DS ST Saviour - 1st Issue

Sustainable Drainage Statement
St. Saviours Hospital Redevelopment

Hythe, Kent
SPIRE HEALTHCARE Ltd
[Type text]
[Type text]
[Type text]
SUSTAINABLE DRAINAGE STATEMENT

ST. SAVIOURS HOSPITAL REDEVELOPMENT
HYTHE, KENT
SPIRE HEALTHCARE Ltd
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
Morgan Tucker Ltd,

12-14 Berry Street
Clerkenwell
London
EC1V 0AU
Tel: 0203 764 5556
http://www.morgantucker.co.uk
Sustainable Drainage Statement St. Saviours Hospital Redevelopment
CONTENTS
Section
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
EXISTING SITE DETAILS
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE
FOULD WATER DRAINAGE
14
SUMMARY AND CONLCUSION
15
DISCLAIMER
16
FIGURES
Figure
1
ii
Site Location Plan
TABLES
TABLE
1
KCC Submission for Outline Planning Application
KCC SuDS Policy Summary
Micro-Drainage Source Control Parameters
Existing Annual Average Run-off rates
SuDS Options employed at the site
APPENDICES
S1
Kent County Councils Drainage and Planning Policy Statement,

consultation submission for outline planning applications List
S2
Existing and Proposed Impermeable and Permeable area coverage drawings
S3
Southern Water Asset Plans
S4
Development Proposals
S5
Greenfield Runoff Calculations
S6
Existing Brownfield Runoff Rates
S7
Concept SuDS and Drainage Strategy Drawings
S8
SuDS Maintenance Schedules
S9
S Drainage Calculations
S10
Foul Drainage Calculations
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
20% Climate Change with40%

Sensitivity check
Survey included within FRA
Appendix A
Nearest watercourse Royal
Military Canal 115m south of
the site.
Flood Zone 1
Offiste Surface water flooding,
betterment proposed
SS Section 4.5
FRA Section 7.3
SS Section 2.3
FRA Section 3.3
Surface Water Flow routes
FRA Section 5
SS Section 2.5
FRA Section 3.5
FRA Section 5
Offsite Works
Drawings Provided in Appendix

J
N/A
Consents
Southern Water
SS Section 5
FRA Section 9
Any constraints which affect the

proposed development
Steep sloping site, poor

infiltration, combined sewer only
local public sewer.
Both SS and FRA
No sensitive receptors
SS Section 2.5
Separate land drainage and

private drainage
Both SS and FRA
Private maintenance company
Both SS and FRA
Phasing
Due to the scale of the

proposed development it is
likely to be undertaken on a
single phased approach. This is
TBC.
Further information as
part of planning
application
Correspondence from any

receiving authority or permitting
authority
Southern Water, EA and KCC
FRA, Appendix D, F &

H
Exceedance Routes
Locations of sensitive receptors

including groundwater
protection zones, habitat
designations or archaeological
features
Principles of temporary
drainage during construction
Proposed extent of adoption
strategy
FRA Section 8.4
Table 1 KCC Consultation Submission for Outline Planning Application
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
The aim of this statement is to undertake the following:

i.
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:
Web Site: Floodplain Data Maps: Environment Agency (EA): 2015
Document: C753: Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems: CIRIA: 2015
Document: Part H: Building Regulations 2010
Document: Drainage and Planning Policy Statement: Kent Country Council: 2015
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Correspondence with Kent Country Council (Flood Risk Team), Southern Water & the EA.
Shepway District Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (July 2015)
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
EXISTING SITE DETAILS

Site Location
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:
Approx. Site Location
Figure 1 - Site Location

(Map Source: Bing Map)
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
Ground Conditions and Geology
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:
Site is currently hospital/commercial use;

There are no surface watercourses on the site;
The site is underlain by an unclassified aquifer over an unproductive Aquifer;
There are no ecological designations on or adjacent to the site;
Site is outside of a Source Protection Zone.
Site is located in Flood Zone 1.
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
SURFACE WATER DRANAGE

Control of Surface Water Runoff
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
Standard Average Annual Rainfall (SAAR)
750
SOIL
0.300
Region
Table 3 Micro-Drainage Source Control Parameters
RP
Run-off Rates (l/s/ha)
1yr
1.7
30yr
4.5
100yr
6.1
Table 4 Existing Greenfield Runoff Rates
5.3
Maximum Allowable Discharge Rate and Proposed Outfall
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
Green roofs are proposed on the flats to the far

north of the site.
Basins, wetlands
and Ponds
/X
Surface water detention basins are not included

as part of the proposed surface water strategy,
due to the limited space available at the
development. However, overland flow routes
will be directed to an informal landscape area to
the south of the site, which will act as an
informal above ground storage area.
Filter Strips and

Swales
A drainage ditch is located along the access

road to intercept overland flow routes. Filter
drains are proposed for land drainage only.
Infiltration
techniques
Infiltration is not feasible for the site, following

soakaway test results.
Permeable
surfaces and
filter drains
Permeable paving is proposed within the

communal parking areas where practicable and
feasible, to be used in conjunction with below
ground storage.
Rainwater
Harvesting
/X
Rainwater harvesting is not proposed but

rainwater butts will be considered further as
part of the detailed design.
One cellular storage unit is included in the

surface water strategy for the Proposed
Development. Porous attenuation paving with
cellular structure below are also proposed in
three of the car park areas.
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
Surface Water Attenuation/ Storage
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
Exceedance and Overland Flow Routes
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
Water Quality Treatment
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
FOUL WATER DRAINAGE
6.1
Foul Water Flows
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
Proposed Discharge Point
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
SUMMARY & CONCLUSION
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
This report has been prepared in receipt of third party information.

The receipt of such information is based upon limited information supplied to those bodies by the client.
The developer is advised that such information and opinions received from third parties are likely to be
subjective to the individuals concerned, and may not necessarily represent the opinions of the bodies
themselves. As such, said opinions may be subject to variation, clarification or expansion upon
submission of more detailed proposals from the developer.
All opinions expressed are based upon current design standards in force at the date of this report. These
standards may be subject to change with the passage of time.
The opinions expressed herein are intended to provide general guidance as to how a problem related to
a particular development might be resolved. Given the paucity of the original information, and the oftenindirect nature of information received, they should not be relied up n as absolute or definitive guidance
as to any particular solution. Such conclusions can only sensibly be arrived at upon detailed design.
As a consequence of the above, Morgan Tucker will not be held liable for any consequential losses,
howsoever caused, as a result of inaccurate, missing, incomplete, or erroneous data contained in this
report, nor any data capable of being subject to variable interpretation by means of its generalised
nature.
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
DO NOT SCALE. USE FIGURED DIMENSIONS ONLY.

CHECK ON SITE AND REPORT ALL DISCREPANCIES TO
MORGAN TUCKER.
Notes:
1.
IF THIS DRAWING HAS BEEN RECEIVED ELECTRONICALLY IT IS THE

RECIPIENTS RESPONSIBILITY TO PRINT THE DOCUMENT TO THE
CORRECT SCALE.
2.
ALL DIMENSIONS ARE IN METRES UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. IT

IS RECOMMENDED THAT INFORMATION IS NOT SCALED OFF THIS
DRAWING.
3.
THIS DRAWING SHOULD BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALL

OTHER RELEVANT DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
Key:
Proposed Impermeable Area (5800m2)
Proposed Permeable Area (5750m2)
Rev
Amendment
Date
By
12-14 Berry Street, Clerkenwell, London, EC1V 0AU

Tel:- 020 3764 5556
E-Mail:- info@morgantucker.co.uk
www.morgantucker.co.uk
Client
Spire Health Care
Project Title
St. Saviour's Hospital Redevelopment

Drawing Title
Proposed Permeable and

Impermieable Areas
Drawn By
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

MORGAN TUCKER.
Notes:
1.

CORRECT SCALE.
2.

DRAWING.
3.

Key:
Existing Impermeable Area (6000m2)
Existing Permeable Area (5550m2)
Rev
Amendment
Date
By

Tel:- 020 3764 5556
Client
Spire Health Care
Project Title

Drawing Title
Existing Permeable and

Impermeable Areas
Drawn By
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
Morgan Tucker Ltd

12-14
Berry Street
Clerkenwell
London
EC1V 0AU
Your ref
P16-147
Our ref
217911
Date
23 June 2016
Contact
searches@southernwater.co.uk
Tel 0845 272 0845

0330 303 0276
Fax 01634 844514
Attention: Evangelos Karaolis

Dear Customer
Re:
Provision of public sewer record extract
Location:
Spire St Saviours Hospital, Seabrook Road, Hythe, CT21 5BU
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
Communal sun terrace

Hatched area indicates approximate
extent of cellular root protection
system beneath permeable paving to
protect existing trees on and off site
Existing group of mature trees retained
Existing mature trees and vegetation to

northern boundary retained
Permeable block
paving to car park
Public Pocket Park
Existing road alignment

retained. New footpath added.
Permeable block paving to car park
New shared space residential street. To be

surfaced with permeable block paving
Hatched area indicates
approximate extent of cellular
root protection system
beneath permeable paving to
protect Corsican Pine (T 308)
Existing mature trees and hedge vegetation
to eastern boundary retained
Existing road alignment retained. New
footpath added.
Existing trees to western

boundary retained
New tree planting along main access road

through development
Existing right of way

retained retained
Permeable block
paving to car park
Existing stone wall and

pillars retained where
possible
New highway
alignment and tactile
paving to junction
New tree planting to

boundary
New pedestrian
entrance from
Seabrook Road
Existing pedestrian
Existing group of mature access and path retained
trees retained
Existing stone wall

retained
New highway
alignment and tactile
paving to junction
REVISION NOTES
Client
HARD LANDSCAPE
Rev By
Permeable Block Paving

Type: Tegula Priora by Marshalls (or simlr' appvd')
Colours: Traditional (main areas) Grey (parking
bay delineation indicated by dashed line)
Laying Pattern: Herringbone and staggered
Steps
Type: Conservation Textured Step by Marshalls
(or simlr' appvd')
Colour: Silver Grey
Handrails: Stainless Steel Handrails and Posts
Timber Fencing to Rear

Gardens
Type: Closed Boarded Fencing
Material: Treated timber posts
and panels. Colour: Natural
Flag Paving
Type: Saxon by Marshalls (or simlr' appvd')
Colour: Natural
Size: 450x450x50mm
Laying Pattern: Stack Bond
Metal Railing to Front Gardens and

Apartment Terraces
Type: Vertical Square Section Bar Railing
Material: Mild Steel
Colour: Black. Height:1100mm
Pedetrian Feature Lighting

Type: Illuminated Bollards
Material: Steel
Colour: Black
Locations indicative
Compacted Gravel
Self binding permeable gravel path
Type: CEDEC (or simlr' appvd')
Colour: Gold
Timber Fencing to Rear Gardens

Type: Closed Boarded Fencing
Material: Treated timber posts and panels
Colour: Natural. Height 1800mm
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
Gabion Retaining Walls

Galvanised Steel baskets filled with locally
prevalent natural stone
Sizes: 1000x1000x1000mm
Retained Tree
Refer to Arboriculatural Survey
for details
Removed Trees and

vegetation
Removed to facilitate
development, or if of a
poor quality and amenity
value
Proposed Planting
Ornamental Shrub and
herbaceous planting
3-5ltr pots with 10ltr
specimens
Amenity Grass
Hard wearing grass
Seeded to public areas
Turf to private gardens
Description
Date
Spire Healthcare Ltd

Project
St. Saviour's Hospital

Description
Landscape Layout
Status
For Approval
-
GENERAL NOTES
1.
This drawing is the copyright of tpm landscape Ltd and cannot be

reproduced in any form without the consent of the company.
2.
This drawing is to be read in conjunction with all relevant Architects',

Engineer's, Specialists, Bills of Quantities and Specifications.
3.
Lighting to lighting engineers design and specification. Lighting shown

on this drawing is indicative
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
address: 4th Floor Studio 10 Little Lever St Manchester M1 1HR

tel: 0161 235 0600 fax 0601 email info@tpmlandscape.co.uk
APPENDIX S5
Greenfield Runoff Calculations
Morgan Tucker Limited

65 Northgate
Newark
Nottingham NG24 1HD
Date 16/06/2016 16:27
File
Causeway
Page 1
Designed by ekaraolis
Checked by
Source Control 2014.1.1
ICP SUDS Mean Annual Flood
Input
Return Period (years)

1
Soil
0.300
Area (ha) 1.000
Urban
0.000
SAAR (mm)
750 Region Number Region 7
Results
l/s
QBAR Rural 2.0

QBAR Urban 2.0
Q1 year 1.7
Q1 year 1.7
Q30 years 4.5
Q100 years 6.3
1982-2014 XP Solutions
APPENDIX S6
Existing Brownfield Runoff Rates
APPENDIX S7
Concept SuDS and Drainage Strategy Drawings

MORGAN TUCKER.
1.Porous Paving With Cellular Sub-Base
Notes:
CORRECT SCALE.
2.

DRAWING.
3.

Key:
>
>
>
>
1.
>
>
Perforated Pipe
Drainage Pipe
>
>
>
Flow Control Unit
>
>
2.Porous Paving With Aggregate Sub-Base
Filter Drain
>
Land Drainage Filter Drain
>
>
>
>
Surface Drainage
Gully
>
Geocellular Tank
>
>
>
Porous Paving (Aggregate Sub-Base)
>
>
Porous Paving (Cellular Sub-Base)
>
>
Green Roof
3.Geocellular Tank
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
4.Green Roof
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Amendment
Date
By
>
6.Hydro-Brake
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
5.Filter Drain/ Land Drainage Filter Drain
Rev

Tel:- 020 3764 5556
Client
Spire Health Care
Project Title

Drawing Title
Concept SuDS & Drainage Strategy

Proposed Outfall
to Public Sewer
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
Attenuation storage tanks
Maintenance
schedule
Regular maintenance
Remedial actions
Monitoring
Required Action
Frequency
Inspect and identify any areas that are

not operation correctly and take remedial
action if required
Monthly for 3 months then

annually
Remove debris from the catchment

surface
Monthly
For systems where rainfall infiltrates into Annually

the tank from above, check the surface of
the filter for blockage by sediment. Then
remove and replace as necessary
Remove sediment from pre-treatment
structures and/or internal forebays
Annually or as required
Repair/rehabilitate inlets, outlets,

overflows and vents
As required
Inspect/check all inlets, outlets, vents

and overflows to ensure that they are in
good condition and operating as
designed
Annually
Survey inside the tank for sediment build- Every 5 years or as required
up and remove if necessary
15
1.11 Filter drains

Maintenance Schedule
Required Action
Frequency
Remove litter and debris from filter drain

surface
Monthly or as required
Inspect filter drain surface, inlet/outlet

pipework and control systems for
blockages, clogging standing water and
structural damage
Half yearly (Spring and

Autumn)
Remove sediment from pre-treatment

devices
Annually
Remove and replace the surface

geotextile In locations with high pollution
loads, replace or wash the overlying filter
medium
Every 5 years or as required
Remove or control tree roots where they

are encroaching the sides of the filter drain
using methods described in BS 3998:2010
As required
Clear perforated pipework of blockages
As required
Inspect pre-treatments and all pipework for

silt accumulation and establish regularity
of removal of silt
Biannually
Regular maintenance
Occasional maintenance
Monitoring
1.4
Green Roofs
Regular maintenance
Regular inspection
Required Action
Frequency
Remove debris and litter to prevent

clogging of inlet drains and interference
with plant growth
Monthly
During establishment (year one), replace

dead plants and then replace (where >5%
coverage)
Monthly in year one then

annually (in Autumn)
Remove fallen leaves and debris
Six monthly or as required
Remove nuisance and invasive vegetation

(such as weeds)
Managing Mow grasses, prune shrubs and

other planting as required (clipping should
be removed)
Inspect all components including soil

substrate, vegetation, drains, irrigation
systems, membranes and roof structure
for proper operation, waterproofing and
stability.
Annually and after large storm
Inspect soil substrate for evidence of

erosion channels and identify any
sediment sources
Inspect drain inlets to ensure unrestricted

runoff from the drainage layer to the
conveyance or roof drain system
Inspect underside of roof for evidence of

leakage
Stabilise any erosion channels using soil

similar to the original, sources of erosion
should be identified and controlled
As required
If drain inlet has settled, cracked or

moved, investigate and repair as
appropriate
As required
Remedial actions
19
1.15 Inlets, outlets and control structures

Required Action
Frequency
Inspect surface structures, remove

obstructions and silt when necessary
Monthly
Mow/ strim vegetation to a minimum

height of 100mm around structures
Monthly
Remove build-up of silt and debris in

below ground system
Annually
Check top soil is 20mm above edges of

baskets and chambers to avoid mower
damage
As required
Remove cover and inspect that water is

flowing freely and the exit route for the
water is not obstructed
Annually
Unpack stones in basket features and

unblock and repair and repack stone as
design detail as necessary
As required
Repair physical damage if necessary
As required
Regular maintenance
Monitoring
#
Remedial Work
1.2
Permeable pavements
Required Action
Frequency
Brushing and vacuuming
Three times a year, ensuring

two to occur at the end of
winter and after Autumn leaf
fall
Stabilise and mow contributing adjacent

areas
As required
Removal of weeds
As required
Replace any broken or inadequate blocks

considered detrimental to the structural
performance or a hazard to users
As required
Rehabilitation of surface and upper substructure
As required
Remediate any landscaping which,

through vegetation maintenance or soil
slip, has been raised to within 50mm of the
level of the paving
As required or if significant
clogging causes impaired
performance
Initial inspection
Monthly
Inspect for evidence of poor operation

and/or weed growth. If required take
remedial action
3 times a month (48 hours after

large storms)
Inspect silt accumulation rates and

stablish appropriate brushing frequencies
Annually
Monitor inspection chambers
Annually
Regular maintenance
Remedial actions
Monitoring
APPENDIX S9
Surface Water Drainage Calculations
(Micro Drainage Results)

65 Northgate
Newark
Nottingham NG24 1HD
Date 22/06/2016
File SW MODEL 160617-D.MDX
Causeway
Page 1
P16-147
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1
STORM SEWER DESIGN by the Modified Rational Method

Design Criteria for Storm
Pipe Sizes STANDARD Manhole Sizes STANDARD
FSR Rainfall Model - England and Wales
100
Add Flow / Climate Change (%)
0
M5-60 (mm) 20.900
Minimum Backdrop Height (m) 0.200
Ratio R 0.353
Maximum Backdrop Height (m) 1.500
Maximum Rainfall (mm/hr)
50 Min Design Depth for Optimisation (m) 1.200
Maximum Time of Concentration (mins)
30
Min Vel for Auto Design only (m/s) 1.00
Foul Sewage (l/s/ha) 0.000
Min Slope for Optimisation (1:X)
500
Volumetric Runoff Coeff. 0.750
Designed with Level Soffits
Network Design Table for Storm

- Indicates pipe capacity < flow
PN
Length Fall Slope I.Area T.E.

Base
k
HYD DIA
Auto
(m)
(m) (1:X) (ha) (mins) Flow (l/s) (mm) SECT (mm) Design
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
2.000 27.600 0.345

2.001 28.778 0.288
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
Network Results Table

PN
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
19.9
17.8
2.9
5.6
6.0
8.5
9.1
19.3
20.4
25.1
2.4
9.2

65 Northgate
Newark
Nottingham NG24 1HD
Date 22/06/2016
Causeway
Page 2
P16-147
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1

PN

Base
k
HYD DIA
Auto
(m)
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
3.000 10.272 0.103 100.0

3.001 10.685 0.237 45.0
3.002 8.833 0.088 100.0
3.003 5.585 0.056 100.0
3.004 10.018 0.361 27.7
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
4.000 6.986 0.116 60.0

4.001 14.033 0.112 125.5
4.002 20.370 1.787 11.4
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
3.005 11.727 0.727

3.006 11.069 1.006
3.007 21.941 2.194
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

PN
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

65 Northgate
Newark
Nottingham NG24 1HD
Date 22/06/2016
Causeway
Page 3
P16-147
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1

PN

Base
k
HYD DIA
Auto
(m)
3.008 14.249 1.425 10.0

3.009 18.635 1.864 10.0
3.010 6.042 0.046 132.1
3.011 10.440 0.232 45.0
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
8.623 0.058 149.6

3.819 0.334 11.4

PN
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
Free Flowing Outfall Details for Storm

Outfall
Pipe Number
Outfall
Name
C. Level I. Level
Min
D,L
W
(m)
(m)
I. Level (mm) (mm)
(m)
1.015 Outfall Network 1
6.000
5.210
0.000
Simulation Criteria for Storm

Volumetric Runoff Coeff
Areal Reduction Factor
Hot Start (mins)
Hot Start Level (mm)
Manhole Headloss Coeff (Global)
Foul Sewage per hectare (l/s)
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)
Number of Input Hydrographs 0 Number of Storage Structures 6

Number of Online Controls 4 Number of Time/Area Diagrams 3
Number of Offline Controls 0 Number of Real Time Controls 0
Synthetic Rainfall Details

Rainfall Model
FSR
Ratio R 0.353
100 Profile Type Summer
Region England and Wales Cv (Summer) 0.750
M5-60 (mm)
20.900 Cv (Winter) 0.840
0.000
2.000
0.800
0.000
60
1

65 Northgate
Newark
Nottingham NG24 1HD
Date 22/06/2016
Causeway
Page 4
P16-147
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1

Storm Duration (mins) 30

65 Northgate
Newark
Nottingham NG24 1HD
Date 22/06/2016
Causeway
Page 5
P16-147
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1
Online Controls for Storm
Hydro-Brake Optimum Manhole: SWMH-1.11, DS/PN: 1.006, Volume (m): 1.9

Unit Reference MD-SHE-0061-2000-1465-2000
Design Head (m)
1.465
Design Flow (l/s)
2.0
Flush-Flo
Calculated
Objective Minimise upstream storage
Diameter (mm)
61
Invert Level (m)
14.535
Minimum Outlet Pipe Diameter (mm)
75
Suggested Manhole Diameter (mm)
1200
Control Points
Design Point (Calculated)
Flush-Flo
Kick-Flo
Mean Flow over Head Range
Head (m) Flow (l/s)

1.465
0.270
0.546
-
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

Design Head (m)
1.233
Design Flow (l/s)
3.0
Flush-Flo
Calculated
Diameter (mm)
79
Invert Level (m)
12.867
100
1200
Control Points
Flush-Flo
Head (m) Flow (l/s)

1.233
0.345
3.0
2.9

65 Northgate
Newark
Nottingham NG24 1HD
Date 22/06/2016
Causeway
Page 6
P16-147
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1

Control Points
Kick-Flo
Head (m) Flow (l/s)

0.702
-
2.3
2.6
invalidated
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

Design Head (m)
1.164
Design Flow (l/s)
2.0
Flush-Flo
Calculated
Diameter (mm)
65
Invert Level (m)
19.566
100
1200
Control Points
Flush-Flo
Kick-Flo
Head (m) Flow (l/s)

1.164
0.285
0.579
-
2.0
1.8
1.5
1.6
invalidated
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
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

65 Northgate
Newark
Nottingham NG24 1HD
Date 22/06/2016
Causeway
Page 7
P16-147
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1

7.000
7.500
4.6
4.7
8.000
8.500
4.9
5.0
9.000
9.500
5.2
5.3

Design Head (m)
1.025
Design Flow (l/s)
6.1
Flush-Flo
Calculated
Diameter (mm)
115
Invert Level (m)
5.544
150
1200
Control Points
Flush-Flo
Kick-Flo
Head (m) Flow (l/s)

1.025
0.305
0.662
-
6.1
6.1
5.0
5.3
invalidated
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
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

65 Northgate
Newark
Nottingham NG24 1HD
Date 22/06/2016
Causeway
Page 8
P16-147
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1
Storage Structures for Storm
Porous Car Park Manhole: SWMH-1.11, DS/PN: 1.006

Infiltration Coefficient Base (m/hr) 0.00000
Width (m) 10.0
Membrane Percolation (mm/hr)
1
Length (m) 16.2
Max Percolation (l/s)
0.0
Slope (1:X)
0.0
Safety Factor
2.0 Depression Storage (mm)
5
Porosity
0.95
Evaporation (mm/day)
3
Invert Level (m) 15.530
Cap Volume Depth (m) 0.300

Width (m) 10.0
1
Length (m)
2.0
0.0
Slope (1:X)
0.0
Safety Factor
5
Porosity
0.95
3

Width (m) 10.0
1
Length (m)
4.5
0.0
Slope (1:X)
0.0
Safety Factor
5
Porosity
0.95
3

Width (m) 10.0
1
Length (m) 10.0
0.0
Slope (1:X)
0.0
Safety Factor
5
Porosity
0.95
3

Width (m) 20.0
1
Length (m) 10.0
0.1
Slope (1:X)
0.0
Safety Factor
5
Porosity
0.95
3
Cellular Storage Manhole: DUMMY-1, DS/PN: 1.014

Invert Level (m)
5.602 Infiltration Coefficient Side (m/hr) 0.00000
Safety Factor
2.0

65 Northgate
Newark
Nottingham NG24 1HD
Date 22/06/2016
Causeway
Page 9
P16-147
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1
Cellular Storage Manhole: DUMMY-1, DS/PN: 1.014

Porosity 0.95
Depth (m) Area (m) Inf. Area (m) Depth (m) Area (m) Inf. Area (m)
0.000
0.800
170.0
170.0
0.0
0.0
0.801
0.0
0.0

65 Northgate
Newark
Nottingham NG24 1HD
Date 22/06/2016
Causeway
Page 10
P16-147
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1
1 year Return Period Summary of Critical Results by Maximum Level (Rank 1)

for Storm
Simulation Criteria
Areal Reduction Factor 1.000
Hot Start (mins)
0
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

Rainfall Model
FSR
Ratio R 0.350
M5-60 (mm)
20.900 Cv (Winter) 0.840
Margin for Flood Risk Warning (mm)
300.0
Analysis Timestep 2.5 Second Increment (Extended)
DTS Status
ON
DVD Status
OFF
Inertia Status
OFF
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
Summer and Winter

15, 30, 60, 120, 180, 240, 360, 480, 600,
720, 960, 1440
1, 30, 100
0, 0, 20
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
First Y First Z O/F Lvl

Flood Overflow Act. Exc.
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

65 Northgate
Newark
Nottingham NG24 1HD
Date 22/06/2016
Causeway
Page 11
P16-147
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1

for Storm
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
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

65 Northgate
Newark
Nottingham NG24 1HD
Date 22/06/2016
Causeway
Page 12
P16-147
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1

for Storm
PN
US/MH
Name
3.011 SWMH-2.00
1.014
DUMMY-1
1.015 SWMH-1.00
Water
Flooded
Pipe
(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
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.2
6.6
5.9
Status
OK
OK
OK

65 Northgate
Newark
Nottingham NG24 1HD
Date 22/06/2016
Causeway
Page 13
P16-147
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1

for Storm
Simulation Criteria
Hot Start (mins)
0
0
Inlet Coeffiecient
0.000
2.000
0.800
0.000

Rainfall Model
FSR
Ratio R 0.350
M5-60 (mm)
20.900 Cv (Winter) 0.840
300.0
DTS Status
ON
DVD Status
OFF
Inertia Status
OFF
Profile(s)
Duration(s) (mins)
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
Summer and Winter

15, 30, 60, 120, 180, 240, 360, 480, 600,
720, 960, 1440
1, 30, 100
0, 0, 20
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

65 Northgate
Newark
Nottingham NG24 1HD
Date 22/06/2016
Causeway
Page 14
P16-147
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1

for Storm
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
(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
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

65 Northgate
Newark
Nottingham NG24 1HD
Date 22/06/2016
Causeway
Page 15
P16-147
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1

for Storm
PN
US/MH
Name
3.011 SWMH-2.00
1.014
DUMMY-1
1.015 SWMH-1.00
Water
Flooded
Pipe
(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
0.0
0.0
0.0
Status
30.5
OK
8.9 SURCHARGED
6.0 FLOOD RISK

65 Northgate
Newark
Nottingham NG24 1HD
Date 22/06/2016
Causeway
Page 16
P16-147
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
Hot Start (mins)
0
0
Inlet Coeffiecient
0.000
2.000
0.800
0.000

Rainfall Model
FSR
Ratio R 0.350
M5-60 (mm)
20.900 Cv (Winter) 0.840
300.0
DTS Status
ON
DVD Status
OFF
Inertia Status
OFF
Profile(s)
Duration(s) (mins)
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
Summer and Winter

15, 30, 60, 120, 180, 240, 360, 480, 600,
720, 960, 1440
1, 30, 100
0, 0, 20
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

65 Northgate
Newark
Nottingham NG24 1HD
Date 22/06/2016
Causeway
Page 17
P16-147
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1
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
(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
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

65 Northgate
Newark
Nottingham NG24 1HD
Date 22/06/2016
Causeway
Page 18
P16-147
Redevelopment
Designed by EK
Checked by SK
Network 2014.1.1
1) for Storm
PN
US/MH
Name
3.011 SWMH-2.00
1.014
DUMMY-1
1.015 SWMH-1.00
Water
Flooded
Pipe
(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
0.0
0.0
0.0
Status
6.8
OK
9.1 SURCHARGED
6.0 FLOOD RISK

65 Northgate
P16-147
Newark
Nottingham NG24 1HD
Redevelopment
Date 22/06/2016
Designed by EK
File SW MODEL 160617-40%CC R... Checked by SK
Causeway
Network 2014.1.1
Page 10
1) for Storm
Simulation Criteria
Hot Start (mins)
0
0
Inlet Coeffiecient
0.000
2.000
0.800
0.000

Rainfall Model
FSR
Ratio R 0.350
M5-60 (mm)
20.900 Cv (Winter) 0.840
300.0
DTS Status
ON
DVD Status
OFF
Inertia Status
OFF
Profile(s)
Duration(s) (mins)
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%
Summer and Winter

15, 30, 60, 120, 180, 240, 360, 480, 600,
720, 960, 1440
100
40
First X
Surcharge
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
First Z O/F Lvl

Overflow Act. Exc.

65 Northgate
P16-147
Newark
Nottingham NG24 1HD
Redevelopment
Date 22/06/2016
Designed by EK
Causeway
Network 2014.1.1
Page 11
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
First Z O/F Lvl

Overflow Act. Exc.
100/15 Summer
100/15 Summer
100/15 Summer
100/15 Summer
100/15 Summer 100/180 Winter
Water
Flooded
Pipe
(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
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

65 Northgate
P16-147
Newark
Nottingham NG24 1HD
Redevelopment
Date 22/06/2016
Designed by EK
Causeway
Network 2014.1.1
Page 12
1) for Storm
PN
US/MH
Name
3.011 SWMH-2.00
1.014
DUMMY-1
1.015 SWMH-1.00
Water
Flooded
Pipe
(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
0.0
0.0
0.0
Status
7.8
OK
20.3 SURCHARGED
6.0
FLOOD
APPENDIX S10
Foul Drainage Calculations

DS ST Saviour - 1st Issue

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DS ST Saviour - 1st Issue

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainable Drainage Statement

St. Saviours Hospital Redevelopment

SPIRE HEALTHCARE Ltd

SUSTAINABLE DRAINAGE STATEMENT

SPIRE HEALTHCARE Ltd

Morgan Tucker Ltd,

Sustainable Drainage Statement St. Saviours Hospital Redevelopment

EXISTING SITE DETAILS

SURFACE WATER DRAINAGE

FOULD WATER DRAINAGE

SUMMARY AND CONLCUSION

Site Location Plan

Sustainable Drainage Statement St. Saviours Hospital Redevelopment

KCC Submission for Outline Planning Application

KCC SuDS Policy Summary

Micro-Drainage Source Control Parameters

Existing Annual Average Run-off rates

SuDS Options employed at the site

Kent County Councils Drainage and Planning Policy Statement,

Existing and Proposed Impermeable and Permeable area coverage drawings

Southern Water Asset Plans

Greenfield Runoff Calculations

Existing Brownfield Runoff Rates

Concept SuDS and Drainage Strategy Drawings

SuDS Maintenance Schedules

Foul Drainage Calculations

Sustainable Drainage Statement St. Saviours Hospital Redevelopment

Sustainable Drainage Statement St. Saviours Hospital Redevelopment

20% Climate Change with40%

Surface Water Flow routes

Drawings Provided in Appendix

Any constraints which affect the

Steep sloping site, poor

Both SS and FRA

Separate land drainage and

Both SS and FRA

Private maintenance company

Both SS and FRA

Due to the scale of the

Correspondence from any

Southern Water, EA and KCC

FRA, Appendix D, F &

Locations of sensitive receptors

FRA Section 8.4

Table 1 KCC Consultation Submission for Outline Planning Application

Sustainable Drainage Statement St. Saviours Hospital Redevelopment

The aim of this statement is to undertake the following:

Web Site: Floodplain Data Maps: Environment Agency (EA): 2015

Document: C753: Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems: CIRIA: 2015

Document: Part H: Building Regulations 2010

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

Shepway District Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (July 2015)

Sustainable Drainage Statement St. Saviours Hospital Redevelopment

EXISTING SITE DETAILS

Approx. Site Location

Figure 1 - Site Location

Sustainable Drainage Statement St. Saviours Hospital Redevelopment

Ground Conditions and Geology

Sustainable Drainage Statement St. Saviours Hospital Redevelopment

Site is currently hospital/commercial use;

Sustainable Drainage Statement St. Saviours Hospital Redevelopment

Sustainable Drainage Statement St. Saviours Hospital Redevelopment

SURFACE WATER DRANAGE