Sustainable Transportation and Urban Planning

This assignment delves into the critical relationship between sustainable transportation, urban planning, and infrastructure resilience. It examines indicators and frameworks used to assess sustainable transport systems, analyzes the impact of climate change and extreme events on infrastructure, and explores risk governance strategies for mitigating flood risks associated with urbanization and transportation projects.

Rail 1
HIGH-SPEED RAIL 2
Tutor’s Name
Institution’s name
City
Date

Rail 2
1. OBJECTIVES
The aim of this report is to discover how the construction of HS2 increase/ decrease the risk of flooding
along the development site (and to seek improvement method?) with the following objectives;
 Identify regions of high risk with an explanation and description of following assessment models
in terms of flood risk management;
I. Strategic Flood Risk Assessment.
II. Sequential Test.
III. The Exception Test
 Identify risks of flooding (e.g. flood the surrounding residential area) using the assessment
models mentioned above to identify the flood risk problems that HS2 development is facing.
Discuss the advantage and disadvantage of the HS2 development impact on flood risk
 Determine risk minimization plan (e.g. flood barrier/ defence) looking into the current flood risk
example in England and how the public and government deal with it using the previous
example, such as the development of national rail, as reference
Evaluation of the disadvantages and advantages of HS2 rail
Advantages
• The development of fast rail transport system across the country benefits the train users
by cheaper and faster movement. Also, there is reduced congestion on the streets.
• There will be job provision from the construction of the rail.
• The curation of travelling across the country will be shortened.
• There would be an environmental mitigation due to the building of green tunnels.

Rail 3
Disadvantages
• There would be benefits only felt by the small train users.
• Benefits of fast travelling to the workplace can be debatable as recent jobs are possible to
be done at home.
• There is no assured guarantee that the passengers would use the train that often.
• The development encourages people to live far from London opting to use the train to
reach London.
• Other alternatives that include further development of existing train length exist.
2. METHODOLOGY
Data were requested from the Environment Agency with the planning of the proposed
government construction site of the HS2 rail and analyzed as per the following described model
methods;
I. Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA).
II. Sequential Test.
III. The Exception Test.
SFRA
The SFRA has a number of objectives during its undertaking. During the undertaking of the
SFRA, there needs to be a provision of sufficient information and data on the flood risk types
that affect the application of Sequential Test in the determination of the allocation of land use
allocation. Also, if necessary, where the application of exception test. The SFRA has to allow
the planning authority to get a full understanding of flood risk from any source within the area.
Also, there is an understanding of the risks from and to the area surrounding the area of

Rail 4
development. Another reason for the use of SFRA is to produce an informative sustainability
appraisal in that the flood risk can be able to be considered fully during the preparation for use of
land. The SFRA has the importance of preparing appropriate policies that can manage the flood
risk. A detailed level of identifying assessment of flood risk sites in specific locations. Moreover,
there is a determination of acceptable relation in flood risk relating to the planning capability of
emergency situations (Filho, et al., 2017).
General scope.
Level 1 SFRA has the benefit of showing the flood risked land outside the area of interest but
fails to accommodate the important development in the area of concern and the application of
exception test. The SFRA scope, therefore, needs to be widened to increase its effect therefore
level 2 is more applicable. The document in this model talks more about level 2 application and
its evaluation. SFRA has to be completed fast enough so as to provide information on the options
of development concerning the land being developed for the rail tracks. Changes that may take
place in the planning would mean some activities in the SFRA had to be done later (United,
2016).
SFRA planning role in high-speed rail 2
SFRA has the role of helping in assessing the suitable potential of broadening site-specific
locations for the development of rail as required by the planning authority. As such, there is
informed evidence-based identification that helps in determination of flood risk level.
However, the main role of using the SFRA is to provide a determined potential site suitable for
gradual stages in plan-making. The gradual stages include the use of Sequential Test or the use
of Exception Test in areas where appropriate. In this model, measures of flood risk mitigation

Rail 5
need to be taken into account as portions of solving the constraints of flood risk (Transport,
2004).
The scope of Level 1 and its approach
An SFRA level 1 has to be sufficient for allowing the use of Sequential Test together with the
identification of whether the site development can be put in medium and high areas of flood risk,
taking consideration of the flooding sources. The flooding sources need not only be coastal and
rivers. Also, the identification need not be for the possibility of use of Exception Test.
Information from the level 1 can principally be studied from the desk that makes the better of
existing data (Great Britain: H.M. Treasury, 2011).
The level 1 has its constituents being;
 Flood map that covers the tidal and river flooding.
 Areas that are more prominent to flooding of their surfaces.
 Data coming from other consultees affected by floods like the local authorities. ‘
 Soil and geological maps that ease the implementation of techniques to be implemented.
 Events involving floods that occurred in the past. May come from the newspaper,
community groups or local residents.
Outputs from level 1
There are key outputs that come from SFRA level 1. Plans form the local authority have an
indication of the flood zones and the ordinary watercourses that include the floodplain.
Moreover, there is an indication of the existing plan on the locality and the previous site
development allocation on the considered on the site in the future. An included implication
assessment of the change in climate for the flood risk allocation site development, this is done

Rail 6
for the appropriate period of time in case it lacks in the plans that were proposed. Areas that are
at risk from flooding sources that include groundwater flooding and the surface water flooding.
Level 1 has the pleasure of informing on the management measures concerning the flood risk
that includes the standard and the location of infrastructure warning systems. A guidance on the
assessment in flood risk preparation for the allocation of development sites is included (Wilson
& Piper, 2010).
This information needs to be sufficient so as to allow the application of additional tests such as
the Sequential Test and to allow the informing of subsequent planning policies and sustainability
appraisal. Level 2, however, needs to be carried out in the field. Level 2 will, therefore, entail
collection of data and their analysis.
SFRA scope of level 2
In level 2, there is an increased level of scope in that there is a higher possibility of later
inclusion of Exception and Sequential Tests. Level 2 has the characteristic of requiring more
information in the areas that have the risk of either medium or high tendency to flood with
lacking alternatives to the application of Sequential Test for development. Such a detailed study,
therefore, requires equally detailed nature in the flood hazard that takes into account the
existence of management measures in flood risks. Such techniques would allow sequential
approach in site allocation that can be adopted in the flood zone areas. Level 2 SFRA also allows
the practices and policies required for ensuring development in areas affected by floods to satisfy
the requirements for the Exception Test. A detailed scope that considers a detailed nature in the
areas rampant with the flood is (Anon., 2016);
 Flood depth.

Rail 7
 Flood probability.
 The rate of flood onset.
 Flood velocity.
Such factors are heavily affected by flood defences presence or any relevant infrastructure.
Flooding that may occur in the infrastructure of such nature may be due to;
 Rising of water level to exceed the defence level (overtopping)
 Operational or constructional defence failure either in part or whole.
 An overload of the surface water system of drainage, this can be due to an own limited
capacity.
Flooding defence information
Information in the level 2 portion of the SFRA has data on the standard, location, and condition
of flood defences of the area under scrutiny for rail building needs to be obtained from the
individuals operating and marinating such assets. More policies that come in the future also need
to be reviewed.
The Environment Agency has a provisioned guidance concerning the assessment of risks that
may occur to people behind the flood defence system. This research suggests three options that
assess the increasing complexity of flood risk. They include simple, intermediate and complex
approaches. Using SFRA is suitable for implementing intermediate and simple methods. The
choice of these approaches heavily depends on the pathways, flood risk and receptor
vulnerability in the region located behind the flood defence. Level 2 analysis is sufficiently
allowing flood defence assessment with the design appropriate to the standard (Hall, et al.,
2016).

Rail 8
Level 2 outputs in SFRA
The results in the SFRA level 2 needs to build on the information source that can be
compromised in level 1 by containing;
 Current condition appraisal of the flood defence in infrastructure together with likely
future management policy in floods taking into consideration the upgrade and
maintenance.
 Consequences and probability appraisal in the failure or overtopping in management if
the infrastructure of the flood that includes allowing climate change possibility.
 Mapping and definition of floodplain functionality in the locations that require such
features.
 Maps that indicate the flood risk distribution across any flood zone from any source of
flood considering climate change.
 Appropriate policy guidance that can satisfy requirements on the flood risk planning and
exception test.
 Preparation guidance on the assessment of the flood risk sites that vary in risks across the
flood zones. More information can be added to make use of the techniques in sustainable
drainage.
 An identification of the areas and locations of critical drainage as well as the
identification of the plans of management of surface water.
 Important recommendations to the informative policy controlled development and
technical issues.
An output of the SFRA aims at providing clear guidance on appropriate measures in risk
management for the zones prone to flooding risks for protection from flooding by the use of

Rail 9
flooding defences. Such measure allows minimized the extent of the various developers
undertaking separate studies of like problems. Some instances allowed improvement of the flood
defences that existed to the management of flood risk residue. In times that the flood defence is
to be considered, the use of SFRA has to include an extent of appraisal of required works that
raise or provide appropriate flood defence (Brebbia, 2014).
Level 2 SFRA provided the necessary information about the risk variation in flood zones having
protection by infrastructure flood defence with the appropriate conclusions drawn to make
recommendations on the potential site development (Thorne, et al., 2007).
Issues that were related to the provision of SFRA
Areas defended
Practice and policy in the management of the areas in particular risks in the planning had to be
included in SFRA. This planning helped in the knowledge of the future development in the plan
of maintenance or management of flood defences as well as the drainage infrastructure. Another
consideration that was to be included in the climate change that has influence over the durability
of the rail development.
It is a recommendation that in case of any allocation of land in the flood defended area, there
needs to be a consideration of the impact of the cumulative impact potential of loss in storage at
the site of allocation within the blood cell. Assessing such a recommendation needed to be
inappropriate scale as well as the nature of the development being proposed together with any
flood risk. If the potential risk has an unacceptable impact, there needs to be the provision of
mitigations or rejection. Such planning is suitable since the impact to the areas being defended

Rail 10
might have a negative or positive flood risk. The circumstances were dependent on such factors
making it essential hydraulic and robust modelling.
Areas with undefended floodplain functionality.
In cases where there is a proposal on the development of areas with undefended floodplains,
these are the areas that are found outside the floodplain functionality, this development had to be
done under compliance with the policies of the local authority. These areas were to remain safe
and maintain their features of not increasing the food risk thereby reducing risks. More issues
that include appropriate guidance provision to developers and the careful consideration are some
of them.
The hierarchy in managing flood risk was used before the coming up of solutions that included
new defences construction and ground raising. The flood defence was possible to be provided in
various ways that included; flood storage and embarked defences on the site. These are the
options in the SFRA.
In cases of coastal areas, that was majorly undefended, if one were to raise the ground, there
would be less impact on the water level emanating from flooding in the tidal sea. Also, providing
compensatory storage might fail. Contrasting this to the undefended areas in the estuaries,
ground raising is possible to impact the tidal levels, therefore, making it necessary for
compensatory storage. Compensatory storage majorly used along with this project as few
instances did not require it in the areas having undefended floodplains. This came handy as the
single development plans had minimal impact on the cumulative impact of many developments.
Compensation plan had to be aiming at provision with levelled basic floodplain mimic features
before the development of the proposed rail development (Schanze, et al., 2006).

Rail 11
Conveyance or flood storage compensatory
In times where there is a need for the proposal of development in flood-susceptible areas, there
might be an establishment of compensatory conveyance that can reduce or prevent an increase in
flood risk. Level 2 SFRA had to provide a feasible flood storage compensation in the area close
to the site of development. In the conveyance routes, the local authority had to consider the
absence of compensatory flood storage since there was no possibility of future application of
Exception Test.
Rates of run-off and the new development volume.
The used SFRA had to provide baseline information on the flooding areas with surface water and
susceptible run-off with a possible future change in climate. The outputs coming from the SFRA
were used identifying the areas that had critical issues in drainage hat involved the determination
of measures that ensured safe managing of risks. Safe management was either done by
investment or development of operating authorities. One specific investment is the sewage
undertakers. Consulting the local authority is one way to realizing this development. Ideas from
the local authority drainage system may be used. Ideas were also possible to be taken from the
environment agency. Lastly, areas that were susceptible to the issues in drainage were identified
before plans were commissioned to seeking ways of managing the flooding of future areas
(Vojinovic, 2015).
The local authority came up with plans that coordinated sub-regional, regional and local levels.
Such a plan enabled;
 The undertaking of a comprehensive assessment of flooding by surface water as a method
of strategic assessment in flood risk as well as prediction of the place of occurrence.

Rail 12
 Making of informed land use decision in planning with the aim of such assessment.
 Clarification of coordination and responsibilities in drainage systems in managing the
risk ineffective and great systems of drainage.
 Improving emergency of plans for flooding by surface water by the production of an
approach that is risk-based and pro-active and therefore making deliverable resources that
are required most.
The initial stage of the SFRA entailed the production of guidance to developers on the
management of surface water together with the potential for the use of sustainable drainage
measures. The policies involved in the SFRA state that the volumes and rates of the run-off of
developments being made should not be greater than the rates of the previously proposed
development, however, specific off-site can be made to come up with a similar net effect. Such
can produce significant developments where developers will have to include the early
development stages of any project (Punter, 2009).
THE SEQUENTIAL TEST
The use Sequential Test is the use of a simpler tool in decision making that is designed to
facilitate no risk or little flooding development in areas of high risk. The developers are urged to
use the most of land appropriately minimizing flood risk. Substitution of land use in that the
areas that are more vulnerable to flooding have lower risks. This test also urges the developers to
use any opportunity that would mean reduction of flood risk that includes; flood pathways
development and creation of flood storage.

Rail 13
The steps mentioned above are the steps that are possible to be used in the rail development in
managing the hierarchy of flood risks.
The aim of the Sequential Test is to avoid any development in the regions experiencing high to
medium flood risks. Any opportunity in finding new developments that are incompatible to water
is reasonable for development in areas with no or little flood risk hence there needs to be an
exploration of such regions prior to any commencing of development of the rail (Mal, et al.,
2017).
Application of the test in regional planning level
The use of sequential tests is possible at the regional level for the identification of broader areas
that need to be developed as well as avoidance of flood risk. If the rai development is to be done
on an area prone to flood risk then a process of sustainability has to be justified prior.
Application on other flooding sources
Before the development in a flood zone areas, the developers have to take into account the
flooding possibility from various sources that can include seas and rivers. The principle used in

Rail 14
identifying the areas with lower risk of flooding has to be applied in the other flooding sources
broadening the approach of source-pathway-receptor (Higgins & Larner, 2017).
Getting such information from the various sources of flooding might be difficult to find thereby
meaning that most situations involve physical pathways and processes leading to flooding being
poorly understood. However, the early developers have to identify regions that are influenced by
a high risk of flooding. This information is most probably stored differently compared to the tidal
data and the river flow that generate the map of flooding zones.
In areas where the information is easily identified, other flooding forms should be treated to
probability mapping of river flooding together with the vulnerability assessment in the
application of exception and sequential tests.
Defining the area of application
Concerning the regional level, the area that was covered in the region that is used in defining the
locational criteria in strategic development in the region. When the area is a sub-regional level,
the local authorities had to join together in reviewing the options of developing the sub-region.
Making this move enhanced a broadened scope of opportunities in reducing the flood risk and
putting more development that was vulnerable to lower flood risk areas. When the development
was done at a local level, the test had to apply according to the local authority since there may be
reduced risk in such areas that could be unsustainable to development in different ways (Renn,
2017).
When doing such development individually, it was critical to make use of the allocated local
documents that were applicable in defining the circumstances of the locality that related to the
infrastructure on the catchment area. Some areas had clear plans while others had the feature of

Rail 15
raking the ideas from the policies of the local plans in that region that had heavy flooding zones
did not have alternatives for the surrounding sites. The national or regional importance in search
areas favoured application of Sequential Tests that covered areas that were possible to cover
several regions.
Application in a pragmatic approach classification had the consideration of the extensive
planning applications that may have been impractical in application or suggestion at least in there
mentioning of alternative development in different locations. In this category, the local authority
had to take the advice from the environment agency to have a consideration of the extent of
Sequential Tests with more considerations to the particular occasions. However, every scenario
has to have justification from the local authority. The local authority then allows performing of
Sequential Test so as to consider the development application. The test would then satisfy that
the intended development would not be very safe and would not lead to rising of flood risk level
in other places. Use of Sequential Test is an advice that is always available to be issued by the
Environment Agency as a standing advice (Proverbs & Brebbia, 2014).
Local level planning application of the Sequential Test
At the local level, there had to be evidence that made the local authority consider the many
possible options that were connected to the information from flood zone vulnerability and the
SFRA during infrastructure development and application of the Sequential Test. also, the
conduction of the Exception Test was taken into consideration in areas that were applicable to it.
Any evidence that came p was provided by processes of sustainable appraisal.
Individual planning application of the sequential Test

Rail 16
The planning application of this nature required a determination that ran in accordance with
policies of development. It involved the use of policies and plans after Sequential Testing with
SFRA evidence being applied in a straightforward nature. An assessment of the flood risk site in
any development area than indicated the meeting of the proposed requirements.
In the areas that involved the use of the on-site application and not planned allocation, the local
authority had to consider proposals that implied flood risk, including the application of
sequential Testing.
If the site under development had not yet been tested sequentially in the local documents, the
application of sequential tests had to be done at the level of individuality. Such cases had to be
provided with the local authority evidence indicating that no other alternative site that may have
been considered possible for similar appropriate and suitable proposed development as the site at
that time. The local authority applied the Sequential Test afterwards. In case the development
that is being proposed had the possibility of widening the sustainable development in the areas
under flood risk then there had to a satisfactory of the three Exception Test criteria that ensured
safe development for the people using the rail under construction in that there would not be an in
increased flood risk (Transport, 2007).
One more instance that required the use of Sequential Test application in times of individual
planning was during the occurrence of the site being proposed to not being in accordance with
the local documents policies and allocation.
The developer had the responsibility of assembling evidence for an application that allowed the
local authority planning officer to conduct any Sequential Test that would mostly include
evidence;

Rail 17
 On the site flood risk. The SFRA local authority had to build on the Environment Agency
map that had the flooding coming from any possible sources. An included site-specific
information had to be available from applications that were made previously.
 Sites that had reasonably available features that were deliverable and suitably
developable, relevant areas of lower risk of floods were used in the rail development.
 Any vulnerable classification in rail development had to put I mind the mixed
development use in the places of vulnerabilities.
 If possible that the Exception Test was not likely to be used, there had to be an evidence e
that indicated the wide benefits of sustainability that outweighed the community flood
risk.
 The development had to safe with the residual risk of flooding being able to be surpassed
to the satisfaction of the stakeholders and the Environment Agency.
Any development that involved undertaking of pre-application discussion with the local
authority, environment agency or other stakeholders had to provide the scope of availability of
different sites that would meet the application of the functional requirements with evidence
required to show that consideration had been issued to a location with alternatively lower risk of
flooding. This allowed the local authority to apply Sequential Tests (Institute, 2007).
Conduction of the Sequential Test facilitated the possibility of existing sites that were reasonably
available for the scale and type of rail development in areas of lower risk to flooding or at
reduced flooding of the site in the application.
Any site that may have been reasonably available had to be identified based on the documents
feeding into the developments of the local documents. These local documents can then be
reviewed with the application of Sequential Testing. It was expected that the test was to be

Rail 18
applied at the individual level. However, some instances were requiring the application of the
test at the planning stage that was to be in accordance with the local document policies and plans.
Windfall Site
Development proposal of done on sites experiencing windfall was to have a difference in the
development plan that was to be sequentially tested. Through the SFRA completion, the local
authority had to develop policies in their local documents concerning the treatment of windfall
areas in accordance with the risk of flooding. Using the Sequential Test, the local authority was
possible to identify areas that were susceptible to windfall with the rail development being done
as per the acceptable development. Also, there had to be a determined criterion for submitting
the application of planning in these circumstances. Rail planning had not to make allowances for
the next 10 years of supply of land. However, there was a possibility of demonstrating the
genuine circumstances that occurred locally in that some sites were prevented from being
identified. Sites experiencing windfall had to be subjected to similar flood risk condition in the
rail construction (European, 2005).
Sequential Test was applied to the windfall sites making an exception if the area in the study had
been performed previous Sequential Test. In areas that lacked Sequential Testing, their proposals
were to be dealt with in accordance with the basis from the individual sites that were identified.
The developer involved, however, was also to provide the evidence to the local authority
showing adequate consideration of other sites that were reasonably available. These moves were
involving consideration of windfall sites compared to other allocated sites that were suitable for
the rail construction.
Application in regenerated or redeveloped areas

Rail 19
There is a required application to the intended planning areas in determining their risk to
flooding hence conduction of Sequential Tests. Conducting this test was also to be done the lands
that were previously developed, had infrastructure on them. An exception was only done to the
lands having been allocated after sequential testing (Lim, 2017).
Redeveloping of such land was to ensure maintenance of local community sustainability. The
local authority had to consider early stage flood risk redevelopment strategy formula. Making
such an approach was to facilitate opportunity creation of reduction of flooding risk to the
surrounding community. There has to opportunities that include the building of flood storage
increasing the drainage elements that are sustainable at the early planning stages together with
the increase of flood flow routes (Charlesworth, 2016).
In areas where there are developments taking place, strategy to regenerate the flood zones, it had
to be accepted that redevelopment would not be done at any other place due to lack of another
alternative place of construction of the rail. However, the application of the Sequential Test had
to be done within the area of regeneration. Some cases had appropriate sequential tests that were
formal in the location application. There had not to be a possibility of halting or compromising
the regeneration in the conduction of the test when rail building. The redevelopment strategy had
to have successfully passed through the three Exception Test parts. The development site was
considered as a part of the strategy of regenerating the locality making it more likely to pass the
first two Exception Test parts (Collins & Porras, 2011).
3.THE EXCEPTION TEST
Part a) Benefits for wider sustainability

Rail 20
In sites that involved allocation of a potential planning application that fails in scoring positive
heights, the local authority had to consider whether using the condition of planning was possible
to make the site attain positive heights. In case this was not possible, then the first part of the
exception test was not accomplished to satisfaction thereby making the proposed scheme liable
for refusal of permission to commence development (Britain., et al., 2004).
The developer had to provide reasoned applications of planning with wider sustainability that
benefited the community surpassing the flood risk. The local authority has the chance of
considering using the checklist for sustainability (Gudmundsson, et al., 2015).
Part b) land that was previously developed
The guidance on the development of previously developed land is as indicated in the Sequential
test above.
Part c) safe development
The developer is to provide a prepared management in the flood risk strategy sector responsibly
to the Environment agency or any regulatory body that indicate the safety of the construction of
the rail. The strategy has to cover;
 Egress and access.
 Flood defence design infrastructure.
 Resident awareness.
 Funding arrangements and evacuation procedures.
 Development design in management and reduction of flood risk.
 Flood warning.

Rail 21

Rail 22
3. Discussion and Results
Results
The map showing HS2 area of connection through the country of England is shown below.
(Britain., et al., 2004)
(Britain., et al., 2004)

Rail 23
(Blaikie, et al., 2014)
The regions that are mapped with signs on the map are the areas that are susceptible to flooding
in England. These areas required the critical construction of the HS2 in accordance with the
models described above. They are the regions that are possible to be flooded by rivers or seas.
(Brebbia, 2014)
The above map shows an increased rainfall intensity in the deep blue region of 2014 study.
These regions are heavily susceptible to flooding compared to the 2013 map shown below;

Rail 24
(Brebbia, 2014)
Discussion
In these areas of flood risk, the measures of containing floods have to be taken into consideration
as per the models discussed above. Constructing the HS2 rail needs not to increase the flood risk
but reduce its effect on the environment. When the constructing company takes into
consideration these flood maps, there will be proper implementation of the SFRA test, sequential
test ad exception test after the project completion (Britain., et al., 2004).
Looking at the flood map of 2014 survey, the deep blue regions are heavily susceptible to
flooding. The flooding would come from surface water or groundwater flooding. Therefore,
methods that could reduce the effect of flooding as the rail goes through these regions such as the
construction of flood storage structures and development of green tunnels would be important.
In the areas that are close to rivers and seas, it is seen that there are risks of flooding. Measures
that are discussed in the models above are hence crucial to maintaining the constructed project as
well as the lives of the individuals living in them (Britain., et al., 2004).
In all these regions, the following measures as per the imposed risk were to be taken;

Rail 25
a. Surface Water
HS2 was a project designed to reduce or avoid adverse influence on the rivers, ponds, streams
and groundwater. The routes have to be developed using structures that ensure less effect to the
watercourse quality with the rail route crossing on the rivers or streams by the use of span
bridges or viaduct. In instances where there are river diversions, there has to be a designed
reduction in effect to the surrounding. Some of the structures to be used are the cuttings that
might slightly impact ponds and springs or any ecological site (Blaikie, et al., 2014).
The proposed scheme design included the use of drainage systems that were sustainable and
allow rate control, as well as the quality and volume of run-off on the rail that was to be
constructed. The construction also projected the effect of climate change. Such a system would,
therefore, help in reducing or avoiding flood risk helping to marinate the flow regime of nature
by allowing soaking of stormwater into the ground. In areas that soaking of water into the ground
failed, there were watercourses that directed the water into sewers at controlled rates. Drainage
systems were therefore influential in the surface water management (Proverbs, et al., 2016).
b. Groundwater
An analysis has to be produced from the flow of groundwater, its quality and levels. When the
assessment produced a prediction of a probable increase in adverse effect, a management
strategy has to be developed together with the environment agency. The adverse effect that
would come due to the construction of the rail that included tunnels that were excavated should
be mitigated locally in practicable reasonable areas. Hence there was a demonstration that the
groundwater past tunnels did not reduce. The rail construction was, therefore, to be developed
encouraging the groundwater body rechargeability (Kabisch, et al., 2018).

Rail 26
Adverse effects on the quality of groundwater were to be mitigated by implementation of a set of
rules drafted from the Code of Construction Practice. The impacts to the groundwater were to be
then presented in accordance with its pollution to the land (Great, 2016).
c. Flood Risk
In instances that involved an increase of flood risk by the associate works in rail construction, the
design had to reflect the National Planning Policy Framework. The design aimed at preventing
an increase of flooding risk to vulnerable receptors that included the residential property in the
lifetime of rail development. The effects took into account the projection of impact by a change
in climate. A required design produced a mitigated loss in the creation of floodplain replacement
areas of storage (Ginn & Goodman, 2016).
In the instance that had the possibility of being substantiated to the works undertaken, the nearby
or adjacent lands were subject to flood risk increase resulting to reduction of land value. Such
occurrences had to be compensated in accordance with the Compulsory Purchase Act (Rodrigue,
et al., 2016).
Risks involving a high-level change in climate together with the resilient assessment being
performed to identify the climate change potential risk regarding the proposed scheme. Also, the
scheme had to be assessed in its resilience as well as the capacity of coping with the potential
risks. Additionally, a comprehensive assessment of the flood risk was carried out in every
community in consultation with the known Environment Agency (the, 2015).
d. Monitoring
Monitoring of the proposed scheme of construction is to be done in accordance with the
Environment agency prior and in the process of construction. If there is a need to perform

Rail 27
monitoring after construction it will be done. This adherence would establish conditions that are
baseline in surface water as well as groundwater. Monitoring also provided a confirmation of the
effectiveness of permanent and temporary measures of mitigation together with probable
remedial works that may be necessary (Walls, et al., 2016).
e. Legislative Provisions
The protective bill provisions state that before the start of any specified work of construction, the
developer will have to produce and submit plans that include the method of statements for the
works to be done to the Environment Agency or to any other body of regulation for approval.
The works that follow thereafter will then be performed in accordance with the plans that have
been approved.
The involved regulatory body such as the Environment Agency, as well as others, make
conditions that require the chosen developer on the constructor of rail, in this case, will perfume
such works with the maintenance of safeguarding of any drainage work from any damage. Also,
the developer has to ensure that the flood defence is not impaired in the process (Bittencourt, et
al., 2016).
4. CONCLUSION
In the identification of regions susceptible to flooding, the use of geographical maps indicate the
deep blue areas that are possible to be flooded. Flooding is possible from high rainfall intensity
as well as the overflow of seas and rivers. Another map has indicated areas that could be flooded
by use of signs. In this area, the mentioned tests have provided ways of critically developing
ways that can allow friendly HS2 construction in these areas.

Rail 28
One more statement to conclude is the risks that the HS2 development faces on flooding. The
construction of the rail would mean crossing flood risk areas that may lead to the hindrance of
flow of water or development of structures that occupy settling areas of water. This occupation
leads to the resultant flooding in other areas since the water finds some other places t settle. Such
risks have been proposed to be minimized by the use of green tunnels and other discussed
solutions. HS2 construction has brought advantages such as ease in cross-country travel duration
and provided better travelling alternative means. However, disadvantages like only benefitting
the small users of trains come with it.
Plans that minimize the risk in HS2 development have been discussed to include the use of flood
map that covers the tidal and river flooding, identification of areas that are more prominent to
flooding of their surfaces and making use of data coming from other consultees affected by
floods like the local authorities. Also, soil and geological maps have been used in the ease the
implementation of techniques to be implemented.

Rail 29
References
Anon., 2016. Land Drainage and Flood Defence Responsibilities. 5, illustrated ed. Brighton & Hove (: I
C E-Publishing.
Bittencourt, T., Frangopol, D. & Beck, A., 2016. Maintenance, Monitoring, Safety, Risk and Resilience of
Bridges and Bridge Networks. 1 ed. Southampton: CRC Press.
Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I. & Wisner, B., 2014. At Risk: Natural Hazards, People's Vulnerability
and Disasters. 2, revised ed. Salisbury: Routledge.
Brebbia, C., 2014. Risk Analysis IX. illustrated ed. Leeds: WIT Press.
Britain., G., Government, O. f. Y. a. t. H. & Yorkshire, a. H. A., 2004. Regional Spatial Strategy for
Yorkshire and the Humber to 2016: Based on Selective Review of RPG12. 1 ed. Truro: The Stationery
Office.
Charlesworth, M., 2016. Sustainable Surface Water Management: A Handbook for SUDS. illustrated ed.
Truro: John Wiley & Sons.
Collins, J. & Porras, J., 2011. Built to Last: Successful Habits of Visionary Companies. reprint ed.
Westminster: HarperCollins.
European, F. o. G., 2005. European Geologist, Issues 19-24. 1 ed. Salford: European Federation of
Geologists.
Filho, W. et al., 2017. Handbook of Climate Change Communication: Vol. 2: Practice of Climate Change
Communication. 1 ed. London: Springer.
Ginn, P. & Goodman, R., 2016. Full Steam Ahead: How the Railways Made Britain. illustrated ed. St
Albans: HarperCollins Publishers.

Rail 30
Great Britain: H.M. Treasury, I. U., 2011. National infrastructure plan 2011. illustrated ed. Bradford: The
Stationery Office.
Great, B., f. T., 2016. Government Overview of the Case for HS2 Phase One and Its Environmental
Impacts. 1 ed. Salisbury: Stationery Office.
Gudmundsson, H., Hall, R., Marsden, G. & Zietsman, J., 2015. Sustainable Transportation: Indicators,
Frameworks, and Performance Management. illustrated ed. Westminster: Springer.
Hall, W., Tran, M. & Nicholls, R., 2016. The Future of National Infrastructure. illustrated ed. Bristol:
Cambridge University Press.
Higgins, V. & Larner, W., 2017. Assembling Neoliberalism: Expertise, Practices, Subjects. 1 ed.
Leicester: Springer.
Institute, R. T. P., 2007. Planning, Issues 1700-1712. 1 ed. Hereford: Planning Publications.
Kabisch, S. et al., 2018. Urban Transformations: Sustainable Urban Development Through Resource
Efficiency, Quality of Life and Resilience. 1 ed. Sunderland: Springer.
Lim, C., 2017. Inhabitable Infrastructures: Science Fiction Or Urban Future?. 1 ed. Truro: Taylor &
Francis.
Mal, S., Singh, R. & Huggel, C., 2017. Climate Change, Extreme Events and Disaster Risk Reduction:
Towards Sustainable Development Goals. 1 ed. Lincoln: Springer.
Proverbs, D. & Brebbia, C., 2014. Flood Recovery, Innovation and Response IV. illustrated ed. Hereford:
WIT Press.
Proverbs, D., Mambretti, S., Brebbia, C. & Ursino, N., 2016. Urban Water Systems & Floods. illustrated
ed. Sunderland: WIT Press.
Punter, J., 2009. Urban Design and the British Urban Renaissance. 1 ed. Lincoln: Routledge.

Rail 31
Renn, O., 2017. Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World. 1 ed. Leicester : Taylor
& Francis.
Rodrigue, J., Comtois, C. & Slack, B., 2016. The Geography of Transport Systems. 1 ed. Salisbury:
Taylor & Francis.
Schanze, J., Zeman, E. & Marsalek, J., 2006. Flood Risk Management: Hazards, Vulnerability and
Mitigation Measures. illustrated ed. Lancaster: Springer Science & Business Media.
the, U. o. M., 2015. The Engineer, Volume 55. 1 ed. St Albans: Morgan-Grampian (Publishers).
Thorne, C., Evans, P. & Penning-Rowsell, E., 2007. Future Flooding and Coastal Erosion Risks.
illustrated ed. Leeds: Thomas Telford.
Transport, G. B. D. f., 2004. The future of rail. 1 ed. Chichester: The Stationery Office.
Transport, G. B. D. f., 2007. Delivering a sustainable railway. illustrated ed. Hereford: The Stationery
Office.
United, N. P., 2016. The World's Cities in 2016. 1 ed. Birmingham: UN.
Vojinovic, Z., 2015. Flood Risk: The Holistic Perspective. illustrated ed. Lancaster: IWA Publishing.
Walls, L., Revie, M. & Bedford, T., 2016. Risk, Reliability and Safety: Innovating Theory and Practice:
Proceedings of ESREL 2016 (Glasgow, Scotland, 25-29 September 2016). 1 ed. Southampton: CRC
Press.
Wilson, E. & Piper, J., 2010. Spatial Planning and Climate Change. 1 ed. Chichester: Routledge.