SHP2016 - Flood Risk Assessment

8/15/2019 SHP2016 - Flood Risk Assessment

1/251

STONE HILLPARK LIVE WORK PLAY

A brighter future for

Thanet and East Kent

SHP1-10

Flood Risk Assessmentand Outline DrainageStrategy


2/251

STONE HILL PARKFLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT AND

OUTLINE DRAINAGE STRATEGY

MAY 2016


3/251


4/251

Q U A L I T Y M A N A G E M E N T

ISSUE/REVISION FIRST ISSUE REVISION 1 REVISION 2 REVISION3

Remarks Draft Issue 2nd

Draft Issue (MinorFormatting Changes)

Final

Date 28/04/2016 05/05/2016 19/05/2016

Prepared by C. Thwaites C. Thwaites C. Thwaites

Signature

Checked by G. Bansal G. Bansal E.Isnenghi

Signature

Authorised by E.Isnenghi E.Isnenghi E.Isnenghi

Signature

Project number70009799 70009799 70009799

Report number 001 001 001

File reference L:\70009799 - Manston Airport\CDocuments\Reports\FloodRisk Assessment

L:\70009799 - Manston Airport\CDocuments\Reports\FloodRisk Assessment

L:\70009799 - Manston Airport\CDocuments\Reports\FloodRisk Assessment


5/251

ii

Stone Hill Park WSP | Parsons BrinckerhoffStone Hill Park Ltd Project No 70009799

May 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................1

2 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................3

3 EXISTING SITE ............................................................................4

4 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ......................................................7

5 DEFINITION OF FLOOD HAZARD ..............................................9

6 CLIMATE CHANGE .................................................................... 11

7 FLOOD RISK MITIGATION MEASURES ................................... 13

8 OFFSITE IMPACT ...................................................................... 24

9 RESIDUAL RISK ........................................................................ 25

10 CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................... 26


6/251

iii


May 2016

T A B L E S

TABLE 3-1 – GEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION ......................................................................... 4

TABLE 7-1 - SUDS TREATMENT TRAINS ......................................................................... 15

TABLE 7-2 - AREA 1 DRAINAGE AREAS ........................................................................... 17


TABLE 7-4 – AREA 3 DRAINAGE AREAS .......................................................................... 17


TABLE 7-6 - PROPOSED DISCHARGE RATES ................................................................. 18

TABLE 7-7 – DISCHARGE RATE SUMMARY .................................................................... 18

TABLE 7-8 - PROPOSED ATTENUATION REQUIREMENTS ........................................... 19

TABLE 7-9 – DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE STRATEGY ..................................................... 21

A P P E N D I C E S

A P P E N D I X A SITE LOCATION

A P P E N D I X B

TOPOGRAPHICAL AND UTILITIES SURVEY

A P P E N D I X C DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS

A P P E N D I X D

SOUTHERN WATER ASSET AND CORRESPONDENCE

APPENDIX D-1 DATA

APPENDIX D-2 CORRESPONDENCE

A P P E N D I X E KENT COUNTY COUNCIL AND THANET DISTRICTCOUNCIL DATA AND CORRESPONDENCE

APPENDIX E-1 MAPPING DATA

APPENDIX E-2 CORRESPONDENCE

A P P E N D I X F

EA DATA AND CORRESPONDENCE

APPENDIX F-1 MAPPING DATA

APPENDIX F-2 CORRESPONDENCE

A P P E N D I X G SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE STRATEGY ANDMODELLING

APPENDIX G-1 EXISTING NETWORK MODELLING RESULTS

APPENDIX G-2 PROPOSED MODELLING RESULTS

APPENDIX G-3 SURFACE WATER STRATEGY DRAWINGS

A P P E N D I X H

PRELIMINARY GROUNDWATER RISK AND MITIGATIONASSESSMENT

A P P E N D I X I IDB CONSULTATION


7/251

1


May 2016

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.1.1 WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff (WSP|PB) has undertaken this Flood Risk Assessment and OutlineDrainage Strategy (FRA & ODS) on behalf of Stone Hill Park Ltd to support the hybrid planningapplication for a comprehensive redevelopment of the former Manston Airport.

1.1.2 The Site extends to approximately 305 hectares (ha) and is located to the west of Ramsgate,Margate and Broadstairs in the District of Thanet at National Grid Reference TR 33540 65991. Itis bound by the A299 Hengist Way to the south, B2190 Spitfire Way to the west, arable farmlandto the north and Manston Court Road and further farmland to the east. The Site is bisected bythe B2050 Manston Road which connects Spitfire Way and Birchington in the west with the

A256 and Ramsgate in the east.

1.1.3 The Proposed Development comprises of the comprehensive redevelopment of the Siteinvolving the demolition of some existing buildings and structures and removal ofhardstanding and associated infrastructure, and provision of mixed use development.

1.1.4 This FRA investigates flood risk in the area and outlines the mitigation measures proposed toensure the sustainable and safe development of the site in line with the requirements of theNational Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Flood Risk and Coastal Change PlanningPractice Guidance (PPG) and the Environment Agency’s (EA) Standing Advice.

1.1.5 The site is located in Flood Zone 1 where the probability of river or sea flooding is less than 0.1%(1 in 1000) chance in any given year. Meaning that the probability of tidal or fluvial flooding cantherefore be assessed as low.

1.1.6 Available baseline information indicates that within the site there are areas which are at risk ofsurface water flooding. However, a surface water drainage strategy designed to cater for the1:100 year + 20% climate change rainfall event has been prepared as part of this report. In linewith the most recent EA Climate Change Guidance the drainage strategy has also consideredand managed the impact that a 40% climate change allowance would cause to surface waterrunoff management: the solutions proposed ensure that for the 100 year plus 40% climate changeallowance event, surface water will be accommodated within the site and therefore preventpotential exceedance flows off site.

1.1.7 Other potential sources of flooding have been investigated, and have been deemed to benegligible.

1.1.8 It is proposed that the site’s surface water drainage network will utilise the existing private surfacewater sewer from the site which discharges to Pegwell Bay; it is proposed that discharge ratesmatch those of the existing site therefore avoiding negative impacts on the existing surface watersewer.

1.1.9 The outline drainage design incorporates sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) features in theform of attenuation basins, swales and permeable pavements in line with the sustainabledrainage principles and best practice. The SuDS are also used as pre-treatment devices prior todischarging to Pegwell Bay.


8/251

2


May 2016

1.1.10 Consultation with Kent County Council (KCC) (who are the Lead Local Flood Authority) has beencarried out throughout the preparation of this FRA, in order to ensure they were aware of theproposals and able to advise on site constraints and the proposed surface water drainagestrategy. Flood risk constraints and drainage options were also discussed with the EA andSouthern Water (SW); Thanet District Council (TDC) has been kept informed.

1.1.11 SW have confirmed that foul development flows cannot be accommodated within the publicdrainage network and have stated that off –site improvement works will be necessary.


9/251

3


May 2016

2 INTRODUCTION 2.1 APPOINTMENT AND BRIEF

2.1.1 Under an appointment in December 2015 between WSP|PB and Stone Hill Park Ltd, WSP wasemployed as Consultant to provide a FRA to support the hybrid planning application for acomprehensive redevelopment of the former Manston Airport; this report relates solely to theabove site.

2.1.2 This report is intended for the sole benefit of the parties named above and shall not be capable ofassignment, WSP|PB shall not be liable for any use of the report for any reasons other than thatfor which the report was originally prepared and provided.

2.1.3 Although this report was prepared using the degree of skill and care ordinarily exercised by

engineers practicing under similar circumstances please note that WSP|PB cannot takeresponsibility for errors in the information provided by third parties.

2.2 OBJECTIVE OF STUDY

2.2.1 This FRA investigates flood risk in the vicinity of the site and establishes the mitigation measuresrequired to ensure the sustainability and safety of the scheme over its lifetime.

2.2.2 The FRA has been produced in line with the requirements of the NPPF and the EA Standing Advise as well as through consultation with the EA, SW, KCC, Internal Drainage Board (IDB) andTDC.

2.3 STUDY METHODOLOGY

2.3.1 The appraisal process consisted of a site visit (undertaken in November 2015), desk study, dataresearch and consultation with regulatory bodies and third parties.

2.3.2 The EA, SW, KCC and TDC provided background information to inform the production of this FRAfollowing consultation during 2015 and 2016.

2.3.3 It was confirmed by the Association of Drainage Authorities that the site does not fall within anarea covered by an IDB, see Appendix I.

2.3.4 The report has also been informed by and makes reference, where appropriate, to the followingdocuments:

KCC – Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA, 2011)

TDC – Thanet District Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA, 2009)

KCC - Thanet Stage 1 Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP, 2013)

2.3.5 In undertaking the study we have also considered local policies as discussed in Section 4.4.

2.3.6 This FRA makes use of third party information and contains Environment Agency information ©Environment Agency.


10/251

4


May 2016

3 EXISTING SITE 3.1 SITE LOCATION

3.1.1 The Site is located to the west of Ramsgate, Margate and Broadstairs in the District of Thanet atthe approximate National Grid Reference TR 33540 65991. It is bound by the A299 Hengist Wayto the south, B2190 Spitfire Way to the west, arable farmland to the north and Manston CourtRoad and further farmland to the east. The Site is bisected by the B2050 Manston Roadwhich connects Spitfire Way and Birchington in the west with the A256 and Ramsgate in theeast.

3.2 SITE DESCRIPTION

The Site extends to approximately 305 ha and is a previously developed site located in open

countryside close to Ramsgate, wholly within the administrative area of TDC in Kent. The Site hasmost recently been used as an airport (alongside ancillary employment type uses). Thecommercial aviation function has now ceased however, a range of employment-type activitiesremain. It accommodates numerous existing buildings and extensive areas of hard-standing(including a runway).

3.3 GEOLOGY AND HYDROGEOLOGY

3.3.1 The 1:50,000 British Geological Survey (BGS) Map (Sheet 274 Ramsgate) and BGS ‘Geology ofBritain’ online viewer have been reviewed. No superficial deposits are mapped for majority of theSite, however Head Brickearth deposits are mapped as being present in limited areas across theSite. The Site is entirely underlain by Upper Chalk bedrock, which is anticipated to be present at

shallow depths across the Site. A summary of the anticipated geology at the Site is presentedbelow in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1 – Geological Description

GEOLOGICAL UNIT DISTRIBUTION AQUIFERDESIGNATION*

Head Brickearth (younger) Extends across the Site in an east to westorientation along Manston Road. Present to theeast of the runway.

Unclassified

Head Brickearth (older) Present on a limited area to the west of the Site,along Telegraph Hill and Spitfire Way,encroaches onto the east of the Site towardsthe runway and underlies the majority of the

northern area, extending across the area fromthe northeast.

Unclassified

Upper Chalk (Bedrock) Site wide. Principal Aquifer

* Environment Agency designation

3.3.2 The Upper Chalk beneath the site is classified as a Principal aquifer meaning that there are layersof rock deposits with high permeability meaning that they have a high level of water storage andmay therefore support water supply.

3.3.3 Based on EA source protection zone mapping, the site has large areas which are shown to belocated in Zones 1, 2 and 3 Source Protection Zones. See Figure 3-1 below. This is confirmed byFigure 6 of TDC’s SFRA.


11/251

5


May 2016

Figure 3-1- Source Protection Zones

3.3.4 Figure 3 of TDC’s SFRA shows the site to be in an area where groundwater can be foundbetween 5m to 10m below ground level.

3.3.5 Information provided by the Environment Agency (EA) indicates that a chalk adit is presentbeneath the Site, beginning at the Lord of the Manor groundwater abstraction well running parallelwith and/or beneath the runway. The Lord of the Manor abstraction well is operated by SouthernWater and located 350m southeast of the Site. Information subsequently provided by SouthernWater indicates the adit to be approximately 3km in length and present at a depth ofapproximately 2.7m AOD, meaning that the adit is approximately 47m below ground level. Theadit is anticipated to be approximately 1.5-2m in height and 0.5-1m wide. The EA reported that

the location of the adit has been interpolated from historic mining records by BGS and thereforeits actual depth, length, dimensions and location are uncertain, those uncertainties have beenconfirmed by Southern Water. According to SW, the Lord of the Manor abstraction well has beeninactive since 2006 due to high levels of nitrates which was normally treated at a denitrificationplant. However, SW hope to bring the well back into service in the near future.

3.3.6 Based on the EA’s online Groundwater Vulnerability Zones mapping and Figure 5 of TDC’sSFRA, the site is located within a “Major Aquifer Intermediate” Groundwater Vulnerability Zone(GWVZ). This designation is based on the ability for the Aquifer to ultimately diffuse pollution, theintermediate classification indicates the soils have moderate leaching potential or it is possiblethat non-adsorbed diffuse source pollutants and liquid discharges could penetrate the soil layer.

3.4 EXISTING WATERCOURSES

3.4.1 A small balancing pond is located on the Site to the north of the north-eastern edge of the runway.It was constructed below ground level (slightly sunken) and is covered by a grate.

3.4.2 The closest surface water feature to the site is a small private reservoir located approximately300m to the south of the site, adjacent to the southbound carriageway of Hengist Way (A299).

3.4.3 According to the EA Online River Basin District maps the southern end of the site falls within theMonkton and Minster Marshes catchment, with the nearest ditch being approximately 1km southof the site. The River Stour is approximately 3km to the south of the site, both the River Stour andMonkton and Minster Marshes are classed as main rivers and are managed by the EA.


12/251

6


May 2016

3.5 Apart from the above, the closest surface waterbody to the Site is Pegwell Bay, locatedapproximately 900m to the south-east of the site.

3.6 EXISTING SEWERS/DRAINAGE SYSTEM

3.6.1 Based on SW Asset Records, attached in Appendix D, there are a number of combined sewersrunning through the residential areas to the east of the site, no public surface water sewers areshown on SW records.

3.6.2 Existing records of the present on site drainage (Appendix I) have been provided by the currentlandowner. Based on these records, the majority of the site’s surface water appears to drain viagullies, channel drains and pipework to the western side of the B2050 Manston Road. At thispoint, the surface water is stored in an attenuation tank before being pumped around theperimeter of the site and discharging to a 1050mm diameter sewer to the south east boundary.This sewer eventually discharges to Pegwell Bay and is privately owned.

3.7 ARTIFICIAL WATERCOURSES

3.7.1 As noted above, A small balancing pond is located on the Site to the north of the northeasternedge of the runway. It was constructed below ground level (slightly sunken) and is covered by agrate.

3.7.2 The closest surface water feature to the site is a small private reservoir located approximately300m to the south of the site, adjacent to the southbound carriageway of Hengist Way (A299).

3.8 EXISTING FLOOD DEFENCES AND OTHER STRUCTURES

3.8.1 Based on the product 4 response from the EA and their online maps, the site is in Flood Zone 1where the probability of river or sea flooding is less than 0.1% (1 in 1000) chance in any givenyear. The EA in their correspondence indicated that there are no main rivers so there are nodefences that the EA are aware of; however due the location within Flood Zone 1 existing flooddefences or other structures are not deemed relevant to the site.


13/251

7


May 2016

4 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 4.1 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS

4.1.1 The Proposed Development (including both outline and detailed elements) for which planningpermission is being sought comprises:

Comprehensive redevelopment of the Site involving the demolition of existing buildings andstructures and removal of hardstanding and associated infrastructure, and provision of mixed usedevelopment. Application submitted in hybrid form (part-outline and part-detailed) as follows:

The outline element of the planning application (with all matters except Access reserved forfuture determination) for the provision of:

Buildings/floorspace for the following uses: Employment (Use Classes B1a-c/B2/B8)

Residential (Use Classes C3/C2)

Retail (Use Classes A1-A5)

Education and other non-residential institutions (Use Class D1)

Sport and recreation (Use Class D2)

Hotel (Use Class C1)

Open space/landscaping (including outdoor sport/recreation facilities)

Car parking

Infrastructure (including roads and utilities)

Site preparation and other associated works

The full/detailed element of the application comprises:

Change of Use of retained existing buildings

Development of Phase 1 comprising four industrial units (Use Class B1c/B2/B8) withancillary car parking and associated infrastructure.

4.1.2 Please refer to Appendix C for development proposal drawings.

4.2 VULNERABILITY CLASSIFICATION

4.2.1 Considering the scale of the site and based on Table 2 in the PPG, the Proposed Developmentwill have uses which range between ‘low vulnerable’ and ‘more vulnerable’.

4.3 SEQUENTIAL AND EXCEPTION TESTS

4.3.1 As stated in the NPPF, a sequential risk-based approach to determine the suitability of land fordevelopment in flood risk areas should be applied at all stages of the planning process givingprecedence to low flood risk areas wherever possible.


14/251

8


May 2016

4.3.2 Since the site is in Flood Zone 1 the development is considered appropriate and automaticallymeets the requirements of the sequential test.

4.4 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT AND FLOOD RISK POLICY

4.4.1 The KCC Drainage and Planning Policy Statement sets out a number of Drainage Policies andWider Environment Policies which they have defined as being SuDS Policies. These are outlinedbelow and have been considered in developing the drainage strategy for the site;

SuDS Policy 1 – Follow the Drainage Hierarchy

SuDS Policy 2 – Manage Flood Risk through Design

SuDS Policy 3 – Mimic Natural Flows and Drainage Flow Paths

SuDS Policy 4 – Seek to Reduce Existing Flood Risk

SuDS Policy 5 – Maximise Resilience

SuDS Policy 6 – Design to be Maintainable

SuDS Policy 7 – Safetyguard Water Quality

SuDS Policy 8 – Design for Amenity and Multi-Functionality

SuDS Policy 9 – Enhance Biodiversity

SuDS Policy 10 – Link to Wider Landscape Objectives

4.4.2 As well as the policies listed above the Water/People/Places (Masterplanning for SuDS) has alsobeen considered in developing the drainage strategy for the site.

4.4.3 TDC’s current Local Plan identifies issues and opportunities arising in the area and sets out thecouncils views on how they would like development to progress. The only relevant policy in the

plan is Policy EP13 –

Groundwater Protection Zones which highlights the risk of contaminationto groundwater sources. There are other policies within the plan relating to flood risk and surfacewater runoff, these however are noted as ‘not saved’ and therefore have not been considered aspart of this assessment.

4.4.4 TDC are currently producing a new Local Plan which will cover the district up to 2031, thishowever is only in draft format at this stage and therefore has not been considered as part of thisassessment.


15/251


16/251

10


May 2016

5.4 SURFACE WATER FLOODING

5.4.1 Based on the EA online surface water flooding map, the area along Manston Road at the bottomof the valley is considered as being at high risk of flooding due to surface water with a potential

flow route generated at the airport and flowing towards north-west and off site. The flooding wouldappear to be due to the topography of the site which generally falls towards Manston Road whichruns through the site.

5.4.2 According to Figure 5 of KCC’s PFRA it is predicted that, within the macro-area in which the siteis located, between 5-7 dwellings would be flooded per square kilometre for the 1 in 200 year rainstorm event.

5.4.3 According to Figure 20 of TDC’s SFRA, the site lies in an area which has medium potential forsurface water runoff generation.

5.4.4 The Surface Water and Critical Infrastructure map from the KCC’s SWMP for the Thanet

catchment shows localise surface water flooding greater than 0.3m deep for the 1 in 200 year

return period, this is in line with that shown on the EA online maps.

5.4.5 As par t of KCC’s consultation response, they refer to KCC’s SWMP for the Thanet catchmentwhich states that Manston Court Road to the north-east of the site has been recorded as apathway of flows for surface water. The same has been said of Manston Road which runs throughthe site.

5.4.6 Based on the available information surface water flooding within the site cannot be excluded andthe probability of surface water flooding can be considered as medium.

5.5 SEWER FLOODING

5.5.1 According to the Thanet Rural Historic Flooding map from KCC’s SWMP there have not been any

recorded sewer flooding incidents on the site. This map incorporates data provided by SW. Duringthe meeting with SW on the 1

st of February it was clear that the existing infrastructure is at

capacity, however SW indicated verbally that they were not aware of any specific flooding issuesaround the site.

5.5.2 According to Figure 4 of KCC’s PFRA there have been no recorded sewer flooding incidents atthe site.

5.5.3 From verbal discussions with the facilities manager on site it has been confirmed that in their time,there have been no sewer flooding incidents.

5.5.4 Based on the information available the probability of sewer flooding impacting the site can beassessed as low.

5.6 ARTIFICIAL SOURCES OF FLOODING

5.6.1 According to the EA online reservoir flood maps show the site is not shown to be within themaximum extent of flooding from any reservoir.

5.6.2 No other artificial sources relevant to the site have been noted in the council’s documents or aspart of the correspondence undertaken. It is understood that a small holding tank/interceptor tankis present on site, however it is understood this form part of the existing drainage system and isrelatively small in nature and therefore unlikely to be of significant risk.

5.6.3 Based on the available information, the probability of flooding from artificial sources can be

assessed as low.


17/251

11


May 2016

6 CLIMATE CHANGE 6.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

6.1.1 As explained in the Climate Change Adaptation Sub-Committee Progress Report 2014, increasedflood risk is the greatest threat to the UK from climate change. Models of the climate systemsuggest floods of the type experienced in England and Wales in autumn 2000, and betweenDecember 2013 and February 2014, have become more likely as a consequence of increasedconcentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

6.1.2 More frequent short-duration, high intensity rainfall and more frequent periods of long-durationrainfall could be expected. Sea levels are also expected to continue to rise.

6.1.3 New EA guidance “Flood risk assessments: climate change allowances” issued on the 19th

February 2016 provides up to date information on expected changes in rainfall, river flows andsea level rise as a consequence of climate change.

6.1.4 A key change from the previous guidance is that the climate change allowances for peak riverflows now are shown as variable on a regional basis; allowance are also now based onpercentiles, whereby a percentile is a measure used in statistics to describe the proportion ofpossible scenarios that fall below an allowance level (e.g. a 50% percentile means that theallowance has 50% chances of not being exceeded).

6.1.5 Sea levels allowances reflect the previous guidance and vary on a regional basis and for eachepoch as shown in Table 3 of the EA guidance.

6.1.6 However, as the site is away from any fluvial and tidal floodplain the above comments are not

applicable.

6.1.7 For peak rainfall the EA Guidance provides an upper end and central allowance depending onepoch; the guidance recommends assessing both the central and upper end allowances tounderstand the range of possible impacts. These allowances are detailed in Table 2 (Peak rainfallintensity allowance in small and urban catchments) of the EA guidance.

6.2 DEVELOPMENT LIFESPAN

6.2.1 A typical lifespan for a residential development is 100 years.

6.2.2 Based on this, the contingency allowances for climate change that are potentially applicable to

this Site are, as set out in Table 4 of the EA’s “Adapting to Climate Change” advice are:

Upper End – 40% increase in peak rainfall by 2115

Central – 20% increase in peak rainfall by 2115

6.2.3 When undertaking the drainage strategy and basins’ design, the attenuation volumes will bedetermined using the central estimates but will be modelled with a freeboard that canaccommodate the upper end estimates to prevent potential exceedance flows off site.


18/251

12


May 2016

6.3 IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON THE DEVELOPMENT

6.3.1 The entire site is located within flood zone 1 where the probability of fluvial and tidal flooding islower than 0.1% in any year. Fluvial and tidal flooding are therefore not expected to become a

significant issue even when the impact of climate change is taken into account.

6.3.2 Surface water runoff could in theory represent a risk to the site, especially when the effects ofclimate change are considered. An outline surface water drainage strategy has been produced aspart of this study which takes into account the potential impact of climate change.

6.3.3 The outline surface water drainage strategy demonstrates that the drainage network at the site isdesigned to accommodate run-off during all events up to and including the 100 year plus 20%climate change allowance. It also shows that for the 100 year plus 40% climate change allowancesurface water will be accommodated within the site and therefore prevents potential exceedanceflows off site in line with best practice.


19/251

13


May 2016

7 FLOOD RISK MITIGATION MEASURES 7.1 SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE STRATEGY

7.1.1 It is essential for any new development that surface water is managed effectively to limit the riskoff site as well as on site.

7.1.2 Best practise for the management of surface water based on Building Regulations 2010 Part Hstates that surface water runoff from a site shall discharge to one of the following in order ofpriority:

An adequate soakaway or some other adequate infiltration system

A watercourse

sewer

7.1.3 The potential for infiltration has been discussed with relevant stakeholders (EA, SW, and KCC)and discounted at this outline stage due to potential for existing ground contamination on site andthe sensitive nature of the site being located in a source protection zone, SW adit and thePrincipal Aquifer. As detailed in the Preliminary Risk Assessment (PRA) (Appendix H) whichforms part of the application, there are potentially significant contamination sources on site, suchas; bulk fuel stores, historic petrol interceptors, fire station, substations, former RAF/MOD usage,and historic fuel spills

7.1.4 However, it has been agreed with the above stakeholders that further investigation would berequired post planning to ascertain in more detail the feasibility and appropriateness of infiltrationat least in part of the site; it is in fact recognised that infiltration would help groundwater recharge

in a known water stressed area and promote water balance.

7.1.5 The existing site discharges via a private surface water network to Pegwell Bay which isapproximately 1.2km to the south east of the site. It is proposed that the new development willkeep utilising this existing private surface water sewer and discharge to Pegwell Bay, refer toFigure 7-1 below.

Figure 7-1 - Existing Pegwell Bay Outfall


20/251

14


May 2016

7.1.6 Although no attenuation is required due to the tidal nature of the recipient Pegwell Bay it is,proposed that the developed site discharge will not exceed the existing discharge rate thereforehaving no effect on the capacity of the existing private surface water sewer.

7.1.7 The drainage strategy largely consists of a series of attenuation basins, permeable paving whereviable (predominantly within commercial land) and swales (for exceedance flows) locatedstrategically to convey water to the natural low points to the western end of Manston Road whichbisects the site. At this low point, the surface water will be pumped following the approximateroute of the existing rising main around the perimeter of the site before discharging to newproposed linear swale running parallel to the existing runway and connecting to the existingprivate sewer as discussed above. See Appendix G for the drainage plan.

7.1.8 In Table 26.1 of The SuDS Manual (C753) four risk based approaches for water qualitymanagement are discussed; we deem given the nature of the proposals that a Simple Index

Approach can be applied to the site. The approach to water quality for each land use is detailedbelow in Table 7-1 this is also graphically indicated in Appendix G. Table 7-1 is based on Table26.2 of the SuDS Manual (C753) for land use definition.


21/251

15


May 2016

Table 7-1 - SuDS Treatment Trains

LAND USE POLLUTIONHAZARD LEVEL

FIRSTTREATMENT

TRAIN

SECONDTREATMENT

TRAIN

THIRDTREATMENT

TRAIN

Residential Roofs Very Low N/A Basin Outfall Swale

Other Roofs(commercial)

Low N/A Basin Outfall Swale

Individual propertydriveways, residentialcar parks, low traffic

roads and non-residential car parkswith infrequentchange.

Low

Permeable Pavingwhere viable

Catchpit andGullies

Basin Outfall Swale

Commercial yard anddelivery areas, non-residential parkingwith frequent change,all roads except lowtraffic roads and trunkroads/motorways

Medium

Permeable Pavingwhere viable

Catchpit andGullies

Basin Outfall Swale

7.1.9 The proposed development includes vast green areas as well as the provision of permeablepavements within the commercial areas.

7.1.10 Although the surface water drainage strategy will need to be re-assessed and further developedat the detailed design stage depending on the results of the ground investigation the generalSuDS principles as for the example the use of swales for exceedance flows and basins at thelower ends of the site would still be applicable. It is also unlikely that infiltration only would besufficient to manage surface water runoff from the development and at least part of the site wouldstill need to discharge into the sea.

7.2 SURFACE WATER MODELLING AND RESULTS

7.2.1 Both the existing and proposed drainage systems have been modelled in Micro-Drainage andresults are available in Appendix G.

7.2.2 When undertaking the modelling for the surface water drainage strategy the followingassumptions were made:

Micro-Drainage software has been used for all hydraulic design;

FEH rainfall data has been used when determining existing and proposed flowrates;

Existing discharge rates have been determined by modelling the existing network, this modeluses the main runs and ignores the channel drains and smaller pipe networks, and therefore


22/251

16


May 2016

provides a worst case scenario. The area to the north is currently pumped to the gravitysystem on site, however for the purpose of this model, this area has been simply modelledassuming it is gravity fed into the wider network, whilst this may not be completely accurate, itallows for that area to be taken into account as part of the wider model;

Residential areas have been considered to be 80% impermeable;

Commercial areas have been considered to be 95% impermeable;

Road areas have been considered to be 100% impermeable;

The proposed drainage network has been designed for the 1 in 100 year plus 20% climatechange event; and.

Refer to Drawing 70004755-D-SK-001 in Appendix G for the catchment areas considered.

Existing Drainage Network Results

7.2.3 The modelling of the existing drainage network produced the following flowrates for the 2 year, 30

year and 100 year return periods, from the 900mm outfall.

Q2 = 2216.5 l/s

Q30 = 3376.4 l/s

Q100 = 3762.2 l/s

7.2.4 It is therefore proposed that the site will discharge no more than 3762.2 l/s for the proposed 1:100year + 20% climate change event, ensuring that the lesser events are also not exceededcompared to the existing scenario.

Proposed Drainage Network Results

7.2.5 Unlike the existing scenario the drainage system will be designed to ensure no flooding for eventsup to the 30 year event, and attenuation will be provided to ensure the 1:100 year + 20% climatechange event is catered for onsite

Design Criteria

7.2.6 The proposed development consists of the following areas (refer to Appendix G for plan):

7.2.7 Area 1:

Residential (Zones 3, 4, 5, 6) = 27.5ha

Roads = 20.9haCommercial = 7.3haMixed Use = 1.7ha haExisting Museum Area (Zone 9) = 5.1ha

7.2.8 Area 2:

Residential (Zone 7, 8) = 6.8haRoads = 8.2ha

7.2.9 Area 3:

Commercial = 21.7ha


23/251

17


May 2016

Roads = 1.2ha

7.2.10 Area 4:

Existing Runway =14.4ha

7.2.11 In order to size the attenuation for the purpose of the planning application, the draining areashave been calculated as per the Tables below.

Table 7-2 - Area 1 Drainage Areas

AREA 1

DevelopmentArea

Total Area(ha)

%Impermeable(100% runoffcoefficient)

% Permeable(30% runoffcoefficient)

Total Drainage Area (ha)

Residential 27.5 80 20 23.65Commercial 7.3 95 5 7.04

Mixed Use 1.7 90 10 1.58

Roads 20.9 100 0 20.90

Existing MuseumArea

5.1 95 5 4.92

Total 62.5 58.09


AREA 2

Development

Area

Total Area

(ha)

%

Impermeable(100% runoffcoefficient)

% Permeable

(30% runoffcoefficient)


Residential 6.8 80 20 5.85

Roads 8.2 100 0 8.20

Total 15 14.05

Table 7-4 – Area 3 Drainage Areas

AREA 3

Development Area Total Area(ha)

%Impermeable

(100% runoffcoefficient)

% Permeable(30% runoff

coefficient)


Commercial 21.7 95 5 20.94

Roads 1.2 100 0 1.20

Total 22.9 22.14


24/251

18


May 2016


7.2.12 The total development area is 114.6ha (impermeable and permeable), the total drainage area

considered from the site is 108.69ha.

7.2.13 As part of the proposed development each area has been modelled in MicroDrainage todetermine the required amount of attenuation to accommodate the 1:100 year +20%cc stormevent and to ensure that as a whole the sites discharge rate does not exceed the existing for eachstorm event. The results of this modelling are provided within Appendix G, and summarised in theTables below.

Table 7-6 - Proposed Discharge Rates

DISCHARGE RATES L /S

DevelopmentArea

1:2 1:30 1:100 1:100+20%cc

Area 1 843.1 1778.1 2506.9 2975.6

Area 2 136.1 231.2 302.9 349.3

Area 3 137.2 182.0 217.7 257.0

Area 4 56.1 90.6 117.3 140.1

Total 1172.5 2281.9 3144.8 3722.0

Table 7-7 – Discharge Rate Summary

DISCHARGE RATES L /S

1:2 1:30 1:100 1:100+20%cc

ExistingDischargeRates (l/s)

2216.5 3376.4 3762.2 3762.2

ProposedDischargeRates (l/s)

1172.2 2281.9 3144.8 3722.0

PercentageReduction (%)

47 32 16 1

AREA 4

Development Area Total Area(ha)

% Impermeable(100% runoffcoefficient)

% Permeable(30% runoffcoefficient)

Total DrainageArea (ha)

Existing Runway beingretained

14.4 100 0 14.40

Total 14.4 14.40


25/251


26/251

20


May 2016

7.3 FOUL WATER STRATEGY

7.3.1 Following meetings and discussions with SW it has been made clear that the existing foul waterdrainage network surrounding the site will not have capacity to accommodate the development

and confirmed that it is likely that off-site reinforcement works will need to be undertaken toresolve this. In a meeting undertaken on the 1st February 2016, SW recommended that a Section

98 be undertaken once planning is granted to account for the provision of a terminal pumpingstation and rising main.

7.3.2 Given the size of the site, the location of the existing public foul sewers and the topography of thesite it is not expected that gravity connections will be achievable. It is therefore proposed that foulwater pumping stations will be provided to discharge to the existing public foul water network, thelocation of these pumping stations will be largely dependent on the construction phasing of thedevelopment and therefore cannot be confirmed at this stage.

7.4 DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

7.4.1 The following drainage maintenance and management strategy (Table 7-9) has been produced byus and builds on information provided within the SUDS Manual; it is expected that themaintenance for the entire scheme will be under the management of Stone Hill Park Ltd, in whicha suitably qualified maintenance specialist will undertake the work.


27/251

21


May 2016

Table 7-9 – Drainage Maintenance Strategy

Drainage Feature Regular Maintenance Occasional/Remedial Maintenance Monitoring

Permeable Paving Brushing and vacuuming three times/year atend of winter, mid-summer, after autumn leaffall, or as required on Site-specificobservations of clogging or manufacturer’recommendations.

Stabilise and mow contributing andadjacent areas, as required.

Removal of weed, as required.

Remediate any landscaping which,through vegetation maintenance orsoil slip, has been raised to within50mm of the level of the paving, asrequired.

Remedial work to any depressions,rutting and cracked or broken blocksconsidered detrimental to thestructural performance or a hazard tousers, as required.

Rehabilitation of surface and uppersub-structure, as required.

Attenuation Ponds/basins Litter Removal, as required.

Grass cutting (public areas), monthly (duringgrowing season).

Grass Cutting (meadow grass), Half yearly(spring before nesting season, and autumn).

Inspect vegetation to pond edge and removenuisance plants (for the first 3 years), monthly

(as start, then as required).

Hand cut submerged and emergent aquaticplants (at minimum of 0.1m above pondbase). Include max 25% of pond surface,annually.

Remove 25% of bank vegetation from wateredge to a minimum of 1m above water level,annually.

Remove sediment from the mainbody of big ponds when pool volumeis reduced by 20%. 25 years or asrequired.

Repair of erosion or other damage,as required.

Aerate pond when signs ofeutrophication are detected, asrequired.

Realignment of rip-rap or otherdamage, as required.

Repair/rehabilitation of inlets, outletsand overflows, as required.


28/251

22


May 2016

Tidy all dead growth before start of growingseason, annually.

Remove sediment from one quadrant of themain body of pond every 5 years.

Dry Swales Litter and debris removal, as required.

Grass cutting – to retain grass height withinspecified design range. Monthly (duringgrowing season), or as required.

Manage other vegetation and removenuisance plants. Monthly (at start, then asrequired).

Check for poor vegetation growth dueto lack of sunlight or dropping of leaf

litter, and cut back adjacentvegetation where possible, annually.

Re-seed areas of poor vegetationgrowth. Alter plant types to better suitconditions, if required. Annually, or ifbare soil is exposed over 10% ormore of the swale treatment area.

Repair erosion or other damage byre-turfing or reseeding, as required.

Re-level uneven surfaces andreinstate design levels, as required.

Scarify and spike topsoil layer toimprove infiltration performance,break up silt deposits and preventcompaction of the soil surface, asrequired.

Remove build-up of sediment onupstream gravel trench, flowspreader or at top of filter strip, asrequired.

Remove and dispose of oils or petrolresidues using safe standardpractices, as required.

Pumps Check for accumulation of debris and silt andcleaned as necessary.

Check condition and test alarm probe.

Other regular maintenance to be undertakenas per manufacturers guidelines.

Clean as necessary.

Repair/rehabilitation of inlets, outlets,alarms and vents as required.

Other remedial maintenance to beundertaken as per manufacturersguidelines.

Frequency of monitoring to beundertaken as per manufacturersguidelines.

CatchpitManholes/Inspection

Inspection chambers will be checked every 6months for the accumulation of debris and silt

Inspect every 6 months or after largestorm.


29/251

23


May 2016

Chambers and cleaned as necessary.

Drainage Channels/Gullies Inspections will be frequent and regular,depending on local conditions, but at leastannually by Site management. Inspections willinclude gratings; covers including their lockingbolts; sumps and sump buckets; exposedconcrete surround and adjacent paving.Channels will be flushed with water or high

pressure jetting (no boiling water or cleaningagent will be used). All silt buckets and sumpswill be cleaned out replaced back into theunits ensuring they are correctly fitted.

All channel surfaces and joints will bechecked and repaired as necessary.

Inspect every 6 months or after largestorm.


30/251

24


May 2016

8OFFSITE IMPACT

8.1.1 The outline surface water drainage strategy demonstrates that the drainage network at the site isdesigned to accommodate run-off during all events up to and including the 100 year plus 20%climate change allowance. It also shows that for the 100 year plus 40% climate change allowancesurface water will be accommodated within the site by the use of freeboards and thereforeprevents potential exceedance flows off site. As such the development will have a positive impactoffsite as the existing surface water flow paths crossing the site will be eliminated minimising therisk of surface water runoff generated at the site affecting the surroundings.

8.1.2 SW have confirmed that the public foul water drainage network will not be able to accommodatethe proposed development and that off-site reinforcement works will be required. Provided theappropriate reinforcement works are carried out the scheme will not have a negative impact onthe public drainage network.

8.1.3 Given that the site’s surface water discharge rates are to match the existing rates there is noimpact on the existing private surface water sewer which is to be utilised.

8.1.4 Given that the site’s surface water is to discharge to Pegwell Bay which is a tidally influencedbody, there is no impact by increasing the volumetric runoff from the site. Given the proposals touse SuDS as pre-treatment devices on the Site, water quality to Pegwell Bay is not considered tobe negatively affected; in fact the use of a SuDS management train is expected to improve thequality of the surface water runoff discharged into the bay.

8.1.5 The development will not cause impacts elsewhere in terms of fluvial and tidal flood risk due to itslocation within Flood Zone 1.


31/251

25


May 2016

9 RESIDUAL RISK 9.1.1 Since the site is located within Flood Zone 1, away from any floodplain, residual fluvial/tidal flood

risk is considered to be low to negligible.

9.1.2 The outline surface water drainage strategy demonstrates that the drainage network at the site isdesigned to accommodate run-off during all events up to and including the 100 year plus aclimate change allowance preventing potential exceedance flows off site. Drainage exceedanceroutes have also been considered and allowed for as part of the masterplanning process ensuringthat any surface water runoff exceeding the drainage network capacity would naturally flowtowards the attenuation basins at the bottom of the valley rather than impacting on thedevelopment itself. See Appendix G for a plan displaying potential exceedance routing.

9.1.3 It is also recommended in accordance with best practice that housing plots have raised thresholdsabove road level, to help mitigate against any surface water flooding.


32/251

26


May 2016

10 CONCLUSIONS 10.1.1 This FRA has been prepared on behalf of Stone Hill Park Ltd to support a hybrid planning

application for the redevelopment of the Former Manston Airport.

10.1.2 The EA and TDC’s SFRA both confirm the site as being located in Flood Zone 1 where theprobability of river or sea flooding is less than 0.1% (1 in 1000) chance in any given year.Meaning that the probability of tidal or fluvial flooding can therefore be assessed as low tonegligible.

10.1.3 Surface Water could in theory be a source of flood risk as the area along Manston Road is apotential flow route based on the available information; this however has been mitigated by thedesign of an outline drainage strategy which demonstrates the ability to accommodate surfacewater run-off during all events up to and including the 100 year plus appropriate climate change

allowance therefore preventing potential exceedance flows off site. As such the proposeddevelopment will in fact significantly reduce the probability of surface water flooding at the siteand in the surroundings.

10.1.4 The proposed surface water drainage strategy optimises the use of SuDS in line with bestpractice, national and local policy and has been developed in discussion with the relevantstakeholders. At this outline stage it is proposed to discharge surface water runoff into PegwellBay mimicking the current drainage arrangements; however this will need to be re-assessed postplanning following ground investigations assessing the feasibility of infiltration at the site. A largepercentage of the site will remain undeveloped and natural infiltration in those areas will not beaffected by the proposed development.

10.1.5 Other potential sources of flooding have been investigated and are deemed low risk.

10.1.6 SW have confirmed that foul development flows cannot be accommodated within the pubicdrainage network and have stated that off –site improvement works will be necessary.


33/251

Appendix ASITE LOCATION


34/251

NOTE:1. Do not scale from this drawing unless for planning2. All setting out,levels and dimensions to be agreed on site.3. The dimensions of all materials must be checked on site

before being laid out.4. This drawing must be read with the relevant specification

clauses and detail drawings

5. Order of construction and setting out to be agreed on site.6. This drawing is copyright protected and may not be

reproduced in whole or part without written authority.7. All Dimensions are in millimetres unless Otherwise Stated

Planning

Drg nr

Drg title

Project

Client

PL1436-VW-018

Location Plan

StoneHill Park

Checked

Drawn

Status

Scale n.t.s MP

JWRevision

Date: 12.05.16

02

18 Bowling Green Lane London EC1R 0BW020 7430 0754

2Back Grafton St Altrincham WA14 1DY

0161 928 9281

DrawnApprvd.DateRev Status and Description

First Issue00 MP JW

THISDRAWINGIS COPYRIGHTAND MAYNOT BE REPRODUCED IN

WHOLEOR PART WITHOUTWRITTEN AUTHORITY.

DONOTSCALE OFF THISDRAWING

CC

Planit IE LLP

22.04.16

StoneHill ParkLimited

PlanningA MP JW29.04.16

05.05.16 Planning01 JWMP12.05.16 Boundary Amend02 JWMP

PLANNINGAPPLICATIONSITEBOUNDARY

T TBIRCHINGTON ON SEA

WESTGATE ON SEA MARGATE

RAMSGATE

CLIFFSEND

MINSTER

WESTWOOD CROSS

MANSTON

ACOL


35/251

E CL O SE

Gas Govn

Mast

Masts(Telecommunication)

D R I V

E

Stones

A 2 9 9

Stone

TelegraphHill

Runway Approach Lights

H O U S E L A

U N D R Y R O A D

S O U T H A L L C L O S E

I V Y

C O T T A

G E H

I L L

W A Y H I

L L

T H O R

N E H I L L

HENGIST W AY

Dunstr ete

GP

CLIFFSENDA 2 99

D uns tre te

ROUNDABOUT

WindSock


K I N G A

R T H U R

R O A D

El Sub

CANTERBURYROADWEST

Mast

W I N D S O R R

O A D

Mast (Telecommunication)

Sta

Tank

LB

A R U N D E L

R O A D

SportsGround

H I G H S T R

E E T

(private)

Track

TCB

T r a c k

IN V IC T A W AY

M E R L I N

W A Y

C O L U M B U S A V E N U E

S P IT F IR E W AY

Manston Park

B 2 1 90

M I N S T

E R

R O A

D

B 2 1 9 0

sed)

M a s t ( Te l e c o m m u n ic a t io n )

SubSta

B E A M O N T

M U S G R A V E

El SubSta

LB

DRIVE

Court

SPI TF I RE WA

Y

Tennis

Pond

A L L A

N D G

R A N

G E

Track

C L O S E

E S M ON D E

S i l o s

C L O

S E

E l S u b

S t a

El

C a v e s

B 2 190

Lighting Tower

S P I T F I R E

W A Y

M A N S T O N

R O A D

El Sub

R OA D

B E L L

Lighting Tower

FS

Sta

SubSta

MA N ST ON

B 2 1 9 0

- D A V

I E S

Tennis

Pylon

B 2 0 5 0

Lighting Tower

B 2 1 9

0

Pylon

T O

L L E M A C

H E C L

D R I V E

El

Court

P R E S T O N

R O A D

D A I G O R

L A N E

El SubSta

B 2 0 50

Stone

P R E S T O N

R O A D

SP R AT LI N G S T R EE T

Electricity SubStation

WarMeml

T r a c k

T r a c

k

TheLeys

Stone

Path

E L M G R

O V E

Letter

(private)

M A N S T O N C O U R T

R O A D

TCB

TCB

Wind

Stone

Sports Ground

G R E E N

Stone

Box

Ruin

MANSTON RO AD

T H E

GP

Sock

H I G H

S T R

E E T

B 2 0 5 0

S T C

A T H

E R I

N E ' S

G R O

V E

Stones

WB

Box

T r a c k

Letter

Stone

Stone

Stone

Stone

Reservoir

M A N S T

O N C O U

R T R O A

D

Stone

P R E S T O

N R O A D

Reservoir

GP

Stone

VI N C E N T R O AD T ra ck

Stone

Stone

M A N S T O

N

R O A

D

(covered)

LB

Mast

Stone

D r a i n

(covered)

A 2 9 9

A2 99

A 2 5 6

ROUNDABOUT

Reservoir

SEVENSCORE

S E A

V I E W

R O A

D

MP 84

C L I F

F V I E

W R O

A D

C LIV E R OAD

F O A D S H

I L L

Tunnel

D R I V E

SL

El SubSta

Cliffsend Crossing

MP 84.25






Planning

Drg nr

Drg title

Project

Client

PL1436-VW-017

Red LinePlan

StoneHill Park

Checked

Drawn

Status

Scale 1:5500@A1 MP

JWRevision

Date: 12.05.16

02


2 Back Grafton St Altrincham WA14 1DY

0161 928 9281


First Issue00 MP JW




CC

Planit IE LLP

15.04.16


PlanningA MP JW29.04.16

0 5. 05 .1 6 P la nn in g01 JWMP12.05.16 Boundary Amends02 JWMP


OTHERLANDOWNED BYAPPLICANT

EXTENTOF PHASE1 (DETAILEDAPPLICATION)


36/251

Appendix BTOPOGRAPHICAL AND UTILITIES SURVEY


37/251


38/251


39/251


40/251


41/251


42/251


43/251


44/251


45/251


46/251

Appendix CDEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS


47/251


48/251

E CL O SE

Gas Govn

Mast


D R I V

E

Stones

A 2 9 9

Stone

TelegraphHill


H O U S E L A

U N D R Y R O A D

S O U T H A L L C L O S E

I V Y

C O T T A

G E H

I L L

W A Y H I

L L

T H O R

N E H I L L

HENGIST W AY

Dunstr ete

GP

CLIFFSENDA 2 99

D uns tre te

ROUNDABOUT

WindSock


K I N G A

R T H U R

R O A D

El Sub

CANTERBURY ROADWEST

Mast

W I N D S O R R

O A D

Mast (Telecommunication)

Sta

Tank

LB

A R U N D E L

R O A D

SportsGround

H I G H S T R

E E T

(private)

Track

TCB

T r a c k

IN V IC T A W AY

M E R L I N

W A Y

C O L U M B U S A V E N U E

S P IT F IR E W AY

Manston Park

B 2 1 90

M I N S T

E R

R O A

D

B 2 1 9 0

sed)

M a s t ( Te l e c o m m u n ic a t io n )

SubSta

B E A M O N T

M U S G R A V E

El SubSta

LB

DRIVE

Court

SPI TF I RE WA

Y

Tennis

Pond

A L L A

N D G

R A N

G E

Track

C L O S E

E S M ON D E

S i l o s

C L O

S E

E l S u b

S t a

El

C a v e s

B 2 190

Lighting Tower

S P I T F I R E

W A Y

M A N S T O N

R O A D

El Sub

R OA D

B E L L

Lighting Tower

FS

Sta

SubSta

MA N ST ON

B 2 1 9 0

- D A V

I E S

Tennis

Pylon

B 2 0 5 0

Lighting Tower

B 2 1 9

0

Pylon

T O

L L E M A C

H E C L

D R I V E

El

Court

P R E S T O N

R O A D

D A I G O R

L A N E

El SubSta

B 2 0 50

Stone

P R E S T O N

R O A D

SP R AT LI N G S T R EE T

Electricity SubStation

WarMeml

T r a c k

T r a c

k

TheLeys

Stone

Path

E L M G R

O V E

Letter

(private)

M A N S T O N C O U R T

R O A D

TCB

TCB

Wind

Stone

Sports Ground

G R E E N

Stone

Box

Ruin

MANSTON RO AD

T H E

GP

Sock

H I G H

S T R

E E T

B 2 0 5 0

S T C

A T H

E R I

N E ' S

G R O

V E

Stones

WB

Box

T r a c k

Letter

Stone

Stone

Stone

Stone

Reservoir

M A N S T

O N C O U

R T R O A

D

Stone

P R E S T O

N R O A D

Reservoir

GP

Stone

VI N C E N T R O AD T ra ck

Stone

Stone

M A N S T O

N

R O A

D

(covered)

LB

Mast

Stone

D r a i n

(covered)

A 2 9 9

A2 99

A 2 5 6

ROUNDABOUT

Reservoir

SEVENSCORE

S E A

V I E W

R O A

D

MP 84

C L I F

F V I E

W R O

A D

C LIV E R OAD

F O A D S H

I L L

Tunnel

D R I V E

SL

El SubSta

Cliffsend Crossing

MP 84.25






Drg nr

Drg title

Project

Client

PL1436-VW-011

ParameterPlan 1: DevelopmentZones

StoneHill Park

Checked

Drawn

Status

Scale 1:5500@A1 MP

JWRevision

Date:



0161 928 9281


21.01.16 First Issue00 MP JW




CC

Planit IE LLP

04.02.16 Second IssueA MP JW

09.02.16 Third IssueB MP JW

29.02.16 Fourth IssueC MP JW

04.03.16 Fifth IssueD MP JW

18.03.16 Sixth IssueE MP JW


22.03.16 Seventh IssueF MP JW

05.04.16 Design IssueG MP JW

06.04.16 For ApprovalH MP JW

Planning

20.04.16 Red Line AmendI AS JW

12.05.16

M

25.04.16 Dev Area AmendJ JWMP

29.04.16 PlanningK JWMP

0 5. 05 .1 6 P la n ni n gL JWMP

12.05.16 Boundary AmendsM JWMP




ZONE 1

ZONE 2

ZONE 3

ZONE 4

ZONE 5

ZONE 7

ZONE 8

ZONE 9

ZONE 6

STRUCTURAL OPEN SPACE ANDINFRASTRUCTURE ZONE

Land where surface and sub-surfacefixed infrastructure (including roadsand sustainable urban drainagesystems) and green infrastructure(including structural landscape,planting, parks), and outdoorsport/recreation facilities (includingplaying fields, sports courts, playareas and associated small scale builtfacilities, but excluding recreationalsurface water body (‘wave garden’))

DEVELOPMENT ZONES

Land where new built form (buildings/ structures) and associatedinfrastructure and open space ispermitted

Boundary of Development Zone




Indicative Boundary of DevelopmentZone with exact location to follow Limitof Deviation tolerance of proposedroad set by Parameter Plan 2.

No Development

ZONE 10

SPECIAL OUTDOORWATER-BASED RECREATIONZONE

As per Structural Open Space andinfrastructure Zone – but alsowhere recreational surface waterbody and associated built facilitiesallowed (‘wave garden’)


49/251






Drg nr

Drg title

Project

Client

PL1436-VW-012

ParameterPlan 2: Access andMovement

StoneHill Park


Checked

Drawn

Status

Scale 1:5500@A1 MP

JWRevision

Date:



0161 928 9281


21.01.16 First Issue00 MP JW




CC

Planit IE LLP

04.02.16 Second IssueA MP JW09.02.16 Third IssueB MP JW29.02.16 Fourth IssueC MP JW

0 4. 03 .1 6 F if th Is su eD MP JW

18.03.16 Sixth IssueE MP JW

2 2. 03 .1 6 S ev en th I s su eF MP JW

05.04.16 Design IssueG MP JW

06.04.16 For ApprovalH MP JW

Planning

20.04.16 Red Line AmendI AS JW

25.04.16 Dev Area AmendJ JWMP

12.05.16

M

29.04.16 PlanningK JWMP

05.05.16 PlanningL JWMP

12.05.16 Boundary AmendsM JWMP

2 8 t o

3 2

11

E CL O SE

Filling Station

MinsterServices

Gas Govn15

53.7m

3 5

Mast


4

2 2

4

3

D R I V

E

Stones

A 2 9 9

Tank

Stone

1

TelegraphHill

1

t o 9

INDUSTRIAL PARK


Depot

TELEGRAPH HILL

21b

Mount Pleasant

2

1

21a

1 4 t o

2 7

1 2

7