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;
Evaluation of the disadvantages and advantages of HS2 rail
Advantages
Disadvantages
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;
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 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).
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 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;
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 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.
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);
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;
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).
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;
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 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).
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 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).
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.
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 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 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.
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 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 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
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;
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 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.
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).
Part a) Benefits for wider sustainability
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;
Results
The map showing HS2 area of connection through the country of England is shown below.
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.
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;
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;
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).
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).
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).
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).
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 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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Essay Writing Service Features
Our Experience
No matter how complex your assignment is, we can find the right professional for your specific task. Contact Essay is an essay writing company that hires only the smartest minds to help you with your projects. Our expertise allows us to provide students with high-quality academic writing, editing & proofreading services.
Free Features
Free revision policy
$10Free bibliography & reference
$8Free title page
$8Free formatting
$8How Our Essay Writing Service Works
First, you will need to complete an order form. It's not difficult but, in case there is anything you find not to be clear, you may always call us so that we can guide you through it. On the order form, you will need to include some basic information concerning your order: subject, topic, number of pages, etc. We also encourage our clients to upload any relevant information or sources that will help.
Complete the order form
Once we have all the information and instructions that we need, we select the most suitable writer for your assignment. While everything seems to be clear, the writer, who has complete knowledge of the subject, may need clarification from you. It is at that point that you would receive a call or email from us.
Writer’s assignment
As soon as the writer has finished, it will be delivered both to the website and to your email address so that you will not miss it. If your deadline is close at hand, we will place a call to you to make sure that you receive the paper on time.
Completing the order and download