Professional Documents
Culture Documents
[Type text]
[Type text]
[Type text]
MT/LDN/EK/P16-147/DS
Issue /
Revision
Date
Prepared by
Signature
Checked by
Signature
Authorised
by
Draft 1
June 2016
E Karaolis
S Knowles
For client
approval
Issue 1
June 2016
E Karaolis
S Knowles
JP
Skoczulas
Signature
CONTENTS
Section
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
14
15
DISCLAIMER
16
FIGURES
Figure
1
ii
TABLES
TABLE
1
APPENDICES
S1
S2
S3
S4
Development Proposals
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9
S Drainage Calculations
S10
iii
Executive Summary
Morgan Tucker Ltd has been commissioned by Spire Healthcare Ltd to prepare a Sustainable Drainage
Statement and Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) in support of an outline planning application for the
redevelopment of the former St. Saviours Hospital. The site is located at Seabrook Road, Hythe, Kent,
CT21 5BU.
It is proposed to redevelop the site from an existing vacant hospital to residential accommodating 52
dwellings consisting of both flats and houses. In addition to the above, the development will provide
ancillary parking areas and landscape areas.
This Sustainable Drainage Statement has been set out to address the main requirements listed in the
Kent County Councils Drainage and Planning Policy Statement, consultation submission for outline
planning applications. A list of the information required is given in Appendix S1. The relative sections of
this document and the supporting FRA, in accordance with the Kent County Council Consultation
Submission for outline planning applications, is listed in Table 1 in this section overleaf:
Item
Impermeable area (pre- and post
development)
Discharge location
Infiltration capacity
Design calculations for peak
flow, volume control and
Greenfield runoff, and/or
Brownfield runoff where
appropriate
Inclusion of climate change and
future development allowances
Topographical survey of the site
Details of any adjacent
watercourses
Areas of flood risk
Quantification of any surface
water flows on-site from off-site
locations
Comment
Reduction in impermeable area
by 0.02ha
As existing, to combined sewer
in Seabrook Road
Poor Infiltration
Brownfield Site
Proposed discharge rate to
greenfield runoff.
Report Reference
SuDS Statement (SS)
Flood Risk Assessment
(FRA)
SS Sections 2.2 & 3
SS Section 2.5
FRA Section 3.5
SS Section 2.4
FRA Section 3.5
SS Section 4.2 with
supporting calculations
SS Section 4.5
FRA Section 7.3
SS Section 2.3
FRA Section 3.3
FRA Section 5
SS Section 2.5
FRA Section 3.5
FRA Section 5
Offsite Works
Consents
Southern Water
SS Section 5
FRA Section 9
No sensitive receptors
SS Section 2.5
Phasing
Further information as
part of planning
application
Exceedance Routes
INTRODUCTION
2.1
Terms of Reference
Morgan Tucker has been appointed by Spire Healthcare Ltd to prepare a Sustainable Drainage
Statement for the redevelopment of former St. Saviours Hospital. The development consist of 52
residential units and ancillary parking and landscape areas.
2.2
Objective of Study
This Sustainable Drainage Statement (SDS) is to investigate the surface water run-off within the site and
establishes the possible solutions to comply the regulations of Kent County Council (KCC) in their power
as Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and the relevant statutory water bodies, the Environment Agency
(EA) and Southern Water. Proposed mitigation measures have also been determined to ensure a
sustainable drainage network is proposed.
This report should be read in conjunction with the supporting NPPF compliant FRA for the site.
2.3
Scope
Undertake an assessment of the existing and anticipated foul and surface water discharges from
the proposed development.
ii.
Assess the proximity of existing drainage points to which the proposed development may
connect.
iii.
Provide a sustainable drainage statement and strategy which conforms to national and local best
practices suitable to support an outline planning application for the site.
In assessing the drainage feasibility of the site, consideration of the existing conditions and constraints
against the development proposals is undertaken to aid in the identification of a sustainable drainage
strategy.
The following documents have been referred to in the compilation of this report:
Document: Drainage and Planning Policy Statement: Kent Country Council: 2015
Correspondence with Kent Country Council (Flood Risk Team), Southern Water & the EA.
Water, People, Places, A guide for master planning and sustainable drainage into
developments (September 2013)
Kent County Council (KCC) Drainage and Planning Policy Statement (September
2015)
BS 8582:2013 Code of Practice for Surface Water Management for Development
Sites
Sewers for Adoption 7th Edition
3
3.1
The site address is 71-73 Seabrook road, Hythe, Kent, CT21 5BU and is approximately centred on the
coordinates E: 617810 N: 134995 as illustrated in Figure 1:
The site is accessible via Seabrook Road and covers an area of approximately 1.16 hectares (ha).
Foxwood School is located west of the site, and Sene Valley Golf Club is located to the north of the site.
The Royal Military Canal is located south of the site.
3.2
Site Description
The site was used by Spire Healthcare Ltd, providing hospital facilities. Currently the hospital is vacant.
The existing site covers an area of approximately 1.16 hectares (ha) of which 0.60ha is impermeable
and 0.56ha is permeable (refer drawing P16-141-LDN-1006 in Appendix S2).
3.3
Site Topography
The levels at the site range from a high plateau of approximately 28.5m AOD, along the north eastern
edge of the site to 5.5 m AOD in the south west corner of the site.
The existing site has been arranged in tiers, with embankments falling from the north eastern edge at an
approximate level of 28.5m AOD to a level of approximately 18.0m AOD. The hard standing areas
around the hospital gently falls in a southerly direction to a lower level of 16.3m AOD. South east of the
hospital there is an embankment, which fall towards a parking area. This area slopes from a level of
approximately 15.0m AOD to 13.5m AOD. Between the parking area and Seabrook Road, is another
embankment which falls to the lower level of 7.4m AOD. A secondary parking area is located along the
embankment edge with the levels ranging between 8.1m AOD and 6.5m AOD. Refer to Appendix A of
the supporting FRA for a copy of the site topographical survey.
3.4
Geology
The British Geological Survey (BGS) Geology of Britain viewer, shows that the area is underlain by
Landslip Deposits and Weald Clay Formation. With regards to the superficial deposits there are no
records for the site.
Ground Conditions
A Phase 1 site investigation and soakage tests in accordance with BRE 365 has been undertaken at the
site.
The soakaway tests included testing at six trial pits, which were located at various locations throughout
the site. One trial pit was abandoned due to the presence of existing services, the remaining five trial pits
had infiltration tests conducted within them. All five trial pits failed to soakaway. The Soakage tests have
therefore confirmed infiltration for the proposed development generated runoff would not be suitable for
the site
The Phase 1 report concluded there was a negligible presence of made ground at the site and therefore
low risk of contamination from the Made Ground.
Groundwater levels were however highlighted within the Phase report as being high within underlying
superficial deposits and therefore recommended further groundwater investigation are undertaken at the
site to inform the future design.
Refer to Appendix B of the supporting FRA for a copy of the BRE365 soakaway tests.
3.5
Existing Drainage
Private Drainage
From site observations a private piped drainage network is believed to exist at the site, with a series of
gullies and manholes noted during the site walkover. A CCTV survey has not yet been undertaken as
soakaway tests were initially required to inform the future drainage strategy. However, with soakaway
tests failing at the site and observations made during site inspection it can be reasonably determined the
site is managed via a private piped drainage network.
A CCTV survey of the drainage survey is to be undertaken to determine the condition of the current
drainage at the site and confirm outfall locations of the drainage into the existing public sewer network.
The results from the CCTV will be used to inform the proposed detailed drainage design.
Public Sewer
A review of Southern Water asset records (Appendix S3) indicates that a 500mm diameter combined
sewer is located along the Seabrook Road.
Existing Watercourses
There are no watercourses present at the site. The nearest watercourse is the Royal Military Canal
located approximately 115m south of the site and is classified as an EA main river. The Royal Military
Canal is the principal source of fluvial flooding associated with Seabrook Road.
The English Channel is located approximately 340m south of the site.
Other Watercourses
A spring is located 60 m north east of the site.
Sensitive Receptors
As confirmed within the supporting Phase 1 Environmental Report and FRA the site is considered to
have a low risk to sensitive receptors due to the following:
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
It is proposed to redevelop the site by constructing residential units. The development will consists of 52
dwellings of flats and houses, with development associated private parking courts, access road and
landscape features. The proposed development will cover an area of 1.16ha of which 0.58ha is
impermeable area and 0.58ha is permeable area. The impermeable area has been decreased by 0.02ha
from pre to post development.
The proposed development masterplan and permeable & impermeable areas drawings are enclosed in
Appendix S4 and Appendix S2 respectively.
5
5.1
The KCC Drainage and Planning Policy Statement (hereafter referred to as the KCC Statement) gives a
number of drainage polices specified from the NPPF and the supporting guidance within the NonStatutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage, the relevant policies applicable to the site are
detailed in section 6.2 of the supporting FRA these have been used to inform the proposed drainage
strategy for the site.
The KCC statement makes reference to the Drainage Policies (SuDS Policy 1 through 6) which set out
the requirements for a drainage strategy to be compliant with the NPPF and the guidance within the
Non-Statutory Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage.
Wider Environment Policies are covered by the remaining polices within the KCC Statement (SuDS
Policy 7 through 10) these have been used to set out expectations to be considered within a drainage
strategy in response to environmental legislation and guidance that Kent County Council and the Local
Planning Authorities have a duty to comply with.
These policies are summarised in Table2 below. The polices listed by KCC reflect the requirements of
the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy, Surface Water Management Plans and Local Planning
Authority Local Plans allowing for drainage designers to provide Sufficient information to demonstrate
compliance.
Policy
SuDS Policy 1
SuDS Policy 2
SuDS Policy 3
SuDS Policy 4
SuDS Policy 5
SuDS Policy 6
SuDS Policy 7
SuDS Policy 8
SuDS Policy 9
SuDS Policy 10
Summary
Follow the drainage hierarchy
Manage Flood Risk Through Design
Mimic Natural Flows and Drainage Flow Paths
Seek to Reduce Existing Flood Risk
Maximise Resilience
Design to be Maintainable
Safeguard Water Quality
Design for Amenity and Multi-Functionality
Enhance Biodiversity
Link to Wider Landscape Objectives
Table 2 - Kent County Council SuDS Policy Summary
It is necessary to identify the most appropriate method of controlling and discharging surface water. The
design should seek to improve the local run-off profile by using systems that can either attenuate run-off
and reduce peak flow rates or positively impact on the existing flood profile.
5.2
Runoff Assessment
The existing site is being treated as a Greenfield site due to KCC requirements on Non-statutory
technical standards for sustainable drainage systems stating the following:
For developments which were previously developed, the peak runoff rate from the development to any
drain, sewer or surface water body for the 1 in 1 year rainfall event and 1 in 100 year rainfall event must
be as close as reasonably practicable to the greenfield runoff rate from the development for the same
rainfall event, but should never exceed the rate of discharge from the development prior to
redevelopment for that event.
For a Greenfield run-off rate is to be established. MicroDrainage Source Control (refer to Appendix S5)
was used to calculate the run-off rate, using the following parameters;
Parameter
Value
Area (ha)
1.00
750
SOIL
0.300
Region
RP
1yr
1.7
30yr
4.5
100yr
6.1
5.3
The existing Brownfield run-off rate of the site is been calculated to be 34.54 l/s for 30min 1yr storm
event (refer to Appendix S6 for calculations).
With existing flood issues effecting Seabrook Road, adjacent to the site (as detailed within the supporting
FRA) and to ensure the development meets the requirements within the local guidance documents, it is
proposed to limit development generated surface water runoff to greenfield rates.
With maintenance issues to be considered for the future development, based on BS 8582:2013 Code
of Practice for Surface Water Management for Development Sites, it is recommended for discharge rates
to not be set below 5l/s due to the risk of blockages, therefore the limiting discharge rate into the
Southern Water network is to be 6.1l/s. This approach provide significant betterment over the existing
situation and meets the requirements of best practice and local planning policy.
The outfall locations have been dictated by the formation of the proposed development and the levels of
the site with a single outfall proposed to the public sewer.
SuDS will be implemented within the Proposed Development through the introduction of attenuation to
limit to the aforementioned minimum discharge rates from the site. The conceptual SuDS strategy for the
Proposed Development has been derived using the principles outlined within the CIRIA SuDS Design
Manual (C753), KCC and Planning Policy Statement along with BS 8582:2013 Code of Practice for
Surface Water Management for Development Sites. The SuDS selection process has utilised SuDS
Hierarchy process to ensure the most suitable SuDS features are incorporated within the future scheme.
5.4
SuDS Selection
A SuDS hierarchy seen below has been followed in applying the use of sustainable drainage techniques
to the Proposed Development.
Table 5 - SuDS Options Employed On Site
SUDS
TECHIQUE
CAN THEY BE
INCORPORATED
INTO THE SITE?
Green Roofs
Basins, wetlands
and Ponds
/X
Infiltration
techniques
Permeable
surfaces and
filter drains
Rainwater
Harvesting
/X
Tanked Systems
REASON
Refer to Appendix S7 for the proposed SuDS Drainage Strategy and Proposed Illustrative Conceptual
SuDS Drainage strategies for the proposed scheme.
10
At this stage, it is proposed for the surface water from site to discharge directly into the Southern Water
sewer network. It has not been possible to discharge to a local watercourse due to the distance to such a
feature and the very low permeability rates prevent the use of infiltration at the site.
Due to site topography and site level constraints, it is proposed for a series of flow control units to be
used within the sites private drainage network. This will allow utilisation of the upstream attenuation
storages to the maximum capacity.
The outfall is to be to the existing Southern Water sewer located within Seabrook Road with a possible
connection being introduced between manholes Ref. 7802 and 8903. The connection will be on a
500mm diameter combined sewer. This is not a departure from the existing drainage strategy at the site.
The Southern Water Assets Plan is enclosed within Appendix S2.
Southern Water are currently undertaking capacity checks of the existing combined sewer in relation to
proposed foul and surface water flow rates for the site. The result of this capacity check was not
available at during the production of this report.
5.5
Climate Change
In February 2016 the EA released new guidance for climate change allowance to estimated flood flow
in England, based on the most up to date climate change projections (UKCP09). This new guidance is
now used in support of the NPPF.
The LLFA and EA have both been contacted to ensure climate change levels applied to the site are in
accordance with their requirements. The EA have responded to direct any queries on this matter to the
LLFA. The LLFA have therefore been approached and confirmed as follows:
The new allowances for peak rainfall intensities have implications for drainage design and should be
included within any drainage strategy prepared to accompany a planning application. As LLFA, KCC
will require that the design accommodates the 1 in 100 year storm with a 20% allowance for climate
change and an additional analysis undertaken to understand the flooding implication for a greater
climate change allowance of 40%.
This analysis must determine if the impacts of the greater allowance are significant and exacerbate
any flood risk. The design may need to be minimally modified but may also need additional mitigation
allowances, for example a higher freeboard on attenuation features or provision of exceedance routes.
This will tie into existing designing for exceedance principles.
Refer to Appendix H of the FRA for a copy of the correspondence with KCC.
The quantification of climate change has therefore been incorporated within the proposed drainage
strategy for the site.
11
5.6
Drainage Design
As a minimum requirement, in accordance with Sewers for adoption 7th Edition, no part of the site should
flood in a 30 year rainfall event, hence the drainage systems associated with the development should be
designed to at least this standard.
Thereafter, any part of a building, utility plant, or neighbouring site should not flood in a 100 year event.
The site levels should be designed such that suitable above ground storage volumes are available that
do not place these assets at risk of flooding. Where this is not feasible, the 100 year plus climate change
event should be contained within the site and not cause a detriment to offsite areas.
Surface water runoff will therefore be attenuated on-site for events up to and including the critical 1 in
100 year storm rainfall event plus a 20% allowance for climate change with sensitivity of 40% also
included to ensure suitable above ground storage can be provided during this extreme event. The
current proposal is for surface water to be discharged at controlled Greenfield rate of 6.1l/s to the public
combined sewer.
A 2% allowance for urban creep has been applied to the impermeable areas of the proposed housing
units at the site in accordance with SuDS Policy 5 of the KCC drainage and planning policy statement.
Urban creep has .not been applied to the flats in accordance with the SuDS 5 Policy. This allows for any
potential future expansion of impermeable areas within the proposed housing units, such as
conservatories or extensions, to be provided for within the proposed drainage system.
The proposed SuDS devices will provide source control, water quality treatment and bio-diversity
enhancement prior to discharging to the sewer.
To manage the effectiveness of the proposed drainage network, a robust maintenance regime in
accordance with CIRIA C753 Section 32 will be implemented to maintain future performance of all SuDS
and drainage components. This will include regular cleaning of the SuDS devices and any pre-treatment
devices. A future maintenance plan will be provided as part of the detailed planning application.
Indicative maintenance schedules are included within Appendix S8 of this drainage statement.
Land drainage is also proposed at the site, this is due to the steep nature of the current and proposed
development and its associated landscape areas. These features will be separate from the main
drainage system and will be self-contained in accordance with best practice and local sewerage
undertaker requirements. This is a betterment to the existing situation at the site.
5.7
The surface water flow will be restricted using attenuation and flow controls such as Hydro-Brake or
Hydro-slide prior to discharging into the Southern Water network. The storage for surface water
attenuation will be provided through the use of geocellular tank and within the build-up of permeable
pavement.
With the use of Micro-Drainage source control, the storage volume calculation is based on the
assumption that the storage will be provided as per Morgan Tucker drainage drawings enclosed in
Appendix S6, and supporting drainage calculation in Appendix S9 for drainage calculations. The
principles of the concept SuDS design is to be used to inform the future detailed drainage design for the
site.
12
5.8
During low flow/design storm conditions surface water will drain into the surface water sewer network via
the proposed traditional piped drainage network and permeable paving where provided. In an
exceedance event such as the critical 1 in 100 year plus 40% climate change rainfall event, flows from
the Proposed Development will be directed away from properties via suitably designed overland flow
routes. Refer to Appendix J of the FRA for exceedance overland flow route drawings.
5.9
Possible water pollution on the site could come from the following sources:
Vehicle exhausts, wear and corrosion, leaks and spillages;
Litter and animal faeces;
Landscape maintenance and cleaning activities; and
Leaks from refuse bins.
The proposed surface water sewer arrangement will incorporate suitable pollution control measures such
as porous paving, trapped gullies, filter drains and green roofs to help manage sediment control and
water quality. The proposed SuDS drainage system provide filtration to occur and therefore betterment
the water quality into the surface water drainage network.
5.10 Link to Wider Landscape and multi-use of SuDS
The design and the integration of the proposed SuDS features within the wider landscape proposals has
been carefully considered as part of the masterplan process. The site already has established
landscaping areas with mature trees and those areas to be retained have been illustrated within the
wider landscape strategy for the site. The SuDS proposals have therefore been designed to ensure they
enhance and support the landscape proposals going forward.
The proposed green roof will provide additional biodiversity and plant habitat and porous paving provides
water quality treatment. Overland flow will be directed to an existing landscape area to the south of the
site, to ensure offsite residential properties area protected during an extreme rainfall event.
13
6.1
The development would result in 52 dwellings. Based on the Sewers for Adoption the flow is 4000 litres
per unit dwelling per day. Therefore the dry weather flow (DWF) is calculated to be 2.45l/s. The DWF
has been decreased by 5.07l/s from the existing (refer to Appendix S10 for Foul Drainage Calculations).
6.2
The proposed foul network will discharge into the public sewer by one outfall, located at the south of the
site.
Consultation is currently being undertaken with Southern Water to determine current sewerage capacity
limits which would affect the proposed development.
14
7.0
SuDS will be implemented throughout the Proposed Development in order to provide source control and
attenuation of development generated surface water.
The Proposed Development will discharge surface water at controlled greenfield runoff rate of 6.1l/s to
the existing combined sewer, via an effective SuDS drainage network.
The site is existing brownfield with a reduction in impermeable areas.
The drainage proposals provide significant betterment over the existing drainage arrangement and
provides at source benefits via the use of porous paving, green roofs and effective attenuation with
below ground storage and informal above ground storage areas during exceedance events.
The Proposed Development surface water drainage strategy takes into consideration long term storage
mitigation requirements, urban creep and water quality treatment stages in accordance with the CIRIA
SUDS Design Manual (C753), KCC Drainage and Planning Policy Statement and BS 8582:2013.
Surface water runoff will be attenuation on-site for events up to the 1 in 100 year storm including an
allowance for climate change. The proposed design ensures attenuation provides sufficient storage
during the 1 in 100 year plus 20% climate change event and exceedance storage during the 1 in 100
year plus 40% can be retained above ground at the site.
During the detailed design stages suitable overland flood routes shall be designed into the development
to take account of exceedance flow routes to divert any excess floodwater around and away from
buildings.
All SuDS and exceedance features will be maintained throughout the lifetime of the development via a
management and maintenance company.
The Site will be at low risk of flooding from all sources following implementation of the sustainable
drainage strategy and identified mitigation measures.
The site provides significant betterment to the existing situation and does not cause a detriment to the
proposed end users and existing residents. The strategy developed is in full accordance with best
practice and national planning policy.
15
8.0
DISCLAIMER
16
APPENDIX S1
Kent County Councils Drainage and Planning Policy Statement, consultation submission for outline
planning applications List
APPENDIX S2
Existing and Proposed Impermeable and Permeable area coverage drawings
2.
3.
Key:
Rev
Amendment
Date
By
Project Title
CL
Date
Checked By
Approved By
EK
SK
Scale @ A1
May 2016
1:250
Purpose
For Information
Drawing Number
P16-147-LDN-1005
Rev
P0
2.
3.
Key:
Rev
Amendment
Date
By
Project Title
CL
Date
Checked By
Approved By
EK
SK
Scale @ A1
May 2016
1:250
Purpose
For Information
Drawing Number
P16-147-LDN-1005
Rev
P0
APPENDIX S3
Southern Water Asset Plans
Your ref
P16-147
Our ref
217911
Date
23 June 2016
Contact
searches@southernwater.co.uk
Location:
Thank you for your order regarding the provision of extracts of our sewer and/or water main
records. Please find enclosed the extracts from Southern Waters records for the above
location.
We confirm payment of your fee in the sum of 49.92 and enclose a VAT receipt for your
records.
Customers should be aware that there are areas within our region in which there are neither
sewers nor water mains. Similarly, whilst the enclosed extract may indicate the approximate
location of our apparatus in the area of interest, it should not be relied upon as showing that
further infrastructure does not exist and may subsequently be found following site
investigation. Actual positions of the disclosed (and any undisclosed) infrastructure should
therefore be determined on site, because Southern Water does not accept any responsibility
for inaccuracy or omission regarding the enclosed plan. Accordingly it should not be
considered to be a definitive document.
Should you require any further assistance regarding this matter, please contact the
LandSearch team.
Yours faithfully
LandSearch
Southern Water Southern House Capstone Road Chatham Kent ME5 7QA
Southern Water Services Ltd
www.southernwater.co.uk
Registered Office: Southern House Yeoman Road Worthing BN13 3NX Registered in England No. 2366670
APPENDIX S4
Development Proposals
Permeable block
paving to car park
New pedestrian
entrance from
Seabrook Road
Existing pedestrian
Existing group of mature access and path retained
trees retained
REVISION NOTES
Client
HARD LANDSCAPE
Rev By
Steps
Type: Conservation Textured Step by Marshalls
(or simlr' appvd')
Colour: Silver Grey
Handrails: Stainless Steel Handrails and Posts
Flag Paving
Type: Saxon by Marshalls (or simlr' appvd')
Colour: Natural
Size: 450x450x50mm
Laying Pattern: Stack Bond
Compacted Gravel
Self binding permeable gravel path
Type: CEDEC (or simlr' appvd')
Colour: Gold
Proposed Tree
Size: Extra Heavy Standard
Girth: 18-20cm
Clear Stem: 2m
Single Timber Stake
Bitmac
Colour: Black
Edging: Pre-cast concrete pin kerb to soft
landscape sides. Precast concrete road kerb to
carriageway sides
Retained Tree
Refer to Arboriculatural Survey
for details
Description
Date
Landscape Layout
Status
For Approval
-
GENERAL NOTES
1.
2.
3.
4.
This drawing was produced in colour. For full legibility please print in
colour
Scale @ A1
Drawn
Checked
1:250
MS
Job number
Drawing number
2528
01
MS
Date
27.05.16
Revision
APPENDIX S5
Greenfield Runoff Calculations
Page 1
Designed by ekaraolis
Checked by
Source Control 2014.1.1
ICP SUDS Mean Annual Flood
Input
l/s
1982-2014 XP Solutions
APPENDIX S6
Existing Brownfield Runoff Rates
APPENDIX S7
Concept SuDS and Drainage Strategy Drawings
Notes:
IF THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN RECEIVED ELECTRONICALLY IT IS THE
RECIPIENTS RESPONSIBILITY TO PRINT THE DOCUMENT TO THE
CORRECT SCALE.
2.
3.
Key:
>
>
>
>
1.
>
>
Perforated Pipe
Drainage Pipe
>
>
>
>
>
2.Porous Paving With Aggregate Sub-Base
Filter Drain
>
>
>
>
>
Surface Drainage
Gully
>
Geocellular Tank
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Green Roof
3.Geocellular Tank
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
4.Green Roof
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Amendment
Date
By
>
6.Hydro-Brake
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Rev
Project Title
Drawn By
EK
Date
Checked By
Approved By
SK
SK
Scale @ A1
June 2016
1:250
Purpose
For Information
Drawing Number
P16-147-LDN-1002
Rev
P0
APPENDIX S8
SuDS Maintenance Schedules
11
1.7
Maintenance
schedule
Regular maintenance
Remedial actions
Monitoring
Required Action
Frequency
Monthly
Annually or as required
As required
Annually
Survey inside the tank for sediment build- Every 5 years or as required
up and remove if necessary
15
Required Action
Frequency
Monthly or as required
Annually
As required
As required
Biannually
Regular maintenance
Occasional maintenance
Monitoring
1.4
Green Roofs
Maintenance Schedule
Regular maintenance
Regular inspection
Required Action
Frequency
Monthly
As required
As required
Remedial actions
19
Required Action
Frequency
Monthly
Monthly
Annually
As required
Annually
As required
As required
Regular maintenance
Occasional maintenance
Monitoring
#
Remedial Work
1.2
Permeable pavements
Maintenance Schedule
Required Action
Frequency
As required
Removal of weeds
As required
As required
As required
As required or if significant
clogging causes impaired
performance
Initial inspection
Monthly
Annually
Annually
Regular maintenance
Occasional maintenance
Remedial actions
Monitoring
APPENDIX S9
Surface Water Drainage Calculations
(Micro Drainage Results)
Page 1
P16-147
St. Saviour's Hospital
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1
PN
1.000
1.001
1.002
1.003
1.004
1.005
1.006
1.007
23.117
11.977
10.955
8.492
29.068
7.227
9.858
11.745
0.231 100.0
0.120 100.0
0.183 60.0
0.142 60.0
1.453 20.0
0.361 20.0
0.493 20.0
1.175 10.0
80.0
99.9
0.021
0.021
0.003
0.019
0.004
0.076
0.008
0.034
5.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.600
0.600
0.600
0.600
0.600
0.600
0.600
0.600
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
150
150
150
150
150
225
225
225
0.018
0.050
5.00
0.00
0.0 0.600
0.0 0.600
o
o
150
150
Rain
T.C.
US/IL I.Area
Base
Foul Add Flow Vel
Cap
Flow
(mm/hr) (mins)
(m)
(ha)
Flow (l/s) (l/s)
(l/s)
(m/s) (l/s) (l/s)
1.000
1.001
1.002
1.003
1.004
1.005
1.006
1.007
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
5.38
5.58
5.72
5.83
6.05
6.09
6.14
6.19
17.100
16.869
16.749
16.566
16.425
14.897
14.535
13.550
0.021
0.042
0.044
0.063
0.067
0.143
0.151
0.185
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.00 17.8
1.00 17.8
1.30 23.0
1.30 23.0
2.26 40.0
2.94 116.9
2.94 116.9
4.16 165.5
2.000
2.001
50.00
50.00
5.41 13.500
5.89 13.105
0.018
0.068
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.12
1.01
1982-2014 XP Solutions
19.9
17.8
2.9
5.6
6.0
8.5
9.1
19.3
20.4
25.1
2.4
9.2
Page 2
P16-147
St. Saviour's Hospital
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1
2.002
9.7
0.053
0.00
0.0 0.600
150
1.584 10.0
0.671 20.0
1.008 12.0
1.443 10.0
0.053 150.0
0.045 225.0
0.007
0.012
0.010
0.008
0.024
0.000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.600
0.600
0.600
0.600
0.600
0.600
o
o
o
o
o
o
225
225
225
225
225
300
0.005
0.000
0.013
0.007
0.003
5.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.600
0.600
0.600
0.600
0.600
o
o
o
o
o
100
100
150
150
150
0.003
0.003
0.013
5.00
0.00
0.00
0.0 0.600
0.0 0.600
0.0 0.600
o
o
o
100
100
100
0.011
0.008
0.014
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0 0.600
0.0 0.600
0.0 0.600
o
o
o
150
150
150
1.008
1.009
1.010
1.011
1.012
1.013
7.122 0.734
15.838
13.411
12.094
14.426
7.974
10.135
16.1
11.0
10.0
Rain
T.C.
US/IL I.Area
Base
Foul Add Flow Vel
Cap
Flow
(mm/hr) (mins)
(m)
(ha)
Flow (l/s) (l/s)
(l/s)
(m/s) (l/s) (l/s)
2.002
50.00
5.92 12.867
0.121
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.25
57.5
16.3
1.008
1.009
1.010
1.011
1.012
1.013
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
6.25 12.058
6.33 8.896
6.38 8.225
6.44 7.218
6.56 5.775
6.73 5.647
0.313
0.324
0.334
0.342
0.367
0.367
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.16
2.94
3.80
4.16
1.07
1.04
165.5
116.9
151.0
165.5
42.4
73.8
42.3
43.9
45.2
46.4
49.7
49.7
3.000
3.001
3.002
3.003
3.004
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
5.22
5.38
5.52
5.62
5.70
20.100
19.997
19.710
19.622
19.566
0.005
0.005
0.018
0.024
0.027
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.77
1.15
1.00
1.00
1.92
6.0
9.0
17.8
17.8
33.9
0.6
0.6
2.4
3.3
3.6
4.000
4.001
4.002
50.00
50.00
50.00
5.12 20.250
5.46 20.134
5.61 20.022
0.003
0.006
0.019
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.00
0.68
2.30
7.8
5.4
18.1
0.4
0.8
2.5
3.005
3.006
3.007
50.00
50.00
50.00
5.78 18.227
5.84 17.500
5.96 14.844
0.056
0.065
0.079
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.52
3.06
3.20
44.5
54.0
56.6
7.6
8.8
10.7
1982-2014 XP Solutions
Page 3
P16-147
St. Saviour's Hospital
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1
0.010
0.005
0.009
0.005
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.600
0.600
0.600
0.600
o
o
o
o
150
225
225
300
1.014
1.015
0.024
0.000
0.00
0.00
0.0 0.600
0.0 0.600
o
o
300
300
Rain
T.C.
US/IL I.Area
Base
Foul Add Flow Vel
Cap
Flow
(mm/hr) (mins)
(m)
(ha)
Flow (l/s) (l/s)
(l/s)
(m/s) (l/s) (l/s)
3.008
3.009
3.010
3.011
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
6.03 11.000
6.10 8.235
6.19 6.371
6.27 6.251
0.089
0.094
0.103
0.108
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.20 56.6
4.16 165.5
1.14 45.2
2.35 166.1
12.1
12.8
14.0
14.7
1.014
1.015
50.00
50.00
6.84
6.85
0.499
0.499
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.28 90.7
4.67 330.4
67.6
67.6
5.602
5.544
Outfall
Name
C. Level I. Level
Min
D,L
W
(m)
(m)
I. Level (mm) (mm)
(m)
6.000
5.210
0.000
0.750
Additional Flow - % of Total Flow
1.000
MADD Factor * 10m/ha Storage
0
Inlet Coeffiecient
0 Flow per Person per Day (l/per/day)
0.500
Run Time (mins)
0.000
Output Interval (mins)
1982-2014 XP Solutions
0.000
2.000
0.800
0.000
60
1
Page 4
P16-147
St. Saviour's Hospital
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1
1982-2014 XP Solutions
Page 5
P16-147
St. Saviour's Hospital
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1
2.0
1.6
1.3
1.6
The hydrological calculations have been based on the Head/Discharge relationship for the
Hydro-Brake Optimum as specified. Should another type of control device other than a
Hydro-Brake Optimum be utilised then these storage routing calculations will be
invalidated
Depth (m) Flow (l/s) Depth (m) Flow (l/s) Depth (m) Flow (l/s) Depth (m) Flow (l/s)
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.200
1.400
1.600
1.800
2.000
2.200
2.400
2.600
1.8
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
3.000
3.500
4.000
4.500
5.000
5.500
6.000
6.500
2.8
3.0
3.2
3.3
3.5
3.7
3.8
4.0
7.000
7.500
8.000
8.500
9.000
9.500
4.1
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.8
1982-2014 XP Solutions
3.0
2.9
Page 6
P16-147
St. Saviour's Hospital
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1
2.3
2.6
The hydrological calculations have been based on the Head/Discharge relationship for the
Hydro-Brake Optimum as specified. Should another type of control device other than a
Hydro-Brake Optimum be utilised then these storage routing calculations will be
invalidated
Depth (m) Flow (l/s) Depth (m) Flow (l/s) Depth (m) Flow (l/s) Depth (m) Flow (l/s)
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.800
1.000
2.3
2.7
2.9
2.9
2.8
2.7
2.5
2.7
1.200
1.400
1.600
1.800
2.000
2.200
2.400
2.600
3.0
3.2
3.4
3.6
3.7
3.9
4.1
4.2
3.000
3.500
4.000
4.500
5.000
5.500
6.000
6.500
4.5
4.9
5.2
5.5
5.7
6.0
6.3
6.5
7.000
7.500
8.000
8.500
9.000
9.500
6.7
7.0
7.2
7.4
7.6
7.8
2.0
1.8
1.5
1.6
The hydrological calculations have been based on the Head/Discharge relationship for the
Hydro-Brake Optimum as specified. Should another type of control device other than a
Hydro-Brake Optimum be utilised then these storage routing calculations will be
invalidated
Depth (m) Flow (l/s) Depth (m) Flow (l/s) Depth (m) Flow (l/s) Depth (m) Flow (l/s)
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
1.5
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.5
0.800
1.000
1.200
1.400
1.600
1.800
1.7
1.9
2.0
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.000
2.200
2.400
2.600
3.000
3.500
1982-2014 XP Solutions
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.1
3.3
4.000
4.500
5.000
5.500
6.000
6.500
3.5
3.7
3.9
4.1
4.3
4.4
Page 7
P16-147
St. Saviour's Hospital
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1
4.6
4.7
8.000
8.500
4.9
5.0
9.000
9.500
5.2
5.3
6.1
6.1
5.0
5.3
The hydrological calculations have been based on the Head/Discharge relationship for the
Hydro-Brake Optimum as specified. Should another type of control device other than a
Hydro-Brake Optimum be utilised then these storage routing calculations will be
invalidated
Depth (m) Flow (l/s) Depth (m) Flow (l/s) Depth (m) Flow (l/s) Depth (m) Flow (l/s)
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
0.600
0.800
1.000
4.0
5.9
6.1
6.0
5.8
5.4
5.4
6.0
1.200
1.400
1.600
1.800
2.000
2.200
2.400
2.600
6.5
7.0
7.5
7.9
8.3
8.7
9.1
9.4
3.000
3.500
4.000
4.500
5.000
5.500
6.000
6.500
1982-2014 XP Solutions
10.1
10.8
11.5
12.2
12.8
13.4
14.0
14.5
7.000
7.500
8.000
8.500
9.000
9.500
15.1
15.6
16.1
16.5
17.0
17.5
Page 8
P16-147
St. Saviour's Hospital
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1
1982-2014 XP Solutions
Page 9
P16-147
St. Saviour's Hospital
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1
170.0
170.0
0.0
0.0
0.801
1982-2014 XP Solutions
0.0
0.0
Page 10
P16-147
St. Saviour's Hospital
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1
Simulation Criteria
Areal Reduction Factor 1.000
Additional Flow - % of Total Flow
Hot Start (mins)
0
MADD Factor * 10m/ha Storage
Hot Start Level (mm)
0
Inlet Coeffiecient
Manhole Headloss Coeff (Global) 0.500 Flow per Person per Day (l/per/day)
Foul Sewage per hectare (l/s) 0.000
0.000
2.000
0.800
0.000
Profile(s)
Duration(s) (mins)
Return Period(s) (years)
Climate Change (%)
PN
Storm
1.000 60 Winter
1.001 60 Winter
1.002 60 Winter
1.003 15 Winter
1.004 15 Winter
1.005 180 Winter
1.006 180 Winter
1.007 15 Winter
2.000 60 Winter
2.001 60 Winter
2.002 60 Winter
1.008 15 Winter
1.009 15 Winter
1.010 15 Winter
1.011 15 Winter
1.012 15 Winter
1.013 240 Winter
3.000 15 Winter
3.001 15 Winter
3.002 15 Winter
Return Climate
Period Change
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
First X
Surcharge
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 1/120 Winter
0%
1/15 Summer
0%
0% 30/15 Summer
0%
1/15 Summer
0%
1/15 Summer
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 30/15 Summer
0% 30/120 Summer
0% 30/15 Summer
0% 30/15 Summer
0%
1/15 Winter
1982-2014 XP Solutions
Page 11
P16-147
St. Saviour's Hospital
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1
PN
Storm
3.003 15 Winter
3.004 15 Winter
4.000 15 Winter
4.001 15 Winter
4.002 15 Winter
3.005 15 Winter
3.006 15 Winter
3.007 15 Winter
3.008 15 Winter
3.009 15 Winter
3.010 15 Winter
3.011 15 Winter
1.014 240 Winter
1.015 360 Winter
PN
US/MH
Name
1.000
1.001
1.002
1.003
1.004
1.005
1.006
1.007
2.000
2.001
2.002
1.008
1.009
1.010
1.011
1.012
1.013
3.000
3.001
3.002
3.003
3.004
4.000
4.001
4.002
3.005
3.006
3.007
3.008
3.009
3.010
SWMH-1.17
SWMH-1.16
SWMH-1.15
SWMH-1.14
SWMH-1.13
SWMH-1.12
SWMH-1.11
SWMH-1.10
SWMH-1.09
SWMH-1.08
SWMH-1.07
SWMH-1.06
SWMH-1.05
SWMH-1.04
SWMH-1.03
SWMH-1.02
SWMH-1.01
SWMH-2.11
SWMH-2.10
SWMH-2.09
SWMH-2.08
SWMH-2.07
SWMH-2.12
SWMH-2.13
SWMH-2.14
SWMH-2.06
SWMH-2.05
SWMH-2.04
SWMH-2.03
SWMH-2.02
SWMH-2.01
Return Climate
Period Change
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
First X
Surcharge
0%
1/15 Summer
0%
1/15 Summer
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 100/15 Summer
0%
0% 30/60 Summer
0% 30/15 Summer
Water
Flooded
Pipe
Level Surch'ed Volume Flow / O'flow Flow
(m)
Depth (m)
(m)
Cap.
(l/s) (l/s)
17.120
16.899
16.775
16.602
16.453
15.288
15.286
13.579
13.637
13.635
13.626
12.094
8.944
8.271
7.263
5.885
5.767
20.123
20.016
19.885
19.882
19.878
20.266
20.159
20.046
18.263
17.536
14.882
11.042
8.272
6.464
-0.130
-0.120
-0.124
-0.115
-0.122
0.166
0.526
-0.196
-0.013
0.380
0.609
-0.189
-0.177
-0.179
-0.180
-0.115
-0.179
-0.077
-0.081
0.026
0.110
0.162
-0.084
-0.074
-0.076
-0.114
-0.114
-0.112
-0.108
-0.188
-0.133
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.04
0.09
0.07
0.12
0.08
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.07
0.18
0.06
0.06
0.10
0.09
0.09
0.48
0.13
0.12
0.08
0.13
0.14
0.06
0.06
0.15
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.15
0.17
0.06
0.35
1982-2014 XP Solutions
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
1.4
1.5
2.5
3.0
2.3
1.6
5.5
1.3
3.1
2.9
9.1
10.5
11.7
12.7
15.5
7.4
0.7
0.7
2.0
2.1
1.7
0.4
0.8
2.3
5.1
6.2
7.9
9.1
9.7
10.7
Status
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
SURCHARGED
SURCHARGED
OK
OK
SURCHARGED
SURCHARGED
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
SURCHARGED
SURCHARGED
SURCHARGED
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
Page 12
P16-147
St. Saviour's Hospital
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1
PN
US/MH
Name
3.011 SWMH-2.00
1.014
DUMMY-1
1.015 SWMH-1.00
Water
Flooded
Pipe
Level Surch'ed Volume Flow / O'flow Flow
(m)
Depth (m)
(m)
Cap.
(l/s) (l/s)
6.312
5.764
5.784
-0.239
-0.138
-0.060
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.09
0.11
0.04
1982-2014 XP Solutions
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.2
6.6
5.9
Status
OK
OK
OK
Page 13
P16-147
St. Saviour's Hospital
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1
Simulation Criteria
Areal Reduction Factor 1.000
Additional Flow - % of Total Flow
Hot Start (mins)
0
MADD Factor * 10m/ha Storage
Hot Start Level (mm)
0
Inlet Coeffiecient
Manhole Headloss Coeff (Global) 0.500 Flow per Person per Day (l/per/day)
Foul Sewage per hectare (l/s) 0.000
0.000
2.000
0.800
0.000
Profile(s)
Duration(s) (mins)
Return Period(s) (years)
Climate Change (%)
PN
1.000
1.001
1.002
1.003
1.004
1.005
1.006
1.007
2.000
2.001
2.002
1.008
1.009
1.010
1.011
1.012
1.013
3.000
3.001
3.002
Storm
30
30
30
15
15
180
180
15
60
60
120
15
15
15
15
360
360
15
15
15
Winter
Winter
Winter
Summer
Summer
Winter
Winter
Summer
Winter
Winter
Winter
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Return Climate
Period Change
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
First X
Surcharge
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 1/120 Winter
0%
1/15 Summer
0%
0% 30/15 Summer
0%
1/15 Summer
0%
1/15 Summer
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 30/15 Summer
0% 30/120 Summer
0% 30/15 Summer
0% 30/15 Summer
0%
1/15 Winter
1982-2014 XP Solutions
Page 14
P16-147
St. Saviour's Hospital
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1
PN
Storm
3.003 15 Winter
3.004 30 Winter
4.000 15 Winter
4.001 15 Winter
4.002 15 Winter
3.005 15 Winter
3.006 15 Winter
3.007 15 Winter
3.008 15 Winter
3.009 15 Winter
3.010 15 Winter
3.011 15 Winter
1.014 360 Winter
1.015 180 Winter
PN
US/MH
Name
1.000
1.001
1.002
1.003
1.004
1.005
1.006
1.007
2.000
2.001
2.002
1.008
1.009
1.010
1.011
1.012
1.013
3.000
3.001
3.002
3.003
3.004
4.000
4.001
4.002
3.005
3.006
3.007
3.008
3.009
3.010
SWMH-1.17
SWMH-1.16
SWMH-1.15
SWMH-1.14
SWMH-1.13
SWMH-1.12
SWMH-1.11
SWMH-1.10
SWMH-1.09
SWMH-1.08
SWMH-1.07
SWMH-1.06
SWMH-1.05
SWMH-1.04
SWMH-1.03
SWMH-1.02
SWMH-1.01
SWMH-2.11
SWMH-2.10
SWMH-2.09
SWMH-2.08
SWMH-2.07
SWMH-2.12
SWMH-2.13
SWMH-2.14
SWMH-2.06
SWMH-2.05
SWMH-2.04
SWMH-2.03
SWMH-2.02
SWMH-2.01
Return Climate
Period Change
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
First X
Surcharge
0%
1/15 Summer
0%
1/15 Summer
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0% 100/15 Summer
0%
0% 30/60 Summer
0% 30/15 Summer
Water
Flooded
Pipe
Level Surch'ed Volume Flow / O'flow Flow
(m)
Depth (m)
(m)
Cap.
(l/s) (l/s)
17.134
16.919
16.795
16.631
16.475
15.596
15.595
13.597
13.744
13.741
13.732
12.112
8.969
8.295
7.287
6.054
6.048
20.360
20.346
20.333
20.312
20.298
20.276
20.178
20.065
18.284
17.558
14.908
11.072
8.298
6.548
-0.116
-0.100
-0.104
-0.085
-0.100
0.475
0.835
-0.178
0.094
0.486
0.715
-0.171
-0.152
-0.155
-0.156
0.054
0.101
0.160
0.249
0.473
0.540
0.583
-0.074
-0.056
-0.057
-0.093
-0.092
-0.086
-0.078
-0.162
-0.048
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.12
0.24
0.20
0.39
0.24
0.06
0.02
0.10
0.07
0.25
0.06
0.13
0.23
0.21
0.21
0.28
0.15
0.28
0.19
0.37
0.54
0.06
0.15
0.40
0.39
0.30
0.32
0.38
0.46
0.17
0.95
1982-2014 XP Solutions
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
3.9
4.2
7.8
9.2
5.2
1.7
14.0
1.4
4.2
2.9
19.0
23.3
26.9
29.9
9.0
8.9
1.6
1.6
5.8
8.0
1.7
1.1
2.0
6.7
12.2
15.3
20.5
24.1
25.8
28.7
Status
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
SURCHARGED
SURCHARGED
OK
SURCHARGED
SURCHARGED
SURCHARGED
OK
OK
OK
OK
SURCHARGED
SURCHARGED
SURCHARGED
SURCHARGED
SURCHARGED
SURCHARGED
SURCHARGED
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
Page 15
P16-147
St. Saviour's Hospital
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1
PN
US/MH
Name
3.011 SWMH-2.00
1.014
DUMMY-1
1.015 SWMH-1.00
Water
Flooded
Pipe
Level Surch'ed Volume Flow / O'flow Flow
(m)
Depth (m)
(m)
Cap.
(l/s) (l/s)
6.354
6.045
6.213
-0.197
0.143
0.368
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.25
0.14
0.04
1982-2014 XP Solutions
0.0
0.0
0.0
Status
30.5
OK
8.9 SURCHARGED
6.0 FLOOD RISK
Page 16
P16-147
St. Saviour's Hospital
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1
100 year Return Period Summary of Critical Results by Maximum Level (Rank
1) for Storm
Simulation Criteria
Areal Reduction Factor 1.000
Additional Flow - % of Total Flow
Hot Start (mins)
0
MADD Factor * 10m/ha Storage
Hot Start Level (mm)
0
Inlet Coeffiecient
Manhole Headloss Coeff (Global) 0.500 Flow per Person per Day (l/per/day)
Foul Sewage per hectare (l/s) 0.000
0.000
2.000
0.800
0.000
Profile(s)
Duration(s) (mins)
Return Period(s) (years)
Climate Change (%)
PN
1.000
1.001
1.002
1.003
1.004
1.005
1.006
1.007
2.000
2.001
2.002
1.008
1.009
1.010
1.011
1.012
1.013
3.000
3.001
3.002
Storm
30
30
30
30
30
180
180
15
120
120
120
15
15
15
15
480
480
15
15
15
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Summer
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Return Climate
Period Change
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
First X
Surcharge
+20%
+20%
+20%
+20%
+20%
+20% 1/120 Winter
+20%
1/15 Summer
+20%
+20% 30/15 Summer
+20%
1/15 Summer
+20%
1/15 Summer
+20%
+20%
+20%
+20%
+20% 30/15 Summer
+20% 30/120 Summer
+20% 30/15 Summer
+20% 30/15 Summer
+20%
1/15 Winter
1982-2014 XP Solutions
Page 17
P16-147
St. Saviour's Hospital
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1
100 year Return Period Summary of Critical Results by Maximum Level (Rank
1) for Storm
PN
Storm
3.003 15 Winter
3.004 60 Winter
4.000 15 Winter
4.001 15 Winter
4.002 15 Winter
3.005 15 Winter
3.006 15 Winter
3.007 15 Winter
3.008 15 Winter
3.009 15 Winter
3.010 15 Winter
3.011 480 Winter
1.014 480 Winter
1.015 600 Winter
PN
US/MH
Name
1.000
1.001
1.002
1.003
1.004
1.005
1.006
1.007
2.000
2.001
2.002
1.008
1.009
1.010
1.011
1.012
1.013
3.000
3.001
3.002
3.003
3.004
4.000
4.001
4.002
3.005
3.006
3.007
3.008
3.009
3.010
SWMH-1.17
SWMH-1.16
SWMH-1.15
SWMH-1.14
SWMH-1.13
SWMH-1.12
SWMH-1.11
SWMH-1.10
SWMH-1.09
SWMH-1.08
SWMH-1.07
SWMH-1.06
SWMH-1.05
SWMH-1.04
SWMH-1.03
SWMH-1.02
SWMH-1.01
SWMH-2.11
SWMH-2.10
SWMH-2.09
SWMH-2.08
SWMH-2.07
SWMH-2.12
SWMH-2.13
SWMH-2.14
SWMH-2.06
SWMH-2.05
SWMH-2.04
SWMH-2.03
SWMH-2.02
SWMH-2.01
Return Climate
Period Change
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
First X
Surcharge
+20%
1/15 Summer
+20%
1/15 Summer
+20%
+20%
+20%
+20%
+20%
+20%
+20%
+20%
+20% 100/15 Summer
+20%
+20% 30/60 Summer
+20% 30/15 Summer
Water
Flooded
Pipe
Level Surch'ed Volume Flow / O'flow Flow
(m)
Depth (m)
(m)
Cap.
(l/s) (l/s)
17.143
16.933
16.809
16.659
16.491
15.687
15.685
13.608
13.877
13.874
13.865
12.124
8.986
8.311
7.303
6.404
6.399
20.423
20.402
20.381
20.346
20.313
20.283
20.191
20.078
18.298
17.573
14.926
11.094
8.314
6.641
-0.107
-0.085
-0.090
-0.057
-0.084
0.566
0.925
-0.167
0.227
0.619
0.848
-0.159
-0.135
-0.139
-0.140
0.404
0.452
0.223
0.305
0.521
0.574
0.597
-0.067
-0.042
-0.044
-0.079
-0.077
-0.068
-0.056
-0.146
0.045
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.18
0.39
0.34
0.67
0.39
0.10
0.02
0.15
0.05
0.27
0.06
0.19
0.34
0.31
0.31
0.32
0.18
0.45
0.31
0.62
0.91
0.06
0.24
0.62
0.60
0.45
0.47
0.58
0.70
0.26
1.45
1982-2014 XP Solutions
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.1
6.2
6.9
13.4
14.8
8.1
1.8
21.3
0.9
4.5
2.9
27.6
34.2
39.8
44.3
10.2
10.1
2.5
2.6
9.7
13.4
1.7
1.7
3.2
10.5
18.2
23.0
31.0
36.7
39.4
43.8
Status
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
SURCHARGED
SURCHARGED
OK
FLOOD RISK
FLOOD RISK
FLOOD RISK
OK
OK
OK
OK
SURCHARGED
SURCHARGED
SURCHARGED
SURCHARGED
SURCHARGED
SURCHARGED
SURCHARGED
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
SURCHARGED
Page 18
P16-147
St. Saviour's Hospital
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1
100 year Return Period Summary of Critical Results by Maximum Level (Rank
1) for Storm
PN
US/MH
Name
3.011 SWMH-2.00
1.014
DUMMY-1
1.015 SWMH-1.00
Water
Flooded
Pipe
Level Surch'ed Volume Flow / O'flow Flow
(m)
Depth (m)
(m)
Cap.
(l/s) (l/s)
6.396
6.396
6.494
-0.155
0.494
0.650
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.06
0.15
0.04
1982-2014 XP Solutions
0.0
0.0
0.0
Status
6.8
OK
9.1 SURCHARGED
6.0 FLOOD RISK
Page 10
100 year Return Period Summary of Critical Results by Maximum Level (Rank
1) for Storm
Simulation Criteria
Areal Reduction Factor 1.000
Additional Flow - % of Total Flow
Hot Start (mins)
0
MADD Factor * 10m/ha Storage
Hot Start Level (mm)
0
Inlet Coeffiecient
Manhole Headloss Coeff (Global) 0.500 Flow per Person per Day (l/per/day)
Foul Sewage per hectare (l/s) 0.000
0.000
2.000
0.800
0.000
Profile(s)
Duration(s) (mins)
Return Period(s) (years)
Climate Change (%)
PN
1.000
1.001
1.002
1.003
1.004
1.005
1.006
1.007
2.000
2.001
2.002
1.008
1.009
1.010
1.011
1.012
1.013
3.000
3.001
3.002
Storm
30
30
30
30
30
180
180
15
120
120
120
15
15
15
15
480
480
15
15
15
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Winter
Return Climate
Period Change
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
+40%
+40%
+40%
+40%
+40%
+40%
+40%
+40%
+40%
+40%
+40%
+40%
+40%
+40%
+40%
+40%
+40%
+40%
+40%
+40%
First Y
Flood
100/15 Summer
100/15 Summer
100/15 Summer
100/15 Summer
100/15 Summer
100/15
100/15
100/15
100/15
100/15
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
1982-2014 XP Solutions
Page 11
100 year Return Period Summary of Critical Results by Maximum Level (Rank
1) for Storm
PN
Storm
Return Climate
Period Change
3.003 15 Winter
3.004 60 Winter
4.000 15 Winter
4.001 15 Winter
4.002 15 Winter
3.005 15 Winter
3.006 15 Winter
3.007 15 Winter
3.008 15 Winter
3.009 15 Winter
3.010 15 Winter
3.011 480 Winter
1.014 480 Winter
1.015 480 Winter
PN
US/MH
Name
1.000
1.001
1.002
1.003
1.004
1.005
1.006
1.007
2.000
2.001
2.002
1.008
1.009
1.010
1.011
1.012
1.013
3.000
3.001
3.002
3.003
3.004
4.000
4.001
4.002
3.005
3.006
3.007
3.008
3.009
3.010
SWMH-1.17
SWMH-1.16
SWMH-1.15
SWMH-1.14
SWMH-1.13
SWMH-1.12
SWMH-1.11
SWMH-1.10
SWMH-1.09
SWMH-1.08
SWMH-1.07
SWMH-1.06
SWMH-1.05
SWMH-1.04
SWMH-1.03
SWMH-1.02
SWMH-1.01
SWMH-2.11
SWMH-2.10
SWMH-2.09
SWMH-2.08
SWMH-2.07
SWMH-2.12
SWMH-2.13
SWMH-2.14
SWMH-2.06
SWMH-2.05
SWMH-2.04
SWMH-2.03
SWMH-2.02
SWMH-2.01
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
+40%
+40%
+40%
+40%
+40%
+40%
+40%
+40%
+40%
+40%
+40%
+40%
+40%
+40%
First X
Surcharge
First Y
Flood
100/15 Summer
100/15 Summer
100/15 Summer
100/15 Summer
100/15 Summer 100/180 Winter
Water
Flooded
Pipe
Level Surch'ed Volume Flow / O'flow Flow
(m)
Depth (m)
(m)
Cap.
(l/s) (l/s)
17.147
16.939
16.814
16.672
16.498
15.731
15.729
13.613
13.896
13.894
13.885
12.129
8.993
8.318
7.310
6.535
6.529
20.471
20.442
20.413
20.365
20.321
20.286
20.198
20.084
18.304
17.580
14.934
11.104
8.321
6.676
-0.103
-0.079
-0.085
-0.044
-0.077
0.609
0.969
-0.162
0.246
0.639
0.868
-0.154
-0.128
-0.132
-0.132
0.535
0.582
0.271
0.345
0.553
0.594
0.605
-0.064
-0.036
-0.038
-0.073
-0.071
-0.060
-0.046
-0.139
0.080
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.22
0.45
0.39
0.82
0.47
0.11
0.02
0.17
0.03
0.22
0.06
0.22
0.39
0.35
0.35
0.35
0.19
0.53
0.36
0.72
1.06
0.06
0.28
0.73
0.70
0.52
0.55
0.67
0.82
0.31
1.69
1982-2014 XP Solutions
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.6
7.3
8.1
16.4
18.1
9.5
1.8
24.6
0.7
3.7
2.9
31.7
39.3
45.9
51.2
11.3
11.2
3.0
3.0
11.2
15.5
1.7
2.0
3.7
12.3
20.9
26.5
36.0
42.5
45.7
50.8
Status
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FLOOD RISK
FLOOD RISK
OK
FLOOD RISK
FLOOD RISK
FLOOD RISK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FLOOD RISK
SURCHARGED
SURCHARGED
SURCHARGED
SURCHARGED
SURCHARGED
SURCHARGED
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
SURCHARGED
Page 12
100 year Return Period Summary of Critical Results by Maximum Level (Rank
1) for Storm
PN
US/MH
Name
3.011 SWMH-2.00
1.014
DUMMY-1
1.015 SWMH-1.00
Water
Flooded
Pipe
Level Surch'ed Volume Flow / O'flow Flow
(m)
Depth (m)
(m)
Cap.
(l/s) (l/s)
6.526
6.525
6.521
-0.025
0.623
0.677
0.000
0.000
21.400
0.06
0.33
0.04
1982-2014 XP Solutions
0.0
0.0
0.0
Status
7.8
OK
20.3 SURCHARGED
6.0
FLOOD
APPENDIX S10
Foul Drainage Calculations