River Hull Advisory Board
River Hull Integrated
Catchment Strategy
October 2014
Preferred Approach
Draft Summary
Foreword
The River Hull Valley is one of the most at risk flood plains in the United Kingdom; a low-lying area,
vulnerable to flooding from rivers and the sea. The City of Hull and large parts of the East Riding of
Yorkshire have for centuries relied on man-made drainage and flood defences for the safety of
residents and sustainability of commerce and agriculture.
With the weather patterns witnessed over the last decade and rising sea levels the need to improve
our drainage systems and flood defences has become essential.
The management of these assets has often been challenging, with many differing, often competing
interests and operators. The River Hull Advisory Board has been able to bring these parties
together to develop a positive framework to manage the River Hull Valley over the next 20 years
and beyond.
This draft strategy is the product of two years of hard work undertaken by experts in the field. For
the very first time we have been able to study all types of flooding from the complex network of
rivers and land drains, rainfall, groundwater and sewers, and consider how they all react with each
other. We now have a clearer understanding of the impacts and costs of flooding to our residents,
businesses and agriculture.
Over the last two years professionals from East Riding and Hull City Councils, the Environment
Agency, Beverley and North Holderness Drainage Board and Yorkshire Water have worked with
experts to develop a detailed understanding of drainage and flood risk.
Multiple solutions have been tested, not only taking into account technical and financial matters but,
through our Community Panel, we’ve been able to engage with residents, businesses and
landowners to consider the practical concerns.
Many other people have been actively involved with the development of this strategy and I would
like to thank my fellow MPs, Timothy Kirkhope MEP, Ward Councillors, representatives from
Natural England and the National Farmers Union for their advice and support throughout this
process.
I am pleased to present a wide-ranging approach to managing drainage and flood risk in the River
Hull Valley - works that are essential to sustain and grow the place we call ‘Home’. Securing
funding to improve flood defences will be challenging but I believe it can be achieved.
Graham Stuart,
Member of Parliament for Beverley and Holderness
Chairman, River Hull Advisory Board
River Hull Advisory Board
River Hull Integrated
Catchment Strategy
October 2014
Preferred Approach
Draft Summary
The River Hull Advisory Board
The River Hull Advisory Board was set up under the chairmanship of Graham Stuart MP to bring
together the five flood risk authorities that have responsibilities within the River Hull valley. Local
Elected Members of the Councils sit on the Advisory Board; these are Councillors Fraser (ERYC),
Hewitt (HCC) and Matthews (ERYC), with the latter 2 Councillors also being members of the
Yorkshire Regional Flood and Coastal Committee. Other organisations with a strong interest in
drainage and flood management were also invited to contribute.
Figure 1 sets out the makeup of the advisory board including arrangements for project delivery and
community engagement.
Figure 1 - Governance
1
The Study Area
Figure 2 – Topography
Driffield 

Beverley 
Bransholme 
2
Hull Figure 2 shows the height of the land relative to sea level, the blues indicate land that sits below sea
level at high tide. This plan clearly shows why much of the area is at flood risk.
Figure 3 - The River Hull Valley
Figure 3 shows the natural hydraulic basin of the River Hull, outlined in red. Because of engineering
works over many years it is now sub-divided into three parts called catchments; these are the
(upper) River Hull, the Holderness Drain, and the urban Hull and Haltemprice catchments.
Facts and Figures
Table 1 – Facts and Figures
Watercourses
Average annual rainfall
Urban areas
233 km of main watercourses/rivers
Between 625 to 825mm
Kingston-Upon-Hull, Beverley, Driffield
Total for
Strategy area
Extent at Risk of
flooding
% At risk of
flooding
Population Numbers
Area
Agricultural grade land (1 - 3)
Residential properties
Motorway
A class roads
Railway
Canals
386,000
980 km2
858 km2
165,000
0.0 km
202 km
56.7 km
13.3 km
217,000
155 km2
96 km2
99,000
0.0 km
30.5 km
13.8 km
7.5 km
56
16
11
56
15
24
56
Sites of Special Scientific
Interest (SSSIs) (ha)
Schedule Monuments Nos
415 ha
66 ha
16
185
6
6
Assets
3
Links to other Relevant Plans, Programmes and Strategies
Primarily, both local authorities are responsible for producing a statutory document called the Local
Flood Risk Management Strategy. These documents, currently at draft stage, when adopted will go on
to set out how flood risk should be managed locally. Other flood risk authorities must have regard to
the measures and objectives set out in these strategies. The work undertaken for this, the River Hull
Integrated Catchment Strategy (RHICS) will help inform this work.
As local planning authorities both Hull (HCC) and East Riding Councils (ERYC) have produced
Strategic Flood Risk Assessments (SFRA), used to inform the planning process. The Councils have
also produced Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments (PFRA) which ascertained, at a high level, the
history and likelihood of flooding. The PFRA identified that one of the catchments of the River Hull
valley - the Hull and Haltemprice Catchment - presented a significant risk that was reportable at
European Level. This means that the Councils are statutorily obliged to produce a Flood Risk
Management Plan (FRMP) for this area which sets out the flood risk and interventions required to
reduce surface and groundwater flood risk in the catchment. ERYC is producing FRMPs electively for
the other catchments, and again these will be informed by the RHICS.
The Environment Agency published and adopted in 2010 the Hull & Coastal Streams Catchment
Flood Management Plan (CFMP), including the River Hull Valley area. It defined the broad approach
to managing different parts of the River Hull. Recent legislation has made the Agency responsible for
FRMPs where there is a risk from river flooding. These management plans are first considered at the
Humber Basin Level and subsequently at catchment level in more detail; these will use information
from and eventually replace CFMPs. The Humber Basin covers one fifth of England, taking in the
Trent and Ouse and all their tributaries, and cities such as York, Leeds, Nottingham, Leicester,
Derby, Birmingham and Stoke, as well as Hull and Grimsby.
Yorkshire Water produces a five year Asset Management Plan that determines its priorities for
investment. These plans must be approved by the water regulator, Ofwat, who make a determination
about how much money can be raised through bill payers and how investment should be directed. It
has invested c£40m at its three large pumping stations in Hull since 2007, and is currently investing a
further £16m on new pumps at Bransholme pumping station which form part of the RHICS.
Modelling studies are also ongoing with partners to understand the Hull and Haltemprice Catchment
in more detail.
There are important linkages between River Hull Strategy and the Strategic Economic Plans (SEP)
prepared by the Local Economic Partnerships (LEPs). The two LEPs that cover the catchment
(North Yorkshire, York and the East Riding LEP in the north of the catchment and the Hull &
Humber LEP in the south), both support measures to reduce and manage risk, recognising flood risk
as a barrier to development. The Humber LEP’s Economic Plan specifically supports the development
of the River Hull Integrated Catchment Strategy as many of the aspirations set out in its economic
plans are heavily reliant on continued investment in drainage and flood risk infrastructure.
How does the River Hull Valley Work?
The area has been heavily modified over the many centuries. The 18th century saw a significant
period of engineering intervention, with works based on Dutch methods and experience in the Fens.
A large part of the engineering systems recognisable today were in place by 1810.
Headwaters start in streams (gypseys) and springs (kelds) to the east, west and north of Driffield,
which are fed by groundwater emanating from the chalk of the Yorkshire Wolds. These headwaters
4
join just south of Driffield to form the start of the River Hull. Where the river encounters low lying
land, the river has been embanked with dykes to both sides, raising the river above natural ground
level. This approach continues through the city of Hull all the way to the mouth of the Humber.
These works were undertaken to prevent the lower valley flooding seasonally. The River Hull
experiences a tidal impact up to Hempholme weir, some 22km from the Humber. Together with
tributaries such as Watton Beck and Mickley Dike, the river and these elevated watercourses make
up the ‘high level system’.
The schematic shown at Figure 4 shows the complexity of the River Hull System
Figure 4 - River Hull Schematic
Mainly to the west of the river is the entirely man-made Beverley & Barmston Drain and its
tributaries, cut into the surrounding land. Also man-made, the Holderness Drain system serves low
5
lying land to the east of the river. These systems, built originally for navigation and drainage purposes
have an important flood risk function. With the help of a series of pumping stations and tidal doors
known as ‘cloughs’ these watercourses make up the ‘low level system’.
The chalk Wolds are an important aquifer, providing good quality drinking water; as such, they are
afforded a level of protection through groundwater source protection zones. There are dozens of
springs along their eastern and southern slopes. The chalk dips to the east, where it is overlain by
clays (over 10m deep in east Hull, for example) with pockets of glacial sands and gravels.
Figure 5 - Groundwater Protection Zones
What will the Strategy Achieve?
Previous attempts at strategies and plans have been undertaken; however, it has proven difficult to
reach agreement between all parties that have responsibly and interests in the River Hull valley. An
earlier (2010) draft catchment strategy prepared by the Environment Agency focussed mainly on
river (fluvial) flooding and did not fully take into account groundwater, surface water and sewer
flooding.
Partners agreed to build on the work undertaken as part of other plans and strategies to develop a
greater understanding of flood risk, by undertaking new technical studies using the best available and
the most up-to-date information and techniques, looking at the risk of flooding from all sources
including rivers (fluvial), rainfall (pluvial), groundwater (springs), and surface water (sewers and
overland flows) as well as tidal impact. The project’s aim is that:
6
The River Hull Integrated Catchment Strategy will provide a clearly defined and sustainable multi-agency
strategy for the management of flood risk in the natural River Hull valley and support a modified draft River
Hull Flood Risk Management Strategy.
Traditionally the different flood management authorities have had to bid for resources on an
individual basis. Working together to use these resources is essential as:
 some infrastructure serves more than one function and is operated by more than one agency
 changes to one part of the network by one agency could have adverse effects on another if done
in isolation; wider impacts need to be recognised
 opportunities for efficiencies can be achieved through joint prioritisation of investment and
maintenance.
Partners have agreed to defer proposed schemes pending the outcome of this study. One example is
the Environment Agency’s study for Holderness Drain and Bransholme.
Yorkshire Water has undertaken a study of the Hull & Haltemprice sewer network identifying
investment need. This work will be developed further.
How has the Strategy been undertaken?
The five flood risk management authorities have contributed to the cost of carrying out the study.
The East Riding of Yorkshire Council has managed the project on behalf of partners, and appointed
technical experts to carry out various elements of the study. The project management structure is
shown at Figure 6.
Figure 6 - Project
Management
7
Four tasks were undertaken:
 Hydraulic modelling, using an upgraded industry-accepted highly sophisticated computer programme
 Engineering studies and options, including outline design and costing
 Cost-benefit analysis, to measure the cost of flood damages for all the options and scenarios generated
 A Strategic Environmental Assessment, in order to comply with statutory environmental legislation.
The study has assessed:
 130km of watercourses
 5, 10, 50 and 100 year flood scenarios
 storm event scenarios lasting 10 and 75 hours
 3 climate change scenarios for 2055, 2085 and 2115
 surface water models using 40,000 data points
 values for properties (residential and commercial), agriculture (land and crops) and critical infrastructure
 the entire condition of the river from Tickton to the Humber using a bathymetric survey of the river using
sonar and satellite
 new surveys of land drainage systems
 the modelling outcomes against actual observed flooding from data collected since 2007
 and many more factors…………..
Figure 7 - Sample of a Bathymetric Survey
8
Developing and Analysing Options
Project partners drew up a list of potential solutions which through an iterative process was
narrowed to 15 options. It was agreed that variations and combinations of some of these should also
be analysed, so the option list was increased to 20 which are set out in table 2.
The purpose of testing these options was to try and reduce flooding as close as possible for 1%
Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) (1 in 100 year) flooding events. The engineering solutions
considered were to assess amongst other things:
 changes to pumping regimes and other control structures
 new control structures
 enhancements
 diversions
 embankments raising
 storage solutions.
The effects of these options were tested in a computer model to assess the benefits (level of flood
reduction and other effects), measured against the costs if implementing these solutions.
What options were ruled out?
It was possible to rule out some options early on:
 diverting water courses to the coast
 diverting the Holderness Drain east of Hull
 widening or deepening land drains
 increasing pumping at Waterside pumping station, Beverley.
These were ruled out for different reasons, singly or in combination, because:
 there was no or insignificant effect on flood risk
 they create additional or greater flood risk
 the risk is just moved to other locations
 there are more cost effective solutions.
The bold options highlighted in Table 2 progressed to the next stage.
9
Table 2 - Options
Option
Description
1a
Increased pump capacity at Great Culvert and East Hull Pumping Station
1b
As for (1a), with Tickton Pumping Station replaced with flap valve and weir.
1b
(22limit)
2
As for 1b, with East Hull Pumping Station limited to 22 m3/s peak.
3b
Holderness Drain offline storage - upstream of Tickton Pumping Station
4e
Eske offline storage
4f
Weel offline storage
4g
As for (4f), with increase Waterside Pumping Station pumping operation
5
Increased Waterside Pumping Station capacity
6
River Hull dredging and maintenance
7b
Raise Holderness Drain embankments below Great Culvert Pumping
Station
7i
Raise Beverley & Barmston Drain embankments south of Beverley Beck
8
Upland natural attenuation
9
Holderness drain diversion
10
Upper Hull diversion
11
Sluicing for tidal exclusion (i.e. Hull Tidal barrier or new structure)
12
Combination of 1b, 4f, 7b and 8
13
Increased pumping capacity at Bransholme Pumping Station
14a
Combination of 4f and 11
15a,b,c
Changes at Wilfholme and Hempholme pumping stations.
10 Holderness Drain reshaping/widening
Developing the Preferred Option
To compare the effectiveness of options it was important to have a baseline. For the strategy two
baselines were developed, initially for fluvial options only.
The first baseline was to ‘Do Nothing’, which is effectively walking away from all defences and
controls and allow the system to degrade. If this were allowed to occur present value damage
through flooding would be almost £3.5 billion to property and £2.3 billion to agriculture over the
investment period.
The second baseline was to ‘Do Minimum’, which was to maintain the system to current standards,
but no more. For this option, the present value damages were estimated to be £1 billion of damage
to property and £171m to agriculture over the investment period. The continued cost of
maintaining current flood assets in this scenario is estimated to be £1.2m per annum.
Holderness Drain
The Holderness Drain has pumping stations at Tickton and Great Culvert (Bransholme) to lift the
water to a sufficient height to reach the tidal gates (clough) where it enters the Humber. In flood
conditions, and when high tide closes the gates, East Hull pumping station operates. The
superstructure and the majority of pumps in this station are operated by Yorkshire Water. Some of
the pumps and the main inlet structure from the Holderness Drain are operated by the Environment
Agency.
Figure 8 – Predicted
1% AEP Revised
Holderness Pumping
Regime
Driffield 
Beverley

Hull 
11
Under normal conditions the water in the Drain is pumped away using the Environment Agency
pumps. In times of flood the Yorkshire Water Pumps are brought into play by agreement. Options
explored include increasing pump sizes. The optimum solution is to increase pump capacity at Great
Culvert Pumping Station from 12.8 to 18.2 cubic metres a second (m3/s) and East Hull from 7.5 to
22 m3/s. Modelling shows, if this occurs, then Tickton Pumping Station could be replaced with a 7m
wide weir and a 2m wide flap valve.
This solution only works by creating embankments at low spots on the drain allowing more water to
pass forward. 1957m of embankments are required, with an average height of 0.2m. Embankments
will also be need to Ganstead Drain to ensure parts of Longhill have no increased flood risk, 1731m
of embankments, with an average height of 0.3m, will be required here.
It is estimated peak flood volumes for 1% AEP (1 in 100 year) event would decrease by 21%, or
over 1 million m3.
The effects of building embankments north of Tickton and to Monk Dike were also explored. Banks
of 2.7m high would be required to Holderness Drain and 2m to Monk Dike. However, this would
displace flooding downstream, with substantial additional flooding south of Tickton.

This option has gone forward to the final list of projects.
Figure 9 - Proposed Holderness and Ganstead Drains Embankment Raising
(Embankments Shown in Red)
12 Beverley & Barmston Drain
Increasing the capacity of the Waterside Pumping Station in Beverley has been considered; however,
modelling showed this has no beneficial effect. In fact there is an increased depth and extent of
flooding on the high level system, north of the station, particularly around Mickley Dike. All variants
of this option have been discarded.
Creating embankments to the south of the pumping station is shown to have benefits. To prevent
flooding around Dunswell approximately 721m of the Beverley & Barmston Drain would benefit
from new embankments with an average height of 0.25m. As water would back up along Western
Drain this will need 3231m of new banks with an average height of 1m.
The existing flap valve where the two drains meet is inadequate and contributes to flooding, so a new
2m wide high-flow weir is proposed.
The net saving of this proposal is 200,000m3 of flood volume is kept in channel, or 2% of total
Figure 10 - Proposed Embankments on Beverley and Barmston and Western Drains (Embankments Shown in Red)
flood volume. This option has the lowest positive benefit-cost ratio of all the schemes tested, and
while positive, is likely to require more work to secure funding.
• This option has gone forward to the final list of projects.
13
River Hull Improvements
Three different solutions have been tested to improve capacity in the river Hull
a) channel maintenance
b) increased use of the tidal surge barrier
c) a new barrage within the river for tidal exclusion.
Figure 11 – Sunken vessel
The recent river survey shows that up to half the capacity of the river is lost in places. This is
particularly acute between Beverley and Tickton, where there are several sunken, abandoned vessels.
Modelling has shown that dredging and re-profiling the riverbed and banks back to a profile not seen
since the 1950s would increase the river’s capacity by 10% in flood conditions, and reduce water
levels by almost 1 metre.
14 Figure 12 - Channel restrictions
In order to re-profile the river a technique called water injection dredging (WID) is recommended;
this method mobilises sediments within the water and moves it downstream. This avoids excavating
silt by traditional mechanical means out and depositing it on land or removing it to a licensed tip. The
dredging needs to be carried out sympathetically to avoid unnecessary environmental impacts and
account for redistribution of the silt elsewhere in the Humber Estuary.
Further discussions will need to be held with regulators and Associated British Ports Humber, who
have a dredging programme for the estuary. The cost of these works is estimated to be around
Figure 13 – Siltation in the lower river
Figure 14 – Water injection dredgin
g
(WID) £600,000, and may require revisiting approximately every 10 years.

This option has gone forward to the final list of projects.
15
At present the River Hull Tidal Surge Barrier is designed to operate when tides are expected to
exceed 4.25mAOD in order to protect City and low lying land from flood risk. The tidal barrier has
also been used speculatively for the purposes of ‘sluicing for tidal exclusion’ with the purpose of
making room in the river during high tides, with some apparent degree of success. In order to test
this theory, a number of model runs were tested at different tide levels.
It has been found that in times of flood, preventing tidal ingress above a 2mAOD level (on the
estuary) was judged to give optimum benefits. It is likely that the tidal barrier for these purposes
would only need to be used additionally twice a year and for five days maximum. Peak flood volumes
for a 1% AEP (1 in 100) year event could be reduced by 13%. This method would also reduce flood
volumes in Beverley & Barmston Drain and Mickley Dike.
The operating rules for the Hull Tidal Barrier are currently set out in legislation, and to achieve a
modified regime it will be necessary to amend or make new legislation. In order to minimise the cost
and impact on the integrity of the barrier, its additional use is only recommended as a relatively
short-term solution.
Because the Hull Tidal Barrier was built for the sole purpose of preventing surge tides from the
North Sea and Humber estuary, there are risks associated with using it for secondary purposes. For
this reason, the provision of a separate structure for sluicing for tidal exclusion has been considered.
A location close to Ennerdale Bridge and the outfall from the Bransholme Pumping Station lagoon
was explored. It would remain open, unless water levels exceed 3.2mAOD downstream; this
option would have reduced peak flood volumes by only 4%. In comparison, the use of the River Hull
Tidal Barrier would generate a 13% reduction at the mouth of the river.
Currently, the assumption is that a separate structure will be required at the river mouth. The
simplest solution is to install simple ‘lock’ type mitre gates for this purpose at around £16m. It is
likely that new legislation will be required to allow these works to go ahead.
Figure 15a&b – Preferred location and example of mitre gate barrage

This option has gone forward to the final list of projects
16 Wilfholme and Hempholme pumping stations
Together with the pumping station at Tickton, the draft 2010 Environment Agency strategy had
suggested that new operational arrangements were needed for these pumps, as it could no longer
fund them as, in their eyes, they served no flood risk function (only a land drainage function).
It is agreed that if pumping capacity is increased at Great Culvert and East Hull, Tickton pumping
station can be decommissioned and replaced with flow control apparatus.
However, with the indicative inclusion of capital funding for growth-meeting aspirations in the
Strategic Economic Plan for the Humber, it is considered an economic case can be made for the
retention of Wilfholme and Hempholme pumping stations. It is proposed keep the superstructure of
these stations and replace and modernise the pumps and controls to enable more efficient and
lower-cost operation.
There is a strong view that renewable energy solutions can be implemented here using wind energy.
This solution is at an early stage.
Figure 16 and 17 - Hempholme Pumping Station and Proposed Bransholme Pumping Station

This option has gone forward to the final list of projects.
Bransholme pumping station
The Bransholme pumping station collects surface water from Bransholme, Sutton Park, Kingswood
and Weel Carr and discharges it into the River Hull. In the event of high water levels, it has a storage
lagoon, which can discharge via a weir into the river after the storm event. The study recommends
increasing the pumps in the station to deal with a 10 hour storm event as, when modelled, this
showed the greatest flood risk.
Yorkshire Water has committed £16m of funding to increase the pumping capacity; this work is now
being progressed, and due to be finished in 2015.

This option has gone forward to the final list of projects.
17
Storage Lagoons for River Hull
Temporary floodwater storage areas are a common feature on many rivers, although there are none
in the Hull catchment at present. Several locations for these were considered initially, with three
considered more viable. One has been modelled and costed for Holderness Drain near Leven, and
two for the River Hull at Eske and Weel.
The capital costs of constructing these would vary depending on area, height of embankments,
ancillary structures and whether there is a need to line lagoons with impermeable material, which is a
requirement in a source protection zone.
The costs and benefits for these options are shown in the table below.
Table 3 – Storage Options Estimate
Location
Leven
Eske
Weel
Area ha.
Volume m3
millions
123
97.5
68
1.6
1.6
Flood reduction %
97
7
8
Cost range £m
53 - 107
23 - 37
36 - 60
None of the options had any detriment to any other part of the system and did not transfer risk
elsewhere.
The main detriment would be loss of productive farmland, although they could be used in non-flood
periods for grazing and meadow.
Although flood storage is a viable option from an engineering viewpoint, flood reductions can be
achieved by other solutions, and at a far lower cost.

These options are not proposed to be taken forward
Upland attenuation
There is the potential to help reduce run-off from upland areas into watercourses by emulating
natural processes to retain water on land and reduce runoff where ground conditions permit, for
example through the use of planting, ponds and swales. Depending on the area of land that could be
set aside to achieve this, peak flow in the river system could be reduced by up to 3%.
As well as directly reducing water volumes there is the potential for growing marginal aquatic species
such as willow for bio-renewable crops that can be used for power station supply and on-farm
microgeneration.
External funding is expected to be available in the near future, particularly with the forthcoming
replacement schemes for stewardship and catchment-sensitive farming. We will work with key
partners to explore how a programme can be put together in the short term.

This option has gone forward to the final list of projects.
18 Figure 19 - Upland attenuation scheme
Ongoing maintenance commitment
There is a recognition that maintenance of existing assets is critical to the continued safe and
effective functioning of the system – whether clearance of vegetation from watercourses, bank
maintenance or operation of pumps and control structures. Detailed technical analysis shall make
specific recommendations on cyclical maintenance and operating regimes. A commitment is being
sought from partners to ensure adequate maintenance is undertaken.

This option has gone forward to the final list of projects
19
Summary and Costs
Table 3 shows the eight necessary components that partners have selected for the preferred
approach. It includes the current estimated costs for construction and annual maintenance.
Table 3 – Recommended component costs
Component
Description
CAPEX +60% OB
OPEX
A
Dredging and reprofiling the river Hull
channel. Including the
removal of sunken
boats
£ 751,456
£ 30,000
B
Tidal barrier at River
Hull mouth: mitre
gates
£ 13,802,400
£ 75,000
C
Increased capacity at
pumping stations and
raising of
embankments along
Holderness Drain
£ 8,448,000
£173,000
D
Bransholme flood
mitigation
£16,000,000
E
Raising of
embankments along
the Beverley and
Barmston Drain
£ 5,184,000
F
Smaller pumps
installed at Wilfholme
and Hempholme
pumping stations
£ 1,200,000
£ 50,000
G
Upland Natural
Attenuation – 25%
upland assigned.
£ 372,960
£ 62,500
H
Maintenance and
refurbishment of
existing assets
TOTAL
£ 1,090,000
£ 45,758,816
£ 1,480,500
Capex, or Capital Expenditure, is the current estimated capital cost. For funding bids a 60% potential
increase has to be built in - this is called Optimism Bias (OB). Opex, or Operational Expenditure, is the annual
running cost.
20 Following competitive bidding, indicative funding has been identified. Through the Humber Growth
Deal the Humber Local Economic Partnership has made an indicative commitment of £12m
contribution; Yorkshire Water’s Contribution is already set at £16m, with the remainder sought
from the Defra National Flood Defence Grant in Aid with an indicative allocation covering the
remaining £18m in the next investment period, as part of a forward 6 year bid submission.
Navigation
At present the river north of the city boundary has no navigation authority. The strategy
recommends that the option of creating a navigation authority should be explored. Arrangements on
the Yorkshire Ouse offer a potential model; the advantages are that it would enable better control
over structures and berthing and potentially enable fees to be levied where appropriate, providing an
income contribution from the river to part offset maintenance costs for maintenance and dredging
operations along the river.
 Changes to legislation or new legislation will be required to create a navigation
authority.
Other schemes
A number of key related schemes are planned in the River Hull Valley and these have been taken into
account of but are moving forward independently at various stages. These include:
 Cottingham and Orchard Park Flood Alleviation Scheme
 Willerby and Derringham Flood Alleviation Scheme
- Feasibility
- Construction
 Anlaby and East Ella Flood Alleviation Scheme (including Hessle Foreshore)
- Feasibility
 River Hull Defences (within the City)
- Feasibility
 Albert Dock Tidal Defences
- Starts 2014
 Hull and Holderness Flood Alleviation Scheme
- Feasibility
 Humber and Hull Frontages Tidal Defences
- Feasibility
Conclusion
Verified modelling and economic analysis has shown there to be a significant risk of flooding in the
River Hull Valley with an urgent need for investment, both to maintain and improve the current flood
risk management systems.
With the onset of climate change, including increased rainfall and rising tides, failure to act now not
only creates direct risk of flood damage but also has a negative effect on sustainability of
communities, business and agriculture, including issues such as rising insurance and business
mitigation costs.
This area has the potential to attract the biggest inward investment for a generation; however,
sustained investment in infrastructure is required as the enabling factor.
The 8 components outlined in this preferred approach document are complementary and not
optional. If this single solution is implemented then flood risk in the River Hull Valley is not only
substantially reduced but the area is made more sustainable for residents, business and agriculture in
the long term.
21
Prepared on behalf of the River Hull
Advisory Board and River Hull
Project Board
East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Room AS67
County Hall, BEVERLEY
HU17 9BA
C/
O
 [email protected]
 01482 393976
22