SFRA Main Report Milton Keynes

Milton Keynes Council
Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for

Local Development Framework
Level 1
Volume 1
July 2008
Halcrow Group Limited
Strategic Flood Risk Assessment



Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for
Level 1
Volume 1
Contents Amendment Record
This report has been issued and amended as follows:
Issue
Description
Date
Signed
Draft Report
06/03/08
RD
Final Report
19/06/08
RD
Final Report
31/07/08
RD
Revision
Prepared by: Fiona McLay and Beccy Dunn

Checked by: Beccy Dunn
Approved by: Shirel Saranga

This page is left intentionally blank

Contents
Contents................................................................................................................................................. 1
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 3
1
Introduction................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1
Terms of Reference ................................................................................................................... 5
1.2
Project Aims ............................................................................................................................... 5
1.3
Project Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 5
1.4
Project Deliverables ................................................................................................................... 6
1.5
Outcomes of the SFRA Process ................................................................................................ 6
1.6
SFRA Context ............................................................................................................................ 9
1.7
The Study Area ........................................................................................................................ 10
Planning Context ........................................................................................................................ 15

2.1
Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 15
2.2
Planning Policy Framework ..................................................................................................... 15
2.3
National Planning Policy .......................................................................................................... 15
2.4
Regional Planning Policy ......................................................................................................... 17
2.5
Local Planning Policy ............................................................................................................... 18
Study Methodology .................................................................................................................... 19

3.1
Level 1 SFRA Methodology ..................................................................................................... 19
3.2
Need for a Level 2 SFRA ......................................................................................................... 19
3.3
Technical Background.............................................................................................................. 20
3.4
Environment Agency Flood Zone Maps................................................................................... 21
Flood Risk in the Study Area .................................................................................................... 23

4.1
Approach to Data Gathering .................................................................................................... 23
4.2
Historical Flooding.................................................................................................................... 23
4.3
Fluvial Flood Risk in Milton Keynes as defined by the Flood Zone Maps ............................... 25
4.4
Flooding From Other Sources.................................................................................................. 27
Strategic Flood Risk Mapping................................................................................................... 31

5.1
Strategic Flood Risk Maps ....................................................................................................... 31
5.2
Climate Change Maps.............................................................................................................. 35
Flood Warning Systems and Flood Risk Management Measures......................................... 37

6.1
Flood Management .................................................................................................................. 37
6.2
Flood Defences ........................................................................................................................ 37
6.3
Residual Risk ........................................................................................................................... 42

1

6.4
Existing Flood Warning System ............................................................................................... 43
6.5
Flood Response Plan............................................................................................................... 44
Flood Risk Management Policy Considerations ..................................................................... 47

7.1
Overview .................................................................................................................................. 47
7.2
Policy Considerations............................................................................................................... 47
7.3
Development Control Policies .................................................................................................. 50
7.4
Council Specific Policy Issues ................................................................................................. 52
7.5
Sensitive Development Locations............................................................................................ 52
Guidance on the Application of the Sequential Test .............................................................. 55

8.1
Step One: Strategic Overview of flood risk across all potential development areas ............... 55
8.2
Step Two: Flood Risk Issues in Zone 1 ................................................................................... 55
8.3
Step Three: Sequential Test in Zones 2 and 3 ........................................................................ 56
Guidance for Developers........................................................................................................... 57

9.2
Raised Floor Levels and Basements (Freeboard) ................................................................... 60
9.3
Development Behind Defences ............................................................................................... 61
9.4
Car Parks ................................................................................................................................. 61
9.5
Developer Contributions........................................................................................................... 61
10
Guidance for the Application of Sustainable Drainage Systems .......................................... 63
10.1
Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 63
10.2
Types of SUDS Systems ..................................................................................................... 63
10.3
Application of SUDS for Milton Keynes ............................................................................... 65
11
Summary and Recommendations ............................................................................................ 69
11.1
Site Allocation Process ........................................................................................................ 69
11.2
Council Policy ...................................................................................................................... 69
11.3
Emergency Planning............................................................................................................ 69
11.4
Future Updates to the SFRA ............................................................................................... 70
11.5
Level 2 SFRA....................................................................................................................... 70
12
Glossary ...................................................................................................................................... 73
13
References .................................................................................................................................. 77
APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................................................ 79
APPENDIX B ........................................................................................................................................ 81
APPENDIX C ........................................................................................................................................ 83

Executive Summary
In December 2007 Milton Keynes Council commissioned Halcrow to produce a Level 1 Strategic
Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) in accordance with Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25). The
purpose of this SFRA is to assess and map all forms of flood risk from groundwater, surface water,
sewer and river sources, taking into account future climate change predictions, and use this as an
evidence base to locate future development primarily in low flood risk areas.
Flooding is a natural process which shapes the natural environment, but also threatens life and can
cause substantial distress and damage to property. The effects of weather events can be increased in
severity as a consequence of past decisions about the location, design and nature of development
and as a consequence of climate change. While flooding cannot be prevented, its impacts can be
avoided and reduced through good planning and management. The SFRA aims to ensure that flood
risk forms one of the material planning considerations to help deliver sustainable development.
The outputs from the SFRA will provide the basis for Milton Keynes Council to apply the Sequential
Test so that development can be guided away from areas of flood risk. The Council must apply the
Sequential Test to all sites within the high and medium risk Flood Zones. In instances where there
is an area of overlap between the site boundary and flood risk area, this should be utilised as an
opportunity to reduce flood risk within the site by using the flood risk areas for recreation, amenity and
environmental purposes. It is important that policies recognise the positive contribution that avoidance
and management of flood risk can make to the development of sustainable communities. Where the
need to apply the Exception Test is identified, if the Council considers that there are an insufficient
number of suitable sites for development, the scope of the SFRA should be widened to a Level 2
assessment. It is recommended that this is undertaken by a suitably qualified technical expert.
In the past development in areas of flood risk in Milton Keynes has largely be avoided through the
provision of linear parks along watercourses. However, some older parts of Milton Keynes are at risk
of fluvial flooding including Stony Stratford, Newport Pagnell and Water Eaton. An analysis of historic
flooding incidents also shows several incidences of flooding from smaller watercourses, due to
blocked culverts or insufficient culvert capacity. In these cases works or improved maintenance may
be needed to prevent future flooding.
Milton Keynes was designed with sustainable drainage in mind. The Halcrow 2000 and 2003 drainage
studies showed that up to the 2011 development scenario the system of strategic balancing lakes, put
in place when the new town was developed, is sufficient to control fluvial flood risk up to a 1 in 100
year event. Drainage into these balancing lakes from the Designated Area (DA) of Milton Keynes is
through Anglian Waters surface water sewers. In general this works well and should be continued for
further development within the DA. However, recent flooding of the Town Centre was caused by
insufficient capacity of the surface water sewers. If significant infill development is planned for the DA
the capacity of the surface water drainage network should be assessed to ensure it is sufficient.
The existing Supplementary Planning Guidance for Milton Keynes, and the Milton Keynes tariff
provide a sound basis for Milton Keynes to move forward with sustainable drainage. The
Supplementary Planning Guidance should be updated to be consistent with PPS25, and the original
drainage philosophy of providing strategic sustainable drainage systems (SUDS) should be continued
for new sites and expansion areas outside the DA.
The Environment Agency has reviewed the SFRA and a sign-off letter can be found in Appendix A.
3


Introduction
1.1
Terms of Reference
In August 2007 Milton Keynes Council commissioned Halcrow to produce a Level 1 SFRA in
accordance with PPS25. This document presents the findings of the SFRA, while Volume 2 contains
the accompanying maps.
1.2
Project Aims
The aims of PPS25 planning policy on development and flood risk are to ensure that flood risk is
taken into account at all stages of the planning process to avoid inappropriate development in areas
at risk of flooding, and to direct development away from areas at highest risk. Where new
development is necessary in such areas, exceptionally, the policy aims to make it safe without
increasing flood risk elsewhere and where possible, reducing flood risk overall. Safe in the context
of this study means that dry pedestrian access to and from the development is possible without
passing through the 1 in 100 year plus climate change floodplain, and emergency vehicular access is
possible. It also means that the development includes flood resistance and resilience measures to
ensure it is safe.
The aim of this SFRA therefore is to map all forms of flood risk and use this as an evidence base to
locate new development primarily in low flood risk areas (Zone 1). Where development cannot be
located in Flood Zone 1 the planning authority will need to apply the Sequential Test to land use
allocations and, where necessary, the Exception Test (Level 2 SFRA). In addition, it allows the
planning authority to:
Prepare appropriate policies for the management of flood risk
Inform the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) so that flood risk is taken account of, when considering
options and in the preparation of strategic land use policies
Identify the level of detail required for site-specific Flood Risk Assessments (FRAs)
Determine the acceptability of flood risk in relation to emergency planning capability
The SFRA will inform the site selection process for future development sites and provide
recommendations for policies to deal with non-allocated sites. The SFRA will feed into the Local
Authoritys SA of the Local Development Documents (LDDs) and will enable informed decisions to be
made relating to land use and development allocation within the respective Development Plan
Documents (DPDs).
1.3
Project Objectives
Halcrow has carried out this project in accordance with the SFRA requirements outlined in the
document Development and Flood Risk: A Practice Guide Companion to PPS25. The SFRA has
also followed advice from the Environment Agency.
For this study, a Level 1 SFRA approach has been agreed with the Council and the Environment
Agency. A Level 1 SFRA is defined in the Practice Guide Companion to PPS25 as a desk-based
study using existing information to allow application of the Sequential Test on the basis of Table D1 of
PPS25, and to identify whether application of the Exception Test is likely to be necessary.

The best available data within the study timescale has been collected for use in this study; however it
is important to recognise that the SFRA is a living document. As new information becomes available
(such as improved river models) updates will be made to the Flood Zone maps and this should be
reflected in the SFRA document, to ensure that the best information is used to guide the site selection
process for future developments.
1.4
Project Deliverables
The project outputs for Level 1 SFRA have been adopted for this study. The deliverables of this
assessment are as follows:
A technical report
A series of maps
Following the advice from Section 2.34 of the Practice Guide Companion to PPS25, the key project
outputs are as follows:
1) Plans showing the administrative boundaries of the study area, watercourse centreline, modelled
watercourses, canals, defences, Areas Benefiting from Defences (ABDs) and culverted
watercourse sections (Volume 2, Tiles A1-A19)
2) Strategic flood risk maps showing flooding from all sources, including fluvial Flood Zones
(including the functional floodplain where such outlines exist), and areas at risk of flooding from
sources other than rivers (Volume 2, Tiles B1-B19)
3) An assessment of the implications of climate change for flood risk in the study area over an
appropriate time period (Volume 2, Tile C1-C5)
4) The location of any flood risk management measures, including both infrastructure (Volume 2,
Tiles A1-A19) and the coverage of flood warning systems (Volume 2, Tile F1)
5) Guidance on the application of the Sequential Test (see Chapter 8)
6) Guidance on the preparation of FRAs for development sites (see Chapter 9).
7) Guidance on the likely applicability of different sustainable drainage system (SUDS) techniques
for managing surface water run-off at development sites (see Chapter 10)
1.5
Outcomes of the SFRA Process
A Level 1 SFRA provides sufficient data and information to enable the planning authority to apply the
Sequential Test to land use allocations and can therefore identify, where necessary, where the
Exception Test needs to be applied (see Sections 1.5.1 and 1.5.2 respectively).
PPS25 also indicates that SAs should be informed by the SFRA for their area. Under the Town and
Country Planning (Local Development - England) Regulations 2004, a SA is required for all Local
Development Frameworks (LDFs). The purpose is to promote sustainable development through
better integration of sustainability considerations in the preparation and adoption of plans. The
Regulations stipulate that SAs for LDFs should meet the requirements of the Strategic Environmental
Assessment (SEA) Directive. A SFRA is used as a tool by a planning authority for the production of

development briefs, setting constraints, identifying locations of emergency planning measures and
requirements for FRAs.
It is important to reiterate that PPS25 should not be applied in isolation, but as part of the planning
process. The formulation of Council policy and the allocation of land for future development must also
meet the requirements of other planning policy. Clearly a careful balance must be sought in these
instances, and the SFRA aims to assist in this process through the provision of a clear and robust
evidence base upon which informed decisions can be made.
1.5.1
The Sequential Test
A planning authority applies the Sequential Test to demonstrate that there are no reasonably
available sites in areas with less risk of flooding that would be appropriate to the type of development
or land use proposed. Appendix B shows the Sequential Test process as advocated in PPS25.
Preference should be given to locating new development in Flood Zone 1, Low Probability (see
Section 3.3.1). If there is no reasonably available site in Flood Zone 1, the flood vulnerability (see
below, Table D3 of PPS25) of the proposed development can be taken into account in locating
development in Flood Zone 2 (Medium Probability) and then Flood Zone 3 (High Probability). Within
each Flood Zone new development should be directed to sites with lower flood risk (towards the
adjacent zone of lower probability of flooding) from all sources as indicated by the SFRA.
Flood Risk Vulnerability and Flood Zone Compatibility (Table D3 of PPS25)

Table D2 of PPS25 (reproduced below) classifies different types of development under different flood
risk vulnerabilities, and should be used in conjunction with Table D1 in allocating new development as
part of the Sequential Test.
Flood Risk Vulnerability Classification (Table D2 of PPS25)
Essential
Infrastructure
Essential transport infrastructure (including mass evacuation routes) which has to cross the area at
risk, and strategic utility infrastructure, including electricity generating power stations and grid and
primary substations
Highly
Vulnerable
Police stations, Ambulance stations and Fire stations and Command Centres and telecommunications
installations required to be operational during flooding
Emergency dispersal points
Basement dwellings
More
Vulnerable
Less
Vulnerable
Watercompatible
Development
Caravans, mobile homes and park homes intended for permanent residential use
Installations requiring hazardous substances consent19
Hospitals
Residential institutions such residential care homes, childrens homes, social services homes, prisons
and hostels
Buildings used for: dwelling houses; student halls of residence; drinking establishments; nightclubs;
and hotels
Non-residential uses for health services, nurseries, and educational establishments
Landfill and sites used for waste management facilities for hazardous waste20
Sites used for holiday or short-let caravans and camping, subject to specific warning and
evacuation plan
Buildings used for: shops; financial, professional and other services; restaurants and cafes; hot food
takeaways; offices; general industry; storage and distribution; non-residential institutions not included
in more vulnerable; and assembly and leisure
Land and buildings used for agriculture and forestry
Waste treatment (except landfill and hazardous waste facilities)
Minerals working and processing (except for sand and gravel working)
Water treatment plants
Sewage treatment plants (if adequate pollution control measures are in place)
Flood control infrastructure
Water transmission infrastructure and pumping stations
Sewage transmission infrastructure and pumping stations
Sand and gravel workings
Docks, marinas, and wharves
Navigation facilities
MOD defence installations
Ship building, repairing and dismantling, dockside fish processing and refrigeration and compatible
activities requiring a waterside location
Water-based recreation (excluding sleeping accommodation)
Lifeguard and coastguard stations
Amenity open space, nature conservation and biodiversity, outdoor sports and recreation and essential
facilities such as changing rooms
Essential ancillary sleeping or residential accommodation for staff required by uses in this category,
subject to a specific warning and evacuation plan
References:
19
DETR Circular 04/00 para 18: Planning controls for hazardous substances.
www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1144377
20
See Planning for Sustainable Waste Management: Companion Guide to Planning Policy Statement 10 for definition.
www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1500757

1.5.2
The Exception Test
If, following application of the Sequential Test, it is not possible, or consistent with wider sustainability
objectives, for the development to be located in zones of lower probability of flooding, the Exception
Test can be applied. This test provides a method of managing flood risk while still allowing necessary
development to occur.
The Exception Test is only appropriate for use when there are large areas in Flood Zones 2 and 3,
where the Sequential Test alone cannot deliver acceptable sites, but where some continuing
development is necessary for wider sustainable development reasons (e.g. the need to avoid social or
economic blight and the need for essential civil infrastructure to remain operational during floods). It
may also be appropriate to use it where restrictive national designations such as landscape, heritage
and nature conservation designations, e.g. Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), Sites of
Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and World Heritage Sites (WHS), prevent the availability of
unconstrained sites in lower risk areas.
For the Exception Test to be passed:
a) It must be demonstrated that the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the
community which outweigh flood risk, informed by a SFRA where one has been prepared. If the
DPD has reached the submission stage (see Figure 4 of PPS12: Local Development
Frameworks) the benefits of the development should contribute to the Core Strategys SA;
b) The development should be on developable previously-developed land or, if it is not on previously
developed land, that there are no reasonable alternative sites on developable previouslydeveloped land; and,
c) A flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe, without increasing
flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.
It is possible that the Council will need to apply the Exception Test if several indicative sites fall within
Flood Zones 2 and 3, although it is not possible to fully determine this until the Sequential Test
process has been undertaken.
1.6
SFRA Context
The figure overleaf, taken from the PPS25 Practice Guide, illustrates the responsibilities for the
production of key documents required to effectively manage flood risk through each stage of the
spatial planning process, and, importantly, shows the link between other strategic documents.

1.7
The Study Area
Milton Keynes is located between London and Birmingham, in the Oxford Cambridge arc. The local
authority region of Milton Keynes is bordered by the regions of Aylesbury Vale, South Bedfordshire,
Mid Bedfordshire, Bedford and South Northamptonshire. The new town development of Milton
Keynes was designated in 1967, and a strategy for development was produced in 1970 to
accommodate a population of 250,000. All development was planned to take place within a
designated area of approximately 8,900 hectares. In 2007 84% of the total population of 220,000
lived within the urban area.
Milton Keynes has been identified as the focus for growth in the Milton Keynes and South Midlands
Sub Regional Spatial Strategy, and has a target of providing 44,900 more homes by 2021 with a
further 23,700 homes by 2031. As part of this growth it is anticipated that there will be growth outside
the Milton Keynes administrative boundary to the south east of Milton Keynes, partially within the local
authority area of Mid Bedfordshire, and to the south west of Milton Keynes, entirely within the
adjoining local authority area of Aylesbury Vale. This SFRA covers both these expansion areas.
10

1.7.1
Principal Rivers and Hydrology
The Milton Keynes area contains four designated Main Rivers, the Great Ouse, the Ouzel, Water
Eaton Brook and Tongwell Brook. Main Rivers are watercourses shown on the statutory main river
maps held by the Environment Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(also shown on the A Tile maps, Volume 2). The Environment Agency has permissive powers to
carry out works necessary for flood defence purposes on these rivers. The overall responsibility for
maintenance, however, lies with the riparian owner.
The Great Ouse flows northeast through the study area along the northern boundary of Milton
Keynes. Within the study area there are confluences with the River Tove at Wolverton and the
River Ouzel at Newport Pagnell. The Great Ouse rises near Brackley, Northamptonshire and
drains the vale which separates the Cotswolds and the Chiltern Hills. The catchment area of the
2
Great Ouse near Newport Pagnell is approximately 800km , rising to approximately 1100 km
after it is joined by the River Ouzel at Newport Pagnell. The catchment of the Great Ouse is
largely agricultural, with Newport Pagnell and Milton Keynes being the main urban areas.
The River Ouzel flows north through the western side of Milton Keynes until its confluence with
the Great Ouse at Newport Pagnell. As with the Great Ouse, the catchment of the Ouzel is
largely rural and Leighton Buzzard and Milton Keynes are the main urban areas.
Water Eaton Brook is a tributary of the River Ouzel in Water Eaton in the north of Milton Keynes.
Tongwell Brook is a tributary of the River Ouzel which flows from Tongwell, south of the M1 to the
eastern side of Newport Pagnell.
In addition to the designated Main Rivers there are several smaller watercourses and tributaries in
Milton Keynes. The area is covered by the Buckingham and Ouzel Internal Drainage board (IDB)
which is part of the Bedford Group of Drainage Boards, who have powers over non Main River
watercourses in their area under the Land Drainage Act. In addition, many of the watercourses in
Milton Keynes flow through linear parks, which are held by the Milton Keynes Parks trust on a 999
year lease. Within these parks the Parks Trust carries out management of the watercourses. The
smaller watercourses covered by the IDB and the Parks trust include:
Loughton Brook, which flows northeast along the boundary of the southern expansion area and
then parallel to the A421 before flowing northwest parallel to the A5. The confluence of Loughton
Brook with the Great Ouse is at New Bradwell. The Loughton Brook catchment is almost entirely
within the DA of Milton Keynes. Loughton Brook is covered by the IDB downstream of Fulmer St
and managed by the Parks Trust upstream of Fulmer St.
Broughton Brook, which is a tributary of the River Ouzel on the eastern side of Milton Keynes, and
is within the IDB area.
Calverton Brook, a tributary of the Great Ouse which flows through the village of Lower Weald on
the western side of Milton Keynes, and is within the IDB area.
Caldecotte Brook, which is a tributary of the River Ouzel. It flows west from Woburn Sands
through the east side of Milton Keynes into Calverton Lake, and is within the IDB area.
11

Watercourse maps, giving an overview of fluvial features in the study area, can be found in Volume 2,
Tiles A1-A19.
1.7.2
Geology and Topography
The topography, geology, and soil are all important in influencing the way the catchments respond to
a rainfall event. The degree to which a material allows water to percolate through it (the permeability)
affects the extent of overland flow and therefore the amount of run-off reaching the watercourse.
Steep slopes or clay rich (low permeability) soils will result in rapid surface runoff, whereas more
permeable rock such as limestone and sandstone may result in a more subdued response.
The geology of the study area is shown in Volume 2, Tiles D1 (solid) and D2 (drift). The surface
geology of the study area is dominated by impermeable clays. The majority of the study area is
covered by a quaternary drift deposit of chalky boulder clay which produces heavy, poorly drained
soil. There are some small outcrops of the underlying Oxford Clay which weather to soft clays near
the surface.
Along the rivers Ouzel, Great Ouse and Loughton Brook there are permeable fluvial gravel deposits.
There are other small outcrops of permeable gravel of unknown age and relation to the present day
drainage system at Fenny Stratford. East of the village of Woburn Sands there is an outcrop of
permeable fine to coarse grained Woburn Sands.
Milton Keynes is characterised gently rolling hills in the areas covered by boulder clay, but there are
steeper slopes and higher elevations towards the outcrop of Woburn Sands and Bow Brickhill.
1.7.3
Parties involved in Flood Risk Management and Development in Milton Keynes and
their Roles and Responsibilities
There are several organisations involved in flood risk management and development in Milton
Keynes, as follows:
Milton Keynes Council is the local planning authority for the majority of the Borough; it plans the
development of Milton Keynes in the Local Plan and is responsible for determining the majority of
planning applications within the Borough.
Milton Keynes Partnership Committee is the planning authority (from 3rd June 2004) for major
applications in a number of Urban Development Areas (UDAs) located on the edge of Milton
Keynes urban area, where it is anticipated that large-scale urban expansion will take place.
English Partnerships has been given powers as the planning authority for its land holdings that
comprise most of the land identified for development within the DA.
Environment Agency has a supervisory duty over flood defence matters and is responsible for
the drainage functions of the Main Rivers through Milton Keynes. It is also the drainage authority
for ordinary water courses outside the IDB district. It can provide advice on areas liable to
flooding (Main River) and advise on requirements for flood risk assessments for all sites, with the
exception of sites within the IDB district which are not at risk of flooding from Main Rivers. The
Main Rivers covered by the Environment Agency are shown on the A Map Tiles (Volume 2).
12

Buckingham and River Ouzel Internal Drainage Board is the drainage authority within its
drainage district that covers the tributaries of the Great Ouse and the River Ouzel into which
Milton Keynes drains. It can provide advice on areas liable to flooding (non-main river); flood risk
assessments; maintenance and adoption of surface water drainage facilities. Under the 1991 and
1994 Land Drainage Acts the IDB has powers to improve and maintain the drainage system and
to regulate activities in and alongside the drainage system, other than on those waterways
designated Main River which are under the control of the Environment Agency. The area covered
by the Buckingham and River Ouzel Internal Drainage Board is shown on the A Map tiles.
Milton Keynes Parks Trust (MKPT): The river corridors form an important amenity for Milton
Keynes and are included in the parkland, which is leased by the MKPT. MKPT, a charitable trust,
has the rights and responsibilities of riparian owners and is charged with the care of the parkland.
The Trust manages some balancing lakes within the linear parks.
Anglian Water Services provides water services to Milton Keynes. It will adopt sewerage,
subject to a number of safeguards. It is responsible for the management, maintenance and
operation of flood control structures at the balancing lakes.
13

14

Planning Context
2.1
Introduction
This section provides an overview of the planning policy framework relevant to Milton Keynes Council.
This report conforms with National and Regional Planning Policy. Information contained in the SFRA
will provide evidence to facilitate the preparation of robust policies for flood risk management. The
SFRA should be used to inform the SA of LDDs and will enable informed decisions to be made
relating to land use and development allocation within the respective DPDs.
The success of the SFRA is heavily dependent upon the Councils ability to implement the
recommendations put forward for future sustainable flood risk management. It is ultimately the
responsibility of the Council to establish robust policies that will ensure future sustainability with
respect to flood risk.
2.2
Planning Policy Framework
The UK planning system has a comprehensive hierarchy of policies and plans, beginning with
national guidance which provides a broad framework for regional plans through to development plans
at the local level. Development plans are intended to provide clear guidance for prospective
developers. They are prepared following public and stakeholder involvement and are intended to
reconcile conflicts between the need for development and the need to protect the wider built and
natural environment.
In 2004, central government introduced a number of changes to the planning system in England. In
the main, the changes are intended to speed up the overall planning process and to make it more
transparent. Some of the changes made impact upon the way new planning policies are created and
updated. The reforms to the planning system mean Planning Policy Statements (PPS) will replace
Planning Policy Guidance (PPG), Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) will replace Regional Planning
Guidance (RPG) and Local Development Frameworks (LDF) will replace Structure and Local Plans
and Unitary Development Plans.
The following paragraphs provide an overview of the relevant policy documents and a brief
explanation of their significance for the SFRA.
2.3
National Planning Policy
2.3.1
PPS1: Creating Sustainable Communities (2005)
PPS1 sets out the Governments objectives for the planning system. It confirms that good planning
should deliver the right development in the right place and time, and protect the environment. It
identifies sustainable development as the core principle underpinning planning and requires that
development plans ensure it is pursued in an integrated manner.
2.3.2
PPS3: Housing (2006)
PPS3 has been developed in response to recommendations in the Barker Review of Housing Supply
(March 2004). Its principal aim is to underpin the necessary step change in housing delivery,
improving the supply and affordability of housing in all communities including rural areas.
15

PPS3 states that the Governments key housing policy goal is to ensure that everyone has the
opportunity of living in a decent home, which they can afford, in a community where they want to live.
The specific outcomes that the planning system should deliver are:
Well designed, high quality housing that is built to a high standard
A mix of market and affordable housing for all households in all areas
A sufficient quantity of housing, taking into account need and demand and seeking to improve
choice
Housing developments in suitable locations offering a good range of community facilities and with
good access to jobs, key services and infrastructure
A flexible, responsive supply of land; which is used efficiently and effectively, including the use of
previously developed land
Housing policies should help to deliver sustainable development objectives, in particular seeking to
minimise environmental impact taking account of climate change and flood risk, and take into account
market information, in particular housing need and demand.
2.3.3
PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Development (Consultation Paper, 2007)
The new PPS on Planning for Sustainable Economic Development sets out how planning bodies
should, in the wider context of delivering sustainable development, positively plan for sustainable
economic growth and respond to the challenges of the global economy, in their plan policies and
planning decisions.
2.3.4
PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (2005)
PPS9 sets out policies on protection of biodiversity and geological conservation through the planning
system. The broad aim is that development should have minimal impacts on biodiversity and
geological conservation interests and enhance them where possible. Appropriate weight should be
attached to the need to protect international and national designated sites.
2.3.5
PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment (1994)
PPG15 sets out policies on the protection of the historic environment and recognises that planning
plays an important role in preserving built and natural heritage.
2.3.6
PPG17: Planning for Open Space and Recreation (2002)
PPG17 recognises the importance that public open spaces, green areas and recreational rights of
way can play in supporting regeneration and contributing to local quality of life.
16

2.3.7
PPS25: Development and Flood Risk (2006)
PPS25 sets out a plan led approach to flood risk. It confirms that all
forms of flooding and their impact on the natural and built environment
are material planning considerations. It clarifies the Sequential Test, a
process that matches types of development to degrees of flood risk
and strengthens the requirement to include flood risk assessments at
all levels of the planning process. Regional planning bodies and local
planning authorities (LPA) should, inter alia, reduce flood risk by
safeguarding land from development that is required for current and
future flood management e.g. conveyance and storage of flood water
and flood defences.
2.3.8
Town and Country Planning Amendments
Amendments to the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995 came
into force on 1 October 2006 introducing further requirements for LPA to consult the Environment
Agency before determining applications for development in flood risk areas.
The Town and Country Planning (Flooding) (England) Direction 2007 was published in December
2006. To safeguard against inappropriate development in flood risk areas, it introduces a requirement
for LPAs to notify the Secretary of State of any application for major development (e.g. 10 or more
dwellings) in a flood risk area which it proposes to approve against Environment Agency advice. The
Direction came into force on 1 January 2007.
2.4
Regional Planning Policy
Regional planning policies provide the overarching framework for the preparation of the LDF.
Regional Planning Guidance for the South East, which includes Milton Keynes, (RPG9) was
published in 2001 and covers the period to 2016. A full review of RPG9 has begun and a draft
Regional Spatial Strategy was published in January 2005. The Draft South East Plan was published
in 2006, and reviewed in August 2007. Proposed modifications are also expected.
Milton Keynes is part of the larger Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub Region which straddles the
borders of the South East, East of England and East Midlands regions. The sub region was identified
as a key focus for growth in the wider South East, and an alteration to RPG9, called the Milton
Keynes and South Midlands Sub Regional Strategy, was adopted in March 2005 to ensure an
integrated approach to growth across the Sub Region. These regional and sub regional planning
documents provide the spatial context for development of Milton Keynes to 2026 and the preparation
of future LDDs.
The Sub Regional Spatial Strategy provides guidance for the development of Milton Keynes to 2021
and beyond, setting out targets of 44,900 new homes by 2021 with the possibility of an additional
23,700 homes by 2031. Sustainable urban extensions are expected to provide around 14,900 homes
by 2016. As well as the policies on reducing flood risk set out in PPS25, policy 3 in the Milton Keynes
and the RSS states that the strategic planning of surface water drainage management to minimise
flood risk should be included.
17

2.5
Local Planning Policy
2.5.1
As outlined in Section 2.2, changes to the planning system in England mean that the LPA will
gradually depart from the Local Plan and create new planning policies within the new planning system
known as the LDF.
Milton Keynes Council has begun work on preparing a new LDF.
The LDF will be a folder of
documents that sets out how the local area may change over the next few years. All documents
within the LDF are known as LDDs.
Milton Keynes is currently in the process of formulating its Core Strategy Document, which will set the
vision, objectives, and strategy for the spatial development of the Borough and form the basis of all
new planning policies the council will apply in the future. In September 2007 the council published its
preferred options document for public consultation. It is expected that the core spatial strategy will be
submitted in 2008.
2.5.2
Milton Keynes Supplementary Planning Guidance Development and Flood Risk

(2004)
The SPG aims to implement in Milton Keynes the requirements of Planning Policy Guidance Note 25:
Development and Flood Risk (PPG25), which has since been superseded by PPS25. Specifically, its
purpose is to promote a strategic approach to mitigating the impact of development on flood risk. It
aims to guide developers on the following aspects of drainage and flood risk in Milton Keynes:
Zones at risk from river flooding and the constraints they impose on development
What further strategic measures are appropriate to allow further development to go ahead and
how they might operate in conjunction with more local measures
Using modern practice in sustainable drainage
What consideration should be given to conservation and amenity, funding and the securing of
reliable arrangements for long term maintenance
The SPG will require updating in line with the SFRA and to ensure it forms a new Supplementary
Planning Document (SPD) as part of the LDF process.
18

Study Methodology
3.1
Level 1 SFRA Methodology
A Level 1 SFRA is defined in the Practice Guide Companion as a desk-based study using existing
information to allow application of the Sequential Test and to identify where the Exception Test is
likely to be necessary. The main tasks undertaken during the study were as follows:
a) Establishing relationships and understanding the planning context:
An Inception meeting was held to build relationships between the project team, the Councils, the
IDB and the Environment Agency. This allowed the partnering approach to form, and allow the
free exchange of available information. Discussions were held on the status of the Councils LDF
and planning pressures to gain a clear picture of the challenges faced by the planning team, and
the various opportunities and constraints guiding the site allocation process. The study area was
also discussed in detail, giving an overview of local features and flooding experienced from all
sources.
b) Gathering data and analysing it for suitability:
A quality review of flood risk information was carried out by an experienced core team, who
reviewed the collated data, assessed its significance and quality and advised on which data would
be needed to drive the SFRA. The main approach adopted for the SFRA was to build on previous
studies and existing information, supplied during the data collection phase.
c) Producing strategic flood risk maps, GIS deliverables and a technical report
A series of GIS maps were produced using the data gathered in the early phases of the study.
The main mapping output is the strategic flood risk maps for the entire study area, which shows
Flood Zones 1, 2 and 3 and flooding from all other sources, and should be used to carry out the
Sequential Test. Other maps include study area maps showing canals and fluvial features,
climate change maps showing the impacts of climate change on flood probability, geological
maps, historic flood outline maps, and maps showing flood watch and warning areas. Hardcopy
maps are provided in Volume 2 of the SFRA report, while GIS layers can be found in the CD at
the front of this report.
d) Providing suitable guidance
Sections have been written in the report providing guidance on policy considerations, the
application of the Sequential Test, guidance for the preparation of FRAs and guidance for the
application of SUDS in the study area.
3.2
Need for a Level 2 SFRA
Where the need to apply the Exception Test is identified, due to there being an insufficient number of
suitably available sites for development within zones of lower flood risk or due to possible increases in
flood risk arising from climate change, the scope of the SFRA may need to be widened to a Level 2
assessment.
19

This increased scope involves a more detailed review of flood hazard (flood probability, flood depth,
flood velocity, rate of onset of flooding) taking into account the presence of flood risk management
measures such as flood defences. This could include 2D modelling and breach/overtopping analysis
for certain locations.
Level 2 SFRA outputs include:
An appraisal of the condition of flood defence infrastructure and likely future policy
An appraisal of the probability and consequence of breach or overtopping of flood defence

infrastructure
Maps showing distribution of flood risk across zones
Guidance on appropriate policies for making sites which satisfy parts a) and b) of the Exception
Test safe; and the requirements for satisfying part c) of the Exception Test
Guidance on the preparation of FRAs for sites with varying flood risk across the flood zone
In general, the Level 2 SFRA should aim to provide clear guidance on appropriate risk management
measures for adoption on sites within Flood Zone 3, which are protected by existing defences. This
should minimise the extent to which individual developers need to undertake separate studies on the
same problem. The scope of a Level 2 SFRA cannot be fully determined until the Sequential Test has
been undertaken by the Council on all possible site allocations.
3.3
Technical Background
It is useful to gain a good understanding of Flood Zones and the approach taken to satisfy the Level 1
SFRA requirements, using existing data.
3.3.1
Flood Zones
Flood Zones show the areas potentially at risk of

flooding from rivers or the sea, ignoring the
presence of defences (although areas benefiting
from formal defences are identified).
PPS25 defines the flood zones as follows:
Zone 1: Low Probability
This zone comprises land assessed as having a
less than 1 in 1000 annual probability of river or
sea flooding in any year (<0.1%).
Zone 2: Medium Probability
This zone comprises land assessed as having between a 1 in 100 and 1 in 1000 annual probability of
river flooding (1% 0.1%) or between a 1 in 200 and 1 in 1000 annual probability of sea flooding
(0.5% 0.1%) in any year.
20

Zone 3a: High Probability
This zone comprises land assessed as having a 1 in 100 or greater annual probability of river flooding
(>1%) or a 1 in 200 or greater annual probability of flooding from the sea (>0.5%) in any year.
Zone 3b: The Functional Floodplain
This zone comprises land where water has to flow or be stored in times of flood. SFRAs should
identify this Flood Zone where possible (land which would flood with an annual probability of 1 in 20
(5%) or greater in any year or is designed to flood in an extreme (1 in 1000 year) flood, or at another
probability to be agreed between the LPA and the Environment Agency, including water conveyance
routes).
Flood Zone maps in this SFRA have been produced from two sources: Environment Agency Flood
Zone maps, published and updated quarterly in their website, and detailed local hydraulic modelled
outlines.
3.4
Environment Agency Flood Zone Maps
A national Flood Zone map dataset has been produced by the Environment Agency. Most fluvial
Flood Zones 2 and 3 are derived from the modelling package JFlow, which is a coarse modelling
approach (see Appendix C). In many places the results of flood mapping studies have superseded
the JFlow outlines. Generally these studies have included detailed hydrological research, surveyed
river cross sections, and more precise digital modelling such as iSIS, TuFlow and HecRas.
It should be noted that not all minor watercourses have had Flood Zone maps produced for them.
Only watercourses with a catchment area greater than 3km have been modelled using JFlow
software and, therefore, smaller watercourses as identified on the 25K OS map within Flood Zone 1
may not be covered by the Environment Agency Flood Maps. As such, for any development site
located adjacent to an unmapped watercourse within Flood Zone 1, it is recommended that a site
specific FRA is undertaken. In addition, proposed developments should be set-back from the
watercourse with a minimum 9m wide undeveloped buffer zone, to allow appropriate access for
routine maintenance and emergency clearance. This is required by the Environment Agencys and
IDBs Byelaws, for Main Rivers and all watercourses in IDB areas, respectively. It is, however, also
recommended for all other unmapped watercourses.
The Environment Agency flood maps do not show the functional floodplain, Flood Zone 3b, which is a
recent PPS25 requirement.
21

22

Flood Risk in the Study Area
4.1
Approach to Data Gathering
Throughout the data collection and review process it has been critical to make best use of the
significant amount of information which already exists with respect to flood risk (held by the Council,
IDB, Environment Agency, British Waterways, the Highways Agency, Anglian Water and other key
consultees). The team has been able to review the collected data, assess its significance and quality,
and advise on which part of the collected data needed to be used for the SFRA. The main approach
to the SFRA has been to build on previous studies and gathered information.
Consultation has formed a key part of the data gathering stage of the SFRA. The above stakeholders
were consulted during the SFRA and as part of the consultation process, an Inception meeting was
held to allow key stakeholders to share their experience and knowledge of flooding issues across the
study area. The benefits of adopting a partnering approach (as advocated by PPS25) are significant
and have helped to ensure that the findings and recommendations of the SFRA are relevant and
workable for the Council.
4.2
Historical Flooding
Prior to the development of Milton Keynes there was regular flooding of the Great Ouse, River Ouzel
and Loughton Brook. During the floods of 1947 (estimated to be between a 1 in 50 and 1 in 100 year
event) and 1968 a number of areas around Bletchley, Newport Pagnell, Bradwell, Loughton and
Simpson were seriously affected. However, Milton Keynes is unusual as the development of the new
town has meant that there have been significant changes to the catchment characteristics, with
increased run off from urban areas mitigated by a system of balancing lakes. These changes in the
system should be considered when applying information about the location of flooding prior to the
development of Milton Keynes to the present day. For instance, the Milton Keynes Drainage Study
(Halcrow 2000) found that water levels for a 1 in 100 year storm at Newport Pagnell would be lower
than they were prior to the development of Milton Keynes, due to storage provided by the balancing
lakes on the River Ouzel and by their role in delaying flood peaks.
Information on historical flooding was gathered from Environment Agency flood outlines and
measured flood levels, published reports and a review of the local newspaper. Areas in Milton
Keynes found to have a history of flooding include:
Newport Pagnell, which flooded in Easter 1998 and March 1947 from the Great Ouse and River
Ouzel, and in September 1992 from the River Ouzel. The Environment Agency node
measurements show several properties flooded in Lakes Lane, Newport Pagnell in the 1998
floods, and that in the 1992 floods there was flooding to Willen Lane, Nene Close, Dove Close,
Trent Close, Riverside, Mill Street, and Northampton Rd. In addition, Silver Street, Tickford
Street and Priory Street flooded due to the surface water drains surcharging in the 1992 floods.
Stony Stratford, which is at risk of flooding from the Great Ouse. Stony Stratford flooded in
March 1947 and 1998. The Stony Stratford re-feasibility study reports that part of the town was
also flooded during the Easter 1998 event, and four non-residential buildings were inundated.
Environment Agency measured levels show that flooding occurred to properties in Fegans
Court, the High Street, Prospect Road, Temperance Terrace and Mill Lane. The non-residential
23

buildings were in Queen Eleanor Street and it is thought that the flooding was due to surface
water drainage problems. There was further flooding to Fegans Court and the High Street in
January 2003. The local newspaper reports that in the July 2007 floods there was flooding to
the High Street and Temperance Terrace.
Bletchley, which is at risk of flooding from Water Eaton Brook. Parts of Water Eaton flooded in
July 1968, due to the channel capacity being exceeded. The Water Eaton Brook Standard of
Protection (SOP) Study reports that the 1968 event caused flooding to houses along the south
front of Water Eaton Road, however, the lower part of Water Eaton Brook was canalised and
straightened as a response to this flooding. Environment Agency historic flood levels show
further flooding in 1998 on Water Eaton Road and Frensham Drive, but it is not clear if any
properties were flooded. The local newspaper reports flooding to Water Eaton Road, but not to
properties in August 2006.
Parts of Olney and Newton Blossomville are shown as having flooded in 1947 from the Great
Ouse. However, the Olney, Newton Blossomvile and Turvey pre-feasibility study found no
properties at risk of flooding in Newton Blossomville below a 1 in 100 year event and states that
the properties in Newton Blossomville are located on high ground along the edge of the river
valley and as such are outside the river flood plain. In Olney the study found the standard of
protection to be as low as 1 in 5 years for some properties in Mill Close. Environment Agency
measurements record that the grounds of 2 properties in Church Street, Olney were flooded in
April 1998, and that there was flooding to a goods yard on Carey Way, Olney in March 1947.
Fenny Stratford, which is within the March 1947 flood outline for the River Ouzel. There are no
recorded levels. The River Ouzel at Milton Keynes SOP Study identified 5 properties at risk of
flooding at a 1 in 2 year return period just downstream of Fenny Stratford including Belvedere
Farm and nurseries, with further properties at risk on Powel Haven, Mill Lane, Woolstone,
Wattling Street, Manor Field, and Watling Terrace from higher return periods.
New Bradwell, which flooded in 1998 and 1947 from the Great Ouse, and 1968 from Loughton
Brook. The Environment Agency flood event outlines only show flooding to gardens and
grounds, not buildings, for these events.
Shenley Brook End, which flooded in August 1980 due to an obstruction or blockage of a culvert
on Shenley Brook. The local newspaper reports flood damage to Long Meadow School but
does not give a date.
Walton Park. The local newspaper reports flooding to Wadesmill Lane, under the v10 road
bridge in November 2004 and November 2007. It reports that a local resident claims that the
street floods once or twice a year. The newspaper attributes the flooding to the brook next to
the community centre.
The newspaper reports flooding to Bourton Low in Walnut Tree due to blockage to a culvert on
Caldecotte Brook.
Two Mile Ash, where the newspaper reports flooding to a garden in Ellesborough Grove.
Cosgrove, which flooded in Easter 1998 from the Great Ouse.
24

Ravenstone, parts of which are in the Environment Agency flood outline for August 1980 which
reports that the channel capacity on an ordinary watercourse was exceeded.
Lavenden, parts of which are in the Environment Agency flood outline for August 1980 which
reports that the channel capacity on an ordinary watercourse was exceeded.
Stoke Goldington, where there were two severe flooding events on 4th June and the 2nd July
2007. Following these events Milton Keynes Council commissioned WSP to produce a report
into the cause of the flooding and potential mitigation measures, the second stage of which was
completed in January 2008. The study found that Stoke Goldington had a long history of flooding
with previous events in the 1880s, 1968, 1973, 1980, 1984 and 2002. Hydraulic analysis showed
that the flooding was due to a combination of surface run off from higher ground and insufficient
capacity in open channels and culverts. There are recorded flood levels in Orchard Way, High
Street, Maltings Close and Ram Alley.
Tathall End, where Environment Agency point measurements record 150mm of flooding to a
property in 1973. The local newspaper reports flooding to the road in July 2007.
Woburn Sands, where the local newspaper reports flooding due to a blocked culvert in August
2004.
Lower Weald, which flooded in Easter 1998 from Calverton Brook, due to insufficient culvert
capacity.
There are no records of flooding in the south west and south east development areas.
4.3
Fluvial Flood Risk in Milton Keynes as defined by the Flood Zone Maps
Milton Keynes was designed so that the majority of the natural floodplain is within linear parks. Since
1992 these have been managed by the Milton Keynes Parks Trust, which has a 999 year lease on the
land. As a result of this there are few properties lying with the Environment Agencys Flood Zones
within the new areas of Milton Keynes. Areas where there are properties within the Environment
Agencys Flood Zones include:
Newport Pagnell, where there are several properties in Flood Zone 3 upstream of the Ouzel Great Ouse confluence. These include properties on Priory Street, Lagonda Close, Dove Close,
Nene Close and Tickford Street on the right bank of the Ouzel, Riverside, St John Street,
Caldecotte Street and Willen Road on the left bank of the Ouzel, and Mill Street and Priory
Street on the right bank of the Great Ouse.
New Bradwell, where there are properties in Flood Zone 3 from Lougthon Brook in Caledonian
Road, Wallace Street and Wood Street and Flood Zone 3 for the Great Ouse at Newport Rd.
Bletchley and Water Eaton, where there are properties in Flood Zone 3 for Water Eaton Brook in
Tina Grove, Frensham Drive, Baccara Grove, Westfield Grove and Larch Grove. In addition
there are large areas in Flood Zone 2, along almost the whole built up area surrounding Water
Eaton Brook.
Isolated properties along the Ouzel, Ouzel Mill Farm (SP88253290), Belvedere Farm
(SP88603404), some industrial buildings of Fenny Stratford High Street, part of the Open
25

University Campus at Walton Hall (SP88383707) and Caldecotte Mill (SP883704264).
In
addition there are properties in Flood Zone 2 in Willen at Chillery Leys and Milton Road.
Pineham Sewage works is in Flood Zone 2 from the River Ouzel.
Stony Stratford, where there are properties in Flood Zone 3 at Prospect Rd, Ostlers Lane and
Fegans court. Further properties in Mill Lane, the High Street and Magdalend Close are in
Flood Zone 2.
Properties on Carey Way, Olney and Clifton Rd, Newton Blossomville are in Flood Zone 2 from
the Great Ouse and there are Isolated properties along the Great Ouse are in Flood Zone 3,
including the The Mill at Wolverton Mill (SP79504113 ) and Gallards Farm (SP86794638).
Tongwell where there properties in Flood Zone 3 from Tongwell Brook on Tongwell Lane,
Dulwich Close, Tabard Gardens, Ranelagh Gardens, Alexandra Drive, Gladstone, Gladstone
Close, and Marsh End Road.
There are areas with properties in Flood Zone 3 for minor tributaries which have only been modelled
and mapped using JFLOW. These flood zones may need further refinement in a level 2 SFRA.
These include:
Walnut Tree, Browns Wood and the Tilbrook Industrial Estate where are properties in Flood
Zone 3 from Caldecotte Brook, a tributary of the Ouzel, in Wadesmill Lane, Chase Avenue,
Bourton low, Litchfield Down, Twyford Lane, Elgar Grove, Holst Crescent, Britten Grove and
Boyce Crescent.
There are properties in Flood Zone 2 for three tributaries of Loughton Brook west of Furzton
Lake in Morebath Grove, Shenley Brook End, in Loughton in Whitworth Lane, Snaith Cresent,
The Green, Paynes Drive, Greenhill Close and Lingeslade Grove and in Erical Road, Stacey
Bushes.
Simpson, where there are properties in Flood Zone 3 on a minor tributary of the Ouzel on
Simpson Road and Hammer Road.
Isolated properties along Chicheley Brook including, Broadmead Lodge SP93484461, White
Cottage and Swan River (SP92174647) which are in Flood Zone 3.
The Charity cottages, Petsoe End (SP89744915) which are in Flood Zone 3 on a minor tributary
of the Great Ouse.
Lavendon, where the centre of the village including parts of Northampton Road, Olney Road,
Rectory Orchard and the High Street are in Flood Zone 3.
Tathall End, which is partly in Flood Zone 3.
Lower Weald, where parts of the village are in Flood Zone 3 from Calverton Brook. The Council
Highways department data also shows that there has been a road closure due to flooding in
Lower Weald.
26

Part of the southeast extension area is in Flood Zone 3 from a tributary of Water Eaton Brook and
from Loughton Brook, and parts of the southwest extension area are in Flood Zone 3 from Broughton
Brook.
4.4
Flooding From Other Sources
Methodologies for recording flooding from sources other than fluvial or tidal were not standardised
until 2006. Therefore records held of such flooding can be incomplete, or not to a uniform standard.
Information has been gathered on flooding experienced from sources other than rivers, and is
described in this section.
4.4.1
Flooding from Artificial Drainage Systems and Surface Water Runoff
One water company covers Milton Keynes, Anglian Water, who has been consulted for information on
flooding from surface water and artificial drainage sources. This has been provided in the form of six
digit postcode locations as recorded within their DG5 Flood Register.
All Water Companies have a statutory obligation to maintain a register of properties/areas which are
at risk of flooding from the public sewerage system, and this is shown on the DG5 Flood Register.
The aim of the DG5 levels of service indicators is to measure the frequency of actual flooding of
properties and external areas from the public sewerage system by foul water, surface water or
combined sewage which are deemed to be public and therefore maintained by the Water Company.
Flooding from land drainage, highway drainage, rivers/watercourses and private sewers is not
recorded within the register.
The DG5 register tends to show, to a greater or lesser extent: the location of the incident, the date of
the incident, a description of the incident, whether the incident occurred internally or externally and
the register the incident has been recorded on. When an incident is reported, a decision chart is used
to asses whether the properties/areas are at risk and then the record is added to the appropriate
register.
This information has been digitised and represented as post code areas within a GIS layer. Due to
the data protection requirements it is not possible to specify the exact location of each incident.
Nine properties within the study area have been identified as having a history of flooding from the
public sewerage system. These include 4 in Stratford Road, Wolverton and 5 on Newton Road and
Chandos Place in Bletchley. In all instances the flooding is due to hydraulic incapacity of the
surrounding sewers.
Flooding From Artificial Sources as Recorded in Anglian Water DG5 Register
Street
No. Properties Affected
Stratford Rd, Wolverton
Newton Rd, Bletchley
Chandos Place, Bletchley
27

The recording of flood events by the authorities has often led to improvements intended to prevent
reoccurrence, so historical flooding is not necessarily evidence of propensity for future flooding.
Development in Milton Keynes will lead to an increase in outflow from sewage treatment works.
Sewage from Milton Keynes is treated at the Cotton Valley sewage treatment works, which
discharges into Willen Lake. Halcrow completed a study for Anglian Water in 2007 which looked at
the possible increase in flood risk due to development downstream of sewage treatment works to
identify sewage treatment works where further studies would need to be undertaken. Increased flows
from Cotton Valley STW were found to increase flows in the Ouzel by 3.37% above those in a 2 year
flood event. Sensitivity to this was considered to be medium, but the impact was considered to be
high.
Milton Keynes Council provided paper copies of their records of their response to flooding incidents
and a record of reports of surface water flooding made by the public to their highways department.
The incidents where the council had responded to flooding incidents are shown in Volume 2, Tiles B119 (it should be noted that grid references were not supplied with the information so incidents are
shown as occurring on the centre of the relevant street). The Highways Agency was also approached
for information but had no records of flooding within the study area. There have been some instances
of flash flooding due to inadequate surface water, blocked culverts and poor maintenance.
As discussed in Section 4.2 there is a history of overland flooding in Stoke Goldington due to run off
flowing over the fields. The WSP January 2008 report finds that Stoke Goldington is affected by
overland run off due to its location in a natural topographic hollow, and the local geology. The village
is situated on relatively impermeable Upper Lias clay while higher land to the north and west of the
village is generally situated upon boulder clay and limestone respectively. The clay soils will act as
impermeable surfaces when saturated, or baked, leading to a high percentage of run off, which is
toward the village due to the slope of the fields. The limestone geology to the west can retain
significant volumes of rainfall. During an extended period of heavy rainfall this water can be released
as natural springs on the local hillsides at the interface of the limestone and clay geology, and
contribute to flooding.
The LPA should adopt a planning policy requiring the use of SUDS as proposed in PPS25 and that
the Sequential Test should be used to allocate land for development so that the risk of fluvial flooding
is minimised. This reduces the risk of fluvial flood waters entering public foul and surface water
sewers and resultant widespread flooding and pollution. Individual developments should be designed
so that natural flood pathways are left free of buildings. Further guidance on the application of SUDS
can be found in Chapter 11, and in the CIRIA Report C635, Designing for Exceedance in Urban
Drainage (2006).
4.4.2
Flooding from Impounded Water Bodies
Records of flooding from reservoirs and canals are erratic as there is no requirement for the
Environment Agency to show historic flooding from canals and raised reservoirs on plans. In
particular, PPS25 does not require flood risk from canals and raised reservoirs to be shown on the
flood map. Occasionally major bank breaches also occur, leading to rapid and deep flooding of
adjacent land.
28

The Grand Union canal crosses Milton Keynes.
Consultation with British Waterways (BW) has
indicated that there is one record of a canal breach within Milton Keynes, in the Wroughton Park area
(SP8779836717). This breach occurred in 1971 and was caused by third party works.
Reservoirs with an impounded volume in excess of 25,000 cubic metres (measured above natural
ground level) are governed by the Reservoirs Act and are listed on a register held by the Environment
Agency. Due to high standards of inspection and maintenance required by legislation, normally flood
risk from registered reservoirs is moderately low. There are 13 reservoirs within the study area
including the balancing lakes in the centre of Milton Keynes, shown in the table on page 38, and on
the A Map tiles. There are no known records of reservoir overtopping or breach incidents, however,
if development is proposed downstream of a reservoir, failure scenarios should be investigated to
ensure that there is no risk to the development in the event of failure.
4.4.3
Flooding from Groundwater
The Environment Agency can monitor groundwater levels using boreholes and the records of these
are held on the WISKI database. Both the Environment Agency and planning authorities can keep
records of instances where a high water table has led to individual groundwater flooding events,
however, there are no records of groundwater flooding in Milton Keynes. Groundwater flooding is
unlikely where the underlying geology is impermeable, but can occur in where the underlying geology
is permeable. As discussed in Section 1.7.2 the majority of Milton Keynes is built on impermeable
clay, so groundwater flooding is unlikely. The village of Woburn Sands is located in an area of
permeable geology, and although there are no records of groundwater flooding here, the IDB has
expressed concern that the possibility of groundwater flooding may be increased by development and
the use of infiltration SUDS in the Woburn Sands area.
29

30

Strategic Flood Risk Mapping
5.1
Strategic Flood Risk Maps
A key output of the SFRA is a series of maps covering the LPA area, showing flood risk from sources
including fluvial, surface water, foul and combined sewers, groundwater and impounded water bodies
such as rivers and canals. The maps use the information detailed in Chapter 4. The strategic flood
risk maps are presented as GIS layers, and can be interrogated to gain the associated descriptive
information. These can be found in the CD attached to this report.
Level 1 SFRAs should seek to use Flood Zone outlines which have been produced using detailed
modelling techniques in preference to the Environment Agencys Flood Zone maps. When
representing the Flood Zones, Level 1 SFRAs should also show the functional floodplain, Flood Zone
3b, where such outlines exist. If Flood Zone 3b has not been produced as part of a detailed modelling
project, similar outlines, such as the 1 in 25 year outline can be used. It was agreed with the
Environment Agency that as part of this SFRA the 1 in 25 year outline could be used for the Water
Eaton Brook downstream of the hydraulic model extent (SP87143223), and the 1 in 50 year outline
could be used for the Ouzel between Water Eaton (SP88163235) and Caldecotte (SP88624166). In
the absence of further information, the precautionary assumption that Flood Zone 3b is equal to Flood
Zone 3a has been adopted where there are no other proxies for Flood Zone 3b. This approach is
suitable at the Level 1 SFRA stage when carrying out the Sequential Test, a process whereby
development should be placed in the lowest risk zone, Flood Zone 1.
With the exception of Water Eaton Brook, there are no flood outlines for the 1 in 1000 year return
period which defines Flood Zone 2 from hydrodynamic models. In some cases, the 1 in 100 year
return period flood outline from the hydrodynamic model is larger than the 1000 year outline from
JFLOW shown on the Environment Agencys Flood Zone maps. In these cases the 1 in 1000 year
flood outline has been extended out to the 1 in 100 year flood outline from the hydrodynamic model.
This is the case for Tongwell Brook. The Environment Agency anticipates that new maps of Flood
Zones 2 and 3 on the River Ouzel through Milton Keynes should be complete in August 2008, and
SFRA maps (B Tiles) should be updated to include these new maps.
Should sites be placed in Flood Zones 2 or 3, they should always be assessed through a more
detailed Level 2 SFRA, which will refine Flood Zone information, allow the development to be located
on parts of the site at lowest probability of flooding and ensure that other areas do not become subject
to increased risk as a result of the development.
5.1.1
Hydraulic (River) Models
The Environment Agency supplied flood outlines from all available modelling studies of the study
area. These flood outlines were reviewed against the published Flood Zone maps for Flood Zones 2
and 3a, and the Flood Zones were updated where the Environment Agency indicated that they had
been superseded by more recent studies. A list of the available modelled flood outlines used is given
in the table overleaf.
31

32
Tongwell
Brook
Water Eaton
Brook
100
2, 5, 10,
25, 50, 75,
100, 1000
100
Loughton
Brook
100 year as Flood Zone 3a
25 Year as Flood Zone 3b,

100 year as Flood Zone 3a,
1000 year as flood Zone 2

downstream of the limit of
Royal Haskoning December
2003 SOP study.
100
100
50 year as Flood Zone 3b,

10, 50,
100
100
Maids Moreton to Stony

Stratford
100
Stony Stratford to
Sherrington
Return Periods Used in

SFRA
100
100
100
Olney to Turvey
100
Return
Periods
Mapped
Stony Stratford to
Sherington
Reach Covered
Tove
Ouzel
Broughton
Brook
Great Ouse
Watercourse
Hydraulic Models and Modelled Outlines for Watercourses in Milton Keynes
33
Retrospective Data Gathering Tongwell Brook
Water Eaton Brook SoP
English Partnerships Loughton Brook without

Defences
Milton Keynes S105 - River Tove
Milton Keynes S105 - River Ouzel
River Ouzel Standards of Protection
Milton Keynes S105 - Broughton Brook South
Broughton Brook - Commission For the New

Towns
Maids Moreton to Stony Stratford SoP Study
Stony Stratford PFS
Olney, Newton Blossomville and Turvey PFS
Milton Keynes S105 - Great Ouse
Study
May 2007, Mott MacDonald, iSIS
March 2007, JBA, iSIS
September 2006
July 2001
July 2001
December 2003, Royal Haskoning,

iSIS
July 2001
December 1997
March 2004, Atkins, HEC-RAS
Jan 2003, Atkins, HEC-RAS
March 2004, Atkins, Mike 11
July 2001
Date of Report, Report Authors,

Software Used.
34

5.2
Climate Change Maps
PPS25 sets out guidance for changes to flood risk as a result of climate change, below. These climate
change scenarios are now included in most Environment Agency river models and flood outlines are
produced; for older river studies this is less likely.
The main Climate Change table from PPS25 is shown below:
Parameter
1990
to
2025
2025
to
2055
2055
to
2085
2085
to
2115
Peak rainfall intensity
+5%
+10%
+20%
+30%
Peak river flow
+10%
+20%
Offshore wind speed
+5%
+10%
Extreme wave height
+5%
+10%
In its November 2006 publication of the predicted effects of climate change on the United Kingdom,
DEFRA described how short duration rainfall could increase by 30% and flows by 20%, and suggests
winters will become generally wetter. These effects will tend to increase both the size of Flood Zones
associated with the sea and rivers, and the amount of flooding experienced from other sources.
No climate change outlines have been produced for the existing hydraulic models within the study
area. Where they exist it may be possible to use the flood outlines for the 1 in 200 year or 1 in 1000
year events as a proxy for the climate change scenario, as the 1 in 1000 or 1 in 200 year outlines
often show similar extents to the climate change scenarios of the 100 year event. However, with the
exception of Water Eaton Brook where a 1 in 1000 year flood outline exists there are no available
flood outlines from hydraulic models for events with a return period greater than 1 in 100 years.
A comparison between the 1 in 100 year and 1 in 1000 year inflows to the Water Eaton Brook model
shows that the flows for the 1 in 1000 year outline are approximately 80% higher than inflows in the
1in 100 year event. The 1 in 1000 year outline for Water Eaton Brook has therefore been used as a
very conservative proxy for Flood Zone 3a with climate change.
For watercourses where models do not exist, the most up-to-date Environment Agency Flood Zone
maps have been used to infer the climate change scenario. A 1 in 100 year climate change scenario
has been produced by assuming that Flood Zone 2 (1 in 1000 year return period) will become Flood
Zone 3 (1 in 100 year return period). We have also assumed that Flood Zone 3a (1 in 100 year return
period) will become Flood zone 3b, functional floodplain (1 in 20 year return period). This is a
precautionary approach but the best that can be made without further mapping or modelling which is
beyond the scope of a Level 1 SFRA.
PPS25 requires that present day Flood Zone maps are used to carry out the Sequential Test.
However, the LPA might wish to use the climate change maps to carry out the Sequential Test, in
order to give a particularly long-term risk-based approach to planning. In areas where the climate
change maps have been produced using the 1 in 1000 year outline this precautionary approach may
35

be overly restrictive and further modelling and mapping may be required to provide a better indication
of Flood Zone 3a with climate change. This could be included in a Level 2 SFRA.
The climate change maps presented here provide the level of detail which PPS25 requires for a Level
1 SFRA and give an indication of how Flood Zones and flood probabilities are likely to change over
time. The climate change scenarios are shown in Volume 2, Tiles C1-C5.
36

Flood Warning Systems and Flood Risk Management Measures
6.1
Flood Management
Flood risk management can reduce the probability of occurrence through the management of land,
river systems and flood defences, and reduce the impact through influencing development in flood
risk areas, flood warning and emergency response.
6.1.1
Catchment Flood Management Plans
A Catchment Flood Management Plan (CFMP) is a high-level strategic plan through which the
Environment Agency seeks to work with other key-decision makers within a river catchment to identify
and agree long-term policies for sustainable flood risk management.
The Great Ouse CFMP covers the Milton Keynes Area. The Great Ouse CFMP has not yet been
finalised and is currently in draft format. The CFMP identifies different policies for different parts of
the Great Ouse catchment, termed policy units. These policy units are not considered independently,
for example the CFMP states that there is an opportunity to reduce flood risk in the Fens, in the lower
part of the Great Ouse catchment, by storing water in the upper parts of the Great Ouse catchment.
Milton Keynes is in the Bedford Ouse policy unit. Four flood risk management policies have been
selected for this policy unit:
Where there is opportunity to use areas as active floodplain, take action to increase the
frequency of flooding to achieve benefits locally or elsewhere (which may lead to an overall
reduction in flood risk).
For large areas with significant risk of flooding, take further action to reduce flood risk (now
and/or in the future).
For large urban settlements including Milton Keynes and Bedford, take further action to sustain
the current scale of flood risk in to the future (responding to the potential increases in flood risk
from urban development land use change and climate change).
For areas where flood risk management actions can be reduced, continue existing and
alternative actions to manage flood risk at the current level (accepting that flood risk will increase
over time from this baseline).
It is expected that the full draft CFMP report will be issued in December 2008, when the findings and
recommendations of the CFMP should be reviewed by the Council.
6.2
Flood Defences
Flood defences are structures which affect flow in times of flooding and therefore prevent water from
entering property. They generally fall into one of two categories: formal or informal. A formal
defence is a structure which has been specifically built to control floodwater. It is maintained by its
owner so that it remains in the necessary condition to function. The owner is not necessarily the
Environment Agency or IDB, but under the Land Drainage Act and Water Resources Act 1991 the
Environment Agency and IDB have powers to construct and maintain defences against flooding. The
local council has similar powers on ordinary watercourses outside the IDB areas. An informal
defence is a structure that has not necessarily been built to control floodwater and is not maintained
37

for this purpose. This includes road and rail embankments and other linear infrastructure (buildings
and boundary walls) which may act as water retaining structures or create enclosures to form flood
storage areas in addition to their primary function.
A study of informal defences has not been made as part of this assessment. Should any changes be
planned in the vicinity of road or railway crossings over rivers in the study, it would be necessary to
assess the potential impact on flood risk to ensure that flooding is not made worse either upstream or
downstream. Smaller scale informal defences should be identified as part of site-specific detailed
FRAs and the residual risk of their failure assessed.
In accordance with the scope of a Level 1 SFRA, a high level review of formal flood defences has
been carried out using data from the Environment Agencys National Flood and Coastal Defence
Database (NFCDD). This is a good starting point for identifying significant flood defences and
potential areas benefiting from defences, but the quantity and quality of information provided differs
considerably between structures. The NFCDD is intended to give a reasonable indication of the
condition of an asset and should not be considered to contain consistently detailed and accurate data
(this would be undertaken as part of a Level 2 SFRA where the need arises).
A primary objective in the original design of Milton Keynes was that its development should not make
flooding worse than that which would be experienced had development not taken place. To achieve
this, a series of balancing lakes were built on the River Ouzel, Loughton Brook and Tongwell Brook.
These compensate for increased runoff from urban areas and recreate the storage that was lost as a
result of floodplain development. The original design criteria were that storage on Loughton Brook
should be designed for storms of a frequency of 1 in 10 years to 1 in 15 years, and that storage on the
Ouzel should be designed for the capacity required if there was a recurrence of the 1947 floods
(estimated to be between a 1 in 50 and a 1 in a 100 year event). The balancing lakes are described
in the table overleaf.
38
875360
876350
Ouzel
Ouzel
Ouzel
Ouzel
Simpson
Mount
Farm
Walton
Water
Eaton
845372
Loughton
Brook
Loughton
Brook
Loughton
Brook
Ouse
Loughton
(Tear Drop
Lakes)
Furzton
Lodge
Lake
Brickkiln
799405
832384
846360
829405
Loughton
Brook
Bradwell
868423
Tongwell
Brook
Tongwell
872328
881370
890350
Ouzel
Caldecotte
880400
Grid Ref.
Ouzel
Catchment
Willen
Reservoir
Reservoirs in Milton Keynes
Wet / Dry
Wet / Dry
Wet / Dry
Wet / Dry
Wet
Wet / Dry
Wet
Wet
Wet / Dry
Wet
Wet
Type
On
On
On
On
On
Off
Off
Off
On
On
Off
Off
Line
67000
291000
235000
165000
3000
66000
31500
170000
570000
943000
Capacity
(m)
206
1886
2380
4030
529
62
279
262
525
25500
27700
Catchment
Area (Ha)
39
First to be constructed. Fissured limestone in base results in

loss of stored water due to seepage.
Built in 1981. This was constructed to provide short term

storage as a flood meadow. Necessary to deal with high flows
arising from increased developed areas. Designed on basis of
100% and 70% run off
Built after 1982. Design discharge determined to control flows

downstream.
Built in 1977. Designed on basis of 100% and 70% run off.
Built in 1972. Overtops at time of high flows. DW looked at

changes to high level outlet in 1979. Designed on basis of
100% and 70% run off.
Designed in 1973. Peak inflow is 38 cumecs. Peak outflow is

1.42 cumecs.
Also known as Ashlands. Built prior to 1977. Operates on

similar basis to Loughton.
Operation of control gates depends on flow increases upstream

of the DA and downstream of Willen Lake. Flow in Broughton
Brook also monitored.
Completed in 1977. Operation of control gates depends on flow

increases upstream of the DA and downstream of Willen Lake.
Flow in Broughton Brook also monitored.
Notes
40

The principal balancing lakes on the Ouzel are the Caldecotte and Willen Lakes which have control
gates to regulate the flow in the Ouzel. They were built to compensate for increased flows in
Broughton Brook and increased discharge from the sewage treatment works, as well as increased run
off flows in the Ouzel.
A strategic study of the system of balancing lakes within Milton Keynes was completed by Halcrow in
February 2000 and revised to include updated Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH) hydrology in 2003.
This aimed to assess how the system served the existing development within Milton Keynes as the
original planned new town reached completion, to identify the impacts of future developments on flood
risk downstream of Milton Keynes, and to identify sustainable drainage solutions for future
incorporation. These reports found that the impermeable area in Milton Keynes had increased slightly
over that originally envisaged, but that due to hydrological methodology at the time, the original
design approach had been overly conservative so that the system met its design criteria with the
current level of runoff.
There have been modelling studies looking at the areas benefiting from these defences on Tongwell
Brook and Loughton Brook. The Environment Agency GIS layers of ABDs include parts of Gladstone,
Gladstone Close, Alexandra Drive, Ranelagh Gardens, Marsh End Road Glenwoods and Dulwich
Close on the left bank of Tongwell Brook at Newport Pagnell, and Wallace St, Wood St and Queen
Anne St in New Bradwell, and Alston Drive, Bradwell Abbey. There have been studies mapping the
ABDs along the Ouzel.
New strategic mitigation areas have been built as part of the Milton Keynes Partnership sites at
Tattenhoe Park, Kingsmead, Oxley Park, Snellshoe and Fen Farm.
There are raised defences within the study area at Newport Pagnell, Middleton and Fenny Stratford.
In Newport Pagnell there is a raised embankment on the right bank of the Ouse at Kickles Bank
(SP86624469), which has design standard of 1 in 50 years. The Environment Agency GIS layers of
ABDs show that the area behind Kickles Bank, including most of Lakes Lane, is an ABD as the 1 in
100 year water levels in the Great Ouse are 60cm lower than Kickles Bank. As described in Section
4.2, there was considerable flooding to this area in the 1998 and 1947 floods, prior to the construction
of the current defence. There are further raised embankments with a design standard of 1 in 50 years
on the right bank of Tongwell Brook along Willen Rd (SP 87734314). On left bank of the Ouzel there
are defences along Willen Road and Caldecotte Street (SP87574342) with a design standard of 1 in
50 years which are partly comprised of the walls of adjacent buildings. There are raised
embankments on the right bank of the Ouzel along Priory Street (SP 87954390) with a 1 in 50 year
standard of protection.
There is a raised embankment on the left bank of the Ouzel (SP88203936). This has a standard of
protection of 1 in 200 years and was built to enable development of the English Partnership Site at
Middleton
If there are proposed developments behind defences and downstream of the balancing lakes, it may
be necessary to extend the scope of the SFRA to Level 2. The outputs from detailed overtopping and
breach analysis of the key defences will provide refined hazard information on flood depths, velocities
and flow paths, which could be used by the LPA emergency planning teams to define new or refine
existing emergency plans for these areas.
41

6.3
Residual Risk
In producing Flood Zone maps the Environment Agency takes the presence of defences into account
by showing the area that benefits from the defence (ABD). This area can also be deemed an area
which is at risk of defence overtopping or failure. It can therefore also be described as a residual risk
zone. Residual flood risks can arise due to:
The failure of flood management infrastructure such as a breach of a raised flood defence,
blockage of a surface water conveyance system or culvert, overtopping of an upstream storage
area, or failure of a pumped drainage system
A severe flood event that exceeds a flood management design standard and results in, for
example, overtopping.
Within the study area there are ABDs contained within the Environment Agencys ABD database at
Kickles Bank, and along Loughton and Tongwell Brooks. No ABDs have been mapped for the flood
storage areas on the Ouzel. With each defence, including the flood storage reservoirs, there is a
residual risk of overtopping, breach or blockage, which could result in significant damage to buildings
and highway infrastructure as well as posing danger to life.
Although ABDs have only been identified on Loughton Brook, Tongwell Brook and at Kickles bank, it
is possible that future modelling or analysis work undertaken by the Environment Agency may lead to
the availability of such information for other areas, and therefore the flood maps should be updated if
this information becomes available. Areas of residual risk are treated uniformly and are represented
in the GIS as a simple outline of the expected affected area. Actual levels of residual risk will vary
spatially depending on flow routes, velocities, flood depths and proximity to the breach or overtopping
location. In the event that the Exception Test needs to be applied to specific site allocations in
identified residual risk areas, the scope of the SFRA should be extended to a Level 2 assessment to
refine information on the flood hazard in these locations.
There is a residual risk of overtopping or breach of the Grand Union Canal and the balancing lakes.
The area at risk from these events has not been mapped, and is not shown on the map tiles.
However, although the risk of failure is small, the potential for a large volume of water to be released
quickly means that the hazard downstream of these structures is high. Where possible development
should therefore be avoided immediately downstream of the balancing lakes. Where no other
development sites are available a detailed breach and overtopping analysis will be necessary to
determine the flood hazard and inundation area, and this should be included in the scope of the Level
2 SFRA.
All culverts and defences are mapped in Volume 2, Tiles A1-A19. These should be referenced by
those proposing development to identify the possibility of localised residual risks as well as
opportunities for de-culverting and restoring the natural channel.
42

6.4
Existing Flood Warning System
The Environment Agency is the lead organisation on flood warning and its
key responsibilities can include direct remedial action to prevent and mitigate
the effects of an incident, to provide specialist advice, to give warnings to
those likely to be affected, to monitor the effects of an incident and to
investigate its causes.
This requires the Environment Agency, local
authorities and the emergency services to work together to protect people
and properties. Milton Keynes falls within the Central Area of the Anglian
Region of the Environment Agency.
When conditions suggest that floods are likely, it is the responsibility of the
Environment Agency to issue flood warnings to the Police, Fire and Rescue
Service, to the relevant local authorities, to the public and to flood wardens
where they exist. It is the responsibility of individuals in the community to receive flood warnings via
Floodline warnings Direct (FWD) which passes messages over the communications network,
including text messages, telephone messages and e-mails.
The Environment Agency flood warning system is in operation within Milton Keynes and is outlined
below in four stages.
Flood Watch: Flooding of low lying land and roads is expected. Be aware, be prepared, watch
out! The following actions are recommended:
Watch water levels
Stay tuned to local radio or TV
Ring Floodline on 0845 988 1188
Make sure you have what you need to put your flood plan into action
Alert your neighbours, particularly the elderly
Check pets and livestock
Reconsider travel plans
Three flood watch areas cover Milton Keynes; the River Ouzel and Tributaries, the River Great Ouse
in Bedfordshire & Buckinghamshire and the Upper Ouse and tributaries. These cover the entirety of
the Great Ouse, Ouzel, Loughton Brook and Broughton Brook as well as most of the minor tributaries,
as can be seen in Volume 2, Tile F1. Flood Watches are issued for expected flooding, which could
occur anywhere within the Flood Watch Area but with low or minor impact. The trigger for Flood
Watch is a forecast that flooding of low impact land or minor roads is expected.
Flood Warning: Flooding of homes and businesses is expected. Act now! The following actions,
in addition to those associated with Flood Watch, are recommended:
Move pets, vehicles, food, valuables and other items to safety
Put sandbags or floodboards in place
43

Prepare to turn off gas and electricity
Be prepared to evacuate your home
Protect yourself, your family and others that need your help
The flood warning areas in the Milton Keynes area are illustrated in Volume 2, Tile F1. The service is
currently set up to warn properties within the 1 in 100 year event (1% Annual Exceedance Probability)
and the 1 in 1000 year event (0.1% Annual Exceedance Probability) outlines. The flood warning
system covers the Great Ouse from Stony Stratford to New Bradwell, areas near the Ouse and Ouzel
in Newport Pagnell, properties from Simpson to Woolstone park on the Ouzel, the area immediately
downstream of Willen Lake in Willen and properties in Bletchley near Water Eaton Brook.
Severe Flood Warning: Severe flooding is expected.
There is extreme danger to life and
property. Act now! The following actions, in addition to those associated with Flood Warning, are
recommended:
Be prepared to lose power supplies - gas, electricity, water, telephone
Try to keep calm, and to reassure others, especially children
Co-operate with emergency services and local authorities
You may be evacuated
No severe flood warning areas were received from the Environment Agency for Milton Keynes.
6.5
All Clear: Flood Watches or Warnings are no longer in force. The following is recommended:
Flood water levels receding
Check all is safe to return
Seek advice
Flood Response Plan
Milton Keynes Councils Emergency Planning Unit is responsible for the production, maintenance,
and development of plans for an integrated response to any major emergency. This involves working
closely with the emergency services, other Council departments, other local authorities, voluntary
agencies and industry to ensure that any response to a major incident is carefully managed to ensure
a return to normality as quickly as possible. The City Council includes flooding as an emergency
situation. Milton Keynes Council has a generic Major Emergency Response Plan which is the main
guidance for all key officers in dealing with major emergencies. All departments should have
emergency procedures in place to guide staff in their tasks where they differ from their normal work
practices, such as providing care for evacuees at Emergency Rest Centres. The council appoints an
Incident Director to manage the authoritys involvement during the initial phase of an emergency.
With regard to the Councils advice on flooding, the website directs users to the Environment Agency
website to view the flood warnings in place (as described in Section 6.4) and to view properties at risk
of flooding from Main Rivers (as described in Section 4.3). The Councils website encourages offers a
44

link to the Environment Agencys website for advice on how to protect homes from flooding, and
provides information on what to do in event of a flood. The Council keeps a stock of 400 sandbags
which can be obtained out of hours by calling the Councils Community Alarm phone number 01908
226699.
It is recommended that the Councils Emergency Response Plan is reviewed and updated in light of
the findings of the SFRA to ensure that safe evacuation and access for emergency services is
possible during times of flood both for existing developments and those being promoted as possible
sites within the LDF process. It is further recommended that the Local Authority works with the
Environment Agency to promote the awareness of flood risk to maximise the number of people signed
up to the FWD service (previously this has involved targeted mail shots to those identified as living
within Flood Zone 3a). Within the study area particular attention should be given to vulnerable people
including those with impaired hearing or sight and those with restricted mobility.
With respect to new developments, those proposing the development should take advice from the
LPAs emergency planning officer and for large-scale developments, the emergency services, when
producing an evacuation plan as part of a FRA. As a minimum these plans should include information
on:
How flood warning is to be provided:
Availability of existing warning systems
Rate of onset of flooding and available warning time and
Method of dissemination of flood warning
What will be done to protect the infrastructure and contents:
How more easily damaged items could be relocated
The potential time taken to respond to a flood warning
Ensuring safe occupancy and access to and from the development
Occupant awareness of the potential frequency and duration of flood events
Provision of safe (i.e. dry) access to and from the development
Ability to maintain key services during an event
Vulnerability of occupants and whether rescue by emergency services may be necessary and
feasible
Expected time taken to re-establish normal practices following a flood event
45

46

Flood Risk Management Policy Considerations
7.1
Overview
This chapter provides recommendations for what should be included in the Councils policy for flood
risk management as well as providing guidance to developers on the preparation of site-specific
FRAs. Council policy is considered essential to ensure that the recommended development control
conditions can be imposed consistently at the planning application stage.
The policy recommendations provided in this chapter are not exhaustive and it is therefore
recommended that the Councils refer to the following key flood risk management documents in order
to fully inform their own flood risk management policies:
Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and Flood Risk sets out national policy for
development and flood risk and supports the Governments objectives for sustainable
communities.
Great Ouse Catchment Flood Management Plan - strategic planning document through
which the Environment Agency will work with other stakeholders to identify and agree policies
for long-term flood risk management over the next 50 to 100 years. The final draft of the Great
Ouse CFMP is due in December 2008. It is recommended that the Council reviews its content
once produced to ensure policies are in line with those outlined in the CFMP.
Making Space for Water - outlines the Governments proposals for forward planning of flood
management over the next 20 years advocating a holistic approach to achieve sustainable
development. The protection of the functional floodplain is central to the strategy.
Water Framework Directive - European Community (EC) water legislation which requires all
inland and coastal waters to reach good ecological status by 2015.
7.2
Policy Considerations
A key aim of an SFRA is to define flood risk management objectives and identify key policy
considerations. It should be noted that it is ultimately the responsibility of the Council to formally
formulate these policies and implement them.
It is recommended that the following flood risk objectives are taken into account during the policy
making process and, where appropriate, used to strengthen or enhance the development control
policies provided in Section 7.3.
Flood Risk Objective 1: To Seek Flood Risk Reduction through Spatial Planning and Site
Design:
Use the Sequential Test to locate new development in least risky areas, giving highest priority to
Flood Zone 1
Use the Sequential Test within development sites to inform site layout by locating the most
vulnerable elements of a development in the lowest risk areas. For example, the use of low-lying
ground in waterside areas for recreation, amenity and environmental purposes can provide an
47

effective means of flood risk management as well as providing connected green spaces with
consequent social and environmental benefits
Build resilience into a sites design (e.g. flood resistant or resilient design, raised floor levels)
Identify long-term opportunities to remove development from the floodplain through land swapping
Ensure development is safe. For residential developments to be classed as safe, dry

pedestrian egress out of the floodplain and emergency vehicular access should be possible. The
Environment Agency states that dry pedestrian access/egress should be possible for the 1 in 100
year return period event, and residual risk, i.e. the risks remaining after taking the sequential
approach and taking mitigating actions, during the 1 in 1000 year event, should also be safe.
Avoid development immediately downstream of flood storage reservoirs which will be at high
hazard areas in the event of failure.
Flood Risk Objective 2: To Ensure Surface Water Runoff from New Developments remains at
Greenfield Rates:
SUDS required on all new development. As outlined in Section 10.3 which outlines appropriate
SUDS techniques for Milton Keynes, the current policy for the existing allocated sites with in the
DA to use Anglian Water sewers to connect to strategic SUDS should be the preferred means of
surface water disposal. All new allocations e.g. the expansions areas and sites outside the DA in
the rest of the Milton Keynes Council Area will be required to develop a strategy for providing
SUDS. This will need to be on an integrated and strategic scale and where necessary will require
the collaboration of all developers involved in implementing a specific expansion area or site.
Above ground attenuation, such as balancing ponds, should be considered in preference to below
ground attenuation, due to the water quality and biodiversity benefits they offer.
All sites require the following:

- Use of SUDS (where possible use of strategic SUDS should be made)
- Greenfield discharge rates as required by the Environment Agency/IDB as applicable
- Brownfield sites to discharge at the existing rate agreed with the Environment Agency/IDB as
applicable.
- 1 in 100 year attenuation taking into account climate change
Space should be specifically set aside for SUDS and used to inform the overall layout of
development sites
Promote environmental stewardship schemes to reduce water and soil runoff from agricultural
land
48

Flood Risk Objective 3: To Enhance and Restore the River Corridor:
An assessment of the condition of existing assets (e.g. bridges, culverts, river walls) should be
made. Refurbishment and/or renewal of the asset should ensure that the design life is
commensurate with the design life of the development. Developer contributions should be sought
for this purpose.
Those proposing development should look for opportunities to undertake river restoration and
enhancement as part of a development to make space for water. Enhancement opportunities
should be sought when renewing assets (e.g. de-culverting, the use of bio-engineered river walls,
raising bridge soffits to take into account climate change)
Avoid further culverting and building over of culverts. Where practical, all new developments with
culverts running through their site should seek to de-culvert rivers for flood risk management and
conservation benefit. Any culverting or works affecting the flow of a watercourse requires the
prior written consent of the Environment Agency under the terms of the Land Drainage/Water
Resources Act 1991. The Environment Agency seeks to avoid culverting, and its Consent for
such works will not normally be granted except as a means of access.
Set development back from rivers, seeking a 9 metre wide undeveloped buffer strip for
development by all watercourses including those where the Flood Zone does not exist. Under the
terms of the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Land Drainage Byelaws the prior written consent
of the Environment Agency/ IDB is required for any proposed works or structures in, under, over
or within 9 m from a Main River/IDB watercourse. This is to allow easy maintenance of the water
course, and includes consent for fencing, planting and temporary structures.
Flood Risk Objective 4: To Protect and Promote Areas for Future Flood Alleviation Schemes
Protect Greenfield functional floodplain from future development (our greatest flood risk
management asset) and reinstate areas of functional floodplain which have been developed (e.g.
reduce building footprints or relocate to lower flood risk zones)
Develop appropriate flood risk management policies for the Brownfield functional floodplain,
focusing on risk reduction
Identify sites where developer contributions could be used to fund future flood risk management
schemes or can reduce risk for surrounding areas
Seek opportunities to make space for water to accommodate climate change
Flood Risk Objective 5: To Improve Flood Awareness and Emergency Planning
Seek to improve the emergency planning process using the outputs from the SFRA
Encourage all those within Flood Zone 3a and 3b (residential and commercial occupiers) to signup to Flood Warnings Direct service operated by the Environment Agency
Ensure robust emergency (evacuation) plans are implemented for new developments greater
than 1 Ha in size
49

7.3
Development Control Policies
For the purposes of development management, detailed policies will need to be set out to ensure that
flood risk is taken account of appropriately for both allocated and non-allocated windfall sites. The
following reflects the minimum requirements under PPS25 (reference should be made to Tables D1D3 in PPS25).
Future Development within Flood Zone 1
In this zone, developers and local authorities should realise opportunities to reduce the overall level of
flood risk in the area and beyond through the layout and form of the development. There is no
significant flood risk constraint placed upon future developments within the Low Probability Flood
Zone 1, although for sites larger than one hectare the vulnerability from other sources of flooding
should be considered as well as the effect of the new development on surface water runoff.
Typically, a Drainage Impact Assessment will be required to demonstrate that runoff from the site is
the same as in the predevelopment case, thereby ensuring flood risk is not increased. This will
involve the use of SUDS techniques. Where possible these should be strategic SUDS.
Future Development within Flood Zone 2
Land use within Medium Probability Flood Zone 2 should be restricted to the water compatible, less
vulnerable and more vulnerable category. Where other planning pressures dictate that highly
vulnerable land uses should proceed, it will be necessary to ensure that the requirements of the
Exception Test are satisfied. The following should be considered:
A detailed site-specific Flood Risk Assessment should be prepared in accordance with PPS25
and Council planning policies
Finished floor levels (in IDB areas this applies to garages as well as the rest of the ground floor)
should be a set a minimum of 600mm above the 1 in 100 year flood level. The 600mm includes
an allowance for climate change, modelling tolerances and freeboard etc. Where a 1 in 100 year
level plus climate change has been derived the Environment Agency/IDB depending on location
(see Map tiles A) should be contacted to discuss alternative requirements. The development
should be safe, meaning that dry pedestrian access to and from the development should be
possible above the 1 in 100 year plus climate change flood level and emergency vehicular access
should be possible during times of flood.
SUDS should be implemented to ensure that runoff from the site (post development) is reduced.
For all sites, the post development runoff volumes and peak flow rates should be attenuated to
the Greenfield discharge. Space should be set-aside for SUDS.
The proposed development should be set-back from the watercourse with a minimum 9m wide
undeveloped buffer zone, to allow appropriate access for routine maintenance and emergency
clearance. This is required by the Environment Agencys and IDBs Byelaws, for Main Rivers and
all watercourses in IDB areas, respectively. Within this 9m buffer strip consent should be also be
sought, from the Environment Agency or IDB for fencing, planting and temporary structures.
50

Future development within High Probability Flood Zone 3a
Land-use with High Probability Flood Zone 3a should be restricted to the water compatible or less
vulnerable uses to satisfy the requirements of the Sequential Test. In exceptional situations where
other planning pressures dictate that more vulnerable uses should proceed is necessary to ensure
that the requirements of the Exception Test are satisfied. The following should be considered:
A detailed site-specific Flood Risk Assessment should be prepared in accordance with PPS25
and Council planning policies. Properties situated within close proximity to formal defences or
water retaining structures (reservoirs/canals) will require a detailed breach and overtopping
assessment to ensure that the potential risk to life can be safely managed throughout the lifetime
of the development. The nature of any breach failure analysis should be agreed with the
Environment Agency.
The development should not increase flood risk elsewhere, and opportunities should be taken to
decrease overall flood risk (such as use of SUDS and de-culverting). This can be achieved by
developing land sequentially, with areas at risk of flooding favoured for green space. Where
development leads to loss of floodplain, level for level, volume for volume compensation must be
provided.
should be a set a minimum of 600mm above the 1 in 100 year flood level. The 600mm includes
an allowance for climate change, modelling tolerances and freeboard etc. Where a 1 in 100 year
level plus climate change has been derived the Environment Agency/IDB depending on location
(see Map tiles A) should be contacted to discuss alternative requirements. The development
should allow dry pedestrian access to and from the development above the 1 in 100 year plus
climate change flood level and emergency vehicular access should be possible during times of
flood. An evacuation plan should be prepared. With respect to new developments, those
proposing the development should take advice from the LPAs emergency planning officer and for
large-scale developments, the emergency services, when producing an evacuation plan as part of
a FRA. All access requirements should be discussed and agreed with the Environment Agency.
Basements should not be used for habitable purposes. Where basements are permitted for
commercial use, it is necessary to ensure that the basement access points are situated 300 mm
above the 1 in 100 year flood level plus climate change.
SUDS should be implemented to ensure that runoff from the site (post development) is reduced.
For all sites, the post development runoff volumes and peak flow rates should be attenuated to
the Greenfield discharge rates. Space should be set aside for SUDS.
The proposed development should be set-back from the watercourse with a minimum 9m wide
undeveloped buffer zone, to allow appropriate access for routine maintenance and emergency
clearance.
Future development within Functional Floodplain Zone 3b

Development should be restricted to water-compatible uses and essential infrastructure that has to
be there. Table D2 from PPS25 (reproduced in Section 1.5.1 of this report) outlines the types of
51

development included within this classification. It should be noted that essential infrastructure
includes essential transport infrastructure (including mass evacuation routes) which may have to
cross the area at risk as well as strategic utility infrastructure such as electricity generating power
station and grid and primary substations. Reference should be made to Table D2 of PPS25 when
considering development within Flood Zone 3b to ensure only appropriate development is considered.
Essential infrastructure in this zone must pass the Exception Test and be designed and constructed
to remain operational in times of flood and not impede water flow.
7.4
Council Specific Policy Issues
It is recommended that the aforementioned policy considerations are included in the Councils
policies. It is also recommended that the final Great Ouse CFMP flood risk management policies are
reviewed and incorporated once available. In addition the council should seek to:
Maintain the current system of linear parks, providing development free corridors along water
courses
Investigate whether the proposed level of infill development can be accommodated with the
existing system of balancing lakes, and using the existing storm water drainage network
Encourage the use of strategic SUDS where possible.
7.5
Sensitive Development Locations
In general, throughout the study area, any development (including developments in Low Probability
Flood Zone 1) which does not incorporate SUDS may increase the risk of surface and/or fluvial
flooding both on-site and off-site (downstream). As such effective planning policies should be
implemented in accordance with the SUDS recommendations provided in this report.
The core spatial strategy identifies 8,500 houses for existing area focussed principally in Central
Milton Keynes, Bletchley and Wolverton with the remaining homes in two sustainable urban
extensions to the southwest and southeast of Milton Keynes.
The Halcrow (2000) Drainage Study looked at the impact of future development within the existing DA
on fluvial flood risk in Milton Keynes. The study assumed an even distribution of infill expansion with
an additional 3000 dwellings in the DA, and found that the infill development had a small to negligible
impact on the flows in all the principle water courses. The level of development, 8,500 homes,
proposed in the core spatial strategy for the existing urban area is nearly three times that assumed in
the drainage study, and the cumulative effect of the infill development on flows in principle water
courses should be re-examined for this higher level of infill development. This study was revised in
2003 to update the development scenario through to 2011, and to use FEH hydrological analysis
rather than the Flood Studies Report hydrological analysis. The revised study agreed with the
conclusions of the original study that the strategic balancing lakes were effective in controlling flood
risk up to a 1 in 100 event, and that development of Milton Keynes up to the 2011 scenario would not
increase flood risk in Newport Pagnell. The drainage study did not look at the capacity of the storm
water drains, or highway drainage, in Milton Keynes, and as there have been flash floods in the centre
these also need to be assessed, to ensure that there is no increase flood risk from this development.
If significant infill development is planned, this should be considered in a Level 2 SFRA, a Surface
Water Management Plan or the ongoing Water Cycle Strategy.
52

The drainage study found that peripheral development would have a much larger impact on flows and
hence flood risk, with the greatest effect being on Broughton and Calverton Brook where there are no
current methods of flood control and the catchments are small. Water Eaton Brook was not modelled
as part of the drainage study, however, similar conclusions are likely to apply. The southwest
expansion area will partly drain into Water Eaton Brook, where there is an existing flooding problem
downstream in Bletchley. The eastern expansion area will partly drain into Broughton Brook, and
Caldecotte Brook which flows through Browns Wood and Walnut Tree where there is also a history of
flooding. PPS25 requires that there is no increase in flood risk downstream of new developments,
and suitable SUDS need to be used to ensure that there is no increase in flood risk from these
expansion areas.
53

54

Guidance on the Application of the Sequential Test
This section provides guidance on how to apply the Sequential Test.

8.1
Step One: Strategic Overview of flood risk across all potential development areas
The recommended initial step is to determine the extents of potential land allocations on large scale
maps showing the most up-to-date Flood Zones, in accordance with PPS25. Summary tables of flood
risk issues should then be prepared for each location, indicating if the potential areas overlap Zones
2, 3, localised flooding areas or if there are records of previous flood incidents shown in the maps. It is
then recommended that the summary tables and proposed locations are sent to the Environment
Agency for verification. Particular care should be taken by identifying allocations that could increase
flood risk elsewhere (flood incident points, localised flooding areas, Flood Zones) and lack of dry
access.
8.2
Step Two: Flood Risk Issues in Zone 1
The next step should be to analyse all potential sites within Zone 1 by identifying those that have any
flood risk issues (for example those affected by other sources of flooding or those that do not have dry
access routes during flood events).
For the sites with flood risk issues, an assessment of likely significance of flood risk should then be
carried out in terms of likely probability of flooding and potential consequences/flood damages (advice
from a drainage specialist may be required, such as the SFRA consultant, the Environment Agency, a
highways drainage engineer and/or the planning authority drainage specialist). The purpose is to
identify sites with significant flood risk - high probability of flooding and significant flood damages with
deep flooding and high velocities which could result in loss of property and potentially loss of life.
If a site with significant flood risk is identified within Zone 1, this would be considered as if it was in the
High Probability Zone 3a, for further application of the Sequential Test in Zone 3a (see Section 9.3),
bearing in mind that if a more vulnerable land use is required for the site, it will have to pass the
Exception Test.
For those sites within localised flooding areas or with flood incident records where flood risk issues
are not significant (for example shallow flooding and non-frequent blockages, etc), development
should still be acceptable provided that adequate measures are put into place for mitigating the risk
(for example contributions may be required from the developer for the upgrade of the surface water
system in the area).
It is important to note that most potential sites that pass the Sequential Test in Zone 1 will still require
site-specific flood risk assessments. For sites of all sizes, an assessment should be made of
Greenfield runoff rates, volumes of storage required and an assessment of how the drainage system
will work, in order to ensure that sufficient land is allocated for SUDS at the outline planning stage.
For development proposals on sites comprising one hectare or greater, the vulnerability to flooding
from other sources (as well as from river flooding) and the potential to increase flood risk elsewhere
through the addition of hard surfaces and the effect of the new development on surface water runoff,
should be incorporated in an FRA. It is recommended that FRAs are produced for Zone 1 sites of
less than one hectare at locations where there are records of previous flood incidents.
55

8.3
Step Three: Sequential Test in Zones 2 and 3
The third step is to sequentially allocate sites as described in Section 4.3 and as part of a SA. It is
recommended that prior to incorporating the Sequential Test within the SA, the following actions take
place:
a) Apply the measure of avoidance/prevention (see Section 5.1) by moving the boundaries of the
potential sites away from Zones 2, 3a and 3b, for those cases where the loss of site area is
acceptable.
b) Provisionally adopting land uses that are fully compatible with the vulnerability classification of
PPS25, to try to avoid the need to apply the Exception Test where possible.
56

Guidance for Developers
A SFRA is a strategic document that provides an overview of flood risk throughout the study area.
Site-specific FRAs will be required for most proposed developments and the level of detail will depend
on the level of flood risk at the site (see general details about FRA requirements in Appendix E in
PPS25). The onus is on the developer to provide this information in support of a planning application.
Since the release of PPS25 in December 2006, should a local planning authority wish to disregard the
advice of the Environment Agency and approve an application for major development where the
Environment Agency have objected on flood risk grounds then the planning application will be
referred to the Secretary of State who will determine whether to call in the application. It is therefore
imperative that developers hold discussions over the need for FRAs early on within the planning
process. Consultation should be undertaken with the Environment Agency and the Council to ensure
that the Councils policies and guidance on flood risk management are respected and taken account
of, and that the scope of the FRA is commensurate with the level of flood risk. The following reflects
best practice on what should be addressed within a detailed FRA. Those proposing development
should also be directed towards Annex F of PPS25 (the figure overleaf shows the recommended
process of undertaking an FRA as part of an individual planning application).
57

Guidance for developers for individual planning applications
58

9.1.1
Proposed Developments within Functional Floodplain Flood Zone 3b
In line with PPS25, development will not normally be allowed in the Functional Floodplain unless it is
classified as a water compatible or essential infrastructure use. Table D2 from PPS25 (refer to
Section 1.5.1 of this report) details the type of developments classified as water compatible or
essential Infrastructure.
9.1.2
Proposed Developments within High Probability Flood Zone 3a
All FRAs supporting proposed development within High Probability Zone 3a should assess the
proposed development against all elements of the Councils flood policy, and include an assessment
of the following:
The vulnerability of the development to flooding from other sources (e.g. surface water drainage,
groundwater) as well as from river flooding. This will involve discussion with the Council and the
Environment Agency to confirm whether a localised risk of flooding exists at the proposed site.
The vulnerability of the development to flooding over the lifetime of the development (including the
potential impacts of climate change), i.e. maximum water levels, flow paths and flood extents
within the property and surrounding area. The Environment Agency may have carried out detailed
flood risk mapping within localised areas that could be used to underpin this assessment (see
Section 5.1.1). Where available, this will be provided at a cost to the developer. Where detailed
modelling is not available, hydraulic modelling by suitably qualified engineers will be required to
determine the risk of flooding to the site.
The potential of the development to increase flood risk elsewhere through the addition of hard
surfaces, the effect of the new development on surface water runoff, and the effect of the new
development on depth and speed of flooding to adjacent and surrounding property. This will
require a detailed assessment to be carried out by a suitably qualified engineer.
The localised risk of flooding that may occur. This is typically associated with local catchment
runoff following intense rainfall.
A demonstration that residual risks of flooding (after existing and proposed flood management
and mitigation measures are taken into account) are acceptable. Measures may include flood
defences, flood resistant and resilient design, escape/evacuation, effective flood warning and
emergency planning.
Details of existing site levels, proposed site levels and proposed ground floor levels. All levels
should be stated relevant to Ordnance Datum.
It is essential that developers thoroughly review the existing and future structural integrity of
informal defences, if present, upon which the development will rely (i.e. over the lifetime of the
development), and ensure that emergency planning measures are in place to minimise risk to life
in the unlikely event of a defence failure. This would be particularly important for development
that could potentially be affected as a result of a breach of any reservoirs or canals in the study
area. SUDS techniques must be employed to ensure no worsening of existing flooding problems
elsewhere within the area.
59

9.1.3
Proposed Development within Medium Probability Zone 2
For all sites within Medium Probability Zone 2, a scoping level FRA should be prepared based upon
readily available existing flooding information, sourced from the Environment Agency. If a significant
flood risk from other sources (e.g. surface water, groundwater or sewer flooding) is identified then a
more detailed FRA should be prepared. It will be necessary to demonstrate that the residual risk of
flooding to the property is effectively managed throughout, for example, the provision of raised floor
levels and the provision of planned evacuation routes or safe havens. SUDS techniques must be
employed to ensure no worsening of existing flooding problems elsewhere within the area.
9.1.4
Proposed Development within Flood Zone 1
The risk of alternative sources of flooding (e.g. surface water, sewage, and/or groundwater) must be
considered, and SUDS techniques must be employed to ensure no worsening of existing flooding
problems elsewhere within the area.
The SFRA provides specific recommendations with respect to the provision of sustainable flood risk
mitigation opportunities that will address both the risk to life and the residual risk of flooding to
development within particular zones of the area. These recommendations should form the basis for
the site-based FRA.
9.2
Raised Floor Levels and Basements (Freeboard)
The raising of floor levels above the 1 in 100 year peak flood level will ensure that the damage to
property is minimised. Given the anticipated increase in flood levels due to climate change, the
adopted floor level should be raised above the 1 in 100 year (1% probability) flood level assuming a
20% increase in flow over the next 20 to 100 years.
It is highlighted that many of those areas currently situated within Medium Probability Zone 2 could
become part of the High Probability Zone 3. This is important as it means that properties that are
today at relatively low risk will, in 20 to 100 years, be within High Probability Zone 3a. It is imperative
therefore that planning decisions take due consideration of the potential risk of flooding in future
years.
should be a set a minimum of 600mm above the 1 in 100 year flood level. The 600mm includes an
allowance for climate change, modelling tolerances and freeboard etc. Where a 1 in 100 year level
plus climate change has been derived the Environment Agency/IDB depending on location (Map Tiles
A) should be contacted to discuss alternative requirements. Additional freeboard may be required
because of the risk of blockages to the channel, culvert, or bridge. The height that the floor level is
raised above the flood level is referred to as the freeboard, and is determined as a measure of
residual risks.
The use of basements within flood affected areas should be discouraged. Where basements are
permitted however, it is necessary to ensure that the basement access points are situated a minimum
of 600 mm above the 1 in 100 year flood level. The basement must have unimpeded access and
waterproof construction to avoid seepage during flooding conditions. Habitable uses of basements
within Flood Zone 3 should not be permitted, while basement dwellings can be allowed in Flood Zone
2 provided they pass the Exception Test.
60

9.3
Development Behind Defences
Areas behind defences are at particular risk due to breach or overtopping, resulting in the rapid on-set
of fast-flowing, deep water flooding with little or no warning. Risks will therefore be highest closest to
these defences and as such it is recommended that the Council should set back developments and
ensure that those proposing developments develop robust evacuation plans as part of their FRA in
consultation with the Environment Agency.
Consideration of flood risk behind defences should be made as part of detailed FRAs. Developers
should review Volume 2, Tiles A1-A19 to determine the location of structures and defences in
proximity to the site and therefore identify the possibility of localised residual flood risk. The FRA
should take into account:
The potential mechanisms of failure of flood defence infrastructure
The standard of protection and design freeboard
The asset condition of the flood defence
The height of the flood defence infrastructure and retained water levels compared to ground
levels
The potential location, width and invert level of breach(es) in the flood defences
The duration of water levels during a flood event
The period it would take the operating authority to close the breach
The period it would take for water to drain from the flooded area following a breach or overtopping
event
In addition for large allocations behind defences it may be necessary to provide compensatory
storage volumes to prevent an increase in flood risk elsewhere. Early discussions with the
Environment Agency are advised to determine whether the defences provide the appropriate standard
of protection to allow for development and whether any compensation will be required.
9.4
Car Parks
Car parking may be appropriate in areas subject to shallow, low velocity flooding (in High Probability
Zone 3a) provided sufficient flood warning is available, and appropriately located and worded signs
are in place. However, this would need to be discussed and agreed with the LPA and Environment
Agency/IDB. As part of a FRA, the developer should consider the likelihood of people being able to
move their cars within the flood warning time.
9.5
Developer Contributions
The UDA of Milton Keynes is covered by the Milton Keynes tariff. Owners of land in the UDA are
required to pay an amount of money per residential unit, or per hectare of employment development,
to fund infrastructure and services to support the growth of the City to 2016. The agreement setting
out the Milton Keynes Tariff also requires other contributions from developers including the provision
of affordable housing in line with Milton Keynes Councils current requirements and the provision of
free land for schools, open spaces, community facilities and community reserve sites.
Local roads,
61

cycle paths and structural landscaping within the boundaries of the developers site remain the
responsibility of the developer and utilities such as water, gas, electricity and telecommunications are
provided by the statutory providers in response to consumer demand. The tariff reduces the time
spent negotiating site specific section 106 agreements, but also substantially increases the amount of
money available to fund new infrastructure within Milton Keynes.
If new developments are placed on Flood Zones 2 or 3, it might be necessary for local infrastructure
to be increased. With regards to flood risk, it might also be necessary to extend flood warning system
coverage, or increase the maintenance of flood defences. Flood defences and flood warning are not
mentioned specifically in the Milton Keynes UDA Tariff Supplementary Planning Document and in this
case the LPA should consider whether improvements to flood defences and flood warning systems
are covered by the Milton Keynes tariff, or if an additional planning condition or financial contribution
under a planning obligation would be required cover any direct added costs.
62

10
Guidance for the Application of Sustainable Drainage Systems
10.1
Introduction
PPS1: Delivering sustainable development and PPS25 requires that LPAs should promote SUDS.
LPAs should therefore include policies within their LDF to encourage sustainable drainage practices.
SUDS is a term used to describe the various approaches that can be used to manage surface water
drainage in a way that mimics the natural environment. The management of rainfall (surface water) is
considered an essential element of reducing future flood risk to both the site and its surroundings.
Indeed, reducing the rate of discharge from urban sites to Greenfield runoff rates is one of the most
effective ways of reducing and managing flood risk within the Council area.
However, the assessment of SUDS should not be restricted to their ability to reduce flood risk; Milton
Keynes prides itself on being a green city, and the existing system of balancing lakes and linear parks
along the water courses is an important part of Milton Keynes green infrastructure. Opportunities to
expand this green infrastructure as part of SUDS provision for new development, and the
management of surface water to ensure that the linear parks remain green should not be overlooked.
10.2
Types of SUDS Systems
SUDS may improve the sustainable management of water for a site by:
reducing peak flows to watercourses or sewers and potentially reducing the risk of flooding
downstream;
reducing volumes of water flowing directly to watercourses or sewers from developed sites;
improving water quality compared with conventional surface water sewers by removing pollutants
from diffuse pollutant sources;
reducing potable water demand through rainwater harvesting;
improving amenity through the provision of green space and wildlife habitat;
replicating natural drainage patterns, including the recharge of groundwater so that base flows are
maintained.
Any reduction in the amount of water that originates from any given site is likely to be small however if
applied across the catchment, the cumulative affect from a number sites could be significant.
There are numerous different ways that SUDS can be incorporated into a development.
The
appropriate application of a SUDS scheme to a specific development is heavily dependent upon the
topography and geology of the site and the surrounding areas. Careful consideration of the site
characteristics is necessary to ensure the future sustainability of the adopted drainage system. When
designing surface water drainage systems, the Environment Agency states that climate change
should be taken into account appropriate to the predicted lifetime of the development, and designed
to account for the predicted increases in rainfall intensity, as outlined in the table in Section 3.5.
The most commonly found components of a SUDS system are described below:
Pervious surfaces: Surfaces that allow inflow of rainwater into the underlying construction or soil.
63

Green roofs: Vegetated roofs that reduce the volume and rate of runoff and remove pollution.
They comprise a multi-layered system that covers the roof of a building or podium structure with
vegetation cover/ landscaping/ permeable car parking, over a drainage layer. They are designed
to intercept and retain precipitation, reduce the volume of runoff and attenuate peak flow.
Filter drains: Linear drains consisting of trenches filled with a permeable material, often with a
perforated pipe in the base of the trench to assist drainage, to store and conduct water; they may
also permit infiltration.
Filter strips: Vegetated areas of gently sloping ground designed to drain water evenly off
impermeable areas and to filter out silt and other particulates.
Swales: Shallow vegetated channels that conduct and retain water, and may also permit
infiltration; the vegetation filters particulate matter.
Basins: Ponds and wetlands areas that may be utilised for surface runoff storage.
Infiltration Devices: Sub-surface structures to promote the infiltration of surface water to ground.
They can be trenches, basins, or soakaways.
Bioretention areas: Vegetated areas designed to collect and treat water before discharge via a
piped system or infiltration to the ground.
Pipes and accessories: A series of conduits and their accessories normally laid underground, that
convey surface water to a suitable location for treatment and/or disposal (although sustainable,
these techniques should only be considered where other SUDS techniques are not practicable).
SUDS can either be local serving a single development or strategic serving a larger area, or group of
development sites.
For more guidance on SUDS, the following documents and websites are recommended as a starting
point:
PPS25
Practice Guide Companion to PPS25
The SUDS Manual CIRIA C697 (2007) provides the best practice guidance on the planning,
design, construction, operation and maintenance of Sustainable Drainage Systems and facilitates
their effective implementation within developments.
CIRIA c644 Green Roofs (2007) provides guidance on the design, construction, and operation
of Green Roofs. The guidance also describes how quick wins for biodiversity can be achieved in
the built environment by incorporating nesting and roosting boxes for birds, bats and other
animals.
Interim Code of Practice for Sustainable Drainage Systems, National SUDS Working Group, 2004
www.ciria.org.uk/suds/
64

10.3
Application of SUDS for Milton Keynes
Milton Keynes has been developed with sustainable drainage in mind.
The current system of
balancing lakes was designed on the basis that the towns development should not make the
incidence of flooding any worse than previously experienced. In addition, they were designed not just
with the development in hand but on a strategic level with a view to future development potentials.
Analysis of local soil types and Ground Source Protection Zones (GSPZ) provide an overview of local
permeability and contamination sensitivity and provide a general indication of the most suitable SUDS
devices for the borough. Site specific investigation should always be undertaken by developers to
gain a thorough understanding of any localised pollution sources or ground water protection issues
and provide further information to enable the selection of the most suitability SUDS techniques.
Milton Keynes is made up predominantly from lime-rich loamy and clayey soils with impeded
drainage, with some areas of slightly acidic loamy and clayey soils. Aylesbury Vale is almost entirely
lime-rich loams and clays and the Mid Bedfordshire area is predominantly made up of slightly acidic
loams and clays with impeded drainage. The naturally impermeable soils found throughout the
borough and new development sites mean that SUDS devices which aim to infiltrate runoff will be
highly inefficient and the most suitable techniques will instead capture or convey surface water and
provide storage to attenuate peak events.
Impermeable soils are associated with the highest greenfield runoff rates as the percentage of rainfall
which does not permeate through the soil layer is greater than for sites with more permeable soils.
This means that the storage area required to attenuate future flows to greenfield runoff rates will be
relatively small when compared with storage requirements for more permeable sites.
GSPZ to the south-east of Milton Keynes (Modified from the Environment Agencys Website)
There are two GSPZ situated in the south-eastern corner of the Milton Keynes borough, shown in the
above figure; however only the least sensitive Total Catchment Area is found within the borough and
65

the most sensitive Inner and Outer Zones are outside the borough boundary near Woburn and
Potsgrove. Water from SUDS devices has improved quality due to treatment, such as filtration and
biodegradation, and also because the attenuating effect on the peak flow enhances the dilution,
settlement and degradation of any remaining pollutants. Due to this natural treatment the water
quality should be sufficient for discharge into the local watercourse at the end of the SUDS system,
provided there are no significant pollution sources in the drainage catchment.
Runoff which is likely to be heavily contaminated must be treated by a proprietary device, which
should be carefully considered to ensure the correct system is selected to remove pollutants. PPS3
(2006) states that source control SUDS must be considered and incorporated where suitable. For
example; surface water drained from a car park should implement a filter bed wherever possible
before considering an interceptor device to remove contaminants. Where a suitable pretreatment
device can not be installed or maintained the contaminated runoff should be discharged into the local
sewer system.
Future development should incorporate the same principles of sustainable drainage as already used
and where possible use should be made of large scale strategic, rather than local SUDS as this
allows easier monitoring and maintenance. As Milton Keynes has been developed on a largely clay
catchment, infiltration at a strategic level is not appropriate for most development areas, although it
may be suitable at a site specific level where local geological features allow. For most areas the most
suitable system of SUDS will be to extend the current system of balancing lakes and surface water
storage features. Consideration should also be given as to whether new strategic SUDS can be used
to reduce flood risk in areas where there is an existing problem.
Within the DA, for sites that are currently allocated, it is preferable for sites to discharge surface water
to the existing Anglian Water strategic system. Local SUDS systems discharging to watercourses
should be avoided. For new sites outside the DA, including the expansion areas, discharge to
watercourses is appropriate provided SUDS are incorporated on the development site to ensure that
the discharge is restricted to the greenfield runoff rates. New SUDS may need to be provided on a
strategic basis. Refer to Interim Code of Practice for SUDS for further guidance on calculating
greenfield runoff rates and other aspects of SUDS.
The most suitable SUDS techniques for new sites within the Milton Keyes Borough, Aylesbury Vale
and Mid Bedfordshire area are:
Green roofs: to reduce runoff rates and volumes at the source.
Rainwater harvesting and water butts: to collect runoff close to the source.
Filter strips: to capture silts and prevent the blockage of SUDS systems downstream.
Filter trench/ drain: to convey runoff along a trench filled with permeable material and a filter
drain at the base.
Swales: to convey water and to remove silts.
Bio-retention areas: to reduce runoff velocities, provide temporary surface water storage and
filter particulates.
Detention basins: to provide surface storage areas for attenuated runoff and allow the
settlement of solids.
66

Ponds: to provide surface water storage and treatment.
Geocellular/modular: for use as below ground storage structures.
If the local soil is contaminated then a lined system is generally required. This may include a
drainage design which allows infiltration in the upper layer, but should incorporate an impermeable
layer at its base to prevent contamination. In such cases lined underground attenuation storage is
used to store a 1 in 100 year +30% (for climate change) storm event with a minimum 5% betterment
and discharges into the strategic system or local watercourse.
SUDS need to be maintained otherwise they will deteriorate and their performance will be reduced
with time and an agreed maintainer should be identified for all SUDS. The Internal Drainage Board
and Parks Trust, and Milton Keynes Council are prepared to take on maintenance of surface water
drainage facilities, providing funding is available. Anglian Water Services are prepared to adopt piped
drainage. In addition the Council and the Parks Trust will consider adopting areas of public open
space surrounding new surface water drainage facilities. The design of the SUDS and access for
maintenance should be agreed with the identified maintainer.
Barriers to sustainable drainage in the past have been a lack of information for developers and
planners, uncertainty over responsibility for maintenance and concerns over the possibility of
groundwater pollution. Sustainable drainage therefore needs to be addressed jointly by planning
authorities and environmental regulators to provide a clear message to developers. As a point from
which to move forward, the following are recommended for consideration:
A strategic approach to sustainable drainage should be adopted on a catchment wide basis
The cumulative impacts of small developments should be regarded as important
Responsibilities for maintenance and safety should be clearly defined
A CIRIA case study of a new development in Lamb Drove, Cambridgeshire concluded that the most
cost-effective SUDS measures are within the soft landscaped areas, as the long-term management
and maintenance could be incorporated into landscape and wildlife management regimes. The need
to keep SUDS simple was also raised as this ultimately reduced maintenance costs and increases the
likelihood of future maintenance. Surface-based SUDS also allowed problems to be observed and
dealt with as they arose.
67

68

11
Summary and Recommendations
A number of recommendations have been made throughout this report on the basis of the findings of
the SFRA. These are summarised below.
11.1
Site Allocation Process
It is recommended that the outputs from this study are used as an evidence base from which to direct
new development to areas of low flood risk (Flood Zone 1). Where development cannot be located in
Flood Zone 1, the Council should use the flood maps to apply the Sequential Test to their remaining
land use allocations.
Where the need to apply the Exception Test is identified, due to there being an insufficient number of
suitable sites for development within zones of lower flood risk, the scope of the SFRA will need to be
widened to a Level 2 assessment. The need for a Level 2 SFRA cannot be fully determined until the
Council has applied the Sequential Test. It is recommended that as soon as the need for the
Exception Test is established, a Level 2 SFRA is undertaken by a suitably qualified technical expert or
engineer so as to provide timely input to the overall LDF process.
11.2
Council Policy
The current SPG already includes policies to:
Protect the functional floodplain from development
Direct vulnerable development away from flood affected areas
Ensure all new development is safe, meaning that dry pedestrian access to and from the
development is possible without passing through the 1 in 100 year plus climate change floodplain,
and emergency vehicular access is possible
Promote the use of SUDS in all Flood Zones for both Brownfield and Greenfield sites. Space
should be set-aside for SUDS
The SPG was developed under PPG25 and for the purpose of clarity, the SPG should be updated in
light PPS25 and this SFRA. In particular it is recommended that the following updates are made;
The indicative floodplain maps are replaced with the SFRA maps
The guidance makes reference to flooding from all sources
The role of the Milton Keynes Tariff in funding flood risk infrastructure is explained
11.3
Emergency Planning
It is recommended that the Councils Emergency Response Plans are reviewed and updated in light
of the findings of the SFRA to ensure that safe evacuation and access for emergency services is
possible during times of flood both for existing developments and those being promoted as possible
sites within the LDF process. It is further recommended that the Council works with the Environment
Agency to promote the awareness of flood risk and encourage communities at risk to sign-up to the
Environment Agency Flood Warning Direct service.
69

11.4
Future Updates to the SFRA
The SFRA should be retained as a living document and reviewed on a regular basis in light of better
flood risk information and emerging policy guidance. It is recommended that outputs from the
following studies are used to update future versions of the SFRA report and associated maps:
Great Ouse CFMP
Flood risk mapping studies, including the flood mapping for Flood Zones 2 and 3 for the Ouzel
which is expected to be completed in August 2008.
Flood risk management strategies
11.4.1
Missing or Incomplete Data
Data gaps have been assessed throughout the Level 1 SFRA data collection and review exercise.
This has flagged the missing or incomplete data, which should be incorporated into the SFRA as it
becomes available.
The following data has not yet been received in phase 1 of the SFRA. Receipt of this data will further
refine the SFRA.
Data
Description
Source
Flood outlines
1 in 20 year return period (or similar to allow

production of Flood Zone 3b), 100 year plus
20% and 1000 year flood outlines for all rivers.
Environment Agency (this data

does not yet exist)
CFMP
Great Ouse CFMP Final version
Environment Agency
(Document in production
expected to be complete late
2008)
There is little data available on flooding from smaller water courses in Milton Keynes. However the
list of historic flooding incidents also shows several incidences of flooding from smaller watercourses
from blocked culverts or insufficient culvert capacity. The council should consider recording and
analysing their responses to flooding incidents to ensure that recurring problems such as blocked
culverts and drains are identified.
11.5
Level 2 SFRA
This Level 1 SFRA will allow the Council to assess their proposed site allocations using the
Sequential Test. This will act as a sieving process, allocating as many sites as possible to Flood
Zone 1. Where it is found that some sites can only be placed in Flood Zones 2 and 3, the Exception
Test will need to be applied. In order for developments to go ahead in such areas a number of criteria
should be satisfied:
It must be demonstrated that the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the
community that outweigh flood risk, informed by a SFRA where one has been prepared. If the
DPD has reached the submission stage (see Figure 4 of PPS12: Local Development
70

Frameworks) the benefits of the development should contribute to the Core Strategys
Sustainability Appraisal
The development should be on developable, previously-developed land or, if it is not on

previously developed land, that there are no reasonable alternative sites on developable
previously-developed land
A FRA must demonstrate that the development will be safe, without increasing flood risk
elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall
A Level 2 SFRA should be viewed as rather more site specific than a Level 1 SFRA, addressing flood
risk to potential development sites which have gone through the Sequential Test and have been
located in Flood Zones 2 or 3.
The data required for a Level 2 SFRA will therefore depend upon which, if any, of the councils final
list of preferred sites remain in Flood Zones 2 and 3 following application of the Sequential Test and
hence where the Exception Test needs to be applied.
In instances where Flood Zone 3b does not exist (and therefore for the purposes of the Sequential
Test Flood Zone 3b is deemed to be equal to 3a), and a more vulnerable development has been
allocated in Flood Zone 3a, it may be necessary to define Flood Zone 3b using flood mapping
techniques. Halcrow is able to advise on further work required if this situation arises.
It is important that a Level 2 SFRA considers the variation of flood risk in a Flood Zone due to flood
risk management measures i.e. flood defences. This increased scope involves a more detailed
review of flood hazard (flood probability, flood depth, flood velocity, rate of onset of flooding). If
development is to be located behind defences, or downstream of flood storage reservoirs, it would be
necessary to model constructional failure of the defence (breach) and water levels rising to exceed
the level of the defence (overtopping). It is not necessary to carry out such scenarios behind all
existing defences, if no new development is to be located behind these structures. In some instances
improvements to existing flood defences may be required to manage residual flood risks. Here, the
SFRA should include an appraisal of the extent of works to provide or raise the flood defence to
appropriate standard. Should sites become allocated behind defences, Halcrow can advise on the
cost of such work, and whether existing data is suitable for this purpose.
Level 2 SFRA outputs would include:
An appraisal of the condition of flood defence infrastructure and likely future policy
An appraisal of the probability and consequence of breach or overtopping of flood defence

infrastructure
Maps showing distribution of flood risk across zones
Guidance on appropriate policies for making sites which satisfy parts a) and b) of the Exception
Test safe, and the requirements for satisfying part c) of the Exception Test
Guidance on the preparation of FRAs for sites with varying flood risk across the Flood Zone
71

72

12
1)
Glossary
AEP - Annual Exceedance Probability, for example 1% AEP is equivalent to 1% probability of occurring in
any one year (or, on average, once in every 100 years).
2)
Core Strategy - The Development Plan Document which sets the long-term vision and objectives for the
area. It contains a set of strategic policies that are required to deliver the vision including the broad approach
to development.
3)
DEFRA - Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Development.
4)
Designated Area (DA) The original area to be developed for the new town of Milton Keynes as set out in
the 1967 New Town Designation Order. The DA is almost 9,000 hectares (22,000 acres) and includes the
towns of Bletchley, Stony Stratford, Wolverton and New Bradwell.
5)
Development Plan Document (DPD) - A spatial planning document within the Councils Local Development
Framework which set out policies for development and the use of land. Together with the Regional Spatial
Strategy they form the development plan for the area. They are subject to independent examination.
6)
Dry pedestrian egress - Routes to and from buildings that will remain dry and allow pedestrian/wheelchair
evacuation to dry land in times of flood.
7)
Environment Agency - The leading public body for protecting and improving the environment in England
and Wales. Under the Water Resources Act 1991, the Environment Agency has powers to maintain and
improve Main Rivers (see definition below), in order to ensure the efficient passage of flood flow and to
manage water levels. These powers allow the Environment Agency to do work; but they do not oblige the
Environment Agency to carry out either maintenance or construction of new works on main rivers. The
Environment Agency is a statutory consultee, and has to be consulted in the town and country planning
process.
8)
Environment Agency Flood Map - Nationally consistent delineation of high and medium flood risk,
published on a quarterly basis by the Environment Agency.
9)
Environmental Stewardship - Environmental Stewardship is a new agri-environment scheme which

provides funding to farmers and other land managers in England who deliver effective environmental
management on their land. The scheme is intended to build on the recognised success of the Environmental
Sensitive Areas scheme and the countryside Stewardship Scheme. Flood risk management is among its
secondary objectives.
10) Exception Test - If, following application of the Sequential Test, it is not possible (consistent with wider
sustainability objectives) to demonstrate that there are no reasonably available sites in areas with less risk of
flooding that would be appropriate to the type of development or land use proposed, the Exception Test may
apply. PPS25 sets out strict requirements for the application of the Test.
11) Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH) - The latest hydrological approach for the estimate of flood flows in UK.
12) Flood Risk Management Hierarchy - PPS25 reaffirms the adoption of a risk-based approach to flooding by
following stepped hierarchical measures at all stages in the planning process. Avoidance/prevention is the
first measure, followed by substitution, control and then mitigation.
73

13) Flood Risk Vulnerability - PPS25 provides a vulnerability classification to assess which uses of land maybe
appropriate in each flood risk zone.
14) Formal Flood Defence - A structure built and maintained specifically for flood defence purposes.
15) Functional Floodplain Zone 3b - Defined as areas at risk of flooding in the 5% AEP (20 year) design event.
16) Habitable Room - A room used as living accommodation within a dwelling but excludes bathrooms, toilets,
halls, landings or rooms that are only capable of being used for storage. All other rooms, such as kitchens,
living rooms, bedrooms, utility rooms and studies are counted.
17) High probability Zone 3a - Defined as areas at risk of flooding in the 1 in 100 year (1% AEP) design event.
18) IDB Internal Drainage Board, responsible for non-Main Rivers and drainage within their boundary area.
19) Informal Flood Defence - A structure that provides a flood defence function however has not been built
and/or maintained for this purpose (e.g. boundary wall).
20) JFLOW - A computer river model based on routeing a flood calculated by Flood Estimation Handbook
methodology along a river corridor the levels of which are derived from a Side Aperture Radar (SAR) remote
sensed Digital Terrain Model.
21) Land Swapping - looking for long term opportunities to remove development from areas that flood at
present and relocate in lower risk locations which is essentially restoration of the floodplain.
22) LiDAR - Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) is an airborne terrain mapping technique which uses a laser
to measure the distance between the aircraft and the ground.
23) Local Development Framework - The Local Development Framework (LDF) consists of a number of
documents which together form the spatial strategy for development and the use of land.
24) Low Probability Zone 1 - Defined as areas outside Zone 2.
25) Main River All watercourses shown on the statutory main river maps held by the Environment Agency and
the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
This can include any structure of appliance for
controlling or regulating the flow of water into, in or out of the channel. The Environment Agency has
permissive power to carry out works of maintenance and improvement on these rivers.
26) Making Space for Water (Defra 2004) - The Governments new evolving strategy to manage the risks
from flooding and coastal erosion by employing an integrated portfolio of approaches, so as: a) to reduce the
threat to people and their property; b) to deliver the greatest environmental, social and economic benefit,
consistent with the Government's sustainable development principles, c) to secure efficient and reliable
funding mechanisms that deliver the levels of investment required.
27) Medium probability Zone 2 - Defined as areas at risk of flooding in events that are greater than the 1 in 100
year (1% AEP), and less than the 1 in 1000 year (0.1% AEP) design event.
28) NFCDD National Flood and Coastal Defence Database, owned by the Environment Agency, containing
details of the location, standard and condition of all Environment Agency maintained defences
29) Ordinary Watercourse (non-Main River) Any section of watercourse not designated as a Main River.
74

30) Planning Policy Statements - The Government has updated its planning advice contained within Planning
Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs) with the publication of new style Planning Policy Statements (PPSs).
31) Previously Developed (Brownfield) Land - Land which is or was occupied by a building (excluding those
used for agriculture and forestry). It also includes land within the curtilage of the building, for example a
house and its garden would be considered to be previously developed land.
32) Residual Risk - The risk which remains after all risk avoidance, reduction and mitigation measures have
been implemented.
33) Return Period The probability of a flood of a given magnitude occurring within any one year e.g. a 1 in 100
year event has a probability of occurring once over 100 years. However, a 1 in 100 year event could occur
twice or more within 100 years, or not at all.
34) Sequential Test - Informed by a SFRA, a planning authority applies the Sequential Test to demonstrate that
there are no reasonably available sites in areas with less risk of flooding that would be appropriate to the
type of development or land use proposed.
35) Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) - A Strategic Flood Risk Assessment is used as a tool by a
planning authority to assess flood risk for spatial planning, producing development briefs, setting constraints,
informing sustainability appraisals and identifying locations of emergency planning measures and
requirements for flood risk assessments.
36) Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) - Provides supplementary guidance to policies and proposals
contained within Development Plan Documents. They do not form part of the development plan, nor are they
subject to independent examination.
37) Sustainability Appraisal (SA) - Appraisal of plans, strategies and proposals to test them against broad
sustainability objectives.
38) Sustainable Development - Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs (The World Commission on Environment and
Development, 1987).
75

76

13
References
1. The geology of the new town of Milton Keynes, Institute of Geological Sciences, HMSO, 1974.
2. Great Ouse Catchment Flood Management Plan, Summary of Draft Plan, Environment Agency, February 2007.
3. Milton Keynes Drainage Study, Volume 2 Study Report, Halcrow, February 2000.
4. Milton Keynes Drainage Strategy, Technical Report, Halcrow, July 2003.
5. Milton Keynes Local Development Framework Core Strategy Preferred Options, Milton Keynes Council, September 2007.
6. Milton Keynes and South Midlands Sub-Regional Strategy, Government Offices for the South East, East Midlands and East
of England, March 2005.
7. Olney, Newton Blossomville and Turvey Pre-Feasibility Study, Atkins, March 2004.
8. Planning Policy Statement 25 (PPS25): Development and Flood Risk, Communities and Local Government, December 2006.
9. Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG9), Government Office for the South East, Government Office for East
of England, Government Office for London, March 2001.
10. Retrospective Data Gathering Tongwell Brook, ISIS Modelling Report, Mott MacDonald, May 2007.
11. River Great Ouse: Stony Stratford to Maids Moreton Standard of Protection Study, Atkins, March 2004.
12. River Ouse at Stony Stratford, Atkins, January 2003.
13. River Ouzel at Milton Keynes Standard of Protection Study, Royal Haskoning, December 2003.
14. The South East Plan, Draft Plan for Submission to Government, East of England Regional Assembly, March 2006.
15. Water Eaton Brook Standard of Protection Study, JBA, March 2007.
77

78

APPENDIX A
79

80

APPENDIX B
81

82

APPENDIX C
83

SFRA Main Report Milton Keynes

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

SFRA Main Report Milton Keynes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Milton Keynes Council

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for

Halcrow Group Limited

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

Milton Keynes Council

Prepared by: Fiona McLay and Beccy Dunn

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

This page is left intentionally blank

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

Terms of Reference ................................................................................................................... 5

Project Aims ............................................................................................................................... 5

Project Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 5

Project Deliverables ................................................................................................................... 6

Outcomes of the SFRA Process ................................................................................................ 6

SFRA Context ............................................................................................................................ 9

The Study Area ........................................................................................................................ 10

Planning Context ........................................................................................................................ 15

Planning Policy Framework ..................................................................................................... 15

National Planning Policy .......................................................................................................... 15

Regional Planning Policy ......................................................................................................... 17

Local Planning Policy ............................................................................................................... 18

Study Methodology .................................................................................................................... 19

Level 1 SFRA Methodology ..................................................................................................... 19

Need for a Level 2 SFRA ......................................................................................................... 19

Environment Agency Flood Zone Maps................................................................................... 21

Flood Risk in the Study Area .................................................................................................... 23

Approach to Data Gathering .................................................................................................... 23

Flooding From Other Sources.................................................................................................. 27

Strategic Flood Risk Mapping................................................................................................... 31

Strategic Flood Risk Maps ....................................................................................................... 31

Climate Change Maps.............................................................................................................. 35

Flood Warning Systems and Flood Risk Management Measures......................................... 37

Flood Management .................................................................................................................. 37

Flood Defences ........................................................................................................................ 37

Residual Risk ........................................................................................................................... 42

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

Existing Flood Warning System ............................................................................................... 43

Flood Response Plan............................................................................................................... 44

Flood Risk Management Policy Considerations ..................................................................... 47

Development Control Policies .................................................................................................. 50

Council Specific Policy Issues ................................................................................................. 52

Sensitive Development Locations............................................................................................ 52

Guidance on the Application of the Sequential Test .............................................................. 55

Step Two: Flood Risk Issues in Zone 1 ................................................................................... 55

Step Three: Sequential Test in Zones 2 and 3 ........................................................................ 56

Guidance for Developers........................................................................................................... 57

Raised Floor Levels and Basements (Freeboard) ................................................................... 60

Development Behind Defences ............................................................................................... 61

Car Parks ................................................................................................................................. 61

Guidance for the Application of Sustainable Drainage Systems .......................................... 63

Types of SUDS Systems ..................................................................................................... 63

Application of SUDS for Milton Keynes ............................................................................... 65

Summary and Recommendations ............................................................................................ 69

Site Allocation Process ........................................................................................................ 69

Council Policy ...................................................................................................................... 69

Future Updates to the SFRA ............................................................................................... 70

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

This page is left intentionally blank

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment

Prepare appropriate policies for the management of flood risk

Determine the acceptability of flood risk in relation to emergency planning capability

Strategic Flood Risk Assessment