interest features.
b) In combination with other Yes

Environment Agency permissions The Nene Catchment Abstraction Management Strategy has the
and/or other plans or projects? potential to affect water levels in the catchment and lead to in-
combination effects on the Upper Nene Gravel Pits SPA. It may
also lead to in-combination effects on the Wash and its
designated features through additional changes to the River
Nene flow plume.
The potential risk of an effect on the ecohydrology of the Wash,

resulting from potential changes in freshwater inflow, is
increased as a result of an in-combination effect of the Nene,
Great Ouse, River Welland and River Witham CFMPs.
c) In combination with permissions Yes

and/or plans/projects of other As a result of its risk assessment, the Agency can conclude that
Competent Authorities? this plan could act in combination with permissions and/or
plans/projects of other competent authorities. In particular, there
is potential for an effect on the Upper Nene Gravel Pits SPA in-
combination with the East Midlands Regional Plan (East
Midlands Regional Strategy) and the Northamptonshire Mineral
and Waste Development Framework (Northamptonshire County
Council).
Environment Agency
Yes
11. Conclusion:
Is the proposal likely to have a
The plan could result in a range of unspecified land
significant effect ‘alone and/or in
management and flood risk management actions and alterations
combination’ on a European site?
to existing maintenance regimes that could affect the designated
sites, as assessed above.
12. Justification for Reduced CFMPs are undergoing a comprehensive process of

Consultation review process : consultation. Natural England has been involved in every stage
of this CFMPs development.
13. Name of EA Officer: Date: July 2008
14. Natural England comment on

assessment:
15. Name of Natural England Date:

Officer:
IF THE PROPOSAL IS LIKELY TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT AN APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT

WILL BE REQUIRED (see part B for suggested scope).
Environment Agency
Form HR02: Proforma for FRM stage 3 Appropriate
Assessment
Part A: Technical consideration
1 Introduction
The River Nene CFMP (July 2008) is a high level strategic document setting out long-term (50-100
years) flood risk management policies for the Nene catchment – a 2267km2 area extending from the
Northamptonshire uplands to The Wash (see Figure 1). The Nene CFMP documents our
understanding of the mechanisms and history of flooding in the catchment, both now and into the
future, and identifies how flood risk is currently managed.
The main source of flooding in the catchment is from rivers (up to 66% of flood incidents). Other less
significant sources include tidal waters, sewers and surface water. The main flood risk areas are
Northampton, Wellingborough, Oundle, Wootton and Peterborough. The main driver of future flood
risk for the catchment is likely to be our changing climate.
Six generic CFMP policies (see Table 1) have been appraised against ten objectives, encapsulating
the overall aims and aspirations of flood risk management in this area.
Table 1 - CFMP generic policies

Policy 1 – No active intervention
Policy 2 - Reduce existing flood risk management actions
Policy 3 - Continue with existing or alternative actions to manage flood risk at the current
level
Policy 4 - Take further action to sustain the current level of flood risk into the future
Policy 5 – Take further action to reduce flood risk
Policy 6 - Take action to increase the frequency of flooding to deliver benefits locally or
elsewhere
From these six policies, a preferred policy was identified for each of 15 specific geographic areas
covering the entire catchment called policy units (Figure 1). These were identified based on the levels
of current and future flood risk. A specific Action Plan has been prepared for each policy unit
identifying how the preferred policy should be implemented.
Only those six policy units and associated policies where the potential for a Likely Significant Effect
on a European site(s) could not be screened out at Stage 2 (HRO1), are included in this Appropriate
Assessment. These policy units and policies are documented in Table 4.
Figure 1 (overleaf): Map of the River Nene CFMP area, showing European Sites, Policy Units
and preferred Policy Options.
Environment Agency
Environment Agency
2 Plan details (Table 2)
Table 2 is based on and summarises section 6 of the Stage 2 assessment (HR01). This
identifies the potential hazards arising from the CFMP and highlights those to which the six
European sites and three Ramsar/proposed Ramsar sites in the catchment could be exposed
as a result of the implementation of the recommended policies in the relevant policy units.
Where a Policy Unit potentially affects more than one European Site, these are assessed
separately.
Table 2: Plan details.
Type of plan: River Nene Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP)

Hazard (CFMP)
Plan Elements/Components
Turbidity / Siltation
Habitat/Community
Changes to Water
Changes in Flood
Land use Change

Physical Damage
(European Site)
Physical Regime
Groundwater
Habitat Loss /
simplification
Changes to
Disturbance
inundation /
Changes in
frequency
Levels
Quality
CFMP Plan Component assessed as having the potential for a likely significant effect
(HR01)
Northampton Central:
Implement Policy 4 – Take further action
to sustain current level of flood risk
into the future.
(Upper Nene Gravel Pits pSPA/Ramsar)
River Nene Corridor:

Implement Policy 6 – Take action to
increase the frequency of flooding to
(Upper Nene Gravel Pits pSPA/Ramsar)
River Nene Corridor:

Implement Policy 6 – Take action to
increase the frequency of flooding to
(The Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC;
The Wash SPA/Ramsar)
Peterborough and the Nene Washes:
Implement Policy 4 = Take further action
into the future.
(Orton Pit SAC)
Implement Policy 4 –Take further action
into the future.
(Nene Washes SAC/SPA/Ramsar)
into the future.
The Fens:
into the future.
Environment Agency
3 Features List (Table 3)
Table 3 is also based on and summarises section 6 of the Stage 2 assessment (HR01). This
highlights the interest features of the European Sites which are potentially sensitive to
hazards arising from the implementation of the recommended policy in the relevant policy
units.
Table 3: Features sensitive to hazards in plan.
Features Plan has associated Details of Hazard (plan

hazards to which component reference)
features are
sensitive?
Upper Nene Gravel Pits (pSPA/Ramsar)
3.4 Habitat loss
Birds of lowland wet grasslands Changes in flood inundation /
frequency
3.6 Birds of lowland freshwaters and Changes to water quality

their margins
Orton Pit (SAC)
1.5 Standing waters (not sensitive to Habitat loss
Changes in flood inundation /
acidification)
frequency
2.10 Amphibia Turbidity/Siltation
Changes to water quality
Nene Washes (SAC, SPA/Ramsar)

2.6 Non-migratory fish and Habitat loss
Changes in flood inundation /
invertebrates of rivers. frequency
3.4 Birds of lowland wet grasslands Turbidity/Siltation
3.6 Birds of lowland freshwaters and Changes to water quality

their margins
Ramsar Nationally important wetland

plant species
Ramsar Nationally important wetland

The Wash and North Norfolk Coast (SAC)
1.12 Estuarine and intertidal habitats Changes in flood inundation /
frequency
1.13 Submerged marine habitats Turbidity /Siltation
Changes to water quality
Habitat/community
simplification
The Wash (SPA/Ramsar)

3.8 Birds of coastal habitats Changes in flood inundation /
frequency
3.9 Birds of estuarine habitats Turbidity /Siltation
Ramsar Large shallow bay with Changes to water quality
extensive saltmarshes, intertidal Habitat/community
simplification
sand and mud, shallow water
and deep channels.
Ramsar Inter-relationship between its
various components including

saltmarshes, intertidal sand and
mud flats and estuarine waters.
Environment Agency
4 Appropriate Assessment Record.
Table 4 is the Appendix 12 Proforma for Stage 3, and represents a record of the Appropriate
Assessment. For each European Site, the relevant Policy Units and their associated
Preferred Policies are stated, and the assessment is based on the potential effects of both the
preferred policy and the relevant Action Plan(s) included in the CFMP.
The hazards and interest features listed in columns 1 and 2, and which form the basis of the
assessment, are those listed in Tables 1 and 2, following the Stage 2 assessment (HR01).
Consultation with Natural England has occurred throughout the development of this CFMP,
and a formal letter of response has been received regarding two of the European sites (Orton
Pit and The Nene Washes) on the basis of the stage 2 assessment (HR01).
Environment Agency
Table 4 Appendix 12: Proforma for Stage 3 (Appropriate Assessment Record)
Hazard Interest Favourable Contribution of Contribution of Adverse effect of Can adverse affects be Adverse
feature condition target attribute1 to management2 or proposal alone and in- avoided? affect on
for relevant ecological structure other combination on integrity;
attribute1 and function of site unauthorised attribute1 and/or feature long term,
(including range sources to short term.
of natural attribute and /or Yes, No or
variation) based feature condition uncertain?
on conservation
objectives
Upper Nene Gravel Pits pSPA/pRamsar site: Policy 4 (Northampton Central) - Take further action to sustain current level of flood risk into the future; Policy 6
(River Nene corridor) – Take action to increase the frequency of flooding to deliver benefits locally or elsewhere
Habitat Loss; Birds of No favourable condition The gadwall and the No management Alone: Yes Uncertain
Changes in flood lowland wet target available, except general wintering issues known. The Potential development of flood The potential creation of upstream
inundation/ grasslands that the basic aim will be waterfowl assemblage use condition of all SSSI storage within the River Nene flood storage in the River Nene Potential for a
frequency; to maintain populations the open water and units in the pSPA were Corridor, following the Flood (Weedon to Kislingbury), following likely significant
Changes in Birds of of notified features at / surrounding habitats of the assessed as Storage Study proposed in the the Flood Storage Study proposed effect, but
physical regime. lowland above levels present at gravel pits. Favourable in the Action Plan, could result in in the Action Plan, could reduce conditions or
freshwaters notification, i.e.: latest assessment increased flooding of the the future flood risk to the site, restrictions can
and their Bittern – 2 individuals, Bittern winter in some of (2004-05). pSPA/Ramsar site. particularly the pits located in be applied to
margins wintering; the reedbeds surrounding Northampton Central. avoid this.
Golden plover – 5,790 the pits. Further flooding may result in an
individuals, wintering; increase in the displacement of Proposals (in the Action Plan) for The Action Plan
Gadwall – 773 Golden plover are golden plover, in the winter, from policies in the Local Development for the Policy
individuals, wintering; wintering birds that forage rough grassland in the pSPA to Framework, to link flood risk Unit recognises
Waterbird assemblage – and roost on the lowland surrounding agricultural land management planning with the European
23,821 individuals, wet grassland in the outside the pSPA. regeneration and redevelopment, Site as a
wintering. pSPA. However, they are could minimise the potential for in- constraint and
not dependent on the wet If excessive flooding of reedbeds combination effects. proposes
grassland, and they roost were to occur, this could be projects to
and feed on both rough detrimental to wintering bittern. Excessive flooding of the manage the risk
pastures and agricultural reedbeds used by bittern could be of changes in
land outside the pSPA. In-combination: avoided through careful strategy flooding regime
There is potential for in- and scheme design. Golden plover to site integrity.
combination effects resulting may not be adversely affected by
from the Nene Catchment an increase in flood frequency as
Abstraction Management Plan, their flocks are mobile in the
the East Midlands Regional countryside, are not dependent on
Plan, and the Northamptonshire the wet grassland in the pSPA,
Mineral and Waste Development and roost and feed on both rough
Environment Agency
on conservation
objectives
Framework. Increased pastures and agricultural land
abstraction due to increased outside the pSPA . Nevertheless,
development in the catchment actions associated with the River
could potentially lead to a Nene Corridor Action Plan’s
reduction in surface water. proposed Environmental
Conversely, increased Enhancement Project and the
development could lead to Resilience and Resistance Project
increased surface flooding will aim to manage the risk to the
because of increased run-off. SPA bird species.
Orton Pit SAC (Peterborough & the Nene Washes): Policy 4 - Take further action to sustain the current level of flood risk into the future.
Habitat loss / Standing No favourable condition The key component of the Active management is Alone Uncertain
Physical waters (not target available, except site consists of narrow required to maintain If the pit were used at any time Yes
damage; sensitive to that the basic aim will be ponds which are the ponds and for the discharge and storage of Potential for a
Changes in acidification) to maintain notified characterised by alkaline surrounding terrestrial flood water, there is the potential The Action Plan for Peterborough likely significant
Flood inundation features at / above the water with a low level of habitats at for an adverse effect on the and the Nene Washes proposes effect, but
/ frequency; Amphibia condition at notification, nutrients. The designated successional stages designated habitat and species. the possible creation of upstream conditions or
Changes to i.e. no reduction in habitat is described in the favourable to newts As the habitat is characterised storage in the River Nene Corridor restrictions can
Water Quality; population of great citation as important for and stoneworts. The by a low level of nutrients, to sustain the current level of flood be applied to
crested newts nor in the ten species of stoneworts condition of all SSSI flooding by nutrient-rich flood risk. avoid this.
extent or quality of the (Chara spp.), and includes units in the SAC was waters could result in an
standing waters. the main English assessed as irreversible change. Any potential for a local increase The Action Plan
population of bearded favourable in the latest in flood risk could be avoided for the Policy
stonewort C. canescens. assessment. In-combination: through careful strategy and Unit recognises
Bearded stonewort is an No potential in-combination scheme design. The Action Plan the European
early coloniser of ponds effects have been identified in proposes an Environmental Site as a
less than 25 years old and relation to other plans or Enhancement Project to constraint and
favours brackish projects. investigate changes in conditions aims to establish
conditions which, at this and to recommend changes in an
site, results from salts management. Environmental
released from clay. Its Enhancement
distribution depends on Project for Orton
the age and stage of Pit, to
succession of the ponds. investigate any
Environment Agency
on conservation
objectives
changes in
The site also contains the conditions and
largest known population to recommend
of great crested newts in changes in
the UK, and possibly management.
Europe. The newts
require stable water levels,
the absence of predatory
fish, and a range of
marginal and terrestrial
habitats providing good
feeding conditions.
The Nene Washes (SAC/SPA/Ramsar site) (Peterborough & the Nene Washes): Policy 4 - Take further action to sustain the current level of flood risk into the
future.
Habitat loss Non-migratory For the fish (spined Spined loach occupies The conservation Alone: Yes Uncertain
/Physical fish and loach) and invertebrates, Morton’s Leam and status of Morton’s If the overall delivery of policy 4 The Action Plan for Peterborough
damage; invertebrates maintain habitat in probably many of the other Leam was recently in the policy unit required an and the Nene Washes proposes Potential for a
Changes in flood of rivers Morton’s Leam by: ditches in the washes. It assessed as increase in the use of the the possible creation of upstream likely significant
inundation/ maintaining existing is accustomed to the unfavourable Washes for the discharge and storage in the River Nene Corridor effect, but
frequency; Birds of summer flows; ensuring present frequency and recovering, although storage of flood water, there is to sustain the current level of flood conditions or
Turbidity/ lowland wet water quality is degree of flooding. this is a result of the potential for an adverse risk. restrictions can
Siltation; grasslands equivalent to River channel management effect. Breeding ruff, godwits be applied to
Changes to Ecosystem Class 3, and The designated bird problems, rather than and spotted crake would be Continued implementation of the avoid this.
water quality. Birds of Biological Quality is community uses the Nene flood frequency. It is impacted by flooding in breeding Nene Washes Water Level
lowland equivalent to Class B; Washes for nesting and/or now being managed, season (and, conversely, all Management Plan, combined with The Action Plan
freshwaters maintaining, enhancing as a feeding and roosting following an agreed would be impacted by lack of careful strategy and scheme for the Policy
and their or restoring the habitat area outside the breeding EA plan for routine flooding in winter). design, including the use of Unit recognises
margins structure of the channel; season. Shallow flooding maintenance upstream storage areas can avoid the European
and preventing fish of the washes is required operations, notably If there were an increase in the the risk of a change from the Site as a
introductions or in winter, to maintain the weed cutting and use of Morton’s Leam for the current frequency, seasonality, constraint and
Nationally
transfers. wash grassland dredging. On discharge of flood water, there depth and duration of flooding. proposes
important
communities that provide occasion, water quality may be the potential for an projects to
Environment Agency
on conservation
objectives
wetland plant For the birds and other feeding and roosting fails to meet the adverse effect on the spined minimise the risk
species wetland flora and fauna, areas. The breeding bird conservation objective loach as a result of changes in of unmanaged
maintain: the extent and community then nests on target of below 0.1mg/l water quality, turbidity and flooding of the
Nationally distribution of grassland/ the drier ground which for total phosphorus. turbulence. site.
important marshy grassland and increases as the flood However, water quality
wetland open water; and the waters recede in the of the River Nene has The nationally important wetland
invertebrate vegetation height spring. been improved, and plant and invertebrate species
species characteristics and plant subsequently the are aquatic or semi-aquatic, and
species composition. The nationally important water quality of are adapted to flooding.
There should be no wetland plant species are Morton’s Leam is However, they may be affected
significant change in aquatic or semi-aquatic, continuing to improve by an increase in flood
range of water levels, and are adapted to over time. frequency, particularly if this led
and no significant flooding. to a reduction in water quality.
reduction in numbers or Management of the
displacement of birds, in The wetland invertebrate Nene Washes for
relation to reference species listed are fauna of birds is directed at In-combination:
levels. the drainage ditches and providing shallow There is potential for a positive
any ponds. winter flooding for in-combination effect with the
feeding and roosting Nene Washes Water Level
areas, and drier Management Plan.
ground in the spring
for nesting, as well as
maintaining the wash
grassland
communities. In
recent years, parts of
Stanground Wash
have remained dry
due to the inefficiency
of silted internal ditch
system and old water
control measures,
rather than the
Environment Agency
on conservation
objectives
frequency, depth and
extent of flooding.
The Wash (SPA/Ramsar site): Policy 4 (The Fens, and Peterborough & the Nene Washes) - Take further action to sustain the current level of flood risk into the
future; Policy 6 (River Nene Corridor) Take action to increase the frequency of flooding to deliver benefits locally or elsewhere.
Changes in flood Birds of The favourable condition The River Nene flows into The condition of most Alone: Uncertain Uncertain
inundation/ coastal targets for the SPA can one of the low-tide bird- of the 60 SSSI units in Any potential changes to the The Action Plan for The Fens
frequency; habitats be summarised as: rich ‘core’ areas in the the SPA was Nene river flow plume may affect recognises the sensitivity of The Potential for a
Turbidity/ Wash. This area has high assessed as the inter-relationship between Wash to flow of water draining likely significant
siltation; Birds of No decrease in extent densities of foraging Favourable in the the various components of the from the River Nene and will take effect, but
Changes to estuarine and composition of shelduck, oystercatcher, latest assessment Wash Ramsar site. Flood this into account in the formulation cannot ascertain
water quality; habitats habitats from knot, dunlin and bar-tailed (2003-07). However, storage proposals in the Action of actions in The Fens policy unit. (due to
Habitat Large shallow established baseline, godwit. The importance of 14 units in the inner Plan, for the River Nene Corridor uncertainty) that
community bay with very subject to natural this area for foraging birds Wash were assessed and The Fens in particular, have The Action Plan for the River Nene it will not
simplification. extensive change. depends on the biological as unfavourable the potential to change the Corridor includes proposals for an adversely affect
saltmarshes, productivity of the recovering as a result magnitude and frequency of Environmental Enhancement site integrity.
intertidal sand Presence and mudflats. of new policies “freshets” entering the Wash. Project, and Resilience and
and mud, abundance of food designed to ensure Resistance Project, and these can The CFMP
shallow water species should not The normal functioning of sustainable The importance of this area for investigate the potential changes Action Plan
and deep deviate significantly from estuaries depends in part management of Wash foraging birds depends on the in river flow and the subsequent recognises the
channels. established baseline, on freshwater inflow and shellfish stocks and biological productivity of the potential for an effect downstream sensitivity of The
subject to natural the occurrence of fulfilment of mudflats which, in turn, is likely in the Wash. Wash to flow of
Inter- change. ‘freshets’, or short river conservation to be influenced in part by the water draining
relationship floods, which influence objectives. A further 3 Nene river flow plume. However, measures to avoid any from the River
between its No significant reduction salinity gradients, turbidity units were adverse effects of the CFMP on Nene.
various in numbers of and organic matter inputs. unfavourable as a In-combination: the Wash SPA would need to be
components displacement of birds in result of overgrazing developed in combination with the
including relation to established of saltmarsh, There is potential for in- CFMPs for the Great Ouse, the
saltmarshes, baseline, subject to unsustainable fishing combination effects with the River Welland and the River
intertidal sand natural change. practices or nutrient Nene Catchment Abstraction Witham.
and mud flats enrichment and Management Strategy, and the
and estuarine development. CFMPs for the Great Ouse, the
River Welland and the River
Environment Agency
on conservation
objectives
waters. The “Regulation 33 Witham.
advice” for the Wash
and North Norfolk
Coast European
marine site states that
“Changes in salinity
through a reduction in
freshwater inputs may
affect mudflats and
sandflats by altering
their biological
structure, particularly
where salinity
sensitive species and
communities occur.”
The Wash and North Norfolk Coast (SAC): Policy 4 (The Fens, and Peterborough & the Nene Washes) - Take further action to sustain the current level of flood
risk into the future; Policy 6 (River Nene Corridor) Take action to increase the frequency of flooding to deliver benefits locally or elsewhere.
Environment Agency
on conservation
objectives
Changes in flood Estuarine and Extent of The Wash The biodiversity of The “Regulation 33 Alone Uncertain Uncertain
inundation/ intertidal large shallow inlet and estuaries is maintained in advice” for the Wash Any potential changes to the The Action Plan for The Fens
frequency; habitats bay should not part by the occurrence of and North Norfolk Nene river flow plume may affect recognises the sensitivity of The Potential for a
Turbidity/ decrease, subject to ‘freshets’, or short river Coast European the productivity and composition Wash to flow of water draining likely significant
siltation; Submerged natural change. floods, and their influence marine site states that of the biological communities from the River Nene and will take effect, but
Changes to marine on salinity gradients, “Changes in salinity present in the designated this into account in the formulation cannot ascertain
water quality; habitats Salinity characteristics turbidity and organic through a reduction in intertidal and submerged of actions in The Fens policy unit. (due to
Habitat and nutrient status of the matter inputs. freshwater inputs may habitats. uncertainty) that
community bay should not deviate affect mudflats and The Action Plan for the River Nene it will not
simplification. significantly from an sandflats by altering Flood storage proposals in the Corridor includes proposals for an adversely affect
established baseline, their biological Action Plan, for the River Nene Environmental Enhancement site integrity.
subject to natural structure, particularly Corridor and The Fens in Project, and Resilience and
change. where salinity particular, have the potential Resistance Project, and these can The CFMP
sensitive species and change the magnitude and investigate the potential changes Action Plan
Extent, distribution and communities occur.” It frequency of “freshets” entering in river flow and the subsequent recognises the
composition of the is also stated that the Wash via Peterborough and potential for an effect downstream sensitivity of The
characteristic biotopes “Reductions in river the Nene Washes, and the in the Wash. Wash to flow of
should not deviate flow are an issue on Fens. water draining
significantly from an the Norfolk coast.” However, measures to avoid any from the River
established baseline, The “Regulation 33 adverse effects of the CFMP on Nene
subject to natural advice” also states In-combination: the Wash and North Norfolk Coast
change. that the submerged There is potential for in- SAC would need to be developed
marine habitats (1.13) combination effects with the in combination with the CFMPS for
are sensitive to Nene Catchment Abstraction the Great Ouse, the River Welland
moderate exposure to Management Strategy, and the and the River Witham.
organic enrichment CFMPs for the Great Ouse, the
mainly from large River Welland and the River
riverine input, and Witham.
potential changes to
the Nene river flow
plume may change
this exposure.
Environment Agency
Notes:
1 ATTRIBUTE = Quantifiable aspects of interest features (subject to natural variation in some cases) that can be used to help define favourable condition for that feature. See relevant Site Conservation
Objectives.
2 MANAGEMENT = in this context management refers to management of the European site
3 If uncertain consider time-limited consent, or other legally enforceable modifications
Environment Agency
Stage 3 Environment Agency conclusion
This assessment has been carried out considering the likely effects of the implementation of
high level policies identified in the draft River Nene CFMP and Action Plan (July 2008), alone
and in-combination, on the site integrity of six European sites and three Ramsar/proposed
Ramsar sites. These policies are high level and lack detail with regards to what changes are
going to be caused by the delivery of the plan’s policies and the specific areas that will be
affected by the implementation of the plan’s policies.
Can it be ascertained that the plan will not adversely affect the integrity of the European
site(s)? No
Nene Washes SPA/SAC/Ramsar site; Orton Pit SAC; Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits
pSPA/pRamsar: There is potential for a likely significant effect on site integrity, but conditions
or restrictions can be applied to avoid this.
Avoidance measures are recommended in Table 4; these include specific measures identified
in and proposed by the relevant Action Plans and the identification of each site as a constraint
within each relevant Action Plan. The implementation of these measures and the recognition
of identified constraints within the Action Plans would ensure that the plan has no adverse
effect on the integrity of these European sites.
The Wash SPA/Ramsar; The Wash and North Norfolk Coast SAC: There is potential for a
likely significant effect on site integrity, but cannot ascertain (due to uncertainty) that it will not
adversely affect site integrity.
No specific avoidance measures are recommended in Table 4; although the sensitivity of

these European sites is recognised.
This assessment at the plan level does not remove the need for a Habitats Regulations
assessment at the project level, regardless of whether or not the project is consistent with the
CFMP. As a result of uncertainties concerning the potential impacts of the CFMP policies on
the European sites, detail emerging at the scheme-design stage may identify additional
impacts that have not been assessed here. Consequently, any project arising out of the plan
will be assessed to ensure any adverse effects on integrity of European site are avoided.
Name of EA officer undertaking appropriate assessment:

Signed: Ian Cappitt Date: 18 November 2008
Endorsed by (if appropriate) e.g. team leader and date
NE COMMENTS ON APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT:

IS THERE AGREEMENT WITH THE CONCLUSION? YES/NO
(Please provide summary and explanation for answer given)
[to be provided]
Signed: (NE local team manager) Date: 18 November 2008
Environment Agency
Part B: Final Appropriate Assessment record
River Nene Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP)
The River Nene CFMP (July 2008) is a high level strategic document setting out
long-term (50-100 years) flood risk management policies for the Nene catchment – a
2267km2 area extending from the Northamptonshire uplands to The Wash.
This is a record of the appropriate assessment required by Regulation 48 of the

Habitats Regulations 1994, undertaken by the Environment Agency in respect of the
above plan, in accordance with the Habitats Directive (Council Directive 92/43/EEC).
Having considered that the plan would be likely to have a significant effect on the
Upper Nene Gravel Pits pSPA/Ramsar site, Orton Pit SAC, Nene Washes
SAC/SPA/Ramsar site and The Wash SPA/Ramsar site, and that the plan was not
directly connected with or necessary to the management of the site for nature
conservation, an appropriate assessment has been undertaken of the implications of
the proposal in view of the site’s conservation objectives.
The appropriate assessment was undertaken in August 2008, and considered the six
policy units and associated policies where the potential for a Likely Significant Effect
on a European site(s) could not be screened out at Stage 2 (HRO1).
Natural England (NE) was consulted under Regulation 48(3) on 14th August 2008
and their representations, to which the Agency has had regard, are attached at
Annex 1. The conclusions of this appropriate assessment are in accordance with the
advice and recommendations of NE.
The site’s nature conservation objectives have been taken into account, including
consideration of the citation for the site and information supplied by NE. The likely
effects of the proposal on the international nature conservation interests for which the
site was classified or designated may be summarised as:
• Potential increase in the displacement of golden plover, in the winter, from

grassland in the Upper Nene Gravel Pits pSPA/Ramsar site to surrounding
agricultural land outside the site;
• Potential for excessive flooding of reedbeds in the Upper Nene Gravel Pits
pSPA/Ramsar site leading to displacement of wintering bitterns;
• Potential reduction in surface water in the Upper Nene Gravel Pits pSPA/Ramsar
site as a result of in-combination effects with other plans in the catchment;
• Potential for an irreversible change in Orton Pit SAC, resulting from flooding with
nutrient-rich water, if the pit were used at any time for the discharge and storage
of flood water;
• Potential for adverse effect on spined loach in the Nene Washes SAC, if there
were an increase in the use of Morton’s Leam for the discharge of flood water;
• Potential for adverse effect on breeding waterfowl in the Nene Washes
SPA/Ramsar site if the washes were used for the discharge and storage of flood
water in the spring or summer;
• Potential effect on the nationally important wetland plants and invertebrates of the
Nene Washes Ramsar site, if there were an increase in flood frequency and if this
led to a reduction in water quality;
• Potential for possible changes in the Nene river flow plume to affect the
productivity and composition of the biological communities in The Wash
SPA/Ramsar site, and consequently the designated bird populations, especially in
Environment Agency
combination with potential effects of the Great Ouse, Welland and Witham
CFMPs.
The assessment has concluded that:
• There is potential for a likely significant effect on the integrity of the European sites, but it
cannot be ascertained (due to uncertainty) that the plan will not adversely affect site
integrity.
• This assessment at the plan level does not remove the need for a Habitats Regulations
assessment at the project level, regardless of whether or not the project is consistent with
the CFMP. As a result of uncertainties concerning the potential impacts of the CFMP
policies on the European sites, detail emerging at the scheme-design stage may identify
additional impacts that have not been assessed here. Consequently, any project arising out
of the plan will be assessed to ensure any adverse effects on integrity of European site are
avoided.
Signed (relevant Area Management Team member) and date.
*Only include if appropriate.
Environment Agency
Appendix C
Communication Plan
Environment Agency
River Nene Catchment Flood Management Plan – December 2008 C1
RIVER NENE CATCHMENT FLOOD
MANAGEMENT PLAN
Consultation and
Communication Plan
Environment Agency
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
1.2 Objectives
1.3 Key messages
1.4 Key issues
2. INVOLVING OTHERS
2.1 Board
2.2 Project Team
2.3 Steering Group
3. EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS
4. PROJECT PROGRAMME
4.1 Project programme milestones
Figures/ Tables
Figure 1:Organisational chart

Table 1: Communication programme
Table 2: Contact details
Environment Agency
1 INTRODUCTION
This Communication Plan sets out the arrangements for internal and external consultation with
respect to the River Nene CFMP. The Communication Plan aims to:
• support the CFMP Steering Group in involving their organisations and other interested
organisations in developing the CFMP and making decisions within it;
• clarify the roles and responsibilities of the Project Team for specific aspects of internal and
external communication (using a single named contact as far as possible);
• integrate consultation activities within the plan making process to use resources efficiently and to
avoid consultation fatigue;
• identify key organisations with a likely interest in the CFMP;
• set up a consultation programme to provide a detailed list of consultation in the future.
We have reviewed and updated this Communication Plan as the CFMP has progressed. We will
amend the Communication Plan as we need to after significant phases of the process. The Project
Assistant is responsible for updating the Communication Plan.
1.1 Background
We have set up a national programme to oversee the development and introduction of plans for more
than 70 catchments across England and Wales by the end of 2008. CFMPs will determine the current
flood risk in the catchment and consider potential future scenarios that will influence flood risk over the
next 50 to 100 years. These include further development, land management changes and climate
change. This will help us to identify long term sustainable policies that aim to reduce flood risk within
the catchment as well as multiple benefits for the environment.
1.2 Objectives
Environment Agency teams:
• To ensure that our staff in the Area office understands the importance and relevance of the River
Nene CFMP for managing flood risk in the catchment.
• To get the necessary support from the Area Managers and other teams in the Area office (for
example Ecology, Development Control, Mapping & Data, Flood Incident Management,
Navigation, Recreation) in developing the River Nene CFMP.
• Make sure we brief our staff fully on how the River Nene CFMP is developing and that we can
explain to external organisations clearly how CFMPs relate to the flood mapping programme and
our other work
External partners and organisations:
• To ensure that the Steering Group members’ organisations understand that their staff need to
support us in developing the River Nene CFMP, and know what’s in it for them.
• Communicate and promote the CFMP integrated approach to managing flood risk in the
catchment. For example, the impact of catchment-wide land use (for example agriculture) that
may have already been seen in the catchment.
• Encourage the relevant local planning authorities in the catchment to work together in planning
decision making, that is looking at the consequences of development on the catchment as a
whole and clearly identifying areas of land required to reduce the risk of flooding to protect people
and property in the future.
Environment Agency
• Reach new audiences that traditionally have not been a priority for flood risk management, for
example forestry and farming. We may need to find different ways of communicating with these
people.
• Use CFMPs to build on existing relations with external organisations who may not have been
involved in flood risk management before but work with us in other areas, such as farmers who
are already involved with our soil strategy.
1.3 Key messages
• The River Nene CFMP is an important opportunity for us to stop, think and plan for the future in
terms of managing the increasing flood risk in the catchment. The River Nene CFMP will
determine the existing flood risks in a catchment from all sources of flooding and how those risks
may change in the future and look at ways of managing the risk of flooding in the future.
• The River Nene CFMP will allow us to prioritise and target flood risk management activities in the
catchment according to need, and focus the scope of further studies such as strategy plans and
projects.
• The River Nene CFMP is a major step towards integrated catchment management and it will
enable us to implement the new Water Framework Directive by providing vital information on the
long-term needs for managing flood risk in the catchment.
• The River Nene CFMP will inform the Regional Spatial Strategy and Local Development
Frameworks produced by the spatial planning process, making sure that flood risk now and in the
future is considered in the early stages of planning how land is to be used in the future. The
CFMP will provide information on flood risk to help prepare Strategic Flood Risk Assessments for
the areas in the catchment.
• This CFMP project is part of a major programme, which will deliver CFMPs covering the whole of
England and Wales, working in partnership with many different interested organisations.
1.4 Key issues
Many different interested groups both within the organisation and outside are involved in developing
this plan. We will need clear and simple messages, tailored to each specific group.
The River Nene CFMP will need to have a high enough profile to influence key organisations in the
catchment, for example to change the way that planning decisions are made.
2 INVOLVING OTHERS
2.1 Board
There will be one Project Board established to cover all CFMPs. The Project Board will be chaired by
the Project Executive (Roy Lobley), and will consist of all Project Sponsors (River Nene CFMP
Project Sponsor: Guy Szomi), the Regional Flood Risk Manager (Colin Lee) and Defra’s Regional
Engineer. The Project Board will provide expertise and support to the Project Executive. The
members of the Project Board perform a dual role of representing the needs of the organisation while
at the same time supporting the Project Executive. The Board will meet every 3 months to review
Regional progress and provide expert advice to the project, particularly if any major issues are
highlighted.
Environment Agency
2.2 Project Team
Figure 1 shows the members of the Project Team and the main lines of communication.
The Project Team is made up of Environment Agency staff from a number of relevant functions and
representatives from Halcrow. The core Project Team members will administrate the project. The
Project Team as a whole will oversee the development of the CFMP and will be an essential point of
reference for data collection and gaining an understanding of the flood risk management issues within
the catchment.
The Project Team will co-ordinate information / knowledge available from within the Environment
Agency and assist in identifying interested organisations and consultees. The Environment Agency
Project Manager / Environment Agency Project Assistant will act as the focus through which all
information / correspondence shall pass.
Figure 1 – River Nene CFMP Project Team
Main Project Team Members
Project Executive Roy Lobley

Consultants Project Director
Halcrow – Patrick Hawker
Consultants Project Manager

Halcrow – Ian Rose
Project Manager Tracy Hodsman
External
Communication
Project Assistant Themba Ngwenya
Other Project Team Members
Project Sponsor Guy Szomi Flood Incident Management Sarah Thompson
Flood Risk Mapping & Data Environmental Management John East

Management Team Leader Jim Marshall (Water Resources / Hydrology)
Flood Risk Mapping & Data Man. John Ray Environmental Management Nikki Loveday
(Conservation)
Operations Delivery Glyn Davis
Environmental Assessment Officer Ian Cappitt
Development Control Gerry Crasto
Waterways Roger Valentine

Planning Liaison Team Leader Ben Thornely
Flood Forecasting Michelle Partridge

2.3 CFMP Steering Group
Principal lines of
Environment Agency communication
2.3 Steering Group
The Steering Group is a wider group brought together to guide the technical aspects of the CFMP, to
focus the data collection and to sign off the various documents produced before we issue them and/or
consult people.
The Steering group is made up of our staff and staff from other major organisations. Apart from
overseeing the development of the CFMP, the Steering group should act as an essential point of
reference for data collection and understanding of the flood risk management issues within the CFMP
area.
The Steering Group for the River Nene CFMP is made up as follows:
Roy Lobley Environment Agency

Project Executive
Tracy Hodsman Environment Agency
Project Manager
Ian Rose Halcrow
Project Manager
Guy Szomi Environment Agency
Project Sponsor
Jim Marshall Environment Agency
Project Manager
Gerry Crasto Environment Agency
Development Control Technical
Specialist
Ian Cappitt Environment Agency
Senior Environmental Assessment
Officer
Roger Valentine Environment Agency
Waterways
Stella Baylis Natural England
Adviser - Land Management and
Conservation
Sarah Dawkins RSPB
Steve Morris North Level IDB
Chief Executive & Chief Clerk
David Thomas Middle Level Commissioners
Chief Engineer
Gerry Spraggs Anglian Water Services
Project Manager (Hydrology)
Alan Wheeler East of England Regional Assembly
Consultant Planner
Alison Hepworth East Midlands Regional Assembly
Policy Adviser (Environment)
Geoff Beel Regional Flood Defence Committee
Tom Youdan ~
3 EXTERNAL ORGANISATIONS
Good practice encourages us to consult statutory environmental bodies, other external organisations
and the general public at particular stages of the CFMP process. We will also work to:
• encourage people to get involved in an open and fair way;

• make sure that people and organisations can get involved and have an influence.
Environment Agency
Table 2 lists the main groups of people we are consulting about the River Nene CFMP. We consult
with different groups in different ways (see Table 1).
4 PROJECT PROGRAMME
4.1 Project programme milestones
Table 1 shows a proposed programme for internal and external consultation. Nominated members of
the project team are responsible for preparing material and undertaking each round of consultation.
Where possible, we will provide a single point of contact within the Environment Agency (i.e. the
Project Manager) for all public consultation.
As the proposal is progressed, we may identify further consultation requirements and therefore may
expand the consultee list.
The Project Start– up Stage of the River Nene CFMP began in July 2004. This stage involved
establishing the Project Team and Steering Group to enable data collection and an initial
understanding of flood risk management issues within the catchment. The Environment Agency
Project Manager produced an outline brief in order to inform core members of the Project Team about
the River Nene CFMP.
The following stage was the Inception Stage during which readily available catchment data and issues
relevant to flood risk were collated in order to provide a catchment overview. It involved investigating
relevant data and issues, and set out the work required for the Scoping Report. The following stage
was the Scoping Stage during which the understanding of the catchment was presented. It set out the
draft catchment objectives and possible future scenarios and presented the scope of work and
programme for the development of the Draft CFMP.
The final stage of the CFMP involves preparing a Draft and Final CFMP. The Draft document
facilitates the presentation and consultation on flood risk management policies within the catchment
and includes a draft action and monitoring plan. The final document is produced once feedback on
the Draft has been assimilated and actioned.
Effective project communication lines must be established to ensure that information and relevant
outputs are shared between the team members involved in the various aspects of plan development.
Consideration should also be given to the position of the plan within a hierarchy and any consultation
networks that have already been established.
Environment Agency
Table 1: Communication programme
CFMP Title: River Nene CFMP
Project Manager: Tracy Hodsman Consultant PM: Ian Rose Consultant: Halcrow Group Ltd
Consultee Group
Method of
Stage Aim of communication (Please refer to Table 2 for Lead Date Outcome of actions
communication
contact details)
Stage 1: Establish both a Project Team and Steering Consult key Environment Contact Environment Agency July 2004 Project Team and
Project Group for the River Nene CFMP to enable data Agency staff to agree the Agency team leaders Project Steering Group
start-up collection and an initial understanding of Flood Project Team. via e-mail to nominate Manager / established.
risk Management issues within the catchment. a member of their Agency
team to sit on the Project
Consult key Environment Project Team. Assistant
Agency staff and key
stakeholders to agree to the
Steering Group.
Stage 2: Meet with Project Team and key internal River Nene CFMP Project Meetings with Project Environment Start: Initial data collection
Inception knowledge holders to obtain data and Team Team Agency 17/08/200 and catchment
information during Inception Stage. Project 4 understanding
Also to identify key knowledge holders and Manager Finish:
stakeholders Consultant 19/11/200
Project 4
Manager
Environment Agency
First meeting of Steering Group to introduce River Nene CFMP Steering Written/telephone Environment Catchment
concept of CFMP and establish lines of Group communication with Agency understanding
communication. Steering Group Project
Manager
Consultant
Project
Manager
Issue final Inception Report to Project Team, River Nene CFMP Project Meetings with Project Environment Feedback from
Steering Group and other key stakeholders for Team Team Agency Inception Report to
information and comments. River Nene CFMP Steering Written/telephone Project be collated and
Group communication with Manager assessed for input
Key stakeholders Steering Group Consultant into Scoping Stage
Project
Manager
Stage 3: Meet with key knowledge holders (internal and River Nene CFMP Project Briefing session for Environment Start: Catchment
Scoping external) to obtain data and information and Team key knowledge Agency 29/11/200 understanding
identify issues. River Nene CFMP Steering holders Project 4
Collation of feedback (data, information and issues) Group Manager Finish:
Reach consensus on catchment issues River Nene CFMP Consultant 09/09/200
identified during Inception Stage Consultation Group Project 5
Manager
Second meeting of Project Team to discuss River Nene CFMP Project Meetings Environment Future scenario
comments/issues raised by Inception Report Team Agency testing and
and possible future scenarios to be tested. Project identification of
Identify possible scenarios for testing Manager catchment options
Consultant
Project
Manager
Second meeting of Steering Group to discuss River Nene CFMP Steering Meetings Environment Future scenario
scenario tests and catchment options. Group Agency testing and
Project identification of
Manager catchment options
Consultant
Project
Manager
Environment Agency
Scoping Report to be issued to Project Team, River Nene CFMP Project Meetings with Project Environment Produce Scoping
Steering Group and key knowledge holders for Team Team and Steering Agency Report for
formal consultation. River Nene CFMP Steering Group Project consultation
Group Written Manager
River Nene CFMP communication with Consultant
Consultation Group Consultation Group Project
Manager
Summary document to be issued to River Nene CFMP Written Environment Consultati Produce Scoping
Consultation Group and press release issued. Consultation Group communication with Agency on start: Report for
General public Consultation Group Project 24/06/05 consultation
Manager Finish:
Consultant 09/09/05
Project
Manager
Stage 4: Project Team and Steering Group meetings to River Nene CFMP Project Meetings with Project Environment Start: Desired outcome:
Draft CFMP identify and agree preferred draft policies. Team Team and Steering Agency 03/10/200 agreement to draft
Consultation with specific parties to discuss and River Nene CFMP Steering Group Project 5 policies by all parties
agree preferred draft policies. Group Written and telephone Manager Finish:
Key knowledge holders communication Consultant 06/10/06
Participative decision- Project
making techniques Manager
will be employed that
may involve multi-
criteria analysis.
Reach consensus with Steering Group, statutory River Nene CFMP Project Meetings and Environment Review feedback
consultees, consultation group and other Team workshops Agency from draft CFMP
relevant stakeholders on draft policies. River Nene CFMP Steering Written and telephone Project Report
Disseminate information and Group communication Manager
obtain comments River Nene CFMP Consultant
Consultation Group Project
Stakeholders Manager
Widespread consultation and public notification General public Public notice in local Environment Consultati CFMP supported by
press Agency on start: statutory consultees.
Project 17/07/06
Manager Finish:
Consultant 06/10/06
Project
Manager
Environment Agency
Steering Group agreement to draft CFMP River Nene CFMP Project Meetings Environment CFMP supported by
Formal discussion Team Written and telephone Agency statutory consultees.
River Nene CFMP Steering communication Project
Group Manager
River Nene CFMP Consultant
General public
Stage 5: Review and address responses from River Nene CFMP Project Meetings Environment Start: July CFMP approved by
Finalise and consultation process Team Written and telephone Agency 2008 Defra. Prepare a
adopt plan Revise draft CFMP accordingly River Nene CFMP Steering communication Project Finish: post-adoption
Group Manager Sept 2008 statement
Consultant
Project
Manager
Ensure widespread notification of the final River Nene CFMP Project Meetings Environment Prepare a post-
CFMP. Team Written and telephone Agency adoption statement
River Nene CFMP Steering communication Project
Group Manager
River Nene CFMP Consultant
General public
Stage 6: Evaluate the effectiveness of consultation and All: Written and telephone Environment Sept 2008 Collate feedback to
Monitor and engagement from comments received on the River Nene CFMP Project communication Agency inform CFMP review
review plan outcomes and outputs from internal and Team Project
external stakeholders. River Nene CFMP Steering Manager
Group
River Nene CFMP
Consultation Group
Stakeholders
General public
Environment Agency
Ensure feedback/issues raised are actioned and All: Written and telephone Environment Collate feedback to
taken forward to the review of the CFMP. River Nene CFMP Project communication Agency inform CFMP review
Team Project
River Nene CFMP Steering Manager
Group
River Nene CFMP
Consultation Group
Stakeholders
General public
Environment Agency
Table 2: Contact details
Organisation / role Purpose of

Contact name & job title
communication
Steering Group
Environment Agency Guy Szomi SG/PT
Project Sponsor Asset System Management Team Leader
Environment Agency Ian Cappitt SG/PT
Senior Environmental Assessment Officer
Environment Agency Jim Marshall SG/PT
Project Manager
Environment Agency Gerry Crasto SG/PT
Technical Specialist Development Control
Environment Agency Roger Valentine SG/PT
Waterways Recreation & Business Development
Team Leader
Regional Flood Defence Geoff Beel SG
Committee
Tom Youdan SG
North Level IDB Steve Morris SG
Chief Executive & Chief Clerk
Paul Sharman
Engineer to the Board
Middle Level Commissioners David Thomas SG
Chief Engineer
Natural England Stella Baylis SG
Conservation
RSPB Sarah Dawkins SG
Anglian Water Services Dr Gerry Spraggs SG
Project Manager (Hydrology)
East of England Regional Alan Wheeler SG
Assembly Consultant Regional Planner
East Midlands Regional Assembly Alison Hepworth SG
Policy Adviser (Environment)
Statutory (under SEA regulations)
Natural England Stella Baylis SG
Conservation
Natural England Nicola Orchard CG
Lincolnshire, Leicestershire &
Northamptonshire
Natural England Dr R J Keymer CG
Area Manager
English Heritage Ann Plackett CG
Regional Planner
Jim Williams
Regional Archaeological Science Advisor
Glyn Coppack CG
Inspector of Ancient Monuments
Natural England Emma Cooper CG
Planning & Transport Casework Manager
East Midlands – Karen Devonport
CG
Environment & Wildlife
Environment Agency Nikki Loveday PT
Environmental Management
Environment Agency
Technical Officer (FRB)
Environment Agency Mr Richard Handley CG
Principal Officer Conservation and
Biodiversity
Natural England Dr R J Keymer CG
Area Manager
Natural England Vicky Seddon Hunns CG
Senior Adviser – Historic Environment
(National Role)
Natural England Helen Trapp CG
Historic Environment Adviser (East
Region)
Natural England Susan Hardwick CG
Historic Environment Adviser (East
Midlands Region)
Wildlife Trust Ms Ruth Hawksley CG

Water for Wildlife Officer
Wildlife Trust Mr Alan Smith CG
Planning & Biodiversity Officer
Countryside Stewardship Mr Darren Braine CG
Peterborough Environment City Mr R Donoyou CG
Trust
Forestry Commission Mr Austin Brady CG
Conservator- East Midlands Region
National Trust CG
Woodland Trust CG
Water & Drainage
Environment Agency John Ray PT
Flood Risk Mapping & Data Management
Team Leader
Environment Agency Michelle Partridge PT
Flood Forecasting Technical Specialist
Environment Agency Sarah Thompson PT
Flood Incident Management
Environment Agency John East PT
Environmental Management
Technical Officer (Monitoring & Data)
Environment Agency Glyn Davis CG
Operations Delivery
Environment Agency Mr Rob Wilby CG
(Environment Policy) Climate Change Science Manager
Regional Flood Defence Cllr Ben Smith CG
Committee
South Holland IDB Mr P J Camamile CG
Chief Executive Officer
Nene Washlands Commissioners Mr Steve Morris CG
Feldale IDB Mr Russell Wright CG
Consultant to the Feldale IDB
Waldersey IDB Mr I A D Smith CG
Clerk to Waldersey IDB
Hundred of Wisbech IDB Mr I A D Smith CG
Clerk to Hundred of Wisbech IDB
Kings Lynn Consortium of IDB’s Mr J Worfolk CG
Principal Engineer
Wash and North Norfolk Coast Mr Peter Rushmer CG
European Marine Site
Management Project
Wash Estuary Strategy Group Tammy Smalley CG
British Hydropower Association Mr A Abbot CG
Environment Agency
Policy and Consultations Manager
Office of Water Services Mr David McGrath CG
UK Irrigation Association Mr Keith Weatherhead CG
Atkins Water & Environment Mr Marc Huband CG
Atkins Water & Environment Mr R McSweeney CG
Atkins Water & Environment Mr G Darch/Ms Nicki Williams CG
H R Wallingford Mr Mike Briggs CG
Peter Brett Associates Claire Samuel CG

Principal Hydrologist
Utilities & Transport
Northamptonshire County Council Mr Keith Parrot CG
Highways Traffic Manager
Carillion-URS Mr Glyn Jones CG

Sustainable Transport Centre, Reverend Paten CG
Railworld Director
Recreation
British Waterways Adam Comerford CG
Hydrologist, Water Management
British Waterways Mr Matthew Routledge CG
Waterway Manager
Inland Waterways Association Lynda Payton, Chairman (Northampton CG
Branch)
Nigel Long (Peterborough)
Inland Waterways Association R D Hardwick CG
Environment Agency Mr Mick Wright CG
Lock/Sluice Keeper
Billing Aquadrome Mr P Calvesbert CG
Manager
Association of Nene River Clubs Mr Les Rhodes CG
Secretary
Association of Nene River Clubs Mr John Crisp CG
Chairman/Captain
Bluebell Lakes Fishery Mr Tony Bridgefoot CG
Deeping St James Angling Club Mr K Allen CG
Earls Barton Angling Club Mr P Tipler CG
Ken Yates Marine Sales Mr Ken Yates CG
Leicester and District Angling Mr R Bent-Fossey CG
Association
Nene and Welland Anglers Mr Geoff Wright CG
Consultative Association Secretary
Northampton Nene Angling Club Mrs Karen Slater CG
Hon Secretary
Northampton Nene Angling Club Mr C Howard CG
Treasurer
Northampton Nene Angling Club Mr P Chillingworth CG
Oundle Angling Association Mr P Smith CG
Peterborough & District Angling Mr Vic Alderson CG
Association Secretary
Sibson Fisheries Mr Mike Bradshaw CG
Wansford, Yarwell and Nassington Mr S Longfoot CG
AC
Wellingborough and District Nene Mr R Blenkharn CG
AC
Development
Environment Agency Ben Thornely PT
Planning Liaison Team Leader
Environment Agency Paul Hunt CG

Sustainable Development Project
Environment Agency
Manager
East Midlands Development Mr Ian Lodder CG
Agency Director of Partnerships
East of England Development Paul Hinds CG
Agency
West Northamptonshire Roger Mendonca CG
Development Corporation Deputy Chief Executive
O&H Hampton Ltd Mr M A Johnson CG
Mr R C Tallowin
Local Councils
Northamptonshire County Council Mark Chant CG
Growth Management, Planning Policy
Northamptonshire County Council Sarah Naylor CG
Strategic Policy Officer
Northamptonshire County Council Mr Peter Wildridge CG
County Emergency Planning Officer
Northamptonshire County Council Mr Jason Longhurst CG
River Nene Regional Park Project
Director
Northamptonshire County Council Mr Nick Corker CG
Natural Environment Team Leader
Borough Council of Wellingborough Lynn Martin Bennison CG
Chief Executive
Borough Council of Wellingborough Mr Alan Chapman CG
Borough Council of Wellingborough Ms Sue Bateman CG
Senior Planning Officer
Corby Borough Council Norman Stronach CG
Daventry District Council Mr Keith Thursfield CG
Development Control Manager
Fenland District Council Mr Chris Hodson CG
Fenland District Council Mr G Garford CG
Head of Engineering
Huntingdonshire District Council Mr Richard Probyn CG
Acting Head of Planning
Kettering Borough Council Ms Cath Harvey CG
Head of Development Control
Northampton Borough Council Mr Steve Pointer CG
Northampton Borough Council Ms Claire Berry CG

Principal Planning Officer (Strategy)
Northampton Borough Council Mr John Mooyman CG
West Northants Joint Planning Unit
Northampton Borough Council Ms Eleanor Gingell CG
Peterborough City Council Mr Peter Heath-Brown CG
Peterborough City Council Mr D Hill CG
Strategic Growth & Development
Peterborough City Council Mr J Sykes CG
Senior Urban Regeneration Officer
Strategic Growth & Development
Peterborough City Council Mr Stuart Hamilton CG
Emergency Planning Manager
South Holland District Council Steve Williams CG
Head of Planning & Development
South Northamptonshire Council Mr Richard Fox CG
East Northamptonshire Council Mr Trevor Watson CG
Head of Planning Services
East Northamptonshire Council Mr Mike Burton CG
Planning Policy
Cambridgeshire County Council Mr Mark Vigor CG
Cambridgeshire County Council Mr Mark Baker CG
Chief Civil Protection Officer
Environment Agency
Lincolnshire County Council Mr Richard Wills CG
Director for Development
Other Authorities, Government and Agencies
Defra Jim Hutchison CG
Mr Phil Hope MP CG
Malcolm Moss MP CG
Stewart Jackson MP CG
Mr Tim Boswell MP CG
Mr Phil Sawford MP CG
Sally Keeble MP CG
Brian Binley MP CG
Government Office for the East Mr Alistair Sellers CG
Midlands
Government Office for the East of Jo Hefford CG
England Rural Team
Northamptonshire Chamber of CG
Commerce
Cambridgeshire Chamber of CG
Commerce
Farming & Landuse
Country Land & Business Helen Woolley / Andrew Shirley CG
Association
FWAG – Northamptonshire CG
FWAG – Cambridgeshire and Ms Pat Neylon/Ms E Ranelagh CG
Hertfordshire
National Farmers’ Union East Mr Paul Tame CG
Midlands Region Regional Environment & Land Use
Adviser
Milton (Peterborough) Estates Mr Robert Dagliesh CG
Company
Residents, Local Action Groups / Societies and Parish Councils
East of England Association of John Bloomfield CG
Civic Trust Societies Vice Chairman
Aldwincle Parish Council Ms S Skett CG
Althorp Parish Council Mr E M Crookes CG
Apethorpe Parish Meeting Mr R Parkinson CG
Chairman
Ashton Parish Council Mrs D Heath CG
Badby Parish Council Mrs. S Foster CG
Barnwell Parish Council Mrs S M Hatcher CG
Barton Seagrave Parish Council Mr R Reed CG
Benefield Parish Council Mr C B Jones CG
Billing Parish Council Mr D J McKintosh CG
Blatherwycke Parish Meeting Mr C V Brown CG
Chairman
Blisworth Parish Council Mr A Lack CG
Boughton Parish Council Mrs F Edey CG
Bozeat Parish Council Mrs L D Payne CG
Bradfield Parish Council Mrs D Keeley CG
Brigstock Parish Council Mr N Searle CG
Brington's Parish Council Mrs R Tank CG
Brixworth Parish Council Mrs J Macken CG
Broughton Parish Council Mr G Duthie CG
Bugbrooke Parish Council Mrs E Bignell CG
Bulwick Parish Council Mr A J Harris CG
Burton Latimer Town Council Mr G Sneddon CG
Castle Ashby Parish Council Mrs A Addison CG
Castor Parish Council Mrs S E Henson CG
Catesby Parish Council Mr S Kember CG
Church with Chapel Brampton Mrs Stacey CG
Parish Council
Environment Agency
Charwelton Parish Council Mrs B Langdon CG
Clopton Parish Council Clerk Mr R Wood CG
Chairman
Cogenhoe and Whiston Parish Mrs A Addison CG
Council
Cold Ashby Parish Council Mrs Glascodine CG
Cold Higham Parish Council Mrs P M Pearson CG
Collingtree Parish Council Mrs J Dickens CG
Cotterstock Parish Meeting The Rt Hon the Viscount Addison CG
Chairman
Cottesbrooke Parish Council Mr Tait CG
Courteenhall Parish Council Mr C Wake CG
Chairman
Cranford Parish Council Mr P Quincey CG
Cransley Parish Council Mrs T M Lacy CG
Creaton Parish Council Mrs L Compton CG
Denford Parish Council Mrs V Prodger CG
Denton Parish Council Mrs A Addison CG
Desborough Town Council Mr P Shortland CG
Dodford Parish Council Mr Marks CG
Draughton Parish Council Clerk S J Paybody CG
Duston Parish Council Mrs N Lane CG
Earls Barton Parish Council Mrs R Smart CG
East Haddon Parish Council Mrs L G Threadgold CG
Easton Maudit Parish Council Mrs V Ritson CG
Ecton Parish Council Mr J Wilson CG
Elton Parish Council Miss P Chapman CG
Farthingstone Parish Council Mrs Chambers CG
Fawsley Parish Council Mr S Birt CG
Finedon Parish Council Mrs E W Baker CG
Flore Parish Council Mrs A Weller CG
Gayton Parish Council Mrs V M Hartley CG
Geddington/Newton & Little Oakley Mrs S Goddard CG
Parish Council
Glapthorn Parish Council Mr C B Jones CG
Grafton Underwood Parish Council Mrs M Sexton CG
Great Addington Parish Council Ms H Hoier CG
Great Doddington Parish Council Mrs C A Mundy CG
Great Harrowden Parish Council Mr A R Johnson CG
Great Houghton Parish Council Mr H R Barnes CG
Grendon Parish Council Mrs A Comery CG
Gretton Parish Council P Oram CG
Guilsborough Parish Council Mr P J Winterburn CG
Hackleton Parish Council Mr D Dunkley CG
Hannington Parish Council Ms L Astill CG
Hardingstone Parish Council Mrs W D Dunkley CG
Hardwick Parish Council Mr K D Hoier CG
Harleston Parish Council Ms L Adams CG
Harpole Parish Council Clerk Mr P Halliday CG
Haselbech Parish Council Mrs Westall CG
Hemington, Luddington and N J Searle CG
Thurning Parish Council
Higham Ferrers Town Council Mr D J Linnell CG
Holcot Parish Council Mr Winter CG
Holdenby Parish Council Clerk CG
Hollowell Parish Council Mr B Thorpe CG
Irchester Parish Council Mrs J L Savage CG
Irthlingborough Town Council Mrs M Taylor CG
Isham Parish Council Mrs A G McLaven CG
Islip Parish Council Mrs J Pike CG
Environment Agency
Kelmarsh Parish Council Ms Chapman CG
Kilsby Parish Council Mr Weller CG
Kings Cliffe Parish Council Mrs H Blunt CG
Kislingbury Parish Council Mrs A Addison CG
Lamport Parish Council Mrs A Larkan CG
Leverington Parish Council Mrs B Joyce CG
Lilford-cum-Wigsthorpe & Thorpe Mr J Hewes CG
Achurch Parish Council Chairman
Litchborough Parish Council Mrs J M Rowling CG
Little Addington Parish Council Mrs J Tufnail CG
Little Harrowden Parish Council Mrs A L White CG
Little Houghton Parish Council Mrs A M Marrum CG
Loddington Parish Council Mrs L Hayward CG
Long Buckby Parish Council Mrs Peachy CG
Lowick and Slipton Parish Council Mr B Bailey CG
Lutton Parish Council Mrs J M Evans CG
Maidwell Parish Council Mrs S J Paybody CG
Mears Ashby Parish Council Mrs L Ross CG
Milton Malsor Parish Council Mrs A Addison CG
Moulton Parish Council Mrs Ewin CG
Naseby Parish Council Mr I Arnott CG
Nassington Parish Council Mr P N Smith CG
Nether Heyford Parish Council Mrs J Kirkbride CG
Newnham Parish Council Mrs N Krawczyke CG
Norton Parish Council Mrs J S Waterfield CG
Old Parish Council Mr P Shortland CG
Orlingbury Parish Council Mrs A G McLaven CG
Orton Parish Meeting Mrs G Marlow CG
Oundle Town Council Mr C Street CG
Pattishall Parish Council Mrs A Addison CG
Pilton, Stoke Doyle & Wadenhoe Mrs F Watson CG
Parish Council
Pitsford Parish Council Mr J Wilson CG
Podington Parish Council Mr G Hayes CG
Polebrook Parish Council Mr D Lea CG
Preston Capes Parish Council Mrs Bowden CG
Pytchley Parish Council Mrs R Warne CG
Quinton Parish Council Miss M Robinson CG
Raunds Parish Council Mr D Dean CG
Ravensthorpe Parish Council Mrs Peachey CG
Ringstead Parish Council Mrs L Gaudion CG
Roade Parish Council Mrs Sylvia Mawby CG
Rothersthorpe Parish Council Mrs S Murphy CG

Rothwell Town Council Mrs C E Mackay CG
Rushden Town Council Mr P Fraser CG
Rushton Parish Council Mr R Reed CG
Scaldwell Parish Council Mrs T Stacey CG
Sibson-cum-Stibbington Parish Ms P Newton CG
Council
Southwick Parish Council Mr P Shortland CG
Spratton Parish Council Mr G Poole CG
Stanion Parish Council Mr R Warne CG
Stanwick Parish Council Mrs J L Hodgson CG
Staverton Parish Council Miss S Miller CG
Stowe Nine Churches Parish Mrs Henley CG
Council
Strixton Parish Meeting Mr C Reeder CG
Sudborough Parish Council Mr A G Coales CG
Environment Agency
Sutton Bridge Town Council Miss K Treacher CG
Sywell Parish Council Mr K Winter CG
Tansor Parish Council Mr G Drage CG
Chairman
Thornby Parish Council Mr P Moyes CG
Thorney Parish Council Clerk Mr A Hovell CG
Thornhaugh Parish Council Mr H A Warren CG
Thorpe Malsor Parish Council Mrs D J Smart CG
Thrapston Town Council Mrs J Pike CG
Titchmarsh Parish Council Mrs J Teague CG
Twywell Parish Council Mr L Essam CG
Tydd St Giles Parish Council Mr R Wright CG
Tydd St Mary Parish Council Miss K Treacher CG
Upper Heyford Parish Meeting Mrs E R A North CG
Upton Parish Council Mr C J Lyon CG
Walgrave Parish Council Mr P Pomeroy CG
Walpole Parish Council Mrs A Williams CG
Walsoken Parish Council Mrs A Williams CG
Wansford Parish Council Mrs P Stuart-Mogg CG
Warkton Parish Council Mrs M Sexton CG
Warmington Parish Council Mrs A Webb CG
Watford Parish Council Mrs G S Laurie CG
Weedon Bec Parish Council Mrs Halkett CG
Weekley Parish Council Mrs M Sexton CG
Weldon Parish Council Mr L Berruto CG
Welton Parish Council Mr C Miles CG
West Haddon Parish Council Mr R Candelent CG
West Walton Parish Council Mrs E Bateman CG
Whilton Parish Council Mr K Hiscock CG
Whittlesey Town Council Mrs J Clark CG
Wilby Parish Council Mrs S Jurek-George CG
Wisbech St Mary Parish Council Mrs C Jobson CG
Clerk
Wisbech St Mary Parish Council Mr Brian Payne CG
Wisbech Town Council Mr J B Stocks CG
Wollaston Parish Council Mrs J L Savage CG
Woodford Parish Council Mr P T Bird CG
Woodnewton Parish Council Mrs P Rodgers CG
Wootton Parish Council Clerk Mr L Costello CG
Wymington Parish Council Mrs L Sutton CG
Yardley Hastings Parish Council Mrs L Williamson CG
Yarwell Parish Council Mr R Sardeson CG
Mr David Thompson CG
Mr Scribbens CG
Others
LDA Design David Thompson CG
Associate Director
(Green Circle Project)
Confederation of British Industry CG
Hanson Aggregates Mr R G Woodbridge CG
Senior Geologist
Port of Sutton Bridge Mr C R Goodall CG
Bearward Engineering Ltd Mr Bruce Burrows CG
BWB Consulting Mr Tony Goodchild CG
SG = Steering Group Member
PT = Project Team
CG = Consultation Group
Environment Agency
Appendix D
Urban growth
Environment Agency
River Nene Catchment Flood Management Plan – December 2008 D1
D1 CURRENT TRENDS: DEVELOPMENT TO 2021
Development to 2021 will be influenced by the existing planning framework, which includes
proposals for significant growth to 2021, as well as current planning policy guidance which
sets urban areas as a focus for development and growth and which emphasises the efficient
use of urban land including higher densities, and re-use of brownfield sites.
The Government’s Sustainable Communities Plan (launched 2003) sets out a programme of
action for delivering housing and associated development within four growth areas to 2031.
Two of these growth areas, Milton Keynes-South Midlands area, and the London-Stansted-
Cambridge-Peterborough are partly located within the River Nene catchment. This will
profoundly affect rates of development in the short to medium term.
D1.1 The Planning framework to 2021

For planning purposes, the study area is divided into two regions: the East Midlands and the
East of England.
The Regional Spatial Strategy for the East Midlands (RSS8), published in March 2005, covers
that part of the study area which falls into the East Midlands and incorporates proposals for
growth set out in the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub Regional Study (MKSM). The
MKSM study examined the potential for growth over the period 2001 to 2031 (and relates to
proposals set out in the Government’s Sustainable Communities Plan) in an area which has
been identified by government as one of four main growth areas within or close to the South
East. The Study has identified Northampton, Kettering, Wellingborough and Corby as
potential foci for future growth.
RSS8 sets out proposed development in Northamptonshire and covers the period to 2021.
The role of Northampton as a major population and employment centre is to be fostered by
new transport infrastructure and facilities to support its anticipated future growth. Another
objective is the population-led regeneration of Corby. RSS8 promotes the continued growth of
Northampton town as the major centre of population and economic activity. Strategic
Development Areas are intended to be urban expansions of a minimum of 1,000 dwellings
and 40 hectares of industrial and commercial land. SDAs are proposed at various locations,
including Daventry and east of Wellingborough. Corby is also identified as a focus for net in-
migration into the County, with the underlying objective of stimulating a population-led
regeneration of the town.
Consideration of future growth in the East of England over the period 2001-2021 is based on
the “East of England Plan” - the Draft Regional Spatial Strategy for the East of England
(RSS14). The Plan stresses that urban areas are to be the main focus for development and
redevelopment, with Peterborough identified as a key centre of development focus. The plan
includes the requirement for 60% of development to be located on previously developed land.
Peterborough forms part of the London-Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough growth area, and

is recognised in the Plan as a regional ‘capital’ with potential for significant sustainable growth
and a focus for growth of hi-tech, knowledge-based employment. The Plan states that Local
development documents for the Peterborough Unitary Authority area will provide for 21,200
net additional dwellings and at least 17,400 net additional jobs in the period 2001-2021,
supported by necessary infrastructure.
Total housing growth for Fenland is anticipated to be 10,100 between 2001 and 2021.
Wisbech is located in that part of Fenland, which is located in the Peterborough Sub-Region
Strategy Area, and is identified as a strategic site for employment in the Cambridgeshire &
Peterborough Structure Plan (2003).
Figure D1 shows the locations of planned urban growth to 2021
D1.2 National Planning Policy
Environment Agency
Planning Policy Guidance PPG3 sets a national target that by 2008, 60% of additional
housing should be provided on previously-developed land and through conversions of existing
buildings. Other requirements for development – including reducing parking standards and
increasing densities – as set out in PPG3 will have impacts in terms of the overall footprint of
future development.
New housing development in England is currently built at an average of 25 dwellings per

hectare but more than half of all new housing is built at less than 20 dwellings per hectare.
PPG 3 sets new guidelines for housing development, making more efficient use of land, with
average housing densities of between 30 and 50 dwellings per hectare net, with even greater
intensity of development at places with good public transport accessibility such as city, town,
district and local centres or around major nodes along good quality public transport corridors.
PPG3 also sets out clear requirements in terms of the accessibility of future development,
with the requirement that it is well served by public transport with clear implications for the
location of future development and infrastructure requirements. Other policies will also apply
in terms of environmental constraints on future development.
D1.3 Approach and Methodology

We deduce from the reviews that the rate and scale of urban growth are likely to outstrip past
trends and that the nature of growth is likely to be different from that of the past, for example
in terms of density and location. The extrapolation of trends to horizons of 50 and 100 years,
based on the existing urban area, is not likely to give an accurate view of future development.
We expect that the main determinants of future development will be the combined effects of
demographic change and planning policy. The urban area is the function of demographic
determinants such as population growth and household size as well as planning policy
relating to growth, density, settlement and the range of environmental and other sustainability
constraints. Given that these factors change over time, the past is not necessarily considered
a good indication of the future.
Our approach is accordingly to adapt the prescribed methodology, taking into account
anticipated demographic change and the impacts of planning policy. Long term forecasts of
future urban development will need to take full account of development policies at the
national, regional and local level. In addition, policy constraints will dictate the likely locations
for future developments. Green Belt and Green wedge designations, for example, as well as
other environmental constraints will continue to provide a clear steer on the location of future
development.
In keeping with the CFMP Guidance, trends in development for the short term (up to 25 years,
based on the lifetime of the Sustainable Communities Plan and other planning policy
documents) have been assessed. The scoping has been extended to consider development
allocations in existing planning documents. Given that model data preparation is based on
sub-catchments, short term trends have been developed for individual settlements,
considering the main urban areas of: Daventry, Northampton, Wellingborough, Kettering,
Rushden, Thrapston, Oundle, Corby, Oundle, Peterborough, and Wisbech. Development
allocations in existing plans are likely to be based on population and housing growth. These
allocations have been translated into implications for urban area/ footprint, and location of
growth. Consideration has been given to the policy and broad locational imperatives affecting
new development, including proportion of new urban development (versus brownfield, infill);
density assumptions; broad areas of search identified in planning policy; environmental
constraints; and infrastructure considerations.
Environment Agency
D1.4 Development in the East Midlands to 2021
The calculation of the increase in urban area for the short term (2001 to 2021) has been
based on consideration of the Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub-Regional strategy,
which identifies significant growth in the sub-region. In developing an understanding of likely
short term trends, consideration has also been given to the Growth Area Assessment Reports
(Stages 1 and 2) for Northampton & Corby/Kettering/Wellingborough. These provide
background data on the likely anticipated levels of housing and employment growth, as well
as likely urban land requirements, and potential locations for growth. In addition,
consideration has also been given to the sustainable growth in locations other than large
towns.
D1.4.1 Forecast Growth6

Urban Area Time frame Level of Growth Average Annual Rate of
Total to 20217 Growth
Housing Employ Housing Employ
Northampton 2001-2021 30,000 37,200 1,500 1,860
Corby 2001-2021 16,800 13,1408 840 657
Wellingborough 2001-2021 12,800 13,1409 640 657
Kettering 2001-2021 13,100 13,14010 655 657
Daventry 2001-2021 9,72011 6,65012 486 332
East 2001-2021 6,00013 4,30014 300 215

Northamptonshire
South Holland15 2001-2021 34016 190 17 10
6 Based on RSS8 and MKSM Sub Regional Growth Strategy October 2004
7
Based on RSS8 and MKSM Sub Regional Growth Strategy October 2004
8
Based on proportional allocation of total employment (43,800) identified in RSS8, with 30% each to Corby,
Wellingborough and Kettering + East Northants.
9
10
11
Assumes 90% of total (10,800) housing allocation for the district will be located in Daventry
12
Based on projected job growth of 10,000 between 2001 and 2031, as forecast in table 4.1 of the Northampton &
Corby/Kettering/Wellingborough Final Stage 1 Report (May 2003).
13
An estimated 6,000 of the total housing allocation of 9,400 for East Northamptonshire is predicted to be located
within the Nene catchment, focussed on Rushden, and rural service centres of Thrapston and Oundle.
14
Based on proportional allocation of total employment (43,800), similar to the housing allocations in Corby,
Wellingborough and Kettering+ East Northants (ie. 10% of total employment allocation to E Northants).
15
Note, consideration of urban growth in South Holland has been included following the receipt of comments from
South Holland District Council relating to the consideration of sustainable growth in locations other than the large
towns.
16
Assumes urban centres will be focus for 75% of growth, based on Structure Plan housing allocation of 5,700 for
urban centres in South Holland. Considers bulk of this growth will be located in Spalding, with limited allocation to
other settlements. Only Long Sutton and Sutton Bridge are considered here, as these are the main centres in the
Nene catchment.
Environment Agency
D1.4.2 Estimates Greenfield Housing Land requirements 2001-202117
Urban Area Brownfield Housing Capacity Est Greenfield Req to 202118
Northampton Revised urban capacity figure 10,000 dwellings @ 35 dwellings /

suggests 20,000 dwellings can ha = 286 ha
be accommodated on
brownfield sites between 2002
and 2022
Corby Revised urban capacity figure 14,876 dwellings @ 35 dwellings /

19
(2005) suggests 1,924 ha = 425 ha
dwellings can be
accommodated on brownfield
sites to 2021
Wellingborough Revised urban capacity figure 12,640 dwellings @ 35 dwellings/

suggests 160 dwellings can be ha = 361 ha
accommodated on brownfield
sites between 2002 and 2022
Kettering Urban capacity figure is not Assume all on greenfield. 13,100

significant dwellings @ 35 dwellings/ ha = 374
ha
Daventry Assume 50% will be brownfield Assume 4,860 dwellings to be

provided on greenfield sites @ 35
dwellings/ ha = 139 ha
East As above Assumes 3,000 dwellings to be

Northamptonshire provided on greenfield sites @ 35
dwellings/ ha = 86 ha
South Holland Assumed brownfield potential Anticipates requirement for 306

of 10% units on greenfield sites @35
dwellings/ ha = 9ha
17
Based on the Growth Area Assessments – Northampton & Corby/Kettering/Wellingborough Final Stage 1 Report
(May 2003), and on MKSM Sub Regional Growth Strategy October 2004, an assessment of the total greenfield land
requirements has been made.
18
Estimated Average densities of 35 d/ha (net) have been used for urban extensions
19
Based on Corby Borough Council Urban Housing Capacity Study (June 2005)
Environment Agency
D1.4.3 Estimated Greenfield Employment Land Requirements 2001-202120
Projected
Urban Area 21 Implications
Requirements
Northampton 114 ha B1 (99 ha Strategic employment sites at Pineham and Kings Heath
22
avail) PLUS an additional strategic employment allocation is
likely to be required. Significant element of B1 to be met
-105 ha B2 (55 ha in the town centre. Assume urban extensions will include
avail) a proportion of locally provided employment (B1 and B2),
additional requirements for B8. Total additional land
206 ha B8 (51ha requirement est to be req’d, based on employment
avail) projections = 50 ha for B1; 100ha for B8 (it is assumed
that excess supply of B2 could be used for B8). TOTAL =
115ha
23
Corby 118 ha in total Assumed all requirements for B1 uses (18ha) can be met
on brownfield sites.24 Estimated 50% of B2 and B8
requirements could be accommodated on brownfield = 50
ha TOTAL = 64 ha
Wellingborough 215 ha in total Current oversupply of sites. Assumed that 50%

requirements for B1 uses can be met on brownfield sites.
Est requirement = 29 ha. Given anticipated decline in B2
demand, est additional land requirement focussed on B8
uses (of which est 50% could be accommodated on
redundant B1 sites) = 60 ha TOTAL = 95 ha
Kettering 126 ha Current oversupply of sites. Assumed that 50%

requirements for B1 uses can be met on brownfield sites.
Est requirement = 35 ha. Given anticipated decline in B2
demand, est additional land requirement focussed on B8
uses (of which est 50% could be accommodated on
redundant B1 sites) = 52 ha TOTAL = 87 ha
Daventry Given employment growth is 18% of that of Northampton

– it is assumed employment land requirements will be
18% of that in Northampton. TOTAL = 20 ha
East Given employment growth is 12% of that of Northampton

Northampton- – it is assumed employment land requirements will be
shire 12% of that in Northampton. TOTAL = 14 ha
South Holland Limited brownfield sites. Est requirement = 1 ha
20
Based on the Growth Area Assessments – Northampton & Corby/Kettering/Wellingborough Final Stage 2 Report
(May 2003), and on MKSM Sub Regional Growth Strategy October 2004, an assessment of the total greenfield land
requirements has been made.
21
Based on Growth Area Assessments – Northampton & Corby/Kettering/Wellingborough Final Stage 2 Report (May
2003). It is assumed that the land requirements identified in the report are based on net densities.
22
Where land is available – but as yet undeveloped, it is assumed that this constitutes an addition to the overall
development footprint in 2021.
23
This is equivalent to the high employment growth scenario for Corby (Scenario B), as set out in the Corby Borough
Council “Employment Land and Buildings Study” (July2005). It assumes a high office space requirement.
24
Based on Table 6.1 of the Employment Land Study, it is assumed that all requirements for office space can be
accommodated on brownfield sites.
Environment Agency
D1.4.4 Estimated increase in Urban Area 2001-2021
Gross
Estimated Land
Density
Urban Area Requirement 25 Locational Factors26
Factor
(ha)
(ha)
Northampton
Housing 286 400.4 Wootton (south east) & Moutlon (north)

are preferred locations
Employment 115 161
TOTAL 561.4
Corby
Housing 425 600 Rockingham (north); Weldon (west);

Stanion (south east) and Great Oakley
Employment 64 90
TOTAL 690
Wellingborough
Housing 361 505.4 Wellingborough East & Grange Farm

are preferred locations
Employment 95 133
TOTAL 638.4
Kettering
Housing 374 523.6 Barton Seagrave, west of Burton

Latimer & Thorpe Malsor
Employment 87 121.8
TOTAL 645.4
Daventry
Housing 139 173.75 Assumes development in areas of least

env constraint to north & east of
Employment 20 28 Daventry
TOTAL 201.75
East
Northamptonshire
Housing 86 120.4 Assume 70% in Rushden, 15% in

Thrapston, 15% in Oundle
Employment 14 19.6
25
A factor of 140% has been applied to achieve a gross density for housing (i.e. to take into account non-residential
uses – including schools, local distributor roads, local retail / service functions. A similar factor has been applied to
employment land requirements (i.e. to take account of access requirements and related uses).
26
Based on Growth Area Assessments – Northampton & Corby/Kettering/Wellingborough Final Stage 2 Report (May
2003)
Environment Agency
Gross
Estimated Land
Density
Urban Area Requirement Locational Factors26
Factor25
(ha)
(ha)
TOTAL 140
South Holland Assume distributed between Sutton

Bridge and Long Sutton
Housing 9 13
Employment 1 1.4
TOTAL 14.5
D1.5 Development in the East of England to 2021

The growth forecasts for the East of England are based on the allocations in the Draft East of
England Plan and the Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Structure Plan (2003).
In the East of England, the most significant concentrations of urban development in the
Eastern part of the Nene catchment are Peterborough and Wisbech. Based on planning
guidance, it is assumed that urban areas are to be the main focus for development and
redevelopment, with Peterborough being a key growth area.
D1.5.1 Forecast Growth

Level of Growth Average Annual Rate of
Urban Area Time frame 27
Total to 2021 Growth
Housing Employ Housing Employ
Peterborough 2001-2021 21,200 17,400 1,060 870
Wisbech 2001-2021 4,040 Not known 202 Not known
D1.5.2 Estimated Greenfield Housing Land Requirements 2001-2021

The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) identifies the following targets
for brownfield development to 2016:
Area Target
Fenland 35%
Peterborough 80%
However, it is anticipated that considering overall development to 2021, a target of 60% (in
keeping with regional guidance) is likely to be achievable. Furthermore, it is considered that
the definition of greenfield vs brownfield is to some extent academic in respect of
Peterborough, as one of the most important development areas, Hampton, is a former
brickworks. Thus, while the site is defined as brownfield, it is essentially open in character and
for the purpose of CFMP it should be regarded as “greenfield” in the sense that it constitutes
an increase in the overall footprint of the built area. Based on the Structure Plan, it is
assumed that a total of 7,200 dwellings will be located on this site.
27
Based on MKSM sub-regional strategy, Oct 2004
Environment Agency
The Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) states that densities of less than
30 dwellings/ hectare will be unacceptable. Based on similar assumptions used for
assessments in the South Midlands, it is estimated that average densities of 35 dwellings/ ha
are achievable for green field development.
Urban Area Brownfield Housing Capacity Est Greenfield Req to 2021

Peterborough Assume Hampton is all 7,200 units @ 35 dwellings/ ha =
“greenfield”
206 ha PLUS
Assume 60% of remainder is
brownfield 5,600 dwellings @ 35 dwellings / ha =
160 ha
Wisbech Assume 35% brownfield 2626 dwellings @ 35 dwellings / ha =

75 ha
D1.5.3 Estimated Greenfield Employment Land Requirements 2001-2021

Limited information is available relative to the type of employment land required in this area.
The Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Structure Plan (2003) estimates employment land
take of up to 16 ha per annum in Peterborough to 2016, and 8 ha/ annum in Fenland. This
has been carried forward to 2021.
Urban Area Projected Requirements Implications

Peterborough 16 ha / annum Total land take of 320 ha. Assume
28
25% brownfield; greenfield landtake
= 240ha
Wisbech Assume 40% of employment in Total land take of 64 ha. Assume

Fenland will locate in Wisbech 35% brownfield; greenfield landtake =
42 ha
D1.5.4 Estimated increase in Urban Area 2001-2021

Est Land
Gross Density 30
Urban Area Req 29 Locational Factors
Factor
(ha)
Peterborough
Housing 366 512 The Peterborough growth study, published in

August 2004, identified potential future directions
Employment 240 336 of growth as being: the south, north east and
31
north west of the town
TOTAL 848
Wisbech
28
Based on advice received from Peterborough City Council
29
A factor of 140% has been applied to achieve a gross density for housing (i.e. to take into account non-residential
uses – including schools, local distributor roads, local retail / service functions. A similar factor has been applied to
employment land requirements (i.e. to take account of access requirements and related uses).
30
Based on the Peterborough Growth Area Study
31
Northwest of the town is outside of the Nene catchment area.
Environment Agency
Est Land
Gross Density
Urban Area Req Locational Factors30
Factor29
(ha)
Housing 75 105 Only half of Wisbech falls within the Nene
catchment
Employment 42 58.8
TOTAL 163.8
D1.6 Total Increase in Urban Area to 2021

Existing
Expected growth
Name Area %growth
(ha)
(ha)
To 2021
CORBY 1650 690 42
OUNDLE 152 21 14
THRAPSTON 121 21 17
KETTERING 1123 645 57
PETERBOROUGH 2312 848 37
WISBECH 653 164 25
DAVENTRY 540 202 37
WELLINGBOROUGH 1167 638 55
NORTHAMPTON 4640 561 12
RUSHDEN 531 98 18
SUTTON BRIDGE 122 7.5 6
LONG SUTTON 183 7.5 4
Total 16104 2730 17
Environment Agency
Figure D1 Planned Urban Growth to 2021
Environment Agency
D2 Trends to 2051 & 2101
D2.1 Methodology
Long term forecasts are recognised as being unreliable. However, it was considered that the
reliance on existing data and forecast which has already been drawn upon for planning
purposes would be judicious. TEMPRO (Version 4) System provides forecast data for
transport planning purposes, and is based on planning data projections to 2036. TEMPRO
planning data provided a basis for the 50 and 100 year projections. The TEMPRO32
forecasts (which run to 2036) were projected to 2051 and 2101 using linear regression to
provide 50 and 100 year forecasts. Based on these forecasts, typical 50 year and 100 year
growth factors were developed for households, and employment.
Consideration was then given to the 2001 census household totals for the household figures.
The anticipated policy growth (Sustainable Communities) figures were added to these to yield
figures for 2021. Growth factors (based on TEMPRO) were then applied to obtain forecast
household growth to 2050 and 2101.33 It was assumed that the relationship of households to
employment would remain constant after 2021. Thus employment growth forecasts were
developed by applying the household growth factor to employment figures for each area.
D2.2 Growth Estimates

Household and employment growth estimates for the River Nene catchment are as follows:
Area Household Growth Employment Growth

2021- 2051 2052- 2101 2021- 2051 2052- 2101
Corby Urban 11887 9684 13095 10668
Corby Rural 431 294 414 282
Daventry Urban 3555 6093 3596 6163
Daventry Rural 2177 2395 2012 2213
E Northants 6651 13798 4939 10247

(Rushden& rural
towns)
E Northants Rural 2230 2453 2195 2415
Kettering Urban 18054 14290 17709 14017
Kettering Rural 1194 567 1109 547
Northampton 39664 43707 53133 58548
32
The policy based forecasts, which take into account the influence of policy on the distribution of growth were drawn
upon for these purposes.
33 In some cases some adjustments had to be made to allow for the impact of policy on location of development.
(For example, TEMPRO figures for East Midlands are trend based and do not take account of the reduction in growth
pressure on rural areas). In such cases, estimates have been made, based on urban intensification, in accordance
with national policy.
Environment Agency
Area Household Growth Employment Growth
South Holland 151 77 81 42
Wellingborough 14194 13255 13259 35101

Urban
Wellingborough 2042 2246 2403 2643

Rural
Peterborough Urban 18005 17661 23373 22927
Peterborough Rural 631 1046 455 754
Wisbech 6637 9501 6695 9584
Rural Fenland 2475 1758 2475 1934
D2.3 Estimated Land Requirements

Household growth figures and employment growth figures were then converted to estimates
of land requirements.
In respect of residential land requirements, key considerations were densities and proportion
of greenfield vs. brownfield development. Given the emphasis on brownfield land
development in the short term to 2021, it was considered that brownfield land availability
would be reduced thereafter. Nonetheless, it was recognised that the redevelopment of
existing sites and urban intensification would nonetheless impact on residential land
requirements. Thus, after 2021, it was assumed that 20% of development would occur on
brownfield sites. As with the period to 2021, it was assumed that average densities of 35 units
per hectare would apply to 2101. As previously, a factor of 140% was applied to obtain a
gross density figure.
In respect of employment densities, estimates were based on average anticipated growth in

key sectors identified in the Growth Area Assessments – Northampton &
Corby/Kettering/Wellingborough (May 2003) Final Stage 2 Report. The assumption was
that assumed that demand for employment land in the East Midlands will be broadly split as
follows: B1 = 35% of employment; B8 = 65%. In the absence of comparable data for East of
England, the same has been assumed. Average employment densities set out in OffPAT
Guidance were used to calculate overall employment floorspace. As with residential
assumptions, it was considered that 20% of all development might be brownfield. Average
site coverage of 50% was assumed, and similar density factors to those used in residential
calculations were applied.
Environment Agency
D2.3.1 Current Trends 2022- 2101
Estimated Land Requirements for the Study Area, based on current trends are as follows:
TOTAL TOTAL
2022-2051 LAND REQ 2052-2101 LAND
(ha) REQ (ha)
Res Emp Res Emp
Corby Urban 380 111 491 310 90 400
Corby Rural 14 3 17 9 2 11
Daventry Urban 114 30 144 195 52 247
Daventry Rural 70 17 87 77 19 96
E Northants (Rushden) 213 42 255 442 87 529
E Northants Rural 71 19 90 78 20 98
Kettering Urban 578 150 728 457 119 576
Kettering Rural 37 9 46 18 5 23
Northampton 1269 449 1718 1399 495
1894
South Holland 5 1 6 2 0.5 2.5
Wellingborough Urban 454 112 566 424 297 721
Wellingborough Rural 65 20 85 72 22 94
Peterborough Urban 576 225 801 565 221
786
Peterborough Rural 20 4 24 33 7 40
Wisbech 212 92 304 214 92 306
Rural Fenland 72 17 89 79 19 98
Environment Agency
D2.3.2 High Growth Scenario
In accordance with the guidance, an estimate of high and low growth has been undertaken.
The High Growth estimate is based on a growth rate which is 25% higher than the current
trend. For example, this may occur as a result of lower densities, reduced brownfield land
availability, or indeed higher household and employment growth.
2022-2051 TOTAL 2052-2101 TOTAL

LAND REQ LAND REQ
(ha) (ha)
Res Emp Res Emp
Corby Urban 475 139 614 388 113 500
Corby Rural 18 4 21 11 3 14
Daventry Urban 143 38 180 244 65 309
Daventry Rural 88 21 109 96 24 120
Kettering Urban 723 188 910 571 149 720
Northampton 1586 561 2148 1749 619 2368
South Holland 6.3 1.3 7.5 2.5 0.6 3.1
Peterborough Urban 720 281 1001 706 276 983
Wisbech 265 115 380 268 115 383
Rural Fenland 90 21 111 99 24 123
Environment Agency
D2.3.3 Low Growth Scenario
In accordance with the guidance, an estimate of high and low growth has been undertaken.
The Low Growth estimate is based on a growth rate which is 25% lower than the current
trend. For example, this may occur as a result of the achievement of higher densities,
increased brownfield land usage, a higher proportion of homeworking (and reduced demand
for employment land), or indeed lower household and employment growth.
2022-2051 TOTAL 2052-2101 TOTAL LAND

LAND REQ
REQ (ha)
(ha)
Res Emp Res Emp
Corby Urban 285 83 368 233 68 300
Corby Rural 11 2 13 7 2 8
Daventry Urban 86 23 108 146 39 185
Daventry Rural 53 13 65 58 14 72
Kettering Urban 434 113 546 343 89 432
Northampton 952 337 1289 1049 371 1421
South Holland 4 1 5 2 0 2
Peterborough Urban 432 169 601 424 166 590
Wisbech 159 69 225 161 69 230
Rural Fenland 54 13 67 59 14 74
Environment Agency
Environment Agency
Environment Agency
Appendix E
WFD Compliance
Environment Agency
River Nene Catchment Flood Management Plan – December 2008 E1
E1 Context
Flood Risk Management activities are, like any other activities, subject to European Directives
and transposing UK legislation. ‘Flood protection’ is recognised in the Water Framework
Directive (WFD) as one of the activities that may mean that the default target of Good
Ecological Status (GES) may not be achieved.
The water body may be designated a ‘Heavily Modified Water Body’ (HMWB) and so the aim
is instead to achieve Good Ecological Potential. The legacy of human intervention can often
be great so that the necessary actions to achieve GES would be technically unfeasible or
disproportionately costly to deliver. In that case, less stringent objectives may be set. In
addition where more stringent objectives already apply, for example in ‘Protected Areas’
under other legislation such as Habitats and Birds Directives, these will need to be met.
FRM proposals will in future be subject to tests for WFD compliance to demonstrate that our
activities meet with the requirements of the Directive. At present there are many ongoing
areas of WFD work that will set the standards by which the condition of the water environment
will be measured, identify the status of water bodies, and identify action needed to improve or
prevent deterioration of water bodies in good ecological status. In addition economic tests
and appraisal mechanisms are being examined and developed in light of the WFD.
This section provides an initial assessment of the WFD compliance of Catchment Flood
Management Plans. This is based on the high level assessments undertaken to support the
plan appraisal, and our present understanding of, and therefore capability to satisfy, the tests
of the WFD which relate primarily to Article 4 of the directive. When the Project Appraisal
Guidance (PAG) for flood and coastal erosion risk management projects is revised, it will take
account of the WFD and other changes in legislation, along with changes in government
policy. However, in advance of more detailed assessment and appraisal of subsequent plans
and projects emanating from the CFMP, this compliance check is provided in order to
demonstrate good practice and support the case for adoption of the CFMP.
The CFMP will be regularly reviewed, and further plans and individual schemes will be
developed using latest available guidance, so ensuring flexibility is maintained in
implementing compliance options in future.
E2 Water Framework Directive and Catchment Flood Management Plans
One of the aims of the CFMPs is to help deliver the objectives of the WFD. However, we
began preparing the CFMPs in 2004, when preparation to implement the WFD was in its
infancy. As our CFMPs have been progressed our understanding of the requirements of the
WFD, and the role of River Basin Management Plans, has evolved. We are planning to
release our draft RBMPs for consultation in December 2008: at the same time our preparation
of CFMPs will be drawing to a close. The completed RBMPs, with the agreed objectives for
each water body will be published in December 2009.
Our CFMPs set long-term policies for sustainable flood risk management, but these plans
started framing their catchment objectives a number of years ago, and prior to the WFD
environmental standards being fully developed. We recognise the need for our review of the
CFMPs to take more account of the WFD objectives, drawing from our suite of published
RBMPs. Nonetheless, our CFMPs have been developed mindful of the need to work with
nature, as far as possible, and contribute to environmental improvement. Moreover, as we
progress the implementation of our CFMPs, we can draw from the water body objectives
established within the RBMPs, during our subsequent more detailed assessments and
appraisals, in order to ensure our delivery contributes to achieving the overall aims of the
WFD.
Figure 1 shows this CFMP in relation to the River Basin Districts described under the Water
Framework Directive.
Environment Agency
E3 Water Framework Directive Compliance check
In advance of any specific guidance being issued by the Environment Agency, an assessment
of the likely tests for compliance that will need to be met in future has been made. The
assessment of compliance with these tests is made acknowledging that this is in advance of
water body objectives being defined, the draft RBMPs being written and any agreement on
the approach to be taken to controlling new modifications.
Furthermore, the consideration of further plans and actions emanating from the CFMP may
involve specific local issues that have not been covered in the CFMP and so will need their
own assessments during the detailed design stage. At that time they will be subject to any
existing guidance on WFD compliance. The subsequent stages of CFMP implementation, and
the CFMP review process will allow flexibility for this.
The tables contained in section 5.0 detail, for each relevant part of the WFD in order, the
nature of the issue with regards the CFMP and our view on the evidence provided and way
ahead for ensuring compliance.
E4 Conclusions
The examination of the current state of understanding of the WFD and the nature of the
CFMP suggests that the plan is compliant with the requirements of the Directive. It does raise
some issues which will require examination at future stages of scheme development and
appraisal, which should be addressed by good practice in detailed appraisal. Appraisal
guidance will evolve to take into account specific requirements of the WFD as these are
understood and standards and objectives are established. The CFMP provides a sufficiently
flexible approach to ensure that this is achieved.
Figure E1. This CFMP in relation to the River Basin Districts
Environment Agency
E5 Compliance assessment
Article Explanation Evidence

4.1.a(i) This article requires implementation of necessary The CFMP presents policies for the long-term management of flood risk and
measures to prevent deterioration of status of all operates at the highest level within our planning hierarchy. Prior to works
surface water bodies being undertaken to implement the CFMP, further assessment and appraisal
4.1.a(ii) This article requires protection, enhancement and will consider the implication on achieving GES or GEP and on preventing
restoration of all surface water bodies other deterioration. The actions within the CFMP need to be considered against
artificial and heavily modified water bodies with national priorities and available funding before commitment is given to
the aim of achieving good ecological status resource those actions.
4.1. This article requires protection and enhancement of
a(iii) artificial and heavily modified water bodies with Presence of flood defences, or other flood risk management activities, may
aim of achieving good ecological potential (GEP) result in continued or increased deterioration in ecological status, or the
and good surface water status. modification of water bodies. Conversely, flood risk management activities
may result in the protection, enhancement and restoration of the ecological
status of water bodies through, for example, enabling greater floodplain
connectivity, reducing detrimental erosion and sedimentation, and reducing
polluted run-off from land. This will need to be reviewed when the RBMPs are
published and the CFMP actions are progressed. The impact of individual
schemes on achieving good ecological status will need to be reviewed on a
case-by-case basis.
4.1a(iv) This article requires the implementation of Presence of flood defences may exacerbate erosion resulting from increases in
measures to reduce pollution from priority flow and sea level rise as a result of climate change, and if eroded sediments
substances and ceasing or phasing out emissions, contain any priority or hazardous substances, implementing the CFMP could
discharges and losses of priority hazardous affect the ability to meet the standards for these substances. This will need to
substances. FRM works should not compromise be reviewed when the RBMPs are published and the CFMP actions are
delivery of these. progressed. The impact of individual schemes on erosion, and the possible
consequences, will need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The costs of
moving defences in order to reduce erosion would be very significant; this
would have wider consequences and its effectiveness could be challenged.
The CFMP could deliver improvements in our ability to meet the standards for
priority or priority hazardous substances through creation of areas which act as
Environment Agency
sinks for pollutants. Any impact on the standard of protection provided to the
floodplain has potential to adversely affect quantities of these substances
(through flooding of potentially contaminated land and industrial plant) and
this will need to be reviewed when the RBMPs are published.

4.1.b(i) This article requires the implementation of The CFMP will not generally have a direct effect on groundwater or the input
measures to prevent or limit inputs of pollutants to of pollutants to groundwater. It may have an indirect effect, however, where
groundwater, and to prevent the deterioration of defence standards are reduced or defences are realigned so that land that was
status of groundwater bodies. FRM works should protected is open to regular or increased inundation. These impacts will
not compromise delivery of these. routinely be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

4.1(c) Protected areas shall achieve compliance with the For areas designated under Habitats and Birds Directives, the CFMP and has
4.2 WFD objectives by 2015, unless otherwise satisfied the tests of those through mitigation and subsequent further
specified in other legislation such as Habitats and assessment as more detailed proposals emerge. The Habitats and Birds
Birds Directives. Where more than one set of Directive requirements are likely to be more stringent than those objectives set
objectives under different legislation applies to a for WFD. Any future works will be subject to more detailed assessment as
water body, the most stringent applies. discussed. At that point tests under article 4(4) may be relevant – where
extended deadlines may need to be set for reasons of technical feasibility or
disproportionate cost.

4.4 This article allows for an extension of deadlines to If GEP is defined by the sum total of improvement likely to be gained by
achieve objectives, subject to conditions (relating to delivering mitigation measures, then the CFMP could help deliver those
technical feasibility, cost and natural conditions). measures through habitat management and ongoing implementation of good
practice in construction and maintenance activities.
If GEP is defined by slight deviation from Maximum Ecological Potential
(MEP), which is in turn seen as deviation from GES only in as much as the
physical pressures dictate it, then the CFMP could provide the justification for
not achieving GEP for reasons of disproportionate cost, and in many urban
Environment Agency
areas for reasons of technical feasibility.
Any further works will be subject to more detailed assessment and appraisal,
so that the implementation of this CFMP is sufficiently flexible to adapt to
either of these scenarios.

4.5 This article allows for water bodies to be set less The CFMP itself does not increase the risk as it is not leading to major
stringent environmental objectives where human increases in morphological pressure and neither is it compromising delivery of
activity requires it for reasons relating to technical expected mitigation measures which may be used to define GEP. Any further
feasibility and cost. There are conditions and a works emanating from the CFMP will be subject to more detailed assessment
requirement to ensure that the benefits brought by and appraisal, at which time the technical feasibility and cost of those
the human activity can not be achieved by any other proposals will be considered, alongside the need to achieve the environmental
means that are not disproportionately costly. The objectives set in the RBMPs.
reasons for requiring less stringent objectives needs
to be included in the RBMP

4.6 Temporary deterioration in the status of water The effects of flooding on the environment (for example resulting from
bodies shall not be a breach of requirements of the flooding of normally dry land or, in extreme events, industrial premises
WFD is this is the result of natural causes or force leading to contamination of water) will be minimised where possible by
majeure which are exceptional and could not provision of warnings, and actions of our emergency response local teams. At
reasonably have been foreseen, such as extreme present there is no definition of an extreme flood. This CFMP establishes the
floods and prolonged droughts, are permitted. policy intent for long term management of flood risk which will see decreased
Conditions include the need to take practical steps risk in some areas and increases over time in others as we progressively
to prevent further damage, to state in the RBMP the prioritise resources and the need for and impact of our activities.
criteria for defining these circumstances, to outline Where we actively plan to increase regular flooding of land, such as at
the measures to be taken in these events. realignment and flood storage sites, we will assess the environmental impact of
this at design stage – it is not felt this is relevant to article 4(6) as it will be
reasonably foreseen.
Emergency works may be seen as force majeure and the need for these should
reduce over time as the CFMP progresses through subsequent stages of
implementation – with the exception of any required after an extreme flood.
Any emergency works are already undertaken with regard for their impact and
Environment Agency
these may be reassessed once the WFD objectives are agreed.

4.7 Failure to achieve GES/GEP is not a breach of the The CFMP present policies for the long-term management of flood risk and
WFD if it is the result of new modifications to operates at the highest level within our planning hierarchy. Prior to works
physical characteristics of the water body and the being undertaken to implement the CFMP, further assessment and appraisal
following conditions are met: will consider the implication on achieving GES/GEP. The actions within the
All practical mitigation is undertaken CFMP need to be considered against national priorities and available funding
Reasons for modifications are set out in RBMPs before commitment is given to resource those actions. As a consequence, the
There is overriding public interest and/or the CFMP actions, as such, will not be included within the RBMP as potential
benefits for human health or safety or for modification, but any agreed programmes of actions will be included in the
sustainable human development outweigh the final RBMPs.
benefits to the environment and society of At a local level it is possible that individual schemes could affect the physico-
achieving WFD objectives chemical and hydromorphological status of a water body. This will need to be
The beneficial objectives served by the assessed on a case-by-case basis as further details of schemes are developed
modifications – in this case flood risk management and appraised. The appraisal techniques used will be sufficiently robust to
– can not for reasons of technical feasibility or ensure
disproportionate cost be achieved in a more the human health and societal benefits in providing flood risk management are
environmentally sensitive way. balanced with the impacts on the environment, and that alternative approaches
Are the new modifications likely to result from this are also considered. The CFMP is sufficiently flexible to adapt to future
CFMP justified in these terms? Is adequate requirements.
mitigation planned? Will the reasons for NB: flood risk management activity can lead to increased development of land
modifications be in RBMPs? Are there more and should that occur the developer may be expected to prove the case for
environmentally sensitive approaches that could be sustainable human development if that could affect other water bodies.
justified?
Environment Agency

003 4 R Nene CFMP Dec 2008

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

003 4 R Nene CFMP Dec 2008

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

River Nene

Catchment Flood Management Plan

The Environment Agency. Out there, making your environment a

© Environment Agency December 2008

All rights reserved. This document may be reproduced with

Environment Agency Project Executive Roy Lobley

Environment Agency Project Manager Tracy Hodsman

Consultant Halcrow Group Limited

Consultant Project Manager Ian Rose

Document issue history

Revision reference / issue date Issued to:

List of Figures .......................................................................................................................................... iv

3 Current flood risks and management................................................................................................ 69

4 Future Flood Risk .............................................................................................................................. 185

5 Catchment objectives ....................................................................................................................... 269

6 Policy appraisal ................................................................................................................................. 278

7 Action Plan ......................................................................................................................................... 360

Glossary of terms ................................................................................................................................. 465

Environment Agency iii

To the west, the River Nene rises on the predominantly clay

Ecological diversity is recognised by a suite of international and European designations

• Nene Washes (designated an SPA, SAC and Ramsar site)

The River Nene catchment has a history of flood risk

Global climate modelling shows us that in the future winter

We estimate that the risk to people will approximately

Development of catchment policies

• To minimise flood related risks to the population

Environment Agency iii

The policies which we recommend for each policy unit are:

Take action with others to store water or

Continue with existing or alternative actions to

Take further action to sustain the current level

Take further action to sustain the current level

Take action with others to store water or

Take further action to sustain the current level

Take further action to reduce flood risk (now

Take further action to sustain the current level

Take further action to sustain the current level

Continue with existing or alternative actions to

Continue with existing or alternative actions to

Continue with existing or alternative actions to

Take further action to sustain the current level

Take further action to sustain the current level

In order to achieve a sustainable approach to flood risk management we have adopted

Environment Agency vii

In order to plan appropriate actions, we need to identify our

1.2 Aims and scope

It will also contribute towards sustainable development in the future.

Figure 1.1 Anglian Region CFMPs

Policy 1 - No active intervention (including flood

Policy 2 - Reduce existing flood risk management

These policies, plans and strategies have been

1.4.2 Our corporate strategies

• to create sustainable communities

1.4.3 Government policies and guidance

Water Framework Directive (WFD)

The RBMPs will, over time, help us to achieve:

The Floods Directive will require the preparation of Flood

Making Space for Water (Defra, 2004)

1.4.4 Development plans

National Planning Guidance

Regional Planning Guidance

Regional planning bodies are in the process of preparing