Been going down lane over 50 years.
Only ever know it affected by water once, thats when there was a massive water mains burst.
Nothing to do with the river.

I've seen the river rise to the top of the bank and over lots of times, but it's never affected the rugby ground or even reached it.

Daft as it sounds the fact that it hasn't actually flooded because of the river doesn't matter, its the perceived risk that gets the insurance companies twitchy and for a large supermarket it sends premiums sky high. We all know whats has happened with insurance costs in recent years because of an increase in floods throughout the country, for a supermarket development the size of a Tesco and the amount of stock they carry, then those costs would be astonomical if they were to build in an area of even low flood risk. It is bound to be a major consideration during any negotiations.

Lets not forget the river runs right through castleford.
So even if a supermarket is built on the iceland carpark at the bottom of town, thats even closer to the river.
So where in castleford can this so called supermarket be built to keep it out of any flood area.

As far as I'm aware, the flood risk based on the 1 in 100 (for rivers) data dictates that the store would have to be built on stilts; that would make the whole build at least 25% more expensive and god knows how much more complicated.

I don't know if that's the case for the rest of Castleford - the data is probably out there somewhere, but I wouldn't know where to start looking.

I would guess it will come down to either distance or, more likely, where the flood defences are deemed to be at their best. Where that is I don't know, but I guess time time will tell.

The flood risk model for WR was undertaken by one of Opus's consultants and it was them that uncovered the 1 in 100 year risk for the site.

At the LDF hearings the Environment Agency were asked to undertake an outline flood risk model for the whole of SPA 9, which of course included the WR site, because the issue of flooding had arisen 'in the area' and the inspector wanted to understand the risk. This would also uncover if the EA needed to seek capital expenditure for some flood protection for SPA 9 in the longer term to facilitate the regeneration of the area.

River Aire on Kirkstall Road in Leeds has always been a flood risk, and genuinely does flood, a lot.
But Morrisons still built their, and its only caused a problem once I think.

No real reason why Tesco can't make the same decision. Its just down to the options they have rather than the flood risk imo.

Taken from the latest report commissioned by WMDC October 2011

"3.2 N101 – Castleford Tigers Ground, Wheldon Road
The JBA model results show that the whole of the 3.84ha site is located
outside the predicted 1 in 100 year flood extent"

and also furthermore:

"The EA have confirmed that a large flood alleviation scheme at St. Aidens, upstream of Castleford, is due to come on line soon. It is understood, from discussions with the EA, that this flood alleviation scheme would significantly reduce flood risk within Castleford."

Those flood risk assessments were carried out using a flood risk model that has not yet been approved by the Enviroment Agency. In fact at the time of writing it hadn't even been submitted for review. Until such time in the future that it is then most companies, especially insurance companies and companies that would stand to lose the most like, say, a large supermarket, will refer to a flood risk consultant that uses an approved method. This is what Tesco did and under this method Wheldon Road is still within the flood risk area. As it clearly states in the full article the flood defence scheme is not yet fully functional so cannot yet be taken into account. If this was happening further down the line and the unproven method used was adopted by the EA then things would probably be different but with time being of the essence then it leaves WR with a problem. Why the council chose this company is a totally different question that you would have to ask of them but I would imagine cost had something to do with it.

Indeed.

Quote: sixtogo "Those flood risk assessments were carried out using a flood risk model that has not yet been approved by the Enviroment Agency. In fact at the time of writing it hadn't even been submitted for review. Until such time in the future that it is then most companies, especially insurance companies and companies that would stand to lose the most like, say, a large supermarket, will refer to a flood risk consultant that uses an approved method. This is what Tesco did and under this method Wheldon Road is still within the flood risk area. As it clearly states in the full article the flood defence scheme is not yet fully functional so cannot yet be taken into account. If this was happening further down the line and the unproven method used was adopted by the EA then things would probably be different but with time being of the essence then it leaves WR with a problem. Why the council chose this company is a totally different question that you would have to ask of them but I would imagine cost had something to do with it.'" Makes you wonder why Aeternum Capital are even bothering when they are on the river bank! www.aeternumcapital.com/biofuels ... let-plant/

Quote: sixtogo "Those flood risk assessments were carried out using a flood risk model that has not yet been approved by the Enviroment Agency. In fact at the time of writing it hadn't even been submitted for review. Until such time in the future that it is then most companies, especially insurance companies and companies that would stand to lose the most like, say, a large supermarket, will refer to a flood risk consultant that uses an approved method. This is what Tesco did and under this method Wheldon Road is still within the flood risk area. As it clearly states in the full article the flood defence scheme is not yet fully functional so cannot yet be taken into account. If this was happening further down the line and the unproven method used was adopted by the EA then things would probably be different but with time being of the essence then it leaves WR with a problem. Why the council chose this company is a totally different question that you would have to ask of them but I would imagine cost had something to do with it.'" Makes you wonder why Aeternum Capital are even bothering when they are on the river bank! www.aeternumcapital.com/biofuels ... let-plant/

Because people don't eat trees?

Some may say an uninterupted supply of scarce fuel to provide electricity is just as important.