Minutes
27 June 2013
Bath Flood Management – Optioneering Workshop
Meeting
26th June 2013
Present
Richard Quarry - Capita Symonds
Simon Martin - B&NES Major Projects
Val Dawes - B&NES Major Projects
Richard Jones - Black & Veatch
Nigel Rushmer - Gleeds,
Neil Swanson - Landscape Projects
John Southwell – Environment Agency
Ed Lockington – Environment Agency
Nigel Smith – Environment Agency
Mark Minkley (B&NES)
Tim Hewitt (B&NES)
Lucy Corner (B&NES)
Apologies
Derek Quilter B&NES)
1.0
Introductions
1.1
The parties around the table introduced themselves
1.2
EL advised that JS involvement from the EA perspective in the scheme would
transfer to NS on a day to day basis
2.0
Purpose of the Meeting
2.1
SM introduced the scheme advising that the project is a joint delivery between
B&NES and the Environment Agency. The B&NES Place Directorate is the
Client.
2.2
SM and JS advised that the project has two interwoven objectives. The first
being to offer flood relief mitigation and the second being to enable
development to key sites around the central area. The project also feeds into
the LEP with the ultimate objective of regeneration and job creation.
The Flood Risk Assessment also supports the core strategy.
2.3
It was stated that the outcomes of this meeting would be fed into the Comms
Plan. It was stated that there are two levels of options. The first is the strategic
option which has resulted in the current engineering proposal. This is not
intended to be further reviewed other than to advise on the process already
Quays Office Park, Conference Avenue, Portishead, Bristol, BS20 7LZ
Tel +44 (0)1275 840840 Fax +44 (0)1275 840830 www.capitasymonds.co.uk
Capita Symonds Ltd
Registered office: 71 Victoria Street, Westminster, London SW1H 0XA. Registered in England No. 2018542
Part of Capita plc www.capita.co.uk
Action
undertaken. The second level of options relates to the detail elements of the
engineering proposal.
3.0
3.1
Contextual Background
.
It was advised that a considerable amount of work had already been
undertaken to determine the strategic objective of the scheme. JS advised that
a series of detailed studies have been undertaken. In 2005 Capita undertook a
study of flood risk implications. This was followed by an Atkins study which
focused upon linking flood relief works with a growth agenda in respect of
brownfield sites .There was also a further report undertaken by White Young
Green. JS advised that the Atkins report included stakeholder workshops and
detailed feedback. It was agreed that this information would be obtained and
reviwed in respect of the current project.
3.2
JS advised that the Atkins study was inconclusive in respect of flood
attenuation at Bath Easton.
3.3
RJ advised that a full EIA is required and that part of this process requires
demonstration that all options have been duly considered. SM reiterated that
the current scheme provides most economic benefit and fulfills the
requirements of the Council’s Place Agenda. There is also the benefit of much
of the land ownership of the scheme is in the ownership of the Council.
3.4
JS advised that the impact of the proposed Twerton scheme would not impact
in anyway upon this scheme. The flood gate opens anyway and as such the
EA consider that the Twerton scheme does not stack up technically.
3.5
RJ stated that the current engineering proposal incorporates 20% allowance for
Increase in river levels.
4.0
Option Review of the Current Engineered Proposal
4.1
A series of high level option proposals produced by Black & Veatch were presented
to the meeting.
4.2
The removal of the mature trees and the options surrounding this key issue were the
first item to discuss.
4.3
The option of forming a channel to create an island thus maintaining the trees was tabled.
It was determined that there were in fact two options, the first being to form a bunded channel
And the second to form a channel with water flowing through it which could either be open
or culverted.
4.4
NS advised that the trees were not of good stock and had a short life expectancy. It was
agreed that there are much more suitable tree species which could be replanted which
would offer better ecological and aesthetically properties. It was ascertained that the
Poplars were originally planted to provide a wind break. The meeting was advised that
bat surveys were due to be conducted. Overall it was agreed that new planting would
solve many of the current issues with the trees.
Page 2
RJ
4.5
The issue of SUDS was discussed. SM advised that this has little impact in the city centre.
The future developers would provide SUDS as part of future development proposals.
The new proposed pumping station is only to be operational in times of peak flood.
4.6
It was stated that further dialogue on environmental mitigation measures will be required
involving Canals & Rivers Trust and the River Regeneration Trust. SM advised that it
is also key the Council’s Green Streets strategy is reflected in the scheme.
4.7
The meeting discussed the channel option and considered that this would make an
inaccessible area and may damage the trees in any event. The cost impact of a channel
or culverted scheme needs also to be considered. A culvert may also constrain development.
It was also accepted that both the water corridor and bund/marshy corridor option
would involve more land take.
4.8
There was dialogue in respect of dredging. JS advised that this is not an option as the weirs
Merely nullify the impact.
4.9
There was discussion regarding the use of Green Park to form a conveyance area, thus
avoiding the need to remove the mature trees and to potentially allow for the requirement
of a new pedestrian footbridge. NS advised that there could be some intrinsic benefit in
returning the park to its original condition which may increase usage. There would be
requirement for sheet piling if this option were to go ahead. It was advised that Green
Park is a risk in respect of residents.
4.10
The option to replant the existing trees was discussed. It was stated that there was no
guarantee that the trees would survive and that these species are of little merit anyway
4.10
The second key option to be explored related to the sheet piled wall to the South Bank.
It was suggested that this could be left to the individual developers. SM stated that this
Was not an option as it was key to facilitating a marginal site. RJ advised that the extreme
option would be to construct a new road bridge linking north and south banks thus eliminating
the need to protect Lower Bristol Road from flood. This was discounted on grounds of land
take and cost..
4.11
There was discussion regarding mitigating environmental impacts in respect of the aesthetics
of the sheet piled wall. The suggestion of floating pontoons with rushes and the potential
of a green wall to the vertical sheet piles was discussed. A further option may be to create
a 4m wide shelf at river level.
4.12
The current option regarding temporary flood works to the South Bank was discussed. There
was discussion as to whether the demolition of Building 8a could be brought forward. SM
stated that further planning advise is needed.
SM
4.13
The next option to be discussed was the lighting. This has yet to be design but it was agreed
That cognizance needs to be paid to ecological impacts and that a consistent approach is required.
4.14
There was discussion surrounding the flood barriers required to existing buildings on Lower
Bristol Road. It was agreed that the EA will lead discussions with owners. EA do not
favour direct intervention but do have this as an option. Flood jackets could be an
alternative to fixed barriers. The option of the flood wall along Lower Bristol Road
Page 3
was discussed, though this may have detrimental impact on carriage width which
may not be agreed with Highways. However, both this option and that of the footbridge
provide options for discussion with landowners to avoid being ransomed. The meeting
agreed that the current proposed of flood boards is the most feasible.
5.0
Any Other Business
5.1
There was discussion on funding. B&NES will draw funding from RIF and have capacity
to deliver the project without the EA grant which will drawn down at separate timescales.
5.2
RQ to forward details of Design Team Meeting minutes, risk register and programme to
EA.
6.0
Next Meeting
8.1
It was agreed that a further meeting is required between the Design Team and the EA.
The date of this will be confirmed once design is further developed.
Page 4
RQ