Bicester Fence Fra b05162 RP FH 1001 p2 (Fra)

Flood Risk Assessment
South Service Yard Fence
B05162-CLK-XX-XX-RP-FH-1001
Bicester Nominees Ltd and Bicester II Nominees Ltd
MULTIDISCIPLINARY ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
Contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 5
1.1 Overview .................................................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Site Location and Description..................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Proposed Development.............................................................................................................. 6
1.4 Objectives ................................................................................................................................... 6
1.5 Limitations .................................................................................................................................. 6
2 Planning and Flood Risk Policy Review...................................................................................... 7
2.1 Overview of National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) ......................................................... 7
2.1.1 Sequential Test Process .................................................................................................... 7
2.1.2 Development Vulnerability, Flood Zone Compatibility and the Exception Test ............... 8
2.1.3 Design Flood Event ............................................................................................................ 9
2.1.4 Surface Water Runoff Disposal Hierarchy ......................................................................... 9
2.2 Flood Risk Assessment Requirements ........................................................................................ 9
2.3 Relevant Local Planning Policy ................................................................................................. 10
2.3.1 Cherwell Local Plan 2011 - 2031 – Policy ESD 6 .............................................................. 10
2.3.2 Cherwell Level-1 SFRA (2017) ......................................................................................... 11
2.3.3 Cherwell Level-2 SFRA (2017) ......................................................................................... 11
2.3.4 Oxfordshire Local Flood Risk Management Strategy ...................................................... 11
3 Background Information ........................................................................................................ 12
3.1 Site Levels ................................................................................................................................. 12
3.2 Existing Drainage ...................................................................................................................... 12
3.3 Hydrology ................................................................................................................................. 12
3.4 Geology, Groundwater and Soils.............................................................................................. 13
4 Flood Risk Assessment ........................................................................................................... 14
4.1 Flood Zones and Development Compatibility .......................................................................... 14
4.2 Impact of Climate Change ........................................................................................................ 15
4.3 Fluvial Flood Risk ...................................................................................................................... 16
4.4 Other Sources of Flood Risk ..................................................................................................... 17
4.4.1 Ordinary Watercourse Flooding ...................................................................................... 17
4.4.2 Groundwater Flooding .................................................................................................... 17
4.4.3 Sewer Flooding ................................................................................................................ 18
4.4.4 Surface Water Flooding................................................................................................... 18
4.4.5 Flooding from Artificial Infrastructure Failure ................................................................ 19
4.5 Impact of Development on Flood Risk Elsewhere.................................................................... 20
4.6 Cumulative Impact on Flood Risk ............................................................................................. 20
4.7 Safe Access and Egress ............................................................................................................. 21
4.8 Mitigation and Management Requirements ............................................................................ 21
4.9 Summary Table ......................................................................................................................... 23
5 Summary & Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 24
B05162 Bicester Nominees Ltd and Bicester II Nominees Ltd 1

01/08/2019
Figure 1: Site Boundary ..................................................................................................... 5

Figure 2: Process of the Sequential Test ........................................................................... 7
Figure 3: Policy ESD6 of the Local Plan 2011 - 2031 ....................................................... 11
Figure 4: Town Brook & Catchment ................................................................................ 12
Figure 5: EA 'Flood Map for Planning'(Light Blue = Flood Zone 2, Dark Blue = Flood Zone
3)...................................................................................................................................... 14
Figure 6: Flood Hazard Matrix (FD2320/TR2, DEFRA, 2005) ........................................... 16
Figure 7: EA Surface Water Flood Map (Light Blue = Low Risk, Blue = Medium Risk, Dark
Blue = High Risk) .............................................................................................................. 19
Appendix A – Proposed Layout (x1 page)

Appendix B – Topographic Survey (x1 page)
Appendix C – Existing Service Yard Drainage (x1 page)
Appendix D – Level-1 SFRA Flood Map (x1 page)
Appendix E – Product 4 Data (x? pages)
Appendix F – Level-1 SFRA Groundwater Map (x? pages)
Appendix G – Unit 110 Extension Plans showing Compensatory Storage (x1 page)

01/08/2019
Executive Summary
Client Bicester Nominees Ltd and Bicester II Nominees Ltd

The Site is situated along the eastern perimeter of the service yard in the south-
Site eastern corner of Bicester Village. It can be located by National Grid Reference
(NGR) SP 584671 21678 or by nearest postcode of OX26 6EU.
The Proposal is for the installation of a new fence, approximately 75m in length,
running parallel to the existing fence line and retaining wall on the edge of the
service yard. The fence will be approximately 6 metres high and comprise of
timber panels to provide screening from the railway. Fence posts (supported by
bracing legs) will raise the timber panels from the ground level, leaving a gap
Development
below the fence of approximately 3 metres. There will also be an Armco barrier
Description and
installed at the base of the fence to protect the fence structure from large
Planning Policy
vehicles using the Site.
The Proposal can be classified as a ‘Water-Compatible’ development, in

accordance with Paragraph 066 of the NPPG, which is compatible with Flood
Zone 3b.
The EA ‘Flood Map for Planning’ shows that the Site is located within Flood Zone
3b. This means the Site has an annual exceedance probability (AEP) of flooding
greater than 5% (1 in 20 year return period) from fluvial sources.
The previous FRA (WB02669 – R002) submitted a 1% AEP plus climate change
flood level of 66.02m AOD, derived from modelling undertaken by Buro Happold
in 2009 for the Phase 3 development. This was duly accepted by Cherwell District
Council and the EA. As the EA’s data has not been updated since this time, there
is no reason for the previous decision to be overturned.
A 1% AEP + climate change level of 66.02m AOD would relate to a flood depth of
0.62m at the Site. In accordance with the FD2320/TR2 hazard method, this would
pose a ‘Danger to most’ hazard (which includes the general public). As was put
Flood Sources &
forward in the previous FRA (WB02669 – R002), the 66.02m AOD level is used as
Flood Risk
the ‘design flood’ level here to present a worst-case scenario of a blockage in the
service tunnel and failure of the pumping station. It is therefore judged that
fluvial flood sources pose a moderate risk to the Site.
As the Proposal will not be developing in a manner sensitive to groundwater

flooding (basement dwelling etc.), nor does the geology suggest a high
groundwater presence, the risk from groundwater flooding is considered to be
low.
The Proposal is located within an area at low risk of surface water flooding. This
represents an area with a 0.1 – 1% annual probability of flooding. However, the
EA surface water flood model does not take into account the existing positive
drainage network. The service tunnel and pumping station would also likely

01/08/2019
reduce surface water flooding at the Site.
Flood risk from artificial sources, sewers and ordinary watercourses have been
discounted as it has been assessed to be negligible.
The flood risk management hierarchy found in Section 5 of BS 8533:2017 has
been applied to determine the most appropriate mitigation measures for the
scheme. Broadly, the Site is considered to be safe from all forms of flooding;
however, precautionary mitigation measures have still been recommended.
Groundwater flood risk should be considered, particularly during construction
where excavated areas may experience groundwater emergence. To mitigate
this, relevant contractor health and safety procedures for working in confined
spaces and below ground level should be in place. In extreme cases,
Flood Risk
dewatering/pumping may be required to remove any groundwater present.
Management
Measures
The Proposal is calculated to displace 2.63m3 of the existing “natural” storage
based on the flow associated with design flood event (1% AEP + cc) for the Town
Brook’s. While this is regarded as a relatively minor impact, this volume of “lost”
storage will be compensated for by the excess volume already provided as
compensation for Unit 110.
Additionally, it is assessed that the Proposal will not re-direct or obstruct flows
during this time.

01/08/2019
1 Introduction
1.1 Overview
Clarkebond (UK) Ltd was commissioned by Bicester Nominees Ltd and Bicester II Nominees Ltd
to provide a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) to support a full planning application for the
installation of a fence at the south service yard of Bicester Village (the “Proposal”).
The report has been undertaken in accordance with flood risk policy contained within the
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2019) and guidance found in the Flood Risk and
Coastal Change National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG). The assessment of flood risk was
informed by the Level-1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) 2017 for the Local Planning
Authority (LPA) Cherwell District Council, Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) Oxfordshire County
Council documents, Environment Agency (EA) data and information available on government
websites.
The main purpose of this report is to provide sufficient flood risk information to ensure the
development is safe from flooding and would not pose a risk to third parties.
1.2 Site Location and Description

The proposed development site (“the Site”) is situated along the eastern perimeter of the
service yard in the south-eastern corner of Bicester Village. It can be located by National Grid
Reference (NGR) SP 584671 21678 or by nearest postcode of OX26 6EU.
Figure 1: Site Boundary

01/08/2019
1.3 Proposed Development

The Proposal is for the installation of a new fence, approximately 75m in length, running parallel
to the existing fence line and retaining wall on the edge of the service yard. The fence will be
approximately 6 metres high and comprise of timber panels to provide screening from the
railway. Fence posts (supported by bracing legs) will raise the timber panels from the ground
level, leaving a gap below the fence of approximately 3 metres. There will also be an Armco
barrier installed at the base of the fence to protect the fence structure from large vehicles using
the Site.
A copy of the proposed layout is included as Appendix A.
1.4 Objectives
The main objectives of this FRA report, as recommended in the NPPF, are:
• To assess the site suitability in terms of the Sequential Test and, if required, the Exception
Test;
• To identify the probability of flooding at the development;
• To assess the compatibility of the development with the flood risk zone;
• To identify the consequence of flooding at the development and suitable mitigation
measures if required;
• Demonstrate that the development will not increase flood risk elsewhere, and where
possible, will reduce flood risk.
1.5 Limitations
The information, views and conclusions drawn concerning the site are based, in part, on
information supplied to Clarkebond by other parties. Clarkebond has proceeded in good faith on
the assumption that this information is accurate. Clarkebond accepts no liability for any
inaccurate conclusions, assumptions or actions taken resulting from any inaccurate information
supplied to Clarkebond from others.

01/08/2019
2 Planning and Flood Risk Policy Review

2.1 Overview of National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
National policy on flood risk is set out in paragraphs 155 to 165 of the NPPF (2019) which is also
supplemented by National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) for flood risk and coastal change.
The overarching aim of the NPPF is to ensure inappropriate development in areas at risk of
flooding are avoided, which is achieved via application of the Sequential Test.
2.1.1 Sequential Test Process

In summary this test aims to highlight the areas at lowest probability of flooding (Flood Zone 1)
and steer new development to these areas. If the location of the low risk area is not suitable due
to wider sustainability objectives then progressively higher risk areas (Flood Zone 2/Flood Zone
3) can be considered, provided the development will be suitably safe from flooding and does not
increase flood risk to other areas.
The process for undertaking the Sequential Test is shown in Figure 2. Flood Zones 1-3 relate to
the risk of flooding from Main Rivers (rivers managed by the EA) and the sea, and are used as
the primary indicator of whether land is suitable for development. Table 1 (taken from Table 1
of NPPG) details the corresponding meaning of flood zones in relation to flood risk.
Figure 2: Process of the Sequential Test

01/08/2019
Table 1: Definition of Flood Zones (as defined in the NPPG)
Flood Zone Definition

Zone 1 Land having a less than 1 in 1,000 annual probability of river or sea
Low Probability flooding.
Zone 2 Land having between a 1 in 100 and 1 in 1,000 annual probability of
Medium river flooding; or Land having between a 1 in 200 and 1 in 1,000 annual
Probability probability of sea flooding.
Zone 3a Land having a 1 in 100 or greater annual probability of river flooding; or
High Probability Land having a 1 in 200 or greater annual probability of sea flooding.
Zone 3b This zone comprises land where water has to flow or be stored in times
The Functional of flood. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessments should identify the areas
Floodplain of functional floodplain and its boundaries accordingly, in agreement
with the Environment Agency.
The Sequential Test is considered to be passed if a site is within Flood Zone 1 or has been
allocated in the Council’s Local Plan where the Sequential Test has already been undertaken. If
neither of these applies, a Sequential Test is required to demonstrate that there are no other
available and suitable sites at a lower risk of flooding.
2.1.2 Development Vulnerability, Flood Zone Compatibility and the Exception Test
After undertaking the Sequential Test, the vulnerability of development to flooding must be
considered so that more vulnerable uses are given priority for lower risk land. This exercise is
undertaken by making reference to Table 2 (Paragraph 066) of NPPG which shows the
vulnerability classifications of various land use types and Table 3 (Paragraph 067) of NPPG which
shows the compatibility of the different vulnerability categories with the Flood Zones and
requirements for the Exception Test.
If a site has a range of flood zones, a sequential approach to development should also be taken
within the site itself to direct development to the areas of lowest flood risk (Flood Zone 1 first,
followed by Flood Zone 2, and finally Flood Zone 3). If it isn’t possible to locate all of the
development in Flood Zone 1, then the most vulnerable elements of the development should be
located in the lowest risk parts of the site (unless there is an overriding reason to choose a
different location).
Certain development may require an Exception Test before it is considered acceptable in Flood
Zones 2 and 3. To pass this test, the following needs to be demonstrated:
1. The development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh
flood risk, informed by a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment where one has been prepared;
and
2. the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users,
without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.

01/08/2019
2.1.3 Design Flood Event
The development should be flood resistant and resilient including having safe access and escape
routes for the following extreme flood events, also known as the ‘design flood’ (taken from
Paragraph 055 of NPPG):
• 1 in 100 year (1%) fluvial flood accounting for climate change

• 1 in 200 year (0.5%) tidal/coastal flood accounting for climate change
Climate change is projected to increase the likelihood of flooding from most flood sources and
therefore an assessment of the effects of climate change should be considered over the
estimated development lifetime.
The lifetime of the fence is estimated to be 30 years. Therefore from an assumed date of
construction in 2020, this means assessing the flood risk at the Site to 2050.
2.1.4 Surface Water Runoff Disposal Hierarchy
Surface water drainage from the proposed development must be dealt with in accordance with
the following hierarchy taken from Paragraph 080 of NPPG:
1. Infiltration to the ground using a soakaway or other suitable sustainable drainage

system.
2. If this is not feasible, discharge to a watercourse or river; generally at a controlled rate
unless it does not affect flood risk e.g. if to the sea or an estuary.
3. Discharge at a controlled rate to a surface water sewer or drain.
4. Discharge at a controlled rate to a combined sewer system – this will only be considered
if the above have all been investigated and it has been proved that none of these
options are suitable. The approval for this can only be given by the Water Authority.
Guidance on how surface water runoff should be managed, notably the discharge rate with
which is can leave a development site, is taken from the ‘Non-Statutory Technical Standards for
Sustainable Drainage Systems’ (2015).
2.2 Flood Risk Assessment Requirements
Footnote 50 of the NPPF states that a site-specific FRA is required for developments which:
• Are in Flood Zone 2 or 3;

• Are more than 1 hectare (ha) in Flood Zone 1;
• Are in an area which has critical drainage problems as notified by the Environment
Agency;
• Land identified in a strategic flood risk assessment as being at increased flood risk in
the future; or

01/08/2019
• Could be affected by sources of flooding other than rivers and the sea (e.g. surface
water drains, reservoirs) where a development will introduce a more vulnerable use.
The focus of FRAs for the higher risk zones is to fully assess the extent, depth and hazard of
flood waters, detail the required mitigation to manage flood risk (e.g. floor levels and access,
evacuation routes, compensatory storage) and outline a surface water management plan. FRAs
for sites where the risk of flooding from rivers or the sea is classified as low (Flood Zone 1) will
still need to assess all other sources of flood risk, but will have a strong focus on management of
surface water runoff.
2.3 Relevant Local Planning Policy
Local planning policy provides more specific detail on development requirements based on the
flood risk in the local county or borough. Although these policies will broadly be in line with
national policy, where additional requirements are required this will take precedence.
A list of relevant planning policy documents that were consulted during this FRA include:
• Cherwell Local Plan 2011 - 2031

• Cherwell Level – 1 SFRA (2017)
• Cherwell Level – 2 SFRA (2017)
• Oxfordshire Local Flood Risk Management Strategy.
2.3.1 Cherwell Local Plan 2011 - 2031 – Policy ESD 6
The Local Plan was adopted in July 2015 and forms the core of the Local Development
Framework for Cherwell District Council. The key policy relating to flood risk is ‘Policy ESD 6
Sustainable Flood Risk Management’ (Figure 3), which is broadly in line with current national
policy however provides some additional detail and requirements. Other policies such as ‘Policy
ESD 7: Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)’ are also relevant in the management of flood risk.

01/08/2019
Figure 3: Policy ESD6 of the Local Plan 2011 - 2031
2.3.2 Cherwell Level-1 SFRA (2017)

The current Level-1 SFRA (2017) replaces the previous report published in 2009. It provides a
baseline assessment of the flood risk within Cherwell as well as provides guidance for how site-
specific flood risk assessments should be completed.
2.3.3 Cherwell Level-2 SFRA (2017)

The aim of the Level-2 SFRA was to provide supplementary information to the Level-1 SFRA
(2017) on the specific flood risk issues of 8 strategic development sites.
2.3.4 Oxfordshire Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

This strategy is an important tool in understanding the Council’s management of flood risks
throughout Oxfordshire, in particular the responsible authorities and objectives in place.

01/08/2019
3 Background Information
3.1 Site Levels
A topographic survey was carried out by Tower Surveys in March 2010, covering the entire
Bicester Village Site. This can be found in Appendix B.
The existing ground level of the area ranges from 65.4 – 65.5m AOD. This is generally >100mm
higher ground than the service yard to the west.
3.2 Existing Drainage
The existing drainage can be determined from the Bicester Village Phase 3 layout drawn by
Faber Maunsell in 2006, provided in Appendix C.
This shows the Site to drain via several high capacity channels to two linear concrete
attenuation tanks before out-falling into the Town Brook. There are no third-party or public
sewers identified within the south service yard.
3.3 Hydrology
According to the EA’s ‘Main Rivers Map’ and ‘Catchment Data Explorer’, the Site is located
within the catchment of a main river, the Town Brook. A main river refers to those watercourses
under the jurisdiction of the EA. Figure 4 shows the extent of the catchment boundary.
Figure 4: Town Brook & Catchment

01/08/2019
According to OS maps, there are no “ordinary watercourses” identified on Site. Ordinary

watercourses refer to those under the jurisdiction of the LLFA, which in this case is the Council.
As discussed in Section 3.1, the Site is generally sloped to the west where the service yard sits in
a relatively low area. However, water draining to here would be captured by the existing
drainage network outlined in Section 3.2.
3.4 Geology, Groundwater and Soils
The geology of the Site is shown on the 1:50,000 scale British Geological Survey (BGS) map and
on the BGS website’s Geology of Britain viewer. A review of the available data indicates the
anticipated geology at the Site can be summarised as follows:
Superficial Deposits
• Alluvium – comprising Clay, Silt, Sand and Gravel. This is considered to be a Secondary A
Aquifer.
Bedrock
• Kellaways Clay Member – comprising Mudstone, which is considered to be an
unproductive aquifer.
According to ‘Magic’ maps, the Site is not located in a groundwater vulnerability area or within a
Source Protection Zone (SPZ).
According to LandIS ‘Soilscapes’, the Site is underlain by ‘Soilscape 18’: this comprises slowly
permeable, seasonally wet, slightly acid but base-rich loamy and clayey soil’. This area is known
to have impeded drainage and is likely to drain to a stream network, rather than groundwater. A
review of available historic borehole data does not indicate a high groundwater table.

01/08/2019
4 Flood Risk Assessment

4.1 Flood Zones and Development Compatibility
The EA ‘Flood Map for Planning’ shows that the Site is located within Flood Zone 3 (see Figure
5). This means the Site has an annual exceedance probability (AEP) of flooding greater than 1%
(1 in 100 year return period) from fluvial sources.
Figure 5: EA 'Flood Map for Planning'(Light Blue = Flood Zone 2, Dark Blue = Flood Zone 3)
As it is the LPA that provides distinction between Flood Zone 3a and 3b, the Level-1 SFRA (2017)
was consulted. As shown in ‘Figure B6-J’ (Appendix D), the Site is located in Flood Zone 3b. This
equates to an area with a greater than 5% annual exceedance probability (AEP), or an area
where flood water needs to be stored during extreme events i.e. the functional floodplain.
The Proposal can be classified as a ‘Water-Compatible’ development, in accordance with

Paragraph 066 of the NPPG, which is compatible with Flood Zone 3b – see Table 2 (taken from
Table 3 of the NPPG).

01/08/2019
Table 2: Flood Risk Vulnerability and Flood Zone 'Compatibility'
Flood Risk
Essential Water Highly More Less
Vulnerability
Infrastructure Compatible Vulnerable Vulnerable Vulnerable
Classification
Zone 1     
Exception
Zone 2    
Test required
Flood Zones
Exception Test Exception

Zone 3a  X 
required Test required
Exception Test
Zone 3b  X X X
required
Where  means the development is appropriate and X means the development should not be permitted
4.2 Impact of Climate Change

As the Site is identified as being within a high risk zone for fluvial/tidal modelled flood data, the
NPPF states that the FRA should assess the increased risk posed by climate change over the
development lifetime. The Site will also be affected by the projected increased risk of surface
water and sewer flooding and so the new drainage system for the site should accommodate the
projected increase in surface water flows over the development lifetime.
EA guidance on climate change allowances to support the NPPF came into effect in February
2016. The Site is situated within the Thames River Basin district with a development lifespan of
~30 years up to 2050. Based on NPPG guidance for ‘Water Compatible’ development in Flood
Zone 3b, the central allowance should be used as shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Peak River Flow Allowances for Thames River Basin District
Total Change 2015- Total Change 2040- Total change 2070-

2039 2069 2115
Upper End 25% 35% 70%
Higher Central 15% 25% 35%
Central 10% 15% 25%
Table 4 shows the recommended allowances for peak rainfall intensity for different statistical
likelihoods. The upper end allowance should be used in areas where there are known flooding
issues and there is highly vulnerable development in the downstream sewer network.

01/08/2019
Table 4: Peak Rainfall Intensity Allowance in Small and Urban Catchments
Total Change 2015- Total Change 2040- Total change 2070-

2039 2069 2115
Upper End 10% 20% 40%
Central 5% 10% 20%
4.3 Fluvial Flood Risk

Fluvial flood data has been taken from the ‘Langford Brook (Bicester) & Pingle-Back-Bure 2010’
model, provided by the EA as part of a Product 4 request (see Appendix E). While this was
provided in 2018, it has been confirmed that the model has not changed since then. The levels
presented are in fact the same as those quoted in the previous FRA for the Site (WB02669 –
R002, February 2016).
This provided a flood level for a range of different probability events, as shown in Table 5. This
included the 1 % AEP event with a 20% allowance for climate change, which exceeds the 15%
that would be required.
Table 5: Flood Level Data from the ‘Landford Brook (Bicester) & Pingle-Back-Bure 2010’ Model
Return Period 5% AEP 1% AEP 1% AEP + 20% 0.1% AEP

Climate Change
Flood Level (m 66.69 66.84 66.91 67.08

AOD)
In relation to the existing ground levels at the Site, this would equate to a flood depth of a
maximum of 1.3m and 1.7m during a 5% AEP event and 0.1% AEP event, respectively. In
accordance with the FD2320/TR2 hazard method (Figure 6), this could pose a ‘Danger to all’
hazard (which includes the emergency services).
Figure 6: Flood Hazard Matrix (FD2320/TR2, DEFRA, 2005)

01/08/2019
However, the previous FRA (WB02669 – R002) submitted a 1% AEP plus climate change flood
level of 66.02m AOD, derived from site specific hydraulic modelling undertaken by Buro Happold
in 2009 for the Phase 3 development. This was accepted by Cherwell District Council and the EA.
As the EA’s product 4 data has not been updated since that time, there is no valid reason for the
EA not to accept the flood level data contained in the previous FRA submission.
A 1% AEP + climate change level of 66.02m AOD would relate to a flood depth of 0.62m at the
Site. In accordance with the FD2320/TR2 hazard method, this would pose a ‘Danger to most’
hazard (which includes the general public).
In practice, depths above 65.60m AOD is not considered likely as flood water would flow away
from the Site via the service tunnel below the A41 (connecting to south of the service yard). The
pumping station can also extract water from the Site at 3.8 l/s which also assists with the
drainage of the service yard. A flood level of 65.60m AOD would relate to a depth of 200mm,
posing a low hazard.
As was put forward in the previous FRA (WB02669 – R002), the 66.02m AOD level is used as the
‘design flood’ level here to present a worst-case scenario of a blockage in the service tunnel and
failure of the pumping station. It is therefore judged that fluvial flood sources pose a moderate
risk to the Site (taking into account the low vulnerability of the development).
According to the EA’s historic flood map, there is no record of past flooding at the Site.
4.4 Other Sources of Flood Risk
Other sources of flooding which need to be assessed are:
• Ordinary watercourses (watercourses not under jurisdiction of EA)

• Groundwater
• Surface water
• Sewers (sewer and drain exceedance and pumping station failure)
• Reservoirs, canals and other artificial waterbodies
4.4.1 Ordinary Watercourse Flooding
According to OS maps, there are no ordinary watercourses located on site.
4.4.2 Groundwater Flooding
Groundwater flooding typically occurs when water levels rise up above surface elevations from
underlying rocks or springs following prolonged rainfall. The two most common mechanisms of
groundwater flooding are:
1. Bedrock Flooding – Occurs following extended periods of rainfall in areas underlain by a

permeable bedrock outcrop. Typically, chalk aquifers pose the greater risk, where the large
pore spaces in the rock allow the water table to rise rapidly. Settlements most at risk are
those in low-lying areas and at the base of steep-sided valleys at the interface between

01/08/2019
permeable and impermeable strata (where the groundwater table is naturally closer to the
ground surface).
2. Superficial Deposit Flooding – Occurs in permeable unconsolidated deposits (e.g. gravel)

which lie on river floodplains following high in-bank river levels.
The Level-1 SFRA provides a general assessment of groundwater flood risk in Cherwell, providing
a map of 1km2 grid areas with varying susceptibility to groundwater (Appendix F). The Site is
located in an area where between 25 – 50% of the land is susceptible to groundwater flood risk.
It should be noted that this provides an assessment of the ability for groundwater to emerge
(based on ground conditions) and not the probability of occurrence. The presence of historic
flooding provides a better measure of probability.
As discussed in Section 3.4, the underlying bedrock does not have significant groundwater
present. However, the superficial deposits atop the bedrock may have groundwater storage
potential.
While this gives an indication of where the conditions conducive for groundwater emergence
are, it is an unreliable assessment of groundwater flood risk. A more reliable measure of
groundwater flood risk is whether there have been recorded groundwater flood events in the
past. The Level-1 SFRA makes no mention of any recorded flood events within the vicinity of the
Site attributed to groundwater.
As the Proposal will not be developing in a manner sensitive to groundwater flooding (such as
basement dwelling etc.), nor does the geology suggest a high groundwater presence, the risk
from groundwater flooding is considered to be low.
4.4.3 Sewer Flooding
Thames Water is the statutory water undertaker and keeps a record of historic sewer flood
events in a database called the DG5 register. According to data presented in the Level-1 SFRA,
taken from the DG5 register, there have been 0-5 reported flood incidents in Bicester. It should
be noted the DG5 register provides a ‘snapshot’ in time and will be outdated by the addition of
new properties. However new properties may in fact create betterment, from both application
of the SuDS Hierarchy and the potential for capital investment in the public sewer system.
It has been established that based on historic flood records the probability of sewer flooding is
low at the Site. The prevailing topography indicates that if sewer flood water emerged from the
manholes/inspection chambers in the service yard, they would not preferentially flow towards
the Site, as it is situated at a higher elevation.
For the reasons discussed, and the relationship between probability and impact, the baseline
risk to the Site from sewer flooding is determined to be negligible.
4.4.4 Surface Water Flooding
Surface water flooding is caused by heavy rainfall events that cause significant surface runoff
and ponding of accumulated water. The probability and impact of flooding is heavily dependent

01/08/2019
on the topography of a site, as well as the ground conditions and its infiltration capability. The
EA states that “flooding from surface water is difficult to predict as rainfall location and volume
are difficult to forecast”.
Figure 7: EA Surface Water Flood Map (Light Blue = Low Risk, Blue = Medium Risk, Dark Blue = High Risk)
As can be seen from the EA surface water flood map (Figure 7), the Proposal is located within an
area at low risk of surface water flooding. This represents an area with a 0.1 – 1% annual
probability of flooding.
It should be noted that the EA surface water flood model does not take into account existing
positive drainage, which as discussed in Section 3.2 the Site benefits from. Furthermore the
service tunnel and pumping station would likely reduce surface water flooding at the Site.
Therefore the risk from surface water flooding to the Site is considered to be low.
4.4.5 Flooding from Artificial Infrastructure Failure
The proposed development site is not within an area at risk of flooding from reservoirs,
therefore the risk posed to the site from Artificial Infrastructure Failure is none.

01/08/2019
4.5 Impact of Development on Flood Risk Elsewhere

A key requirement of this FRA, along with assessing flood risk to the Site, is to adequately assess
the impact of the Proposal on flood risk elsewhere. This involves determining the source of risk
(e.g. changes to the Site), the pathway of risk (e.g. re-direction of flow) and the receptors to the
risk (e.g. nearby properties).
The Site is assessed to be at risk from the 1% AEP fluvial flood event with an allowance for
climate change, referred to as the ‘design flood event’. If left unmitigated, any changes on Site
could displace or re-direct floodwater during this event. In terms of displacement, the volume of
the fence is calculated to be 2.63m3 assuming a flood depth of 0.62m. This is for both the
bracing legs and supporting columns of the fence as well as the Armco protective barrier; see
calculations below:
Fence Bracing Legs = (0.1m x 0.06m cross section) x 0.62m depth x 21 structures
Fence Columns = (0.23m x 0.075m cross section) x 0.62m depth x 21 structures
Armco Standard Beam = (0.085m x 0.31m cross section) x 85 estimated barrier length
Armco RSJ Post = (0.127m x 0.087m cross section) x26 posts x 0.31m height
As was agreed in the previous FRA (WB02669 – R002), this is considered to be a very minor
displacement of water having a negligible effect on the overall flood level. However, to be in line
with EA policy, compensatory storage is discussed in Section 4.8.
In terms of re-direction of flows, the fence design allows for the bottom of the fence to be ~3m
above ground level (raised on columns). As was previously agreed, a flood depth of 0.62m would
be allowed to pass freely underneath the fence. Therefore, the Proposal will not obstruct or re-
direct flood water. Pathways for water to enter and exit the service yard (i.e. the service tunnel)
will remain unaltered.
As the Site is currently impermeable, the Proposal will not adversely affect surface water flood
risk elsewhere by increasing impermeable area. Typically a fence may present a barrier to flows
and therefore re-direct them elsewhere. However, as the fence is to be elevated on columns,
flows will be allowed to pass underneath the fence in its existing manner.
4.6 Cumulative Impact on Flood Risk

Under the new NPPF guidelines, the cumulative impact on flood risk from both the Proposed
Development and surrounding developments must be assessed. This should involve determining
where there are common flood sources, pathways and receptors and assessing the scale and
timings of any impacts likely.
The majority of the existing Town Brook upstream catchment and floodplain is developed;
therefore there are few opportunities for new development to have a significant impact on
flood risk (i.e. increase impermeable area). In fact, new development would be expected to
create an improvement through the implementation of recent policy and best-practise (e.g.
SuDS).
As discussed in Section 4.5, the impact of the development to elsewhere is considered to be

minor-to-negligible to the floodplain of the Town Brook. Therefore, the Proposal will not
contribute to any cumulative impact downstream.

01/08/2019
4.7 Safe Access and Egress
Access and egress from the south service yard is possible to the west, towards Bicester Village.
The Site is approximately 100m from Flood Zone 1, which represents approximately 1 minute of
walking. As there will be no cause for any vulnerable people to be at the Site (e.g. elderly,
infirm), it is thought that safe access and egress is possible from the Site.
4.8 Mitigation and Management Requirements
Flood risk mitigation and management measures for the development are determined by way of
the hierarchical process outlined in Section 5 of the BS 8533:2017 ‘Assessing and Managing
Flood Risk in Development – Code of Practice’. Application of this hierarchy is as follows:
1. Stage 1 – Assessing and understanding the flood risk:

A sound understanding of the sources of flood risk and how it varies over the Site has
been achieved.
2. Stage 2 – Avoiding the Risk:

Due to the nature of the development, which is unique to the Site, it is not possible to
avoid the risk.
3. Stage 3 – Substitution:
It is not possible to substitute the development without compromising the utility of the
Proposal.
4. Stage 4 – Land raising, flood control/surface water management incorporation:

Excess compensatory storage has been provided (from Phase 3 development), which
will mitigate any minor impact from floodplain volume lost caused by the Proposal.
5. Stage 5 – Resistant/resilient building techniques:

Resilient construction techniques should be incorporated into the Proposal, such as
those included in ‘Improving the Flood Performance of New Buildings’ (2007) and BS
85500:2015 ‘Flood Resistant and Resilient Construction’.
6. Stage 6 – Safety:
Safe access and egress is possible to and from the Site, as there is an un-impeded route
100m west of the Site to Flood Zone 1.
As discussed in Section 4.5, it is calculated that the Proposal would displace 2.63m3 of
floodwater if unmitigated. While this represents a minor impact to the floodplain, in line with EA
guidance this should be compensated for. It was previously agreed that the excess
compensatory storage proposed for Unit 110, which equalled 8m3, would be able to
accommodate the displacement caused by the fence. See Appendix G for Unit 110
compensatory storage.
Broadly, the Site is considered to be safe from all forms of flooding. Groundwater flood risk
should however be taken into consideration, particularly during construction where excavated
areas may experience groundwater emergence. To mitigate this, relevant contractor health and

01/08/2019
safety procedures for working in confined spaces should be in place. In extreme cases,
dewatering/pumping may be required to remove any groundwater present.

01/08/2019
4.9 Summary Table
Current
Flood Source Level of Mitigation Required Residual Risk
Risk
Fluvial None Required
Ordinary
Watercourse
Contractor’s H&S procedures

Groundwater
De-watering of excavated area (if required)
Sewer
Surface Water None Required
Artificial
Infrastructure
Flood Risk to
Utilise excess compensatory storage
Elsewhere
High Risk – Major constraint to development requiring active

consideration in mitigation proposals
Moderate Risk – Issue requires consideration but not a
significant constraint to development
Low – Issue requires some consideration and is not a significant
Key
constraint to development
Very Low - Issue requires little to no consideration and is not a
significant constraint to development
Negligible Risk - No noticeable impact to site and not
considered to be a constraint to development

01/08/2019
5 Summary & Conclusion
The EA ‘Flood Map for Planning’ shows that the Site is located within Flood Zone 3b. This means
the Site has an annual exceedance probability (AEP) of flooding greater than 5% (1 in 20 year
return period) from fluvial sources.
The previous FRA (WB02669 – R002) submitted a 1% AEP plus climate change flood level of
66.02m AOD, derived from modelling undertaken by Buro Happold in 2009 for the Phase 3
development. This was duly accepted by Cherwell District Council and the EA. As the EAs data
has not been updated since this time, there is no reason for the previous decision to be
overturned.
A 1% AEP + climate change level of 66.02m AOD would relate to a flood depth of 0.62m at the
Site. In accordance with the FD2320/TR2 hazard method, this would pose a ‘Danger to most’
hazard (which includes the general public). As was put forward in the previous FRA (WB02669 –
R002), the 66.02m AOD level is used as the ‘design flood’ level here to present a worst-case
scenario of a blockage in the service tunnel and failure of the pumping station. It is therefore
judged that fluvial flood sources pose a moderate risk to the Site.
As the Proposal will not be developing in a manner sensitive to groundwater flooding (basement
dwelling etc.), nor does the geology suggest a high groundwater presence, the risk from
groundwater flooding is considered to be low.
The Proposal is located within an area at low risk of surface water flooding. This represents an
area with a 0.1 – 1% annual probability of flooding. However, the EA surface water flood model
does not take into account existing positive drainage, the service tunnel and pumping station
would likely reduce surface water flooding at the Site.
Flood risk from artificial sources, sewers and ordinary watercourses have been discounted or
considered negligible.
The Proposal is calculated to displace 2.63m3 of the Town Brook’s design flood event. While this
is regarded as a relatively minor impact, this will be compensated for by the excess volume
already provided as compensation for Unit 110. Additionally, it is assessed that the Proposal will
not re-direct or obstruct flows during this time.
This report has satisfied the objectives set in Section 1.4, demonstrating that the Site is not at a
significant level of flood risk from any of the sources of flood hazards assessed and that the
Proposal will not increase flood risk elsewhere. Appropriate mitigation and flood management
measures have been recommended for the proposed development.

01/08/2019
Appendix A – Proposed Layout (x3 pages)

01/08/2019
Appendix B – Topographic Survey (x1 page)

01/08/2019
Appendix C – Existing Service Yard Drainage (x1 page)

01/08/2019
Appendix D – Level-1 SFRA Flood Map (x1 page)

01/08/2019
Appendix E – Product 4 Data (x7 pages)

01/08/2019
Product 4 (Detailed Flood Risk) for OX26 6EU
Our Ref: THM_76896
Product 4 is designed for developers where Flood Risk Standing Advice FRA (Flood Risk Assessment) Guidance Note 3 Applies. This is:
i) "all applications in Flood Zone 3, other than non-domestic extensions less than 250 sq metres; and all domestic extensions", and
ii) "all applications with a site area greater than 1 ha" in Flood Zone 2.
Product 4 includes the following information: Please note:
Ordnance Survey 1:25k colour raster base mapping; If you will be carrying out computer modelling as part of your Flood Risk
Flood Zone 2 and Flood Zone 3; Assessment, please read the enclosed guidance which sets out our
Relevant model node locations and unique identifiers (for cross referencing to the water requirements and best practice for computer river modelling.
levels, depths and flows table);
Model extents showing defended scenarios; This information is based on that currently available as of the date of this
FRA site boundary (where a suitable GIS layer is supplied); letter. You may feel it is appropriate to contact our office at regular intervals,
Flood defence locations (where available/relevant) and unique identifiers; (supplied to check whether any amendments/ improvements have been made. Should
separately) you re-contact us after a period of time, please quote the above reference in
Flood Map areas benefiting from defences (where available/relevant); order to help us deal with your query.
Flood Map flood storage areas (where available/relevant);
Historic flood events outlines (where available/relevant, not the Historic Flood Map) and This information is provided subject to the enclosed notice which you should
unique identifiers; read.
Statutory (Sealed) Main River (where available within map extents); This letter is not a Flood Risk Assessment. The information supplied can be
used to form part of your Flood Risk Assessment. Further advice and guidance
regarding Flood Risk Assessments can be found on our website at
A table showing:
i) Model node X/Y coordinate locations, unique identifiers, and levels and flows for http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/82584.aspx
defended scenarios.
ii) Flood defence locations unique identifiers and attributes; (supplied seperately) If you would like advice from us regarding your development proposals you
iii) Historic flood events outlines unique identifiers and attributes; and can complete our pre application enquiry form which can be found at
iv) Local flood history data (where available/relevant).
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/33580.aspx
Red Kite House, Howbery Park, Wallingford, Oxon OX10 8BD

Customer services line: 08708 506 506
Email: WTenquiries@environment-agency.gov.uk www.environment-agency.gov.uk
Flood Map for Planning centred on: OX26 6EU
Created on 28/02/2018 REF: THM_76896
Kilometres
0 0.09 0.18
Legend
Main River
Flooding from rivers or sea (FZ3)
Extent of extreme flood (FZ2)
Flooding from rivers or sea without

defences (Flood Zone 3) shows the area that
could be affected by flooding:
- from the sea with a 1 in 200 or greater
chance of happening each year
- or from a river with a 1 in 100 or greater
chance of happening each year.
The Extent of an extreme flood (Flood Zone 2)

shows the extent of an extreme flood from rivers
or the sea with up to a 1 in 1000 chance of
occurring each year.
© Environment Agency copyright and / or database rights 2015. All rights reserved. © Crown Copyright and database right. All rights reserved. Environment Agency, 100024198, 2015.
Contact Us: National Customer Contact Centre, PO Box 544, Rotherham, S60 1BY. Tel: 08708 506 506 (Mon-Fri 8-6). Email: enquiries@environment-agency.gov.uk
Defence information THM_76896
Defence Location: No defences on Main River
Description: This location is not currently protected by any formal defences and we do not currently have any flood alleviation
works planned for the area. However we continue to maintain certain watercourses and the schedule of these can
be found on our internet pages.
© Environment Agency 2013

Model information THM_76896
Model: Langford Brook (Bicester) & Pingle-Back-Bure 2010
Description: The information provided is from the Langford Brook (Bicester) & Pingle-Back-Bure 2010 detailed mapping
project. The study was carried out using 2D modelling software (ISIS-Tuflow).
Model design runs:

1 in 5 / 20% AEP; 1 in 20 / 5% AEP; 1 in 50 / 2% AEP; 1 in 100 / 1% AEP; 1 in 100+20% / 1% AEP with climate
change and 1 in 1000 / 0.1% AEP
Mapped Outputs:
1 in 5 / 20% AEP; 1 in 20 / 5% AEP; 1 in 50 / 2% AEP; 1 in 100 / 1% AEP; 1 in 100+20% / 1% AEP with climate
change and 1 in 1000 / 0.1% AEP
Model accuracy:
Levels ± 250mm

FRA Map centred on: OX26 6EU
Created on 28/02/2018 REF: THM_76896
Kilometres
0 0.09 0.18
Flood Zone 1
Legend
Flood Point 2
Main River
!
( 20% AEP
!
( 5% AEP
1% AEP
!
( 0.1% AEP
Flood Point 3
AEP = Annual Exceedance Probability

The probability of a flood of a particular
magnitude, or greater, occuring in any
given year
1%CC = 1% Climate Change extent

This is the 1% AEP event with an allowance
for climate change (+20% on river flows)
© Environment Agency copyright and / or database rights 2015. All rights reserved. © Crown Copyright and database right. All rights reserved. Environment Agency, 100024198, 2015.
Contact Us: National Customer Contact Centre, PO Box 544, Rotherham, S60 1BY. Tel: 08708 506 506 (Mon-Fri 8-6). Email: enquiries@environment-agency.gov.uk
Modelled floodplain flood levels THM_76896
The modelled flood levels for the closest most appropriate model grid cells for your site are provided below:
flood levels (mAOD)
2D grid cell 1% AEP (+20% on

Model Easting Northing 20% AEP 5% AEP 1% AEP 0.1% AEP
reference river flows)
Flood Point 1 Langford Brook (Bicester) & Pingle-Back-Bure 2010 458,470 221,811 66.66 66.72 66.84 66.91 67.08
Flood Point 2 Langford Brook (Bicester) & Pingle-Back-Bure 2010 458,408 221,749 65.83 66.69 66.84 66.91 67.08
Flood Point 3 458,451 221,662 No Data 66.69 66.84 66.91 67.08
Flood Point 4
This flood model has represented the floodplain as a grid.

The flood water levels have been calculated for each grid cell.

Historic flood data THM_76896
Our records show that the area of your site has been affected by flooding.
Information on the floods that have affected your site is provided in the table below:
Flood Event Code Flood Event Name Start Date End Date Source of Flooding Cause of Flooding
No Historic Data
Please note the Environment Agency maps flooding to land not individual properties. Floodplain extents are an indication of the geographical extent of a
historic flood. They do not provide information regarding levels of individual properties, nor do they imply that a property has flooded internally.
Start and End Dates shown above may represent a wider range where the exact dates are not available.

Appendix F – Level-1 SFRA Groundwater Map (x1 page)

01/08/2019
Notes
1. This map illustrates the Environment Agency's
Areas Susceptible to Groundwater Flooding
(AStGWF) dataset. The Environment Agency
states that it shows 'the proportion of each 1km
grid square where geological and hydrogeological
conditons suggest that groundwater might emerge
...it does not show the likelihood of groundwater
flooding occuring'.
2. Absence of values for any grid square means that
no part of that square is identified as being
St1scecitibif3 lo 9roundw3\l)r l'tlTlef0Cf100
3. The EnvltonmMt Agency Geot.toie website sta:&&
lhel: "The data should nol be interPfeled as
l(fenl1fy1tlg .orcas wtloro 9roun<Jwa1cr is ootu0 lry
llkley io now or pond, mus C8uslng lloodlng, bu1
instead sho\Ad be used at a slratE19ic level lo
Indicate 3roos for further lllYCSli()<ltoQn'
4. It should be nc<ed that lklod risk from olher
oooroos Is not shown.
0 5
N
Legend
KILOMETRES
Client
t
___I Cherwell District Boundary Areas Suscept ib le to Gro undwater Flooding THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCOPE OF AECOM'S
Cherwell
I<25 percent APPOINTMENT WITH ITS CLIENT AND IS DI STRICT COUNI ~
b > d Level 1 SFRASites :=~
I>=25 percent <SO percent AECOM ACCEPTS NO LIABILITY FOR ANY USE OF
THIS DOCUMENT OTHER THAN BY ITS CLIENT
NORl H O XFORDSl'tlRE
Drawing Status
:====: AND ONLY FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH IT
WAS PREPARED AND PROVIDED.
~-I >=50 percent<75 percent @AECOM INFRASTRUCTURE & ENVIRONMENT
FINAL
UK LTD 2017
0."lle Suflii, AECOM ln friStuc'~ &. Envlronmonl UK lld
- >=75 percent
JCJbTitle
CHERWELL LEVEL 1
Copyr{ghl
© Copyr1ght. All figM• reserved. Environment Agency 2016.
Drawing Tiiie
-~.41 ScaleatA3: AS SHOWN
Drawn RS .Approved MT Date os-2011
::fc'f:'.n.
;18Sl- ~'7SlB
~
~ ' AECOM..
AREAS SUSCEPTIBLE
This map ts based upon Ordnance SUtYey matefial With the behalf al the Controller f~1
STRATEGIC FLOOD RISK ot H"' ~J$Sly' S<all""..Y Orlloa. Cl Crtw1n copyrlg h~ Unaull\Oti•ed reP'Odur.OOn TO GROUNDWATER Notes FuonAsnm
lnllinges Crown cop ytlg~I and may lea<I lo prosecullon or dvlt proceedlf19S. THIS DRAWING MAY BE USED ONLY FOR
ASSESSMENT UPDATE Ct..twGll O!!W1d Coone!! . llcenoe No. 100024316, 20 16. FOODING (ASTGWF) THE PURPOSE INTENDED Drawing Numlier Rev
FIGURE 88
Plot Dale: 17/0512017
FJlepath: \\Ch·wip-001\CH_Water\Projects\60494538 - Cherwell l 1 SFRA Upoate\0000 GIS_Data\01-WIPl01_02-0ata_Worklng1WOR\Flg 08 - AStGWF w o~
Appendix G – Unit 110 Extension Plans showing Compensatory Storage (x1

page)

01/08/2019
A1 08/032 / P-2204
Photo of Phase 3 service Client
Owner
yard, with proposed extension

overlaid (Google Maps)
\\lshs-60\cad\2008\2008-032\drawings\08032 Revit\Gucci\Archive\130903 08032 Bicester Village - Unit 110 Extension
(central).rvt
Planning Area Schedule Index Revision Date Int Chk'd
Existing GIA Proposed GIA Increase in GIA

(sqm) (sqm) (sqm)
Ground Mezz. Ground Mezz. Ground Mezz.
Unit 110 379 189 619 428 +240 +239
TOTAL 568sqm GIA 1047sqm GIA +479sqm GIA
23
UNIT 111 VOID
FLAT ROOF
4A 24A 4A FFL: +75.575
24978
12415
Extent of mezzanine above
UNIT 110
15190
15190
UNIT 110 VOID (MEZZANINE)
FFL: +66.775 FFL: +70.775
FLAT ROOF
FFL: +75.575
UNIT 108 VOID

UNIT 110 UNIT 110
EXTENSION EXTENSION FALL
9900
9900
FFL: +66.775 FFL: +70.775
24228 24228
UP
2 2 2
P-2207 P-2207 P-2207
UNIT 108
(MEZZANINE)
SERVICE
YARD
FFL +65.350
SERVICE SERVICE
YARD YARD
Area of existing soft verge to be

lower by 125mm to match service
yard level, in order to counteract
the flood water displacement
created by the extension. The
hatched area indicated will
relinquish a volume of 8m³.
Soft verge Soft verge

6200
10000
P-2204 - Proposed Ground Floor Plan P-2204 - Proposed Mezzanine Floor P-2204 - Proposed Roof Plan
1 1 : 200 2 1 : 200 3 1 : 200 N
0 2 8m
APPROXIMATE
NORTH
1:200
LYONS+SLEEMAN+HOARE Ltd
Job N Drg N Rev Scale Status Job
08/032 / P-2204 D NTS
As indicated WORK IN PROGRESS Bicester Village, Upgrades - Unit 110 Extension
Nero Brewery, Cricket Green, Hartley Wintney, Hants RG27 8QA

Tel: 01252 844144 Fax: 01252 844800 Web: www.lsharch.co.uk
Bicester Village, Upgrades - Unit 110 Extension Date
06/08/13
Director
SA
Author
SS
Check
SA
NOTE: All figures are approximate and have been measured and expressed in a manner as defined by the current edition of
the RICS/ISVA Code of Measuring Practice. Figures relate to the current stage of the project and any development decisions
to be made on the basis of this information should include due allowance for the increases and decreases inherent in the
Drawing
Proposed Floor Plans
This drawing may be scaled or cross referenced to the scale bar for Planning Application purposes only. Do not scale
for any other purpose, use figured dimensions only. Subject to site survey and all necessary consents. All dimensions
to be checked by user and any discrepancies, errors or omissions to be reported to the Architect before work
design and building processes. Reproduced from Ordnance Survey mapping under Licence Numbers AR152978 & 100020449 commences. This drawing is to be read in conjunction with all other relevant materials.
The Cocoa House GF Suite 7 Hatchers Mews

129 Cumberland Road Bickleigh House Bermondsey Street
Bristol Park Five Business Centre London
BS1 6UY Exeter EX2 7HU SE1 3GS
tel: +44 (0)117 929 2244 tel: +44 (0)1392 369098 tel: +44(0)20 7939 0959
www.clarkebond.com

Bicester Fence Fra b05162 RP FH 1001 p2 (Fra)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bicester Fence Fra b05162 RP FH 1001 p2 (Fra)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Flood Risk Assessment

South Service Yard Fence

B05162 Bicester Nominees Ltd and Bicester II Nominees Ltd 1

Figure 1: Site Boundary ..................................................................................................... 5

Appendix A – Proposed Layout (x1 page)

B05162 Bicester Nominees Ltd and Bicester II Nominees Ltd 2

Client Bicester Nominees Ltd and Bicester II Nominees Ltd

The Proposal can be classified as a ‘Water-Compatible’ development, in

As the Proposal will not be developing in a manner sensitive to groundwater

B05162 Bicester Nominees Ltd and Bicester II Nominees Ltd 3

reduce surface water flooding at the Site.

B05162 Bicester Nominees Ltd and Bicester II Nominees Ltd 4

1.2 Site Location and Description

Figure 1: Site Boundary

B05162 Bicester Nominees Ltd and Bicester II Nominees Ltd 5

1.3 Proposed Development

A copy of the proposed layout is included as Appendix A.

B05162 Bicester Nominees Ltd and Bicester II Nominees Ltd 6

2 Planning and Flood Risk Policy Review

2.1.1 Sequential Test Process

Figure 2: Process of the Sequential Test

B05162 Bicester Nominees Ltd and Bicester II Nominees Ltd 7

Table 1: Definition of Flood Zones (as defined in the NPPG)

Flood Zone Definition

B05162 Bicester Nominees Ltd and Bicester II Nominees Ltd 8

2.1.3 Design Flood Event

• 1 in 100 year (1%) fluvial flood accounting for climate change

2.1.4 Surface Water Runoff Disposal Hierarchy

1. Infiltration to the ground using a soakaway or other suitable sustainable drainage

2.2 Flood Risk Assessment Requirements

• Are in Flood Zone 2 or 3;

B05162 Bicester Nominees Ltd and Bicester II Nominees Ltd 9

2.3 Relevant Local Planning Policy

• Cherwell Local Plan 2011 - 2031

2.3.1 Cherwell Local Plan 2011 - 2031 – Policy ESD 6

B05162 Bicester Nominees Ltd and Bicester II Nominees Ltd 10

Figure 3: Policy ESD6 of the Local Plan 2011 - 2031

2.3.2 Cherwell Level-1 SFRA (2017)

2.3.3 Cherwell Level-2 SFRA (2017)

2.3.4 Oxfordshire Local Flood Risk Management Strategy

B05162 Bicester Nominees Ltd and Bicester II Nominees Ltd 11

3.2 Existing Drainage

Figure 4: Town Brook & Catchment

B05162 Bicester Nominees Ltd and Bicester II Nominees Ltd 12

According to OS maps, there are no “ordinary watercourses” identified on Site. Ordinary

3.4 Geology, Groundwater and Soils

B05162 Bicester Nominees Ltd and Bicester II Nominees Ltd 13

4 Flood Risk Assessment

The Proposal can be classified as a ‘Water-Compatible’ development, in accordance with

B05162 Bicester Nominees Ltd and Bicester II Nominees Ltd 14

Table 2: Flood Risk Vulnerability and Flood Zone 'Compatibility'

Exception Test Exception

4.2 Impact of Climate Change

Total Change 2015- Total Change 2040- Total change 2070-

B05162 Bicester Nominees Ltd and Bicester II Nominees Ltd 15

Table 4: Peak Rainfall Intensity Allowance in Small and Urban Catchments

Total Change 2015- Total Change 2040- Total change 2070-

Central 5% 10% 20%

4.3 Fluvial Flood Risk

Return Period 5% AEP 1% AEP 1% AEP + 20% 0.1% AEP

Flood Level (m 66.69 66.84 66.91 67.08

Figure 6: Flood Hazard Matrix (FD2320/TR2, DEFRA, 2005)

B05162 Bicester Nominees Ltd and Bicester II Nominees Ltd 16