M27 Southampton Junctions

FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002 | P01

16/01/20
HE551514

DO NOT USE - template integrated with PW

HIGHWAYS ENGLAND
 FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

M27 Southampton Junctions

Project No: B229H190

Document Title: FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT
Document No.: HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
Revision: P01
Date: 16/01/20
Client Name: HIGHWAYS ENGLAND
Client No: HE551514
Project Manager: Paul McKay
Author: A. HOSSAIN
File Name: HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002.docx

Jacobs U.K. Limited

1180 Eskdale Road

Winnersh, Wokingham
Reading RG41 5TU
United Kingdom
T +44 (0)118 946 7000
F +44 (0)118 946 7001
www.jacobs.com

© Copyright 2019 Jacobs. Please select a legal entity from the Change Document Details option on the Jacobs ribbon. The concepts and information
contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs
constitutes an infringement of copyright.

Limitation: This document has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the
provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance
upon, this document by any third party.

Document history and status

Revision Date Description By Checked Reviewed Approved

P01 16/01/20 FINAL AH DS DS PM

P00 11/11/19 FIRST ISSUE AH CD DS PM

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002 i
 FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Contents
Executive summary ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1. Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Purpose .............................................................................................................................................. 3
1.2 Context ............................................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Approach ............................................................................................................................................ 3
1.4 Sources of flooding ............................................................................................................................. 4
2. Flood risk policy ............................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 European and national policy ............................................................................................................. 5
2.2 Local flood risk policy ......................................................................................................................... 6
2.3 The Sequential Test ........................................................................................................................... 8
2.4 The Exception Test............................................................................................................................. 8
3. Site characteristics .......................................................................................................................... 9
3.1 Location .............................................................................................................................................. 9
3.2 Existing site characteristics ................................................................................................................ 9
3.3 Proposed works ................................................................................................................................ 11
4. Existing flood risk .......................................................................................................................... 13
4.1 Assessment of flood risk .................................................................................................................. 13
4.2 Climate change................................................................................................................................. 18
4.3 Vulnerability classification ................................................................................................................ 19
5. Flood risk to the proposed Scheme ............................................................................................. 21
5.1 Fluvial ............................................................................................................................................... 21
5.2 Surface water ................................................................................................................................... 21
5.3 Groundwater ..................................................................................................................................... 22
5.4 Other sources ................................................................................................................................... 22
5.5 Construction phase........................................................................................................................... 22
6. Development considerations ........................................................................................................ 24
6.1 Safe access and operation ............................................................................................................... 24
6.2 Loss of floodplain storage ................................................................................................................ 24
6.3 Interaction of flood flow paths and development and flood risk elsewhere ...................................... 24
6.4 Groundwater ..................................................................................................................................... 25
7. Conclusion and recommendations .............................................................................................. 26
7.1 Development suitability .................................................................................................................... 26
7.2 Summary of flood risk ....................................................................................................................... 26
7.3 Flood risk impact of the development............................................................................................... 26
7.4 Recommendations............................................................................................................................ 26
8. References ...................................................................................................................................... 28

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002 ii
 FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Appendix A. Site drainage design and details

Appendix B. Southern Water sewer maps
Appendix C. M27 junction 8 hydraulic modelling technical note
Appendix D. Flood estimation calculation record
Appendix E. Flood maps
Appendix F. Proposed mitigation plan

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002 iii
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Executive summary
Jacobs UK Ltd. (Jacobs) was commissioned by Highways England to undertake a site-specific Flood Risk
Assessment (FRA) as part of the M27 Southampton Junctions scheme (hereafter referred to as the proposed
‘Scheme’). The aim of the proposed Scheme is to reduce congestion and improve safety around the M27
junction 8 and A27 Windhover Roundabout. The site is situated north of the village of Bursledon, Hampshire,
within the Eastleigh Borough Council area.

The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the existing flood risk to the proposed Scheme and
demonstrate that the proposed Scheme complies with the flood risk requirements of the National Planning
Policy Framework (NPPF), the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), and the Lead Local Flood
Authority (LLFA). The assessment of flood risk from all sources is largely based on the results of a desk-
based study undertaken between August and October 2019. However, hydraulic modelling of an ordinary
watercourse located at junction 8 has also been undertaken to assess the flood risk it poses to the scheme
and the effect of the proposed Scheme on flood risk elsewhere.

All the proposed improvement works are to be undertaken within the existing highway boundary. Due to the
spatial constraints of the scheme, the proposed drainage strategy will re-use as much of the existing drainage
system as possible. The proposed Scheme has been designed to ensure the Scheme is safe for its lifetime
as well as ensuring that the Scheme does not negatively impact flood risk elsewhere. As per DMRB
guidelines, drainage has been designed to ensure that the following design standards are met: no
surcharging in the 100% (1 in 1) Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) event; no flooding in the 20% (1 in 5)
AEP event; and no surface water flooding extending beyond the highway boundary in the 1% (1 in 100) AEP
event. The proposed drainage strategy has also been designed to provide a potential reduction to existing
peak discharge rates for all events up to the 1% (1 in 100) AEP event including an increase in rainfall
intensity of 20% due to climate change of 20%.

The impacts of all sources of flood risk to the development have been assessed. The published Environment
Agency (EA) flood mapping indicates that the entirety of the proposed Scheme lies within Flood Zone 1 and
is remote from flood risk associated with main rivers and the sea. However, two tributaries of an ordinary
watercourse (Bursledon Brook) are culverted beneath junction 8. The risk of flooding from these minor
watercourses is not accounted for on the Flood Map for Planning. Therefore, hydraulic modelling of this
watercourse was undertaken as part of this assessment. The results of this modelling indicate that flooding
currently onsets during events greater than the 50% (1 in 2) AEP event when a culvert upstream of junction 8
surcharges, resulting in flow passing overland to the south before ponding on the roundabout of the A3024.

The design flood event for this this scheme is the 1% AEP flood event including a 35% increase in flows to
account for climate change during the 100 year life of the development. During this design event flood depths
greater than 850mm are predicted on the existing carriageway and roundabout. Based on this, the existing
fluvial flood risk to the scheme is considered high.

To manage the risk of fluvial flooding from the two tributaries of Bursledon Brook, the design of the proposed
Scheme includes several mitigation measures. To manage flows from the eastern tributary, a series of flood
storage measures comprising a basin, an underground tank and a pond are proposed. Risk from the western
tributary would be managed by a flood wall along the north-west corner of the roundabout to prevent water
from flowing onto the carriageway, another storage area adjacent to this wall would then partially mitigate for
the loss of floodplain storage on the carriageway.

With these mitigation measures in place, hydraulic modelling demonstrates that the proposed Scheme would
remain safe from flooding during the 1% AEP flood event including an allowance for climate change.
Therefore, the risk of fluvial flooding to the proposed Scheme is considered to remain low throughout its 100
year design life. However, the reduction in floodplain volume as a result of the proposed wall will displace
flood water upstream of this point increasing flood extents and depths on land to the land north-west of
junction 8. It is proposed that this localised increase in risk will be resolved through landowner compensation
or by increasing the size of the north-western flood storage area.

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002 1
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

The Environment Agency’s surface water flood risk map identifies existing areas of high surface water flood
risk (greater than 3.3% (1 in 30) AEP) at the site. At junction 8 the flooding shown on this map is attributed to
both surface water runoff and flooding from the ordinary watercourse. These risks will be mitigated by
proposed drainage and fluvial mitigation. At Windhover Roundabout the EA surface water flood risk map
shows two small areas at high risk of flooding on the existing road. However, the EA’s surface water flood
maps do not include any representation of road drainage and any surface water risk in these areas will be
effectively mitigated by the proposed drainage.

The risk of groundwater flooding, sewer flooding and flooding from other sources to the site and arising from
the proposed Scheme has been assessed and is considered to be low.

To manage flood risk and meet the NPPF requirements it is recommended that:
• Further liaison should be undertaken with landowners to enable the expansion of flood storage areas to
the north west of the scheme or to agree the increased level of flood risk to their land at the north-east
corner of junction 8
• Any changes to the proposed Scheme that impact on flood risk are re-assessed to ensure compliance
with this FRA. These will be agreed with the LLFA at detailed design stage or as part of the ordinary
watercourse consenting process
• A detailed maintenance and management plan should be produced at the detailed design stage to detail
requirements for the on-going management of the proposed surface water drainage network, including
the sustainable drainage (SuDS) features, for the lifetime of the development
• Information and data from the relevant council bodies and the Environment Agency is regularly reviewed
throughout the planning process, as new information might be made available
• The contractor should obtain all required permits prior to construction phase works

It should also be noted that there may be an opportunity to rationalise the mitigation and drainage proposed if
more detailed assessment were undertaken using an integrated hydraulic model incorporating both drainage
and fluvial elements.

Subject to the recommendations being met, it is considered that the development would meet the
requirements of the NPPF and would:
• Remain operational and safe for users in times of flood
• Would not result in an increase in flood risk elsewhere

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002 2
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

1. Introduction
1.1 Purpose

Jacobs UK Ltd. were commissioned by Highways England to prepare a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment
(FRA) for the M27 Southampton Junctions Scheme (herein referred to as the proposed ‘Scheme’).

The purpose of this report is to demonstrate that the proposed Scheme complies with the flood risk
requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges
(DMRB), and other relevant standards (see Section 2). It includes:
• An assessment of the flood risk to the proposed development, demonstrating that the intended use is
appropriate in terms of flood risk
• An assessment of the predicted impact of the development upon flood risk
• Demonstration that the development will not have a negative impact upon flood risk to other parties
• A summary of any mitigation measures required to achieve this outcome

1.2 Context

The proposed Scheme concerns two junctions, namely M27 junction 8 and A27 Windhover Roundabout, and
the road that links them, namely Bert Betts Way (A3024). The site is situated in the county of Hampshire,
within the local planning authority area of Eastleigh Borough. The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) for this
area is Hampshire County Council (HCC). The site is located south-east of the city of Southampton in the
parish of Bursledon.

The aim of the proposed Scheme is to reduce congestion and improve safety around M27 junction 8 and
Windhover Roundabout. It seeks to do this by local widening and signalisation of all approach arms to both
junctions. By improving M27 junction 8 and Windhover Roundabout, the proposed Scheme aims to
encourage city centre bound traffic from the east of Southampton to use the shorter sign-posted routes via
M27 junction 8 / A3024. This in turn will improve traffic flow and reliability on the M27 between junctions 8
and 5.

1.3 Approach

A desk-based study has been undertaken to inform the impact of the development site on flood risk and the
wider water environment. In accordance with the national planning policy guidance (PPG) the assessment of
the flood risk to the development site has been completed based on the following sources of information:
• Flood risk information, LiDAR, main river map and national policy information available from the Gov.uk
website
• Geological information available from the British Geological Society (BGS)
• Eastleigh Borough Local Plan (Eastleigh Borough Council, 2014)
• Hampshire County Council (HCC) Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (HCC, 2011)
• Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (PUSH) Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (PUSH, 2016)
• Eastleigh Surface Water Management Plan (HCC, 2012)
• Hampshire Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (HCC, 2013)
• South East Hampshire Catchment Flood Management Plan (Environment Agency, 2009)

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002 3
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Additional data sources used include:

• Environment Agency (EA) Catchment Explorer (Environment Agency, 2018)
• Contemporary OS maps
• Current aerial photography
• Designated areas (Natural England, 2019)

The assessment of flood risk from all sources undertaken within this report is based largely on information
available from these online sources. The assessment of surface water and reservoir flood risk impacts is
based on information on flood extents readily available from the Environment Agency (EA) at the time of this
assessment. The EA undertakes a continual programme of model updates; consequently, flood extents are
subject to change.

In addition to a review of published information, hydraulic modelling has also been carried out as part of this
assessment. Following an initial assessment, a more detailed assessment of the flood risk from an ordinary
watercourse identified at junction 8 was deemed necessary as the initial assessment identified areas at high
risk of flooding that would be impacted by the Proposed Scheme. Hydraulic modelling was therefore
undertaken to assess this risk to the scheme, identify if the scheme would impact on existing risk elsewhere
and to enable the development of mitigation options where required.

Throughout this report flood events are represented by annual exceedance probability (AEP) events such as
1% and 0.1%, which are equivalent to the 100 and 1000-year return period respectively.

The assessment of potential impacts and mitigation are based on the results of the hydraulic modelling along
with professional judgement and available design drawings; these may change during later phases when
additional or updated information and data is available.

1.4 Sources of flooding

Consideration has been given to the following sources of flooding within the proposed Scheme area:
• Fluvial – Flooding originating from either a natural or man-made watercourse
• Tidal – Flooding of low-lying areas resulting from exceptionally high tides
• Surface Water (pluvial) – Flooding resulting from high intensity rainfall saturating the drainage system
(either natural or man-made) with excess water travelling overland and ponding in local topographic
depressions. This also includes consideration of the impact of the new road drainage on flood risk
elsewhere
• Sewer – Flooding due to surcharging of man-made drainage systems. This can be as a result of
extreme weather or blockages in the system
• Water (potable) Supply – Flooding due to a burst water main
• Groundwater – Flooding due to elevated ground water levels
• Reservoirs – Flooding due to the collapse/failure of water retaining feature
• Canals – Flooding originating from a canal, often as a result of heavy rainfall

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002 4
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

2. Flood risk policy

2.1 European and national policy

2.1.1 National Planning Policy Framework

The NPPF (Ref 18) published in March 2012, updated in July 2018 and revised in June 2019, sets out the
Government’s planning policies for England.

The NPPF sets strict tests to protect people and property from flooding which all local planning authorities are
expected to follow. Where these tests are not met, national policy is clear that new development should not
be allowed. The main steps are designed to ensure that if there are better sites in terms of flood risk, or a
proposed development cannot be made safe, it should not be permitted. The update in July 2018 added the
requirement for major developments to incorporate sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) unless there is
clear evidence that this would be inappropriate.

In March 2014 the Technical Guidance of the NPPF was replaced with the National Planning Practice
Guidance (NPPG) (Ref 17). This provides further guidance to local planning authorities to ensure the
effective implementation of planning policy set out in the NPPF on development in areas at risk of flooding.

2.1.2 Site-specific Flood Risk Assessment

Footnote 20 in the NPPF states that a site-specific FRA is required for proposals of 1 hectare or greater in
Flood Zone 1; all proposals for new development (including minor development and change of use) in Flood
Zones 2 and 3, or in an area within Flood Zone 1 which has critical drainage problems (as notified to the local
planning authority by the Environment Agency); and where proposed development or a change of use to a
more vulnerable class may be subject to other sources of flooding. Although the proposed Scheme is located
within Flood Zone 1, it is greater than 1ha in area and therefore a site-specific flood risk assessment has
been prepared.

Additionally, the FRA should demonstrate to the decision-maker how flood risk will be managed now and over
the development’s lifetime, taking climate change into account, and with regard to the vulnerability of its
users. The FRA should establish:
• Whether a proposed development is likely to be affected by current or future flooding from any source
• Whether it will increase flood risk elsewhere
• Whether the measures proposed to deal with these effects and risks are appropriate
• The evidence for the local planning authority to apply (if necessary) the Sequential Test
• Whether the development will be safe and pass the Exception Test, if applicable

2.1.3 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges

The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) is a suite of documents containing requirements and
advice for works on highways. It is required that the site drainage be designed in compliance with HD33/16
Design of Highway Drainage Systems (Ref 4).

The proposed design strategy must comply with the following design principals:

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002 5
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

• Removal of surface water from the carriageway as quickly as possible to provide safety and minimum
nuisance to the travelling public
• Provision of effective sub-surface drainage to maximise longevity of the pavement and its associated
earthworks
• Minimisation of the impact of the runoff on the receiving environment in terms of flood risk and water
quality

The following discharge destinations are the order of preference for highway runoff options:
1) Ground
2) Surface watercourse
3) Surface water sewer

2.2 Local flood risk policy

2.2.1 Eastleigh Borough Local Plan

The Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029 (Ref 5) is the key strategic planning document for Eastleigh
and will guide and support the delivery of new infrastructure (along with other items) until 2029. The report is
currently a revised pre-submission draft produced in 2014 that is now up for public consultation, before it will
be submitted for examination by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. The Local
Plan acknowledges the proposed Scheme in ‘Strategic policy S7’, however, it does not discuss site specific
details with regards to flood risk.

The Local Plan states that development within areas at risk from fluvial or coastal flooding will only be
supported if:
• A sequential test is carried out in line with NPPF guidance to demonstrate that this is the only site where
the development can be located.
• Where necessary, an exception test is carried out in line with NPPF guidance to demonstrate that:
- The proposed Scheme will provide wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh the
flood risk
- There is a site-specific FRA to show that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking into
account the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere
- That the development will not adversely affect existing flood defence or flood risk management
structures or measures

The Local Plan also states that there must be no increase in surface water run-off as a result of the proposed
Scheme, and sets out the following requirements:
• Surface water run-off should be managed as near to its source as possible through the use of SuDS,
unless it is justified why these are not appropriate.
• Where a watercourse is present it should be retained or restored into a natural state and enhanced
where possible. Culverting is not permitted.

The Local Plan advises that the following documents are consulted by developers:
• Most recent Environment Agency published flood maps
• Most recent contingency allowances as set out in the NPPF
• The Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) for the borough prepared in 2013
• The Local Flood Risk Management Strategy prepared by Hampshire City Council

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002 6
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

2.2.2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

The NPPF requires that local planning authorities prepare a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) in
consultation with the EA and others. The primary purpose of a Level 1 SFRA is to determine the variation in
flood risk across the District, based upon data from a variety of sources in order to apply the Sequential Test.

A SFRA for Hampshire as a whole has been prepared by the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire
(PUSH), a voluntary working group consisting of ten Hampshire local authorities and the County Council. The
original SFRA was produced in 2007 (Ref 1), however a revision was published in 2016 (Ref 6) to replace
this with current information. The Appendices to the SFRA include individual Guidance Documents specific to
each local authority – the Eastleigh Borough Council Guidance Document is also referred to for the purposes
of this FRA. It recommends the following key guidance be applied in the preparation of an FRA:
• The NPPF
• Planning Practice Guidance: Flood Risk and Coastal Change
• Flood risk assessment for planning applications, Environment Agency
• Flood risk assessment: standing advice, Environment Agency

Further to this the Eastleigh Borough Council Guidance Document gives additional guidance including:
• It is recommended that FRAs for sites located within the fluvial flood hazard zones undertake a more
detailed quantitative assessment of flood hazard based on an improved understanding of defences and
flow routes
• The impact of climate change on sea levels and flood extents should be considered to inform the
assessment of the long-term sustainability of developments currently within Flood Zone 1 and the likely
increases in flood risk in Flood Zones 2 and 3
• Site specific FRAs should consider the impact of development on the local surface water runoff regime
and should investigate SuDS options to manage surface water where achievable

2.2.3 Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

The Hampshire Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (LFRMS) (Ref 15) provides a general overview of
flood risk throughout the county of Hampshire, with the exception of Southampton, Portsmouth and the Isle of
Wight. The strategy focusses on local flooding caused by surface water, groundwater and flooding from
ordinary watercourses but recognises that all sources of flooding are inter-related. As such, it identifies the
areas within the county at highest risk of each type of flooding and associates the level of risk with a
monetary value. Eastleigh is not mentioned as one of these priority areas, but it is stated that flooding from
the sea is the predominant source of flood risk here – although not at the site of the proposed Scheme. The
proposed actions for developers outlined in the LFRMS are summarised below:
• Consider flooding in its wider context, particularly in terms of the downstream effects of decisions made
in specific locations and wider catchment effects.
• Aim to secure ‘multiple benefits’ (especially environmental and ecological) and deliver sustainability and
Water Framework Directive benefits wherever possible in the decision-making process for delivering
flood risk management infrastructure. This is likely to involve developing increased understanding of
environmental impacts and mitigation measures at a project level.
• Ensure adequate maintenance is undertaken of flood risk management assets and infrastructure for
which individual authorities, bodies and organisations are responsible.
• Take this Strategy into account when making decisions over land acquisitions.
• Design and layout sites to make the best use of natural drainage and topography.
• Ensure SuDS are used, wherever possible, to provide multiple benefits.

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002 7
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

2.3 The Sequential Test

The PUSH SFRA, in accordance with NPPF, sets out the requirements for applying the Sequential Test when
locating the development. The Sequential Test aims to steer new development to areas with the lowest
probability of flooding. The flood zones as refined in the Local Planning Authorities SFRA for the area provide
the basis for applying the Test. The aim is to steer new development to Flood Zone 1 (areas with a low
probability of river or sea flooding). Where there are no reasonably available sites in Flood Zone 1, local
planning authorities in their decision-making should take into account the flood risk vulnerability of land uses
and consider reasonably available sites in Flood Zone 2 (areas with a medium probability of river or sea
flooding), applying the Exception Test if required. Only where there are no reasonably available sites in Flood
Zones 1 or 2 should the suitability of sites in Flood Zone 3 (areas with a high probability of river or sea
flooding) be considered, taking into account the flood risk vulnerability of land uses and applying the
Exception Test if required.

The NPPG (Ref 17) also adds that surface water and other sources of flooding should be considered
consistently with river flooding in the assessment of vulnerability and application of the sequential test where
information is available.

The Sequential Test is applied to the proposed Scheme in Section 4.3.1.

2.4 The Exception Test

If a development is proposed that is not ‘appropriate’, as defined in Table 3 of the NPPG, then the Exception
Test is a method to demonstrate and ensure that flood risk to people and property will be managed
satisfactorily, while allowing necessary development to go ahead in situations where suitable sites at lower
risk of flooding are not available.

The two parts to the Test require the proposed development to show that it will provide wider sustainability
benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, and that it will be safe for its lifetime, without increasing
flood risk elsewhere and where possible reduce flood risk overall.

The Exception Test in relation to the proposed Scheme is discussed in Section 4.3.2.

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002 8
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

3. Site characteristics
3.1 Location

The site is situated north of the village of Bursledon, Hampshire, under the authority of Eastleigh Borough
Council. Junction 8 is located where the M27 meets Dodwell Lane, and links via Bert Betts Way (A3024) to
Windhover Roundabout approximately 400m to the west. This link provides the main means of access to the
parish of Bursledon. The A27 West End Road, the A3024 Bursledon Road and Hamble Lane also converge
at this roundabout. The National Grid Reference for junction 8 is SU 48463 11219 and for Windhover
Roundabout is SU 47975 10985. The Scheme location is shown on figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1: Scheme location

3.2 Existing site characteristics

3.2.1 Land use

Land use outside of the existing highways boundary in the immediate area of the proposed Scheme
predominantly comprises arable land (generally located to the north and east of Windhover Roundabout).
Various light industrial and commercial uses lie within 500m of the Scheme boundary to the south and south-
east. There are residential areas located to the south of the proposed Scheme in Bursledon and to the north
in Hightown.

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002 9
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

3.2.2 Topography

The ground level surrounding both junction 8 and Windhover Roundabout generally increases from south to
north. At junction 8 the M27 passes over the top of the roundabout. The level of the M27 at this point is
approximately 49 m above Ordnance Datum (AOD) while the level of the A3024 below is approximately 42m
AOD. Windhover Roundabout is uphill of junction 8, where the road level is approximately 60m AOD.

3.2.3 Geology

A review of the published British Geological Survey (BGS) map (Ref 2) indicates that the underlying bedrock
at junction 8 is of the London Clay Formation, and at Windhover Roundabout it is Wittering Formation, which
comprises laminated clay interbedded with some sandy layers. The Wittering Formation is classified as a
Secondary A aquifer. The London Clay Formation is classified as unproductive and is generally considered to
act as an aquitard.

There are no overlying superficial deposits recorded across the majority of the site, apart from River Terrace
Deposits along the western edge of Windhover Roundabout.

For further information regarding the geology of the site please refer to the Ground Investigation Report (GIR)
produced by Jacobs, 2019. The results of this investigation confirmed that the ground material agrees with
the information from BGS. The historic boreholes reviewed within this report encountered groundwater levels
at differing depths. This is assumed to be due to the interbedded granular layers of the Wittering Formation
and London Clay Formation.

3.2.4 Watercourses

According to the EA Flood Map for Planning (Ref 8), the nearest main river to the proposed Scheme is a
tributary associated with the River Hamble, approximately 600m north-east of junction 8.

There is an ordinary watercourse, Bursledon Brook, crossing the M27 junction 8 that is not recorded on the
Flood Map for Planning but has been identified from the EA surface water flood risk map (Ref 9). It rises in
the vicinity of the M27 / St. John’s Road (B3033) crossroad and consists of two unnamed minor tributaries,
defined in this document as the eastern tributary and the western tributary. The two minor tributaries are
culverted separately before reaching the M27 junction 8. The culverts pass under the M27 junction 8
roundabout and discharge to an open channel to the south east of the roundabout. The open channel reach
of the Bursledon Brook flows approximately 600m due south east, before crossing the M27 once again.

3.2.5 Existing site drainage

Surface water drainage runs of traditional kerb and gully and/or kerb inlet gully drainage appear to be the
most commonly used edge collection drainage for the arms and central islands of the existing junctions at
Windhover Roundabout and M27 junction 8, including the link road (Bert Betts Way) connecting the two
junctions. Collected surface water runoff is conveyed using either filter drains (i.e. perforated carrier drains
within granular filter media), standard carrier drains and/or road side drainage ditches.

The existing drainage system at and around M27 junction 8 (includes the drainage from Bert Betts Way)
discharges to an existing ordinary watercourse south east of M27 junction 8. The existing drainage systems
at and around Windhover Roundabout (including three different drainage catchments) discharge to existing
drainage systems along Bursledon Road, Providence Hill and Hamble Lane. Existing surface water
attenuation features such as attenuation storage ponds, underground attenuation storage tanks or pollution
control measures are not present for the above-mentioned existing outfalls.

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002 10
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

MicroDrainage modelling has been undertaken for the existing drainage system to establish existing peak
discharge rates and existing flooded volumes for the 100% (1 in 1), 20% (1 in 5), 3.33% (1 in 30) and 1% (1
in 100) AEP events. The results of this analysis are presented in appendix A. The modelling results suggest
that the existing system has capacity to accommodate the 100% (1 in 1) AEP event with some catchments
having capacity to accommodate up to the 20% (1 in 5) AEP event.

3.3 Proposed works

Works to the M27 junction 8 and Windhover Roundabout include junction widening and traffic signal
improvements, including improved facilities for pedestrians and cyclists. Further details are provided in the
sections below. The proposed Scheme design is shown in Appendix B of the Environmental Assessment
Report.

3.3.1 M27 junction 8

Proposed works at junction 8 will include:

• Localised junction widening around the circulatory carriageway and on the on-slip and off-slip roads:
- a third lane around the circulatory carriageway
- an additional lane on the approaches to the roundabout entry
• The introduction of traffic signals, including provisions for walkers, cyclists and horse riders (WCH). It is
proposed that the give way method of control is removed, and traffic signals are introduced on all arms
of the roundabout
• A new WCH path linking M27 junction 8 with Windhover Roundabout and onwards to A3024 Bursledon
Road

3.3.2 A27 Windhover Roundabout

Proposed works at Windhover Roundabout, similarly to those at junction 8, will include:

• Localised junction widening around the circulatory carriageway and the entry / exit lanes:
- the circulatory carriageway will be widened to have three lanes
- an extra entry lane will be added at the A3024 Bert Betts Way, A27 Providence Hill, and A27 West
End Road
• Signal improvements, including provisions for WCH:
- new crossing facilities will be included to accommodate pedestrian and cycle movements around
the junction. These WCH crossings will connect to existing pedestrian and cycle paths as well as
the new WCH link from M27 junction 8
• A new 3m wide shared WCH route to the south of A3024 Bert Betts Way (connecting to M27 junction 8)
and across the centre of the roundabout from A27 West End Road to A27 Providence Hill

3.3.3 Proposed site drainage

The proposed highway improvement works include the widening of the existing road in certain areas and
improvement works at roundabouts, which results in a total increase in impermeable area (see Table 3.1).
This increase in impermeable area will require adequate drainage to manage the increased surface water
runoff.

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002 11
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Table 3.1: Area summary for existing vs proposed site conditions

Total Permeable/
Impermeable/Paved Natural Catchment
Catchment Grass/Verge
Area (ha) Area (ha)
Area (ha) Area (ha)

Windhover Roundabout: Network 1 (Outfall to existing drainage system at Bursledon Road)

Existing Site Condition 4.808 0.839 1.425 2.544

Proposed Site Condition 5.459 1.191 1.724 2.544

Windhover Roundabout: Network 2 (Outfall to existing drainage system at Providence Hill Road)

Existing Site Condition 0.843 0.535 0.308 -

Proposed Site Condition 0.843 0.581 0.262 -

Windhover Roundabout: Network 3 (Outfall to existing drainage system at Hamble Lane)

Existing Site Condition 0.852 0.331 0.521 -

Proposed Site Condition 0.852 0.464 0.388 -

M27 junction 8 - Outfall to an existing watercourse

Existing Site Condition 58.091 6.161 5.93 46

Proposed Site Condition 58.091 6.841 5.25 46

The proposed highway improvement works at Windhover Roundabout and M27 junction 8 include kerbed
sections, therefore the new surface water collection system will use either trapped gullies or combined kerb
drains. Collected surface water runoff will be conveyed using filter drains (i.e. perforated carrier drains within
granular filter media) or swale/road side drainage ditches in most locations. Standard carrier drains will be
used at other locations. Attenuation storage is to be provided by an underground geocellular storage systems
and attenuation basins to restrict increased surface water runoff rates and volumes from the proposed
Scheme prior to discharge to existing watercourses/existing drainage systems. As all the proposed
improvement works are to be undertaken within the existing highway boundary, it is proposed that any
additional attenuation storage will be provided by means of oversized combined kerb drains, oversized pipes
and maximising the capacity of roadside drainage ditches via provision of check dams.

Due to the spatial constraints of the highway boundary, it is also proposed that the existing drainage system
be re-used as much as possible. The proposed drainage system will include SuDS measures in the form of
existing filter drains in certain locations where these are being retained and new filter drains where the
existing drainage is affected by the scheme, swales, roadside drainage ditches and attenuation storage
provided by means of attenuation basins and underground geocellular storage systems.

Details of the proposed scheme drainage design can be found in Appendix A. Assessment of the impact of
the proposed drainage system on surface water flood risk is discussed in Section 5.2.

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002 12
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

4. Existing flood risk

4.1 Assessment of flood risk

4.1.1 Fluvial flood risk

The EA Flood Map for Planning (FMfP, Ref 8) indicates that the footprint of the proposed Scheme lies entirely
within Flood Zone 1 which is defined as areas where the risk of flooding from major fluvial sources is less
than 0.1% (1 in 1000) AEP. The closest mapped floodplain is approximately 600m to the north and is
associated with tributaries of the River Hamble. The flood risk from main rivers is therefore considered to be
very low, however the Flood Map for Planning generally does not map floodplains from smaller watercourses.
An extract from the EA Flood Map for Planning at the location of the existing site is shown in Figure 4.1
below.

Figure 4.1: EA Flood Map for Planning

Two ordinary watercourses which are tributaries of Bursledon Brook flow from north to south and are
culverted beneath junction 8. The western tributary flows through a network of culverts ranging in size from
600mm diameter under Peewit Hill to a 525mm diameter culvert beneath junction 8. The eastern tributary
enters a 450mm diameter culvert at Peewit Hill which extends under Dodwell Lane. At the confluence of the
two tributaries the watercourse enters another 675mm culvert before discharging to an open channel to the
east of the M27.

The risk of flooding from these minor watercourses is not accounted for on the FMfP but the EA surface water
flood risk map indicates that these are potential sources of local flood risk with flooding to the roundabout
predicted during the 3.33% AEP flood event. These culverts also pose a risk of flooding due to blockages and
collapse.
HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002 13
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

To further understand the risk associated with these watercourses, hydraulic modelling has been undertaken.
This considered a range of flood events and included representations of the culverted sections of
watercourse. The details of the hydraulic modelling undertaken can be found in the modelling report in
Appendix C.

Analysis of the results of this modelling indicates that localised flooding occurs on the western tributary during
events greater than the 50% (1 in 2) AEP event. The culvert which conveys the western tributary under
Peewit Hill surcharges during the 3.33% AEP flood event resulting in out of bank flow which passes towards
junction 8. The culvert that conveys the western tributary beneath junction 8 is even smaller and also
surcharges during this flood event with water ponding at the north-west corner of the roundabout.

The eastern tributary also floods in events greater than 50% (1 in 2) AEP where the tributary is culverted at
Peewit Hill Close. The excess floodwater flows onto the adjacent slip road north of the junction and continues
down onto the roundabout. There is some pooling at the north-east corner of the roundabout at the mouth of
the culvert that crosses Dodwell Lane. Flood extents on the eastern side of the roundabout are considerably
less than to the west, however flooding on both sides contributes to flooding on the roundabout itself. In the
3.3% (1 in 30) AEP flood depths on the carriageway are predicted to reach a maximum of 620mm.

During the 1% AEP flood event, flood depths observed in the north-east and north-west corners of the
junction are predicted to reach a maximum of 1.1m with shallower flooding up to 750mm deep extending onto
the carriageway of the A3024.

During the 100 year design life of the proposed Scheme, fluvial flows are predicted to increase. Climate
change is discussed in detail in section 4.2 but based on EA guidance, an uplift of fluvial flows of 35% has
been modelled. During the 1% AEP event with 35% climate change allowance flood depths up to 1.5m are
observed in the north-east and north-west corners of the junction and flooding up to 850mm deep is observed
on the carriageway. A map showing the predicted flood depths during this flood event is presented in Figure
4.2.

Figure 4.2: Baseline hydraulic model of ordinary watercourse - 1% AEP + 35% Climate Change

The results of the modelling are confirmed by historical flood events with two flood events recorded on the
Highways Agency Drainage Data Management System (HADDMS) (Ref 16) at the location where the open
channel becomes culverted at Peewit Hill, which have both been attributed to issues with the culvert.

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002 14
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

With flooding of the junction 8 roundabout predicted during the 1% AEP flood event, the baseline fluvial flood
risk from ordinary watercourses in this location is considered to be high.

No watercourses are recorded in the vicinity of Windhover Roundabout. Based on the information available, it
is considered that there is low risk of fluvial flooding at the Windhover Roundabout end of the proposed
Scheme.

4.1.2 Tidal flood risk

As confirmed in the Eastleigh Local Plan and PUSH SFRA, the river Hamble is tidal up to Botley Mill. The
highest tide level recorded on the river Hamble is 2.80m AOD (Ref 11) while the lowest point of the site of the
proposed Scheme is 42m AOD. Based on this information it is considered that there is no risk of tidal flooding
to the existing site and it will not be considered further within this report.

4.1.3 Surface water flood risk

The Environment Agency’s surface water flood risk map (see Figure 4.3) identifies existing surface water
flood risk at junction 8 in the form of two flow paths travelling south towards the junction and converging into
one flow path south east of the junction. This map shows the existing site to be at a high risk of flooding
(greater than 3.3% (1 in 30) AEP) in areas along the roundabout and in surrounding land. In the low risk
event, there are areas of flooding on the roundabout where flood depths over 900mm are shown.

As discussed in Section 4.1.1 it is considered that a proportion of the flooding on the roundabout shown on
this map is associated with the ordinary watercourse crossing junction 8, and thus is being treated as fluvial
flood risk. Surface water runoff as a result of rainfall events will also contribute to the extent of flood risk at the
roundabout.

At Windhover Roundabout the EA surface water flood risk map shows two small areas at risk of surface
water flooding during the 3.33% AEP event on the existing road. However, it is noted that the EA’s surface
water flood maps do not include any representation of road drainage and that any surface water risk in these
areas may be effectively mitigated by the existing drainage system.

The HCC Eastleigh SWMP (Ref 14) does not include any accounts of surface water flooding issues within
proximity of either junction. Highways England’s Drainage Data Management System (HADDMS) (Ref 16)
was consulted and records of seven historic flood events were identified within proximity to junction 8,
occurring in the years between 2005 and 2015. These are all ranked as low to medium severity events, and
several are attributed to drainage inefficiencies.

Based on available information from the EA’s surface water flood risk map it is considered that the existing
surface water flood risk at the site of the proposed Scheme is high. This may be a conservative assessment
however as fluvial flood risk from the ordinary watercourse is assumed to contribute.

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002 15
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Figure 4.3: EA Surface Water Flood Risk Map

4.1.4 Flood risk from sewers

Flooding from surface water sewers and combined sewers primarily occurs when flow entering the system
exceeds its available capacity. As a result, the collected water can begin to surcharge the sewer system
emerging at ground level through chambers and gullies giving rise to flooding. As stated in the HCC LFRMS,
sewer flooding is very much inter-related with the other sources of flooding. When surface water and
groundwater flooding occurs, this can inundate sewer systems. Sewer flooding can also be a result of
blockages within the network, and so proper maintenance is key to minimise sewer flooding risk.

The borough of Eastleigh is served by Southern Water, who are responsible for the supply and maintenance
of foul and surface water sewerage systems. On review of the sewer records obtained from Southern Water it
was observed that there is significant sewer infrastructure around the junctions. This map is included in
Appendix B. The HCC Eastleigh SWMP highlights two known locations with sewer flooding issues within the
parish of Bursledon. These occur at Church Lane and Long Lane, which are both more than 900m south of
the proposed Scheme. The flooding at Church Lane is attributed to its proximity to the River Hamble, as the
high tides block the drainage outfall, and the flooding at Long Lane is attributed an under-capacity drainage
system. Both issues are managed with regular maintenance. The ‘Eastleigh Historic Flooding’ map in
Appendix B of the SWMP does not identify any other flooding incidents within proximity of the site. A request
was sent to Southern Water for information regarding historic flooding in this area, however it was found that
Southern Water does not hold any flood risk data for this area.

Based on the information provided in the HCC Eastleigh SWMP as described above, the risk of sewer
flooding to the existing site is considered to be low.

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002 16
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

4.1.5 Flood risk from water (potable) supply infrastructure

According to data published by the Environment Agency (Ref 12) there are no groundwater Source
Protection Zones (SPZ) or groundwater abstraction points within the study area.

Southern Water is the regional water authority for this location. Based on the existing services drawing and
C2 replies received, Southern Water have several existing potable water mains buried under the existing
carriageway on both Windhover Roundabout and M27 junction 8.

One of the seven flood events identified on HADDMS within proximity to the proposed Scheme has been
attributed to a burst water main. This event occurred in 2015 on the westbound on-slip road to M27 junction 8
and was the first known instance of flooding here from this source.

Whilst there is a potential risk of flooding from this source, it is considered to be a residual risk associated
with failures of the supply network. The resulting flooding is likely to be shallow with flows managed by the
surface water drainage network. Therefore, it is assumed that the risk of flooding from this source is low.

4.1.6 Groundwater flood risk

According to the PUSH SFRA for Eastleigh (2016), there have been several incidences of groundwater
flooding in northern parts of the borough within the River Itchen catchment. This region is far from the site of
the proposed Scheme, and no other accounts of groundwater flood risk elsewhere in the borough are
mentioned. Further to this the ‘Eastleigh Historic Flooding’ map in Appendix B of the HCC Eastleigh SWMP
does not show any incidents of groundwater flooding south of the town of Eastleigh, approximately 8.2km
from the proposed Scheme.

As discussed in Section 3.2.3, the eastern part of the existing site, including M27 junction 8, lies above the
London Clay Formation which is generally considered to act as an aquiclude i.e. it provides an impermeable
layer which acts as a barrier to the flow of groundwater. The western part of the site, including Windhover
Roundabout, is located above the Wittering Formation, which is a secondary A bedrock aquifer. Superficial
deposits are absent except for pockets of high permeability River Terrace Deposits to the west of Windhover
Roundabout and the A27. These superficial deposits are also classed as secondary A aquifer.

Historical borehole logs available have been reviewed in the GIR prepared by Jacobs in 2019. Amongst
these, groundwater has been found at differing depths across the site, the shallowest groundwater strike
being 1.1 metres below ground level. Where groundwater is shallow it is considered that there are perched
aquifers on top of the London Clay Formation that are in continuity with local watercourses. While there is the
possibility that these perched water bodies and the secondary A aquifers identified may contribute to flood
flows, it is considered that this will be insignificant compared to surface water contributions.

Based on the review of information as described above, the risk of groundwater flooding to the existing site is
considered to be low.

4.1.7 Flood risk from reservoirs

Reservoir failure can be a particularly dangerous form of flooding as it results in the sudden release of large
volumes of water which can travel down a river valley at high velocity. This can result in deep and widespread
flooding, potentially resulting in significant damage, although it should be noted that flooding from reservoirs
is extremely unlikely.

The EA flood risk from reservoirs mapping (Ref 9) illustrates the maximum extent of flooding that could
potentially occur in the event of a reservoir failure. There are no potential reservoir flooding flow paths shown
within proximity of the existing site. Based on this evidence there is not considered to be any potential flood
risk from reservoirs at the existing site.

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002 17
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

4.1.8 Flood risk from canals

The nearest canal is the Titchfield Canal, located approximately 8km south west of the proposed Scheme
and outside of the catchment of the River Hamble. Therefore, no potential flood risk from canals to the
proposed Scheme is identified.

4.1.9 Historical flooding

The HCC PFRA (Ref 13) includes reports on the historic flooding incidents within Hampshire between 2000
and 2001 when there was exceptional rainfall flooding. On the map showing the location of known flooding
incidents, the distribution of events in the vicinity of the proposed Scheme appears extremely sparse. The
document does indicate that events within the Hamble catchment were mainly attributed to rainfall runoff from
saturated ground, and a few attributed to spring flows from local minor aquifers.

The ‘Eastleigh Historic Flooding’ map in Appendix B of the HCC Eastleigh SWMP does not show any flooding
incidents within the existing site. The closest events to the site are attributed to foul water and surface water
flooding, which occurred approximately 900m south of the scheme and 850m north of the scheme
respectively.

4.2 Climate change

It is important to understand the impacts of climate change on all sources of flooding in order for the
development to be suitably resilient to changes throughout its design life. The assumed design life of this
development is 100 years; the climate change assessment has therefore been based on this time period.

In February 2016 the Environment Agency (EA) published updated climate change allowance guidance (Ref
10) to support the NPPF which has been considered for this assessment. The EA’s guidance details the level
of technical assessment required to assess the impacts of climate change on flooding for new developments,
this is dependent on the location (flood zones), design life and vulnerability classification (detailed in Table 2
of the PPG) of the development.

4.2.1 Peak river flow

In accordance with the EA’s guidance, the allowance to be made for the predicted impact of climate change
on peak river flows is subject to the river basin district. The proposed Scheme is located within the South
East river basin district. The sensitivity ranges recommended by the EA to assess peak river flow in the South
East region are detailed in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Climate change allowances for peak river flow in the South East river basin (using 1961 to 1990 baseline)

Allowance Category Total Anticipated Total Anticipated Total Anticipated

Change for the ‘2020’s’ Change for the ‘2050’s’ Change for the ‘2080’s’
(2015 to 2039) (2040 to 2069) (2070 to 2115)

Upper end 25% 50% 105%

Higher Central 15% 30% 45%

Central 10% 20% 35%

The Allowance Category used is dependent on the vulnerability classification of the development and the
Flood Zone it is located in. As explained in Section 4.3, the development is Essential Infrastructure located in
fluvial Flood Zone 1.

Assuming a 100-year design life, a climate change uplift of 35% should be used.

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002 18
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

4.2.2 Peak rainfall intensity

The sensitivity ranges in Table 4.2 provide the EA’s appropriate precautionary response to the uncertainty
about climate change impacts on peak rainfall intensity. The uplift factors detailed should be used for design
purposes to assess the impacts on the surface water drainage networks.

Table 4.2: Peak rainfall intensity allowance in small and urban catchments

Allowance Category Total Anticipated Total Anticipated Total Anticipated

Change for the ‘2020’s’ Change for the ‘2050’s’ Change for the ‘2080’s’
(2015 to 2039) (2040 to 2069) (2070 to 2115)

Upper end 10% 20% 40%

Central 5% 10% 20%

Assuming a 100-year design life, a climate change uplift of 20% should be used with a check of the
consequences of 40% uplift.

4.3 Vulnerability classification

Table 2 of the Flood Zone and Flood Risk Tables section of the NPPG classifies the flood risk vulnerability of
all land uses. The proposed Scheme has been classified as ‘Essential Infrastructure’ in accordance with this
Table, as the road should remain operational during times of flood.

4.3.1 The Sequential Test

The aim of the sequential test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. As
the works are an expansion of two existing roundabouts, relocating the Scheme is considered impractical.
Road improvements at this junction are also identified as being required within the Eastleigh Borough
Council’s Local Plan. Therefore, the sequential test is assumed to be passed.

4.3.2 The Exception Test

Table 3 of the NPPF (substantially reproduced here as Table 4.3) defines appropriate land uses for each
flood zone and helps guide development to areas of lower flood risk. The proposed Scheme, being classified
as ‘Essential Infrastructure’ would be considered appropriate within Flood Zones 1 and 2 but would have to
pass the Exception Test if they were located within Flood Zone 3 or are at risk of flooding from other sources.
In this case the site is located within Flood Zone 1 according to the Environment Agency’s ‘Flood map for
planning’ but a high risk has been identified from ordinary watercourses.

Due to the magnitude of flood risk associated with the ordinary watercourse at junction 8, the Exception Test
is assumed to be required. As such the proposed Scheme will need to be safe throughout its lifetime and not
adversely impact the environment whilst also providing wider benefits to the community that outweigh the
flood risk issues.

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002 19
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Table 4.3: Flood risk vulnerability and flood zone 'compatibility' (NPPG Table 3)

The wider sustainability benefits of the proposed Scheme include improved road safety and the improved
traffic flow. The need for these improvements is detailed in the Environmental Assessment Report for the
proposed Scheme. Therefore, it is assumed that the wider benefits of the scheme have been established and
that the exception test can be passed subject to the Scheme being shown to be safe. Safe access and
operation of the proposed Scheme is discussed in Section 6.1.

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002 20
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

5. Flood risk to the proposed Scheme

5.1 Fluvial

As discussed in Section 4.1.1, hydraulic modelling undertaken as part of this assessment has identified that
the proposed Scheme is at risk of flooding from ordinary watercourses at M27 junction 8 during the 1% (1 in
100) AEP event.

To manage the risk of fluvial flooding from the two tributaries of Bursledon Brook, the design of the proposed
Scheme includes several mitigation measures. To manage flows from the eastern tributary, a series of flood
storage measures comprising a basin, an underground tank and a pond are proposed which would provide a
total of 5,866 m3 of storage.

Risk from the western tributary would be managed by a flood wall along the north-west corner of the
roundabout to prevent water from flowing onto the carriageway. Another storage area adjacent to this wall
with a capacity of 2,917 m3 would then partially mitigate for the loss of floodplain storage on the carriageway.
A plan of the proposed mitigation can be seen in Appendix F.

With the proposed mitigation measures in place, the hydraulic modelling demonstrates that there would be no
flooding on the carriageway during the 1% AEP fluvial flood event with 35% climate change allowance.

Whilst the mitigation has a beneficial effect on flood risk to the proposed Scheme, land ownership constraints
have restricted the size of the storage areas and the volume available is not sufficient to fully mitigate the
displacement of flows from the carriageway. Therefore, the modelling predicts that there would be an
increase in flood extents and depths at the north-west corner of the junction 8 roundabout as a result of the
proposed Scheme outside of the proposed storage area.

In the 1% AEP event with 35% climate change allowance the proposed Scheme would result in flood extents
increasing by approximately 880 m2 across the adjacent land with flood depths in this area increasing by up
to approximately 300 mm. The area of this adverse impact comprises fields for horse grazing with no
buildings or access routes impacted. At the time of writing, landowner agreement around these impacts has
not been finalised. It is anticipated however, that this will be managed during the detailed design phase
through landowner compensation or by increasing the size of the flood storage area to 2,617 m2 to enable the
impacts of the scheme to be fully mitigated during detailed design.

5.2 Surface water

As the proposed Scheme will result an increase in impermeable surface area, the proposed Scheme design
incorporates additional surface water management measures to manage the increase in surface water runoff.
A description of the proposed drainage infrastructure is provided in Section 3.3.3.

In accordance with DMRB guidelines, the proposed drainage strategy adheres to the following design
standards:
• 100% (1 in 1) – No surcharge of the drainage system
• 20% (1 in 5) + 20% climate change allowance – No flooding from the drainage system
• 1% (1 in 100) + 20% climate change allowance – Not exceed allowable discharge rates

MicroDrainage modelling has been undertaken for the proposed Scheme. The modelling results suggest that
the proposed drainage measures outlined in Section 3.3.3 would maintain and/or provide a reduction to
existing peak discharge rates for the 100% (1 in 1), 20% (1 in 5) , 3.33% (1 in 30) and 1% (1 in 100) AEP
events allowing for a climate change uplift of 20% across all events. The modelling results also confirmed that
there is no increase to existing flooded volumes from the drainage network and/or flood risk over the existing
site conditions as a result of the mitigation storage for all events up to and including the 1% (1 in 100) AEP
event allowing for a climate change uplift of 20%. Details of the attenuated volumes and discharge rates of
the proposed drainage strategy can be found in Appendix A.
HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002 21
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

The surface water flooding shown on the EA surface water flood risk maps at junction 8 is being treated as
fluvial flooding resulting from the ordinary watercourse that passes through the site and will be dealt with
through separate mitigation measures as discussed in Section 5.1. It should be noted that the fluvial model
has made conservative assumptions based on storage usage in the with-scheme drainage model regarding
the likely capacity available within the drainage network at the time of any fluvial flooding. It is likely therefore
that integrated modelling of the surface water and fluvial flood risk would reduce the volume of flooding in the
with-scheme scenario.

5.3 Groundwater

The proposed Scheme comprises new areas of road carriageway at or above existing ground level. No deep
excavations or deep buried structures are proposed. Therefore, no mechanism by which the proposed
development could impact groundwater flooding has been identified. It is therefore considered that
groundwater flood risk will not be affected as a result of the scheme.

5.4 Other sources

There is a predominately low flood risk from other sources as detailed in Section 4, and it is considered that
this will not be affected as a result of the proposed Scheme.

5.5 Construction phase

Detailed construction plans and method statements are not available at the time of writing this FRA.
However, this section provides an overview of potential flood risks for the Contractor to consider during the
construction phase. It is the Contractor’s responsibility to assess the flood risk to work areas, to assess the
flood risk resulting both to and from temporary works, and to provide appropriate mitigation measures where
necessary.

Temporary works can be at risk of flooding and have the potential to impact flood risks both to work areas
and to receptors beyond the work site. Table 5.1 below outlines some typical construction activities and the
potential impacts of these with respect to flooding.

Table 5.1: Typical construction elements

Temporary Works Description Potential Short-Term Impacts

Temporary Including excavation for Excavation works could result in the pooling of pluvial
earthworks access road cuttings, pre- runoff, the emergence of groundwater, the creation of an
earthworks drainage, impounded body of water or a water mains strike. Works
trenches; and filling for associated with filling could result in the diversion of
access roads, site overland flow routes, a reduction in floodplain storage,
compound areas and impacts on floodplain conveyance, and increased volumes
temporary spoil storage of surface water runoff.
Temporary drainage Including site compound Temporary drainage could increase both the rate and
drainage, temporary road volume of pluvial runoff to a receiving watercourse or sewer
drainage, pre-earthworks and has the potential to transfer sediment to the receiving
drainage watercourse or sewer (potentially affecting the flooding
mechanisms of the watercourse).
Works within or Including temporary river Temporary work located within or adjacent to watercourses
adjacent to works, such as over- could affect the frequency, depth, extent and duration of
watercourses pumping, diversions, fluvial flooding.
damming; and temporary
access crossings, requiring
culverting or bridging of
watercourses

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002 22
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Temporary Works Description Potential Short-Term Impacts

General site Including site compounds The location of site compounds and the storage of
activities and the storage of construction materials and equipment on site could
construction materials and potentially reduce floodplain storage and divert flood flow
equipment; and works routes. Placing working sites within the floodplain could
traffic also place human life at risk. Works traffic could also
damage existing sewers or land drains, and could also
compact ground, which could increase pluvial runoff.

During the construction phase there are several sources of flood risk that the Contractor should be aware of
when planning the works. It is considered that there is the potential for an increase in surface water runoff as
a result of soil compaction due to works traffic and increases in impermeable area from temporary hard
standings. Any increase in surface water runoff should be mitigated through provision of temporary site
drainage. It may be necessary to provide standby pumping equipment to remove any surface water runoff
that enters the working area. It should be ensured that site drainage is not discharged to a local sewer.
Drainage receiving runoff which is expected to contain sediment should be directed towards a suitable sized
temporary settlement pond that provides sufficient treatment before being discharged to a watercourse.
These measures will prevent an increase in surface water flood risk to the site or to surrounding areas during
the construction phase.

During construction, encroachment into the fluvial and surface water flood extents should be minimised. The
location of site compounds and storage areas should be located outside of the ordinary watercourse flow
paths which traverse junction 8 in culverted sections. The hydraulic modelling carried out indicates that there
is risk of flooding in the land adjacent to M27 junction 8 for events greater than the 50% (1 in 2) AEP event.
Where there are areas of pooled floodwater in the 1% (1 in 100) AEP event with climate change allowance,
flood depths of up to 1.5 metres are observed. Where it is not practical to avoid temporary works in areas at
risk of flooding, the Contractor should take into account the depth of flooding, potential floodplain flows and
local site conditions to place more vulnerable works in lower risk areas. It is recommended that the
Contractor prepare a flood response plan and, if necessary, monitor water levels or design temporary works
to divert the watercourse.

Although groundwater flood risk at the site is considered to be low, the Contractor may deem it necessary
that groundwater control be provided in any proposed excavations in the Withering and London Clay
Formations.

There is also a risk posed by the existing potable water mains that are located under the existing
carriageway, discussed in Section 4.1.5. The water supply needs to stay connected, so the mains may need
to be diverted prior to work commencing. The proposed works on these water mains has not been dealt with
as part of this application. It is considered that the flood risk associated with burst main pipes will be mitigated
as part of the construction works to be agreed with the water company.

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002 23
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

6. Development considerations
In accordance with NPPF guidance, the development should:
• Remain operational and safe for users in times of flood
• Result in no net loss of floodplain storage
• Not impede water flows and not increase flood risk elsewhere

The following sections discuss these development considerations.

6.1 Safe access and operation

The NPPF states that development should not increase flood risk elsewhere and that development should
only be considered appropriate in areas at risk of flooding where it can be demonstrated that the most
vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest flood risk. The development must also make provision
for safe access and escape during times of flood.

As discussed in Section 5.1, hydraulic modelling undertaken has identified that the design of the scheme will
enable it to remain operational during a 1% AEP flood event with safe access provided during this event. The
design has included consideration of the predicted impacts of climate change to ensure that this design
requirement will be met throughout the proposed Scheme’s 100 year life.

6.2 Loss of floodplain storage

As the site is located within Flood Zone 1, no loss of active floodplain associated with main rivers will occur
as a result of the proposed Scheme.

With regards to the ordinary watercourse that intersects the scheme at junction 8, the existing areas of
flooding that occur at the north-east, north-west and south-west corners of the junction would be displaced by
the proposed works. Mitigation has been incorporated into the design to minimise this loss of floodplain as
discussed in Section 5.1.

Despite this mitigation, there is still predicted to be an increase in flood extents as a result of the proposed
Scheme. However, it is proposed that this will be addressed by landowner compensation or by increasing the
size of the north-east storage area to 2,617 m2 enabling the impacts of the scheme to be fully mitigated
during detailed design.

6.3 Interaction of flood flow paths and development and flood risk elsewhere

As discussed in Section 6.3, the flood wall that is proposed to protect the carriageway from flooding from the
western tributary of Bursledon Brook will block off flood flows and is predicted to result in increased flooding
to land adjacent to the scheme.

With the proposed drainage strategy and flood mitigation in place it is considered that flow paths crossing the
site will be managed by the proposed drainage and peak flows downstream will remain as existing or be
reduced. Attenuation features are incorporated within the design to prevent an increase in runoff rates, as
discussed in Section 3.3.3.

In the case of the ordinary watercourse at junction 8, it is expected that the proposed mitigation will prevent
an increase in flood extents in surrounding land. Hydraulic modelling demonstrates no increase in peak flows
downstream of the proposed Scheme and therefore there will be no increase in flood risk downstream as a
result of the Scheme.

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002 24
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

6.4 Groundwater

It is not expected that the proposed storage areas will act as an artificial recharge to the groundwater system.
As the bedrock below the scheme at junction 8 is described as impermeable, there is potential for perched
water to result at this location. Given that the existing groundwater flood risk is considered to be low and the
storage areas will only be active for short periods of time during a flood event it is considered that the
proposed storage areas will not affect groundwater flood risk elsewhere.

Towards the eastern end of the scheme at Windhover Roundabout the geology identified is classified as a
secondary aquifer. However, as the majority of the proposed Scheme is at or above existing ground level with
only some minor shallow depth excavation required, it is considered that the scheme will not impact
groundwater flood risk within the site or elsewhere.

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002 25
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

7. Conclusion and recommendations

7.1 Development suitability

The proposed Scheme is located within Flood Zone 1 and is classified as ‘Essential Infrastructure’ in
accordance with the NPPG. As such, the development is considered appropriate. Due to the level of flood
risk associated with an ordinary watercourse identified at junction 8, it has been demonstrated through the
undertaking of the Exception Test that there is no other appropriate site available with lower flood risk, and
that the proposed Scheme will remain safe throughout its lifetime and provide wider sustainability benefits to
the community.

7.2 Summary of flood risk

The flood risk assessment has found that the main sources of risk to the proposed Scheme are fluvial flood
risk from ordinary watercourses and surface water.

The site of the proposed Scheme is located in Flood Zone 1 but has a high risk of flooding from Ordinary
Watercourses. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the scheme design to ensure that the
proposed Scheme would remain safe from flooding during the 1% AEP fluvial flood event including an
allowance for climate change.

Whilst the mitigation measures would result in an increased level of flood risk to land adjacent to the scheme,
this would be further mitigated through landowner agreements to expand the volume of the proposed flood
storage areas or to compensate for the increase level of flood risk.

The proposed Scheme has been designed to include surface water drainage infrastructure that will manage
surface water runoff from the site through use of SuDS measures. An assessment of the proposed system
has demonstrated that it will meet the requirements of the DMRB and that risks from surface water to the
scheme will be effectively managed. Attenuation storage will be sufficient to ensure that discharges from the
proposed Scheme do not increase.

7.3 Flood risk impact of the development

Whilst most of the potential impacts of the proposed development on flood risk elsewhere have been
effectively mitigated, it is predicted that there would be some adverse impacts to fluvial flood risk.

At the time of writing landowner agreement around these impacts has not been finalised. It is anticipated that
this will be resolved with landowner compensation or increasing the size of the north-western storage area.

7.4 Recommendations

To ensure that the proposed Scheme meets the requirements of the NPPF the following actions are
recommended:
• Further liaison should be undertaken with landowners to enable the expansion of flood storage areas to
the north west of the scheme or to agree the increased level of flood risk to their land at the north-east
corner of junction 8
• Any changes to the proposed Scheme that impact on flood risk are re-assessed to ensure compliance
with this FRA. These will be agreed with the LLFA at detailed design stage or as part of the ordinary
watercourse consenting process
• A detailed maintenance and management plan should be produced at the detailed design stage to detail
requirements for the on-going management of the proposed surface water drainage network, including
the SuDS features, for the lifetime of the development
• Information and data from the relevant council bodies and the Environment Agency is regularly reviewed
throughout the planning process, as new information might be made available
HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002 26
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

• The contractor should obtain all required permits prior to construction phase works

It should also be noted that there may be an opportunity to rationalise the mitigation and drainage proposed if
more detailed assessment were undertaken using an integrated hydraulic model incorporating both drainage
and fluvial elements.

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002 27
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

8. References
1 Atkins. (2007). Partnership for Urban South Hampshire Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

2 British Geological Survey. (2019). Geology of Britain online map viewer. Available at:
http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html [Accessed: September 2019]

3 CIRIA. (2007). SuDs Manual (C753)

4 Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (2016) Design of Highway Drainage Systems HD 33/16.
Vol.4 Section 2 Part 3. Available at:
http://www.standardsforhighways.co.uk/ha/standards/dmrb/vol4/section2.htm [Accessed September
2019]

5 Eastleigh Borough Council. (2014). Eastleigh Borough Local Plan 2011-2029 Revised Pre-
Submission

6 Eastern Solent Coastal Partnership. (2016). PUSH Strategic Flood Risk Assessment – 2016 Update

7 Environment Agency. (2009). South East Hampshire Catchment Flood Management Plan

8 Environment Agency. (2019). Flood Map for Planning. Available at: https://flood-map-for-
planning.service.gov.uk/. [Accessed: August 2019]

9 Environment Agency. (2019). Long term flood risk information. Available at: https://flood-warning-
information.service.gov.uk/long-term-flood-risk/map [Accessed: August 2019]

10 Environment Agency. (2019). Flood Risk Assessments: Climate Change Allowances. Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-assessments-climate-change-allowances [Accessed: August
2019]

11 Environment Agency. (2019). Flood information service: Tidal level Tide at Hamble. Available at:
https://flood-warning-information.service.gov.uk/station/9200?direction=u [Accessed: August 2019]

12 Environment Agency. (2019). Source Protection Zones [Merged]. Available at:

https://data.gov.uk/dataset/09889a48-0439-4bbe-8f2a-87bba26fbbf5/source-protection-zones-
merged [Accessed: October 2019]

13 Hampshire City Council. (2011). Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment

14 Hampshire City Council. (2012). Eastleigh Surface Water Management Plan

15 Hampshire City Council. (2013). Hampshire Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

16 Highways Agency Drainage Data Management System Drainage Data Management System,
v5.12.0 (HADDMS). (2018). Available at: http://haddms.com/ [Accessed: September 2019]

17 Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. (2014). National Planning Practice
Guidance. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/flood-risk-and-coastal-change [Accessed:
August 2019]

18 Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. (2019). National Planning Policy
Framework

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002 28
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Appendix A. Site drainage design and details

Table A-1: Existing and Proposed Discharge Rates
Allowable Discharge Rate (l/s)
M27 Junction 8
Windhover Roundabout
Roundabout
Network 2 Network 3
Storm Network 1
(outfall to existing (Outfall to existing (Outfall to an existing
Return (Outfall to existing
Period drainage system at drainage system at watercourse)
drainage system at
Providence Hill Hamble Lane)
Bursledon Road)
Road)
Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed
Case Case Case Case Case Case Case Case
1yr 79.9 48.7 41.7 31 46.3 26.3 536.1 473.8
5yr 112.4 77.2 59.5 45.8 69.4 58 794.1 590.5

30yr 155 144 64.3 63.3 104.1 69.9 1137 1086.1

100yr 178.9 178.9 64.6 63.7 107 91.6 1212.8 1190.7

Table A-2: Attenuation Volumes in Proposed Drainage Strategy

Windhover Roundabout: Network 1 (Outfall to existing drainage system at Bursledon Road)
Attenuation Basin (WN1-New-Atten1) 125 m3

Attenuation Basin (WN1-New-Atten2) 270 m3

Windhover Roundabout: Network 2 (outfall to existing drainage system at Providence Hill Road)

Attenuation Basin (WN2-New-Atten1) 140 m3

Attenuation Basin (WN2-New-Atten2) 162 m3

Windhover Roundabout: Network 3 (Outfall to existing drainage system at Hamble Lane)

Underground Geocellular Storage System (WN3-New-Atten1) 112 m3

M27 Junction 8 Roundabout - Outfall to existing watercourse

Attenuation Basin (J8-New-Atten4) 390 m3

Underground Geocellular Storage System (J8-New-Atten1) 160 m3

Underground Geocellular Storage System (J8-New-Atten2) 160 m3

Underground Geocellular Storage System (J8-New-Atten3) 50 m3

Underground Geocellular Storage System (J8-New-Atten4) 198 m3

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Appendix B. Southern Water sewer maps

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Appendix C. M27 junction 8 hydraulic modelling technical note

C.1 Introduction

C.1.1 Background

Jacobs were commissioned by Highways England to prepare a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) for
the M27 Southampton Junction 8 Scheme.

Bursledon Brook is an ordinary watercourse that crosses the M27 Junction 8. It rises in the vicinity of the M27 /
St. John’s Road (B3033) cross road and consists of two unnamed minor tributaries, namely, the eastern
tributary and the western tributary. The two minor tributaries are culverted separately before reaching the M27
Junction 8, and the culverts pass under the M27 Junction 8 roundabout and discharge to an open channel as a
single culvert just to the southeast of the roundabout. The open channel reach of the Bursledon Brook flows
approximately 600m due southeast, before crossing the M27 once again. Approximately 300m further
downstream of the M27 crossing, the Bursledon Brook crosses the Providence Hill Road (A27).

This Technical Note provides detailed information on the hydraulic model build process undertaken to assess
the risk of fluvial flooding from the Bursledon Brook to the proposed scheme at Junction 8 of the M27.

This report supports the hydraulic modelling results presented separately in the FRA report1.

C.1.2 Modelling objectives

The hydraulic modelling aimed to predict the peak water levels within the modelled river reach and the
floodplain for the 50% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP), 3.33% AEP (1 in 30 years), 1% AEP (1 in 100
years), 0.1% AEP (1 in 1000 years) and 1% AEP (1 in 100 years) plus an allowance for Climate Change2 (plus
CC) flood events for both the baseline (existing situation) and proposed scheme scenarios. These were then
used to understand the existing fluvial flood risk and assess the potential impacts of the proposed scheme on
flooding. Subsequently, the hydraulic model was used to test options to mitigate these impacts.

C.1.3 Study area and modelling approach

The modelled area is approximately 0.82 km². The topography for the Bursledon Brook catchment is generally
steep ranging from approximately 74 m AOD in the north west to approximately 17.5 m AOD in the south east of
the catchment. Figure C.1 shows the modelled area and some of its key features.

The hydraulic model has been built using a linked one-dimensional/two-dimensional (1D/2D) technique, where
the river channel is represented as a 1D component using Flood Modeller Pro (FMP) version 4.4.1 software and
the floodplain is represented as a 2D component using TUFLOW 2018-03-AD-iDP-w64 software. The linked
1D/2D modelling approach means that the model dynamically transfers water between the watercourses and
the floodplain.

1
Jacobs, M27 Southampton Junction Flood Risk Assessment, 2019
2
A 35% uplift has been applied to all hydrological inflows for the climate change allowance. See Section C.3 for further details
HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Figure C.1: Study area

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

C.2 Data collection

The datasets used to build the Bursledon Brook hydraulic model are summarised in Table C.1.

Table C.1: Datasets used to build the Bursledon Brook Hydraulic Model

Data Description Source

River Survey data of Burleson Brook for the full extent indicated in Figure C.1. The survey
includes:
Survey data • 32 cross-sections with XYZ coordinates and photos Jacobs
• Invert levels and dimensions of structures crossing the watercourse
• The survey was undertaken in August 2017.
DTM derived from filtered 0.5m resolution LiDAR (Light Detection And Ranging) data used
Digital Terrain
to inform the hydraulic model with ground elevation information downloaded from DEFRA
Model (DTM)
https://environment.data.gov.uk/DefraDataDownload. The LiDAR was flown in 2016.

Inflows Model inflow hydrographs produced from the hydrological analysis of the Bursledon Brook
Jacobs
hydrographs catchment.

Ordnance
Mastermap data Ordnance
Survey (OS)
1:10,000 raster map Survey
maps

Scheme
3D model and CAD drawings of current state surface and proposed design scheme Jacobs
information

Highways
Table with dimensions of the existing and design drainage system, CAD drawings with
drainage Jacobs
proposed mitigation measures
information

C.3 Hydrology

The details of the hydrological analysis carried out to produce design inflows for the hydraulic model are
provided in Appendix D of this report. A summary of this analysis is presented below

Design peak flows were estimated using the FEH (Flood Estimation Handbook) Statistical method and ReFH2.2
method. The latter, resulting in the larger flood peaks, was adopted. ReFH2.2 method-based hydrograph
shapes were used to derive the model inflows required for the numerical hydraulic modelling of the watercourse
to be assessed for the potential flood risk.

The FEH catchment descriptors of the Bursledon Brook have been purchased from FEH Web Service at two
locations, namely, one at the M27 Junction 8 (termed hereafter as FEP1; easting:448450, northing: 111200)
and the other at the downstream modelling extent (termed hereafter as FEP2; easting:448500, northing:
110300).

Two hydrographs (Res12 and FEP1) have been produced for the following Annual Exceedance Probabilities
(AEP) events (see Figure C.2):
• 50% AEP event (1 in 2 years);
• 3.33% AEP event (1 in 30 years);
• 1% AEP event (1 in 100 years); and
• 0.1% AEP event (1 in 1000 years).

Additionally, flow hydrographs were also produced for the 1% AEP plus Climate Change assuming a 35% uplift
of the flow in accordance with the EA’s projection for South East England, central allowance category.
HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Table C.2 below present the estimated peak flows for FEP1, Res 12 and FEP2 for a 3.5hr summer storm
duration.

Table C.2: Design peak inflows (m3/s)

AEP event 50% (2yr) 3.3% (30yr) 1% 1% 0.1%

(100yr) (100yr+35%CC) (1000yr)
Target peak flow at the downstream modelling extent (FEP2) – ReFH2.2
FEP2 (Storm Duration = 3.5hrs, Summer) 1.42 2.92 3.69 4.98 6.19
Model inflows (FEP1 and Res12) – ReFH2.2
FEP1 (Storm Duration = 3.5hrs, Summer) 0.69 1.43 1.81 2.44 3.04
Res12 (Storm Duration = 3.5hrs, Summer) 1.07 2.21 2.78 3.76 4.66

Figure C.2: Inflow hydrographs (unscaled)

Hydrograph FEP1 was divided in to two inflows which were applied in the hydraulic model at the head of the
western tributary (Model node: BURL_IN1 - 53.1% of the total flow) and eastern tributary (BURL_IN2 - 46.9% of
the total). The lateral inflow (Res12; node name BURL_Lat) was laterally distributed between Junction 8 and the
downstream modelling extent.

Following review of preliminary model results it was found more appropriate to split lateral inflow (RES12) into
two inflows. One was applied to the model as a point inflow (Model node BURL_CatC) located at the southwest
corner of Junction 8 roundabout and accounting for 18.5% of Res12 catchment area. The remaining 81.5 % of
the Res12 sub-catchment was laterally distributed as originally applied. Figure C.3 provides a description of the
hydrological inflow schematisation.

A flow reconciliation exercise at FEP2 was carried out with the hydraulic model. Due to the high retention in the
northern part of the modelled catchment associated with flow restrictions caused by the culverts and road
embankments the reconciliation process was done by applying the upstream flows unrestricted. All inflows were
scaled by 0.87 to achieve flow reconciliation at the downstream modelling extent (FEP2).

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Figure C.3: Catchment inflow schematisation

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

C.4 Baseline modelling

The following sections provide information relating to the model schematisation for the baseline (existing)
scenario.

C.4.1 Watercourse schematisation (1D FM Model)

Surveyed cross-section data of the Bursledon Brook was used to represent the in-channel geometry of the
watercourse in Flood Modeller Pro. A 1D/2D link has been enabled along the bank tops of the watercourse as
shown in Figure C.4. The model includes the reaches listed in Table C.3 and their associated structures listed in
Table C.4.

Table C.3: Watercourse reaches included in the model

Reach Start (FM Node) End (FM Node) Total Length Number of
(m) Structures
Included
West On the west side of the M27 near St. The two minor tributaries are 600m 5
Branch John’s Road (B3033) cross road - culverted separately before
“BURL” BURL_1728 reaching the M27 Junction 8,
and the culverts pass under the
East On the east side of the M27 near St. 660m 1
M27 Junction 8 roundabout and
Branch John’s Road (B3033) cross road -
discharge to an open channel as
“BUTR” BUTR_0373
a single culvert -
BURL_1323C2c.
Main Culvert on the south east of the Ends downstream of the A27 1130m 11
Reach roundabout - BURL_1323C2c culvert - BURL_0000

Table C.4: Structures included in the model

Structure Description Location Representation

Rectangular concrete culvert with a 1.74m2 West Branch- BURL_1622 - Access road– Rectangular orifice with
bore area 130m upstream of Peewit Hill spill representing deck to
allow overflow
Circular concrete culvert with a diameter of West Branch- BURL_1539 - Footbridge– Circular orifice with spill
600mm 45m upstream of Peewit Hill representing deck to
allow overflow
Circular concrete culvert with a diameter of West Branch- BURL_1498 – Peewit Hill Circular conduit
600mm
Circular concrete culvert with a diameter of West Branch- BURL_1323 – culvert under Circular conduit
525mm the roundabout (M27 junction 8)
Circular concrete culvert with a diameter of West Branch- BURL_1323C1 – culvert Circular conduit
600mm under the roundabout (M27 junction 8)
Circular concrete culvert with a diameter of East Branch – BUTR_0000 – culvert Circular conduit
450mm along M27 and under Dodwell Lane
Circular concrete culvert with a diameter of Main Reach - BURL_1323C2c - culvert Circular conduit
675mm under the roundabout (M27 junction 8)
after confluence with west and east
branches.
Circular concrete culvert with a diameter of Main Reach - BURL_1113Cu – Circular conduit
850mm Footbridge -90m south east from the
roundabout

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Structure Description Location Representation

Rectangular concrete culvert with a 0.89m2 Main Branch- BURL_0916- Access road– Rectangular orifice with
bore area 260m south east from the roundabout spill representing deck to
allow overflow
Circular concrete culvert with a diameter of Main Branch- BURL_0748- Access road– Circular orifice with spill
1000mm 400m south east from the roundabout representing deck to
allow overflow
Rectangular concrete culvert with a 0.61m2 Main Branch- BURL_0642- Small Rectangular orifice with
bore area footbridge – 500m south east from the spill representing deck to
roundabout and 30m from Dodwell Lane allow overflow
Rectangular concrete culvert with a 0.83m2 Main Branch- BURL_0537- Access road – Rectangular orifice with
bore area 135m upstream of M27 Highway and 30m spill representing deck to
from Dodwell Lane allow overflow
Circular concrete culvert with a diameter of Main Branch- BURL_0425 – culvert under Circular conduit
1000mm M27 Highway
Circular concrete culvert with a diameter of Main Branch- BURL_0309- Access road– Circular orifice with spill
1000mm 80m downstream from the M27 Highway representing deck to
allow overflow
Rectangular concrete culvert with a 0.27m2 Main Branch- BURL_0264- Small Rectangular orifice with
bore area footbridge – 120m downstream from the spill representing deck to
M27 Highway allow overflow
Rectangular concrete culvert with a 0.96m2 Main Branch- BURL_0169 - Access road Rectangular orifice with
bore area – 100m upstream from the A27 road spill representing deck to
allow overflow
Circular concrete culvert with a diameter of Main Branch- BURL_0091 – culvert under Circular conduit
1000mm the A27 road

Hydraulic roughness values (Manning’s “n”) for Bursledon Brook were determined using site visit and survey
photographs and established reference literatures such as Chow3. For western and eastern branches, a
Manning’s n value of 0.05 has been used for the river bed and 0.06 for the banks. For the main branch a single
roughness value of 0.045 was adopted for both river bed and banks.

Hydrological inflows to the model were applied as discussed in Section C.3. These are shown in Figure C.3.

A normal depth condition (i.e. free flow) was used as downstream boundary with a bed slope of 0.013 which
was calculated based on the average slope of the river bed at this location.

C.4.2 Floodplain schematisation (2D Tuflow Model)

The 2D domain covers an area of 0.82 km², as shown in Figure C.4. The topography is represented using a 2 m
resolution grid. The levels for the grid cells are based on a 0.5 m horizontal resolution Digital Terrain Model
(DTM) derived from LiDAR.

Appropriate use has been made of 2D breaklines and elevation polygons (z-shapes) to accurately represent
roads and ditches where they have a significant impact on flow across the floodplain.

Hydraulic roughness coefficients were applied across each cell of the 2D domain depending on land use taken
from OS Mastermap data, as shown in Table C.5. Roughness values adopted in the model were taken from
standard guidance (Chow, 1959).

3
Chow, Manning’s n for Channels, 1959
HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

The link between the 1D and the 2D domains was defined along the banks of the river reaches represented in
Flood Modeller Pro using HX and SX connections as appropriate (see Figure C.4 and Figure C.5).

Table C.5: Manning's 'n' coefficients - 2D domain

Land Use Manning’s ‘n’
Water bodies 0.03
Roads, tracks and paths 0.025 - 0.03
Manmade embankment around ponds 0.03
Rough Grassland 0.08
Woodland 0.10
Buildings and glasshouses 0.50
Rural Land 0.04 - 0.05

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Figure C.4: Baseline model schematisation

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Figure C.5: Baseline model schematisation – Junction 8 roundabout

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

C.5 Proposed Scheme modelling

C.5.1 Proposed Scheme arrangement

Figure C.6 shows the layout of the proposed scheme at the M27 Junction 8. The modifications to the baseline
model for the inclusion of the proposed scheme include the updates to the road elevations and roughness
values along the scheme footprint, updates to the dimensions, lengths and invert levels for the existing culverts
under the Junction 8 roundabout within Flood Modeller Pro.

Figure C.6: With Scheme model schematisation

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

C.5.2 Mitigation measures

The proposed scheme was found to increase flood risk to the Junction 8 roundabout, as shown in Appendix E
and further discussed in the Flood Risk Assessment Report. Several mitigation options have been tested to try
and reduce flood risk associated with the 1% AEP + 35%CC event in this area. The following section discusses
the final options which have been incorporated into the proposed scheme.

Mitigation measures consist of four storage areas which retain water during the peak of the flood. These storage
areas are associated with Sustainable Drainage System (SuDS) features to allow flood waters to drain back to
the system. Size and capacity of these areas are indicated in Table C.6.

To connect the Pond and Tank with the drainage and river system, new culverts have been incorporated to the
hydraulic model. These are indicated in Figure C.7.

As part of the mitigation measures, a flood wall has been set along the north west edge of the M27 Junction 8
roundabout (see Figure C.7). Length and height of the wall are indicated in Table C.6.

Two final mitigation options are currently considered to mitigate flood risk associated with the 1% AEP +
35%CC event. The second mitigation option only differs from the first one as it involves an extended version of
the NW Storage area to further reduce flood extent so that it exactly matches with the flood extent in the
baseline situation.

Table C.6: Mitigation measures implemented in the mitigation model

Mitigation measure Model representation First mitigation option Second mitigation option

NW Storage area 2D polygon area: 1535m2 area: 2617m2

bed level: 40.67m AOD bed level: 40.67m AOD

excavation depth: 1.9 to 4m excavation depth: 1.9 to 4m

storage capacity: 2917m3 storage capacity: 4972m3

NE Storage area 2D polygon area: 1972m2 area: 1972m2

bed level: 41.00m AOD bed level: 41.00m AOD

excavation depth: 2.5 to 4.4m excavation depth: 2.5 to 4.4m

storage capacity: 4930 m3 storage capacity: 4930 m3

Pond 1D reservoir unit area: 585m2 area: 585m2

bed level: 41.00m AOD bed level: 41.00m AOD

excavation depth: 2 to 3.5m excavation depth: 2 to 3.5m

storage capacity: 895 m3 storage capacity: 895 m3

Tank – underground 1D reservoir unit available capacity: 80m3 available capacity: 80m3
storm tank
bed level: 41.00m AOD bed level: 41.00m AOD

Wall 2D polyline length: 160 m length: 160 m

height: 0.5m height: 0.5m

elevation: 43.8m AO elevation: 43.8m AOD

The with scheme model schematisation including the mitigation measures is shown in Figure C.7.

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Figure C.7: With Scheme model schematisation including flood compensation areas
HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

C.6 Modelled events

The modelled events and scenarios simulated are shown in Table C.7.

As already mentioned, hydraulic model results have been used to inform the flood risk assessment and are
fully discussed in the Flood Risk Assessment Report.

Table C.7: Modelled events and scenarios simulated

Scenario 50% AEP 3.3% AEP 1% AEP 1% AEP 0.1% AEP

+35% CC

Baseline scenario ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Proposed scheme scenario (no ✓

mitigation)

Proposed scheme scenario (with ✓

mitigation) first option

Proposed scheme scenario (with ✓

Mitigation) second option

Flow sensitivity test (±20% flow) ✓

Roughness sensitivity test (±20% ✓

roughness)

Downstream boundary sensitivity ✓

test (±20% downstream boundary
slope)

Maximum flood depth maps have been produced for all simulated scenarios for the 1% AEP + 35%CC
event. These are provided in Appendix E of this document.

C.7 Model Proving

C.7.1 Model Performance

Run performance has been monitored throughout the model build process and then during each simulation
carried out, to ensure a suitable model convergence was achieved. Convergence refers to the ability of the
modelling software to arrive at a solution for which the variation of the found solution between successive
iterations is either zero or negligibly small and lies within a pre-specified tolerance limit.

As shown in Figure C.8, 1D Flood Modeller Pro convergence for the 1% AEP + 35%CC flood event is good
throughout the run duration, except for some spikes of non-convergence occurring for a short time and
associated with switching mode in the orifice units. This convergence plot is generally typical for all the
modelled events.

After the peak of the flood, there is a slight instability on the flow that occurs towards the downstream end of
the model (A27 crossing) when the water flows back to the open channel from the 2D domain. This has no
impact on the maximum flood peaks/levels predicted by the model in the area of interest (i.e. near Junction
8).

The cumulative mass error reports output from the TUFLOW 2D model have been checked for all simulated
events. The accepted tolerance range recommended by the software manual is +/- 1% mass balance error.
Figure C.9 shows that for the 1% AEP + 35%CC flood event the cumulative mass error is well within this
tolerance range for most of the duration of the run. The spike of the mass error at the beginning of the

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

simulation is expected and relate to when the water flows from 1D to 2D. Mass Error rapidly decreases to
negligible values around -0.03%.

Smooth variation of the change in volume through the model simulation is another indicator of good
convergence of the 2D model (Figure C.9).

These 2D mass error and dV diagnostics are typical for all events simulated.

Figure C.8: Flood Modeller Pro 1D Model convergence plot – Baseline Run - 1% AEP plus 35%CC

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Figure C.9: Cumulative mass error and change in volume – Baseline Run - 1% AEP + 35%CC

C.7.2 Model calibration

The Bursledon Brook catchment being ungauged there is a lack of suitable information available to calibrate
the hydraulic model.

A high level verification of the model results was made by ground truthing the flood mechanisms predicted by
the model using observations made through Google Earth Street View. The model verification was also
made by comparing the model results against flood risk maps from surface water4 available on the
Environment Agency web page (https://flood-warning-information.service.gov.uk), this showed a good
correlation in terms of the areas predicted to flood by the model.

C.7.3 Sensitivity analysis

In order to test the model sensitivity to key hydraulic parameters a series of simulations were undertaken for
the 1% AEP event under the baseline scenario. The assessed hydraulic parameters were: Manning’s ‘n’
roughness coefficients, hydrological inflows and downstream boundary slope.

The results show that the Bursledon Brook model is most sensitive to flow change. Increasing and
decreasing inflows, resulted in a -21.8% and +11.9% change in the flood extent respectively. Increased flow
results in more extensive flooding across the whole modelled reach. A reduction in flow resulted in smaller
flood extent in the same areas affected by increased flows. The biggest difference is located on the south
part of the roundabout.

Model results are not sensitive to roughness changes and downstream boundary condition changes. The
flooded area change compared to the baseline flood extents is below 0.4% for the roughness sensitivity test.
Downstream boundary sensitivity shows no difference in flood extent when compared to baseline simulation.
The outcome of the sensitivity tests indicates that greatest benefit in improving model confidence would be
achieved through improved flow estimates.

4
There is no fluvial flood map available on the EA website, this is why a high level comparison was made against surface water flood map.
HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

C.8 Model assumptions and limitations

The accuracy and validity of the hydraulic model results is strongly dependent on the accuracy of the
hydrological and topographic data included in the model. While the most appropriate available information
has been used to construct the model to represent fluvial flooding mechanisms, there are uncertainties and
limitations associated with the model. These include assumptions made as part of the model build process.

Efforts have been made to assess and reduce levels of uncertainty in each aspect of the modelling process.
The assumptions made are considered to be generally conservative for modelled water levels at the
proposed scheme location and are therefore appropriate for the flood risk assessment. Additionally, the
sensitivity analysis has quantified the magnitude of potential uncertainty, and the verification process
indicates that the modelling outputs are sensible.

The key assumptions and limitations are the following:

• The hydraulic model has been designed to simulate fluvial flood risk. As such it does not cater for
surface water flood risk and therefore does not include a representation of the highway drainage
system in both existing and proposed scheme situation. Separate analysis would be required to
estimate the capacity needed for the highway draining system to deal with surface water. This is
particularly true for the proposed mitigation measures put in place across the roundabout (new
culverts, storage tanks).
• Due the lack of gauging information the hydraulic model could not be calibrated. It also worth noting
the uncertainty associated with the hydrological inflows used in the model. The Bursledon Brook has
small catchment area, e.g. approximately 0.5km2 at FEP1 and 1.3km2 at FEP2. Although the
catchment is impermeable in nature, has no attenuation and is moderately urbanised, the derivation
of flow in such a small catchment is always associated with some degree of uncertainty. Therefore,
two independent methods, namely, the FEH Statistical method and ReFH2.2 methods have been
applied for the estimation of peak flows, and the conservative value has been adopted.
• All design event simulated assumes a 3.5 hour summer storm. No critical storm duration analysis
has been carried out in this study.
• All culverts incorporated to the model have been assumed free from blockages.
• Representation of the SuDS feature to drain the storage areas as part of the mitigation measures
have not been modelled in a great level of details.

C.9 Conclusions and recommendations

In order to support the development of a Flood Risk Assessment for the M27 Southampton Junction 8
Scheme, a hydraulic model was constructed to establish a baseline scenario for the flood risk along the
Bursledon Brook that crosses the M27 Junction 8. A 2km long reach of the Bursledon Brook was
represented along with the key structures.

A range of flood events from 50% to 0.1% AEP and climate change events were simulated using the model.

The baseline model was then adapted to represent the proposed scheme scenario in order to assess the
impact of the proposed scheme on the flood risk. Where increases to flood risk were identified, mitigation
measures were developed and incorporated into the proposed scheme and tested with hydraulic model
simulations.

The assumptions and limitations associated with the hydraulic modelling are discussed in Section C.8 of this
technical note, which should be considered for any future use of the hydraulic model.
Model results have been used to inform the Flood Risk Assessment and are presented in detail in the Flood
Risk Assessment report.

The following is recommended if any of the flood mitigation options discussed in this report are progressed to
detail design:

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

- Finer representation of the storage areas and associated drainage features would be required in the
model.
- A critical storm duration analysis would be required to estimate accurately the required capacity of
the storage areas.
Roughness sensitivity tests for all conduits in the model and blockage scenario for culverts inlets for both
branches will provide better understanding of the robustness of the proposed mitigation measures under
different maintenance conditions.

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Appendix D. Flood estimation calculation record

Flood estimation calculation record for single sites – Bursledon Brook at M27
Junction 8

Introduction

This document is to provide a record of the calculations and decisions made during flood estimation. It will
often be complemented by more general hydrological information given in a project report. The information
given here should enable the work to be reproduced in the future. This record sheet is to be used where
flood estimates are needed at a single location.

Approval

Signature Name Competence level (see below)

Calculations Maryann McDonald 1

prepared by:

Calculations Keshav Bhattarai 3

checked by:
Calculations Keshav Bhattarai 3
reviewed by:

Calculations
approved by:

• Level 1 – Hydrologist with minimum approved experience in flood estimation

• Level 2 – Senior Hydrologist
• Level 3 – Senior Hydrologist with extensive experience of flood estimation

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Abbreviations

AM Annual Maximum

AREA Catchment area (km2)

BFI Base Flow Index

BFIHOST Base Flow Index derived using the HOST soil classification

CFMP Catchment Flood Management Plan

CPRE Council for the Protection of Rural England

DT Data Transfer

FARL FEH index of flood attenuation due to reservoirs and lakes

FEH Flood Estimation Handbook

FSR Flood Studies Report

HOST Hydrology of Soil Types

NRFA National River Flow Archive

POT Peaks Over a Threshold

QMED Median Annual Flood (with return period 2 years)

ReFH Revitalised Flood Hydrograph method

SAAR Standard Average Annual Rainfall (mm)

SPR Standard percentage runoff

SPRHOST Standard percentage runoff derived using the HOST soil classification

Tp (0) Time to peak of the instantaneous unit hydrograph

URBAN Flood Studies Report index of fractional urban extent

URBEXT1990 FEH index of fractional urban extent

URBEXT2000 Revised index of urban extent, measured differently from URBEXT1990

WINFAP-FEH Windows Frequency Analysis Package – used for FEH statistical method

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

D.1 Method statement

Overview of requirements for flood estimate

Item Comments
Give an overview This FEH calculation record reports on the hydrological analysis of a minor
which includes: watercourse for the flood risk assessment as part of extension of Junction 8 on
• Purpose of study the M7 Motorway near Southampton (SU 48500 10300).
• Peak flow or
hydrograph? For the estimation of design peak flow, the FEH Statistical method and ReFH2.2
• Range of return methods were applied and the method resulting in the larger flood peaks was
periods adopted. The ReFH2.2 method-based hydrograph shapes were used to derive the
• Approx. time model inflows required for the numerical hydraulic modelling of the watercourse to
available be assessed for the potential flood risk.

Design peak flows were required for a range of AEPs, including the 50% AEP (2-
year), 3.3% AEP (30-year), 1% AEP (100-year), 0.1% AEP (1000-year) events,
with the 1% AEP (100-year) event flow including an allowance of 35% to cater for
the future climate change (CC).

Overview of catchment
Item Comments
Brief description of The Bursledon Brook that crosses the M27 Junction 8 rises in the vicinity of the
catchment, or M27 / St. John’s Road (B3033) cross road and consists of two unnamed minor
reference to section in tributaries, namely, the eastern tributary and the western tributary. The two minor
accompanying report tributaries are culverted separately before reaching the M27 Junction 8, and the
culvert(s) pass under the M27 Junction 8 roundabout and discharge to an open
channel as a single culvert just to the southeast of the roundabout.

The catchment area of the Bursledon Brook up to the M27 Junction 8 is

approximately 0.54km2; with the eastern tributary draining approximately 53% and
the western tributary draining the remaining approximately 47% of the above
catchment area. The open channel reach of the Bursledon Brook flows
approximately 600m due southeast, before crossing the M27 once again.
Approximately 300m further downstream of the M27 crossing, the Bursledon
Brook crosses the Providence Hill Road (A27). The numerical hydraulic modelling
extent of the Bursledon Brook spans between upstream of the M27 Junction 8
and downstream of the A27 culvert. The total catchment area of the Bursledon
Brook up to the downstream modelling extent is approximately 1.3km2.

The FEH catchment descriptors of the Bursledon Brook have been purchased
from FEH Web Service at two locations, namely, one at the M27 Junction 8
(termed hereafter as FEP1) and the other at the downstream modelling extent
(termed hereafter as FEP2). The FEH catchment boundary of the Bursledon
Brook was plotted on the QGIS map and revised using the 2m contour LiDAR
data freely available from the Environment Agency website. Figure D.3a shows
the FEH catchment boundary together with the revised catchment boundary of
the minor watercourse.

The catchment is classed as moderately urbanised by the FEH definition (the FEH
CDs URBEXT2000=0.078 for the upper catchment and 0.112 for the overall
catchment) and has no attenuation from reservoirs and lakes (FARL=1.0).

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

According to the Geology of Britain Viewer Online1 (British Geological Survey,

2019), the majority of the site comprises of the London Clay Formation of Clay,
Silt and Sand Sedimentary Bedrock. No superficial deposits have been recorded
for the area.

According to Cranfield Soil and AgriFood Institute (CSAI) Soilscapes Viewer2, the
catchment soil composition consists of slowly permeable, seasonally wet, slightly
acid but base-rich loamy and clayey soils. The drainage is classed as impeded
(BFIHOST = 0.321 for the upper catchment and 0.298 for the overall catchment;
SPRHOST = 43.11% for the upper catchment and 44.02% for the overall
catchment).
1
Accessed at: http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html
2
Accessed at: http://www.landis.org.uk/soilscapes/

Source of flood peak data

Was the HiFlows UK HiFlows UK v7 was used.
dataset used? If so,
which version?
Record any changes
made.

Initial choice of approach

Is FEH appropriate? (it may not be for very Yes, moderately urbanised catchment, no impact from
small, heavily urbanised or complex reservoirs.
catchments). If not, describe other methods to
be used.
Outline the conceptual model, addressing Peak flow dominant; no reservoirs, FARL = 1, negligible
questions such as: floodplain extent.
• What is likely to cause flooding at the site (peak FEH statistical and ReFH2.2 methods are applicable to
flows, flood volumes, combinations of peaks, estimate peak flow.
groundwater, snowmelt, tides…)
• Might the site flood from runoff generated on
part of the catchment only, e.g. downstream of a
reservoir?
• Is there a need to consider temporary debris
dams that could collapse?

Any unusual catchment features to take into - Impermeable soil, BFIHOST= 0.321 (upper catchment)
account? / 0.298 (overall modelled catchment)
e.g. - Moderately urbanised catchment URBEXT2000 = 0.078
• highly permeable – avoid ReFH if (upper catchment) & 0.112 (overall modelled catchment)
BFIHOST>0.65, use permeable catchment
- not affected by reservoirs (FARL= 1.0)
adjustment for statistical method if
SPRHOST<20% - negligible floodplain extent for the upper catchment
• highly urbanised – avoid ReFH if (FPEXT = 0.0049) and minor floodplain extent (FEP =
URBEXT1990>0.125; consider FEH Statistical 0.0209) for the overall modelled catchment.
or other alternatives
• pumped watercourse – consider lowland
catchment version of rainfall-runoff method
• major reservoir influence (FARL<0.90) –
consider flood routing
• extensive floodplain storage – consider choice
of method carefully
Initial choice of method(s) and reasons Full hydrograph is required for model inflow. So, the peak
flows are based on the conservative value from two
method (FEH Statistical and ReFH2.2) whereas the
hydrograph shape is adopted from ReFH2.2 method.
HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Software to be used (with version numbers) FEH web service

e.g. WinFAP-FEH 4
FEH CD-ROM v3.05 ReFH2 (v2.2) with FEH13 rainfall
WINFAP-FEH v36 / ReFH spreadsheet Peak flows data (NRFA) (WinFAP-FEH database) v7
HiFlows v3.0.2

Site details
Watercourse Site Easting Northing AREA on FEH Revised
WEB Service AREA if
(km2) altered
Unnamed (u/s) Near M27 – Junction 8 448450 111200 0.513 0.545
(FEP1)
Unnamed (d/s) Near M27 culvert (FEP2) 448500 110300 1.315 1.317

Catchment descriptors (incorporating any changes made) for the catchment of the Bursledon Brook
at up to the M27 J8
FARL PROPWET BFIHOST DPLBAR DPSBAR SAAR SPRHOST URBEXT FPEXT
(km) (m/km) (mm) (%) 2000
(present)
Full catchment
FEP1* 1 0.33 0.321 0.58 52.0 806 43.11 0.078 0.0049
0.111
FEP2 1 0.33 0.298 1.28 67.6 799 44.02 0.112 0.0209
0.136
Residual catchment area between FEP1 and FEP2 (for model inflow purpose)
Res12* 1 0.33 0.282 0.88 78.6 794 44.66 0.153 0.0322
*For model inflow purpose, the inflows were derived at FEP1 and at the residual catchment Res12 (AREA = 1.317- 0.545
= 0.772km2). The CDs for Res12 were derived using the procedure suggested in FEH Volume 5.

The strikethrough values are from FEH Web Service.

Checking catchment descriptors

Record how catchment The FEH derived catchment boundary was visually checked against the 2m
boundary was checked contour generated from LiDAR data, freely available from the Environment
and describe any changes Agency1. From a comparison, some minor adjustment was undertaken at
(refer to maps if needed) both FEP1 and FEP2 boundary. However, these changes have resulted in
only marginal increase in the overall catchment area and hence all other
CDs except URBEXT were kept unchanged. See Figure D.3a for the FEH
and revised catchment boundaries.

1
Accessed at: https://environment.data.gov.uk/DefraDataDownload/?Mode=survey

5
FEH CD-ROM v3.0 © NERC (CEH). © Crown copyright. © AA. 2009. All rights reserved.
6
WINFAP-FEH v3.0.003 © Wallingford HydroSolutions Limited and NERC (CEH) 2009.

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Record how other Geology mapping on the BGS online viewer at 1:50,000 scale and the
catchment descriptors Cranfield Soilscape web viewer were used to get an appreciation of the
(especially soils) were catchment permeability.
checked and describe any
changes. Include
before/after table if
necessary.
Source of URBEXT FEH Web Service
Method for updating of URBEXT was revised by comparing the FEH Web Service URBEXT2000
URBEXT extent and that appearing on the latest topography map. From the
comparison, it is observed that a part of the M27 road in the vicinity of the
Junction 8 was not included in the calculation of URBEXT2000, which is now
included in the revised URBEXT2000.

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

D.2 Statistical method

Overview of estimation of QMED

Used Condition Approach followed

N >=30 Estimate QMED using annual maxima

14=< N =<29 Estimate QMED from annual maxima & optionally adjust for
climatic variation

2=< N= <13 Estimate QMED from POT data & adjust for climatic
variation

N <2 & suitable donor site with 20 Ignore record at subject site; transfer QMED from donor site
years or more of record

N <2 Estimate QMED using procedure based on flood peak

& suitable donor with 10 to 19 years regression
of record
& 12 month overlap between records

N <2 Ignore record at subject site; transfer QMED from donor site
& suitable donor with 10 to 19 years
of record
but no 12 month overlap

N <2 Estimate QMED from very short POT record

& no long-record site nearby

N <2 Treat site as ungauged catchment

& no long-record site nearby

N <2 Defer analysis until longer flow record available

& no long-record site nearby

N <2 (Abstract flood event information and apply the UH rainfall-

& no long-record site nearby runoff model as an alternative, to the pooling group
procedure. Particularly recommended when site is
urbanised)

 Ungauged catchment Estimate QMED from catchment descriptors

 Ungauged catchment Estimate QMED by data transfer from donor catchment

Ungauged catchment Estimate QMED by data transfer from analogue catchment

Ungauged catchment Estimate QMED from channel dimensions

Ungauged catchment Compare to regional pattern of mapped QMED adjustment

factors

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Search for donor sites for QMED

Comment on potential donor sites The following six potential local donor stations were
Mention: considered, as suggested by the WinFAP4 software
package:
• Number of potential donor sites available
• Distances from subject site
• Similarity in terms of AREA, URBEXT,
FARL and other catchment descriptors
• Quality of flood peak data 42011 (Hamble @ Frogmill)
Include a map if necessary. Note that donor
42006 (Neon @ Mislingford)
catchments should usually be rural.
42008 (Cheriton Stream @ Sewards Bridge)

42003 (Lymington @ Brockenhurst)

42010 (Itchen @ Highbridge & Allbrook Total)

42014 (Blackwater @ Ower)

Donor sites chosen and QMED adjustment factors

Reasons for Method Adjust- QMED QMED from Adjust-
choosing or rejecting (AM or ment for from catchment ment
POT) climatic flow descriptors ratio
variation? data (A) (B) (A/B)

42011 (Hamble @ Large AREA (55km2), AM No 7.687 4.694 1.64

Frogmill) BFIHOST>0.65
42006 (Neon @ Large AREA (79km2), AM No 2.789 2.331 1.20
Mislingford) BFIHOST>0.65
42008 (Cheriton
Large AREA (74km2), AM No 1.286 2.517 0.51
Stream @
BFIHOST>0.65
Sewards Bridge)
42003 (Lymington AM No 27.207 29.070 0.94
Large AREA (100km2)
@ Brockenhurst)
42010 (Itchen @
Large AREA (340km2), AM No 7.765 6.537 1.19
Highbridge &
BFIHOST>0.65
Allbrook Total)
42014 (Blackwater AM No 14.506 20.867 0.70
Large AREA (102km2)
@ Ower)

Figure D.4 shows the possible donor station locations and Figure D.5 shows the details of these six donor
catchments suggested by WinFAP4.

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

QMED estimation from catchment descriptors (FEP2 – Target location)

QMEDcatchment descriptors, rural = 0.766m3/s

68% confidence interval = (0.54, 1.1)
95% confidence interval = (0.37, 1.6)
QMEDcatchment descriptors, urban = 0.854m3/s

Method Initial Data transfer Final

estimate estimate of
of Distance Power QMED
NRFA Moderated QMED
QMEDurban between term, a (m3/s)
numbers adjustment factor,
(m3/s)
for donor centroids dij (A/B)a
sites used (km)
(see 3.3)
CDs 0.854 NA NA NA NA 0.854

Notes
Methods: AM – Annual maxima; POT – Peaks over threshold; DT – Data transfer; CD – Catchment descriptors alone.
When QMED is estimated from POT data, it should also be adjusted for climatic variation. Details should be added
below.
When QMED is estimated from catchment descriptors, the revised 2008 equation from Science Report SC050050
should be used. If the original FEH equation has been used, say so and give the reason why.
The data transfer procedure is the revised one from Science Report SC050050. The QMED adjustment factor A/B for
each donor site is given in the previous table. This is moderated using the power term, a, which is a function of the
distance between the centroids of the subject catchment and the donor catchment. The final estimate of QMED is (A/B)a
times the initial estimate from catchment descriptors.
If more than one donor has been used, give the weights used in the averaging.

The six potential donor sites suggested by WinFAP4, namely Stations 42003, 42006, 42008, 42010, 42011
and 42014, all have catchment areas much larger than that of the subject site. In addition, four of the WinFAP4
suggested donor catchments are permeable, with BFIHOST >0.9. Station 42003 has a more similar
permeability, with a BFIHOST value of 0.387, however it has an area of approximately 100km2, significantly
larger than the subject site. The ratio of QMEDobs to QMEDcds for station 42003 is 0.947, which is just below
unity.

Therefore, no QMED adjustment factor was applied, i.e., QMED adjustment factor of 1.0 has been chosen
since no suitable donor catchment has been found as mentioned above.

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

D.3 Pooling Group Analysis

Pooling group construction

Site of interest

(a) Station Number Ungauged (b) Name

Name of saved .feh4 group file M27Junction8_FullCatchment

Target return period (years) for 5T rule 500

Initial Pooling group details

Total number of sites 18 Total number of years 527

Total number of initial high discordancy sites 0

List them: -

Total number of short records (< 7 years) removed 1

List them: GS Number 49005

Number of pooled years after sites removed 520

Is subject site included as Rank 1 in pooled group: yes no

If no state reason why: Site is ungauged

Test statistics on validity of pooling group for flood frequency analysis

Heterogeneity test H2 value = 2.16

Status Review not necessary H2 < 1

Review optional 1 < H2 < 2

Review desirable  2 < H2 < 4

Review essential H2 > 4

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Value

Goodness-of-fit test Z values GL acceptable / not acceptable -0.36

GEV acceptable / not acceptable -1.73

PT3 acceptable / not acceptable -3.25

other

(Note: in the FEH the GL is the generally favoured distribution for use)

ACTION is construction of flood frequency curve valid?

No Yes Check suitability of sites in the pooling group

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Revision of Pooling Group

Revision No. 1

Station Number Reason for changes in pooling group

26802, 27073 Removed, permeable, BFIHOST>0.65

47022 Removed, FARL < 0.95

206006, 49005 Added to increase total station years

Number of sites 15 Years 518

Heterogeneity test H2 value = 1.42

Status Review not necessary H2 < 1

Review optional  1 < H2 < 2

Review desirable 2 < H2 < 4

Review essential H2 > 4

Note: FEH Vol.3, chapter 16.3.2: “The ideal pooling-group is homogeneous. However, a representative but

heterogeneous pooling-group gives better flood frequency estimates than either single-site data or a pooling-

group that has been made homogeneous by inappropriately removing sites. In general, it is anticipated that a

significant proportion of pooling-groups will remain heterogeneous, even after review.”

Value

Goodness-of-fit test Z values GL acceptable / not acceptable -1.32

GEV acceptable / not acceptable -2.55

PT3 acceptable / not acceptable -4.20

other

ACTION is construction of flood frequency curve valid?

No Yes

Comment? Gooodness-of-fit acceptable, heterogeneity (H2) reduced. No

further revision, as the group found to be appropriate

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Flood frequency analysis of pooling group

Distributions selected GL  PT3

GEV other

Standardisation method selected Median (this acts as a check as median is

the only method allowed within

Mean the pooling group method)

Construct flood frequency curve

If yes

URBEXT updated yes no from 0.112 to 0.136

Urban adjustment* yes no

Value of QMED =
0.85 m3/s

Flood Frequency Curve

Return period GL - Growth factors GEF – Growth factors

(yrs)

2 1.00 1.00

5 1.30 1.33

10 1.54 1.58

20 1.81 1.85

25 1.91 1.94

30 1.99 2.02

50 2.24 2.24

75 2.46 2.43

100 2.64 2.58

200 3.12 2.94

1000 4.64 3.97

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

The GL distribution was selected as it passes the goodness-of-fit test and is described in FEH as the
preferred distribution in the UK. See Table D.1 for Final pooling group details. See Figure D.6 for Pooling
group diagnostic plots.

Derivation of flood growth curves

Method: If SS, distribution used If SS, parameters of Growth factor for

SS – Single site and reason for choice distribution (location, scale 100-year return
P – Pooled If J, details of averaging and shape) period
J – Joint analysis
P N/A N/A 2.69
Note: Growth curves were derived using the revised procedures from Science Report SC050050 (2008).

Flood estimates from the statistical method

FEH Statistical Peak Flow Estimates (m3/s)
Return Period 2 5 10 20 25 30 50 75 100 200 1000
(Years)

Growth Factor
1.00 1.30 1.54 1.81 1.91 1.99 2.24 2.46 2.64 3.12 4.64

FEP2
0.85 1.11 1.31 1.54 1.63 1.70 1.91 2.10 2.25 2.66 3.96

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
 FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

D.4 Revitalised flood hydrograph (ReFH2) method

Parameters for ReFH2 model

Method: Tp (hours) Cmax (mm) BL (hours) BR

OPT: Optimisation Time to peak Maximum Baseflow lag Baseflow recharge
BR: Baseflow recession fitting storage
CD: Catchment descriptors
capacity
DT: Data transfer (give details)
CD (with FEH13 rainfall model)
2.05 243.23 26.07 0.67
for full catchment (FEP2)
Brief description of any flood event analysis N/A
carried out (further details should be given below or
in a project report)

Design events for ReFH2 method

Urban or Season of design event Storm duration (hours) Storm area for ARF
rural (summer or winter) (if not catchment area)
Urban Summer 3.5 Catchment Area used

Flood estimates from the ReFH2 method

ReFH2 Peak Flow Estimates (m3/s)

Return Period (Years) 2 30 100 1000

FEP2 (Target site)

1.42 2.92 3.69 6.19

Comparison of results from different methods

This table compares peak flows from the ReFH2.2 methods with those from the FEH Statistical method
for two key return periods. Blank cells indicate that results were not calculated using that method.

Ratio of ReFH2.2 Summer peak flow to FEH Statistical peak at FEP2.2

Return period 2 years Return period 100 years
FEH FEH
ReFH2.2 Ratio ReFH2.2 Ratio
pooling pooling
0.85 1.42 1.67 2.25 3.69 1.64

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
 FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Final choice of method

Assumptions, limitations and uncertainty

List the main assumptions made As the two minor tributaries (eastern and western) of the Bursledon
(specific to this study) Brook has catchment areas less than 0.5km2 no catchment
descriptors are available for them at the FEH Web Service.
Therefore, the model inflows are calculated at FEP1 (at the
confluence of these two minor tributaries) and the derived inflow at
FEP1 is allocated to the two minor tributaries based on the proportion
of their catchment areas.

The flow from the Motorway surface water drainage network is

assumed to be discharged to this the un-named watercourse.

The revisions of URBEXT2000 in the catchment is based on the

Motorway area in the vicinity of M27 Junction 8 which does not seem
to be incorporated in the URBEXT FEH CDs URBEXT calculation, as
observed from the urban extent suggested by FEH Web Service
mapping.
Discuss any particular limitations, The Bursledon Brook has small catchment area, e.g. approximately
e.g. applying methods outside the 0.5km2 at FEP1 and 1.3km2 at FEP2. Although the catchment is
range of catchment types or return impermeable in nature, has no attenuation and is moderately
periods for which they were urbanised, the derivation of flow in such a small catchment is always
developed associated with some degree of uncertainty. Therefore, two
independent methods, namely, the FEH Statistical method and
ReFH2.2 methods have been applied for the estimation of peak
flows, and the conservative value has been adopted.

Give what information you can on QMED catchment descriptors (FEP2) rural = 0.77m3/s
uncertainty in the results – e.g.
confidence limits for the QMED 68% confidence interval = (0.54, 1.10)
estimates using FEH 3 12.5 or the 95% confidence interval = (0.37, 1.57)
factorial standard error from
Science Report SC050050 (2008).

Comment on the suitability of the Results are suitable for the purposes of the current study.
results for future studies, e.g. at
nearby locations or for different
purposes.

Give any other comments on the N/A

study, for example suggestions for
additional work.
What do the results imply regarding N/A – the study site is ungauged.
the return periods of floods during
the period of record?
What is the 100-year growth factor? 2.64 – the 100-year growth factor using FEH Statistical and is within
Is this realistic? (The guidance the typical range.
suggests a typical range of 2.1 to 4.0)

If 1000-year flows have been 1.76 using FEH Statistical method; 1.68 using ReFH2.2 method.
derived, what is the ratio for 1000-
year flow over 100-year flow?

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
 FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

What specific runoff (l/s/ha) does A 2-year flow equates to 6.5l/s/ha using FEH Statistical method
the design flow equate to? (and 10.8 l/s/ha using ReFH2.2 method). This is generally within the
typical range (0.5-10 l/s/ha).
How do the results compare with None have been made available.
those of other studies? Explain any
differences and conclude which results
should be preferred.

Are the results compatible with the N/A

longer-term flood history?

Describe any other checks on the N/A

results

Final results
50% 3.3% 1% 1% (100yr) 0.1%
(2yr) (30yr) (100yr) +CC (1000yr)
Target peak flow at the downstream modelling extent (FEP2) – ReFH2.2
FEP2 (Storm Duration = 3.5hrs,
1.42 2.92 3.69 4.98 6.19
Summer)
Model inflows (FEP1 and Res12) – ReFH2.2
*FEP1 (Storm Duration = 3.5hrs,
0.69 1.43 1.81 2.44 3.04
Summer)
**Res12 (Storm Duration = 3.5hrs,
1.07 2.21 2.78 3.76 4.66
Summer)
*Of the total FEP1 inflow, 47% to be applied in the eastern tributary and 53% in the western tributary;

**Res12 inflow to be applied as lateral flow in the open channel reach from Junction 8 to the downstream modelling extent)

If flood hydrographs are needed for the next stage of the study, The inflow hydrographs are needed,
where are they provided? (e.g. give filename of spreadsheet, which are saved as
name of ISIS model, or reference to table below) P:\Data3\Water_Environment_Glasgow\
05 Projects\B229H190 M27 Junction
8\Technical\M27_Junction8_Model_Inflo
ws.xlsx in the Jacobs Glasgow server.

Model inflow hydrographs to be applied

at the eastern and western tributaries
(the total inflow is shown as FEP1) and
the model inflows from the residual
catchment to be applied as a lateral flow
(Res12) are shown in Figures D.1 and
D.2 overleaf.

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
 FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Figure D.1: FEP1 Inflow Hydrograph (m3/s) for 3.5hr CSD for 2yr,30yr,100yr and 1000yr design storm events

Figure D.2: Res12 Inflow Hydrograph (m3/s) for 3.5hr CSD for 2yr,30yr,100yr and 1000yr design storm events

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
 FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Figure D.3a: The FEH catchment boundary of the Bursledon Brook (revised boundary in blue)

Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right (2019)

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
 FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Figure D.3b: Flow estimation point and Model Inflow location

M27 Junction 8
Model Inflows

Point Inflow: 46.9% of

Point Inflow: 53.1% of FEP1 Inflow
FEP1 inflow

FEP1

Lateral Inflow: Res12

FEP2- Target Point

Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right (2019)

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
 FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Figure D.4: Location of the six donor gauges suggested by WinFAP4

42008 (Cheriton
Stream @
Sewards Bridge

42010 (Itchen @
Highbridge &
Allbrook Total)
42014
(Blackwater @
Ower)
42011 (Hamble
@ Frogmill) 42006 (Neon @
Mislingford

42003
(Lymington @
Brockenhurst)

Contains OS data © Crown Copyright and database right (2019)

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
 FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Figure D.5: Donor site details for QMED estimation by data transfer (WINFAP4 suggested 6
donors)

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
 FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Table D.1: Final pooling group details

Station Distance Years of data QMED AM L-CV L-SKEW Discordancy AREA SAAR FPEXT FARL URBEXT 2000

76011 (Coal Burn @ Coalburn) 0.896 40 1.84 0.166 0.31 0.418 1.63 1096 0.074 1 0

45816 (Haddeo @ Upton) 2.434 24 3.489 0.306 0.387 0.977 6.81 1210 0.011 1 0.005

27051 (Crimple @ Burn Bridge) 2.557 45 4.564 0.221 0.144 0.661 8.17 855 0.013 1 0.006

28033 (Dove @ Hollinsclough) 2.704 38 4.225 0.234 0.405 0.394 7.92 1346 0.007 1 0

91802 (Allt Leachdach @ Intake) 3.162 34 6.35 0.153 0.257 0.676 6.54 2554 0.003 0.99 0

49006 (Camel @ Camelford) 3.336 11 11.154 0.124 -0.185 2.887 12.52 1418 0.013 1 0.003

71003 (Croasdale Beck @ Croasdale

Flume) 3.358 37 10.9 0.212 0.323 0.105 10.71 1882 0.016 1 0

92002 (Allt Coire Nan Con @ Polloch) 3.367 16 13.54 0.101 0.337 1.793 8.06 2541 0.007 0.99 0

25011 (Langdon Beck @ Langdon) 3.384 28 15.878 0.238 0.318 1.356 12.79 1463 0.012 1 0.001

25019 (Leven @ Easby) 3.411 39 5.677 0.34 0.377 1.858 15.09 830 0.019 1 0.004

54022 (Severn @ Plynlimon Flume) 3.423 38 14.988 0.156 0.171 0.921 8.75 2481 0.01 1 0

25003 (Trout Beck @ Moor House) 3.452 44 15.142 0.168 0.294 0.266 11.4 1905 0.041 1 0

206006 (Annalong @ Recorder) 3.65 48 15.33 0.189 0.052 2.173 14.44 1704 0.023 0.98 0

27010 (Hodge Beck @ Bransdale Weir) 3.743 41 9.42 0.224 0.293 0.074 18.82 987 0.009 1 0.001

203046 (Rathmore Burn @ Rathmore

Bridge) 4.042 35 10.72 0.147 0.144 0.44 22.5 1043 0.072 1 0

Total 518

Weighted means 0.2 0.251

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
 FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Figure D.6: Pooling Group Diagnostic Plots

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
 FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Appendix E. Flood maps

E.1 Baseline scenario – maximum flood depth map – 1% AEP + 35%CC event

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
 FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

E.2 Proposed scheme scenario (No Mitigation) – maximum flood depth map – 1%
AEP + 35%CC event

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
 FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

E.3 Proposed scheme scenario (With Mitigation) First option – maximum flood
depth map – 1% AEP + 35%CC event

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
 FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

E.4 Proposed scheme scenario (With Mitigation) second option – maximum flood
depth map – 1% AEP + 35%CC event

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002
 FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

Appendix F. Proposed mitigation plan

HE551514-JAC-EWE-PCF3_SS1-RP-LE-0002