Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me
Welcome to the N21Online.com forum!

The n21online.com is back up and running after an absence of two years. The majority of old conversations have been deleted but there is plenty going on in our local area to talk about.

Some new conversations have been started, please join in, or start a new conversation on something that interests you.

It is easy, but it you are stuck please email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. for guidance on posting.
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2


SALMONS BROOK FLOOD PROJECT 6 years 7 months ago #107

  • helen0
  • helen0's Avatar
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 22
  • Karma: 0
What do you think of the Environment Agency's proposed new route?

You can read the proposals using this link

Graham F has described it as "an abomination"

Mason's Corner is a dangerous junction, especially if you are heading south down Green Lanes from Green Dragon Lane.
Last Edit: 6 years 7 months ago by helen0.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: SALMONS BROOK FLOOD PROJECT 6 years 7 months ago #108

  • helen0
  • helen0's Avatar
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 22
  • Karma: 0
Enfield Council Planning Committee will consider the application from the Environment Agency on Salmons Brook Flood Alleviation Scheme on 12th November at Nightingale Academy in Turin Road Edmonton at 7.30 pm.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: SALMONS BROOK FLOOD PROJECT 6 years 6 months ago #111

  • helen0
  • helen0's Avatar
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 22
  • Karma: 0

The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: SALMONS BROOK FLOOD PROJECT 6 years 6 months ago #113

  • helen0
  • helen0's Avatar
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 22
  • Karma: 0
Misleading Statement by Andy Love MP in Parliament: SBFAS

I write to inform you of a completely mendacious statement made by Andy Love
MP in parliament that was used to secure funding for the Salmons Brook Flood
Alleviation Scheme as follows from his own web site:
"At the time Andy urged the Minister for Natural Environment and Fisheries,
Richard Benyon, to prioritise the project as it would safeguard by far the
largest number of households - 3,976 - out of all the 39 schemes that had
been shortlisted."

The EA quite clearly state
(www.environment-agency.gov.uk/news/140851.aspx) "The large
multi-site scheme will reduce the risk of flooding for 1393 properties (2587
households) in Edmonton and Enfield". The statement by Andy Love is thus a
gross misrepresentation of the facts as stated by the EA and should be
condemned as such. Further arguments and details can be found at:
http://www. gpar.org.uk/?p=48

We now know that the reason why he (Mr. Love MP) was so intent upon securing
this funding is because the whole scheme, along with many others, is due to
be reviewed next year and it is very unlikely that the funding would be
renewed in the light of the Meridian Water Project which would, if
implemented properly, negate the need for this scheme.

Mr Love also makes great play on the statement:
"A recent report from the National Audit Office criticising the Government's
approach to flood risk management prompted Andy to write again to the
Minister to seek confirmation that the Salmons Brook package would not be
put in danger through the NAO-highlighted funding gap."

This is in direct contradiction of the established government policy on
flood relief in that several parliamentary reports now accepted as policy
have recommended that the best way to tackle flood risk is to improve
drainage and combine schemes that deal with both ground water and fluvial
flood risk.

This scheme complies with neither policy.

John Oliver
Resident, Green Dragon Lane, N21.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: SALMONS BROOK FLOOD PROJECT 6 years 6 months ago #114

  • helen0
  • helen0's Avatar
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 22
  • Karma: 0
Sue Wollard explains why Andy Love MP has mislead DEFRA regarding the number of households that would be saved from possible flooding through the Salmons Brook Flood Alleviation Scheme

Dear Mr Love

I have read, with interest, your reply to Mr Oliver, a fellow Grange Park resident. I am not one of your constituents, but as you have copied me into your reply I trust you will answer my queries related to your response. I must admit to being very confused about some of the statements you have made of which I have only just become aware and hope that you are able to clarify matters.

Being a resident of one of the roads in Grange Park which would bear the brunt of 100% of the works traffic related to the Cheyne Walk/Enfield Golf Course aspect of the Salmon’s Brook Flood Alleviation Scheme, should it go ahead, we would be exposed to an unnacceptable 40+ heavy lorry movements per day for 15 weeks with the resultant danger, pollution and likelihood of damage to our properties (as acknowledged by the Environment Agency.) Naturally we have been researching the background data going back to 2000 and reasons for and against the Scheme quite avidly, but until now, had not been aware of the Ching Brook in any connection with this Scheme. It was only when Googling it now that I have found the press release you made in February last year (copied below) regarding the funding for the Scheme, which does mention the Salmons and Ching Brook Package. There is no other reference to this package anywhere that I can locate.

I would certainly not presume to answer on behalf of Mr Oliver but can imagine that he must have taken his calculation from your December 2011 statement (also copied below) where you do not mention Ching Brook but state that 3,976 households would be protected under the Salmon’s Brook Flood Alleviation Scheme. I can also see that by erroneously adding together the Environment Agency figures of Properties (1393) with equivalent figure for Households (2587) one would have come up with the result of 3980 – coincidentally only 2 households different from the figure you quoted.

This leads to the queries I now have about your statements:
· If the Salmons and Ching Brook Package would possibly prevent flooding to a total of 3976 households and the Salmons Brook Scheme (SBFAS) alone would possibly protect 2587 households, then it can be calculated that 1389 households would possibly be protected solely by the Ching Brook element of the joint package.

· These households are not apparent on any of the maps provided by the Environment Agency since before 2005 when an earlier SBFAS was proposed, nor are they mentioned in any of the EA documents regarding the changes to the scheme between 2005 and 2012 which the EA submitted to another neighbour in response to other queries

· (See attached pdf documents – these are only 3 of 28 which the EA sent spanning this period – however none of them mention Ching Brook at all)

o Where are these 1389 households?

o Are they in your constituency?

· You mention that it was only ‘later’ that the Environment Agency amended the Scheme to the SBFAS removing the Ching Brook element to which you refer. This must have been between your press release of 15th December 2011, where you still mention 3976 households, and early March 2012 when the EA started meetings and exhibitions with residents in Edmonton and Enfield with maps, plans, documents and presentations with the estimated safeguard of 2587 households– none of which show any reference to Ching Brook being part of the Scheme at any time.

· (See attached pdf Salmons Comms Plan 6.1.12 – there is no mention of Ching Brook) extract below:

Since the last newsletter to residents in Spring 2008 we have carried out detailed investigations into the scheme. These
investigations led to the following changes:
• The withdrawal of a proposed flood storage area at Hog Hill, World’s End (deemed ineffective).
• The withdrawal of a proposed new culvert under Cemetery Walk to take floodwaters to the Pymmes Brook (deemed
• The addition of a 40,000m3 occasional flood storage area in Montagu Recreation Ground. (added after October 2010)
We have to develop more detailed proposals and designs for the flood defences along Salmons Walk and the flood storage on the
Montagu Road Recreation Ground. We shall be working with the London Borough of Enfield to develop these designs. This will
include consultation and engagement with the local community and users of the Montagu Road Recreation Ground.

o What date did the Environment Agency inform you that the Ching Brook element of the package had been removed?

o What date did you inform DEFRA that the scheme was no longer planned to safeguard 3976 households, but instead only 2587 households (a reduction of 35%)?

o Have you now downgraded your request that the Minister prioritises the SBFAS in light of the revised figures and in fairness to other areas of the country with a greater need?

· When the SBFAS was proposed in 2004 and granted planning consent in 2005, the Scheme was due to cost £11.5 m. Due to changes and delays this was increased to £15m (see EA extract below)

· This £15m projected spend has only ever been attributed to costs pertaining to the Salmons Brook Flood Alleviation Scheme – no reference to the inclusion of Ching Brook at any time.

The original PAR was submitted to the National Review Group (NRG) in 2005 and was approved with a scheme value of £11.5
million. However, this figure is now insufficient to complete the scheme given the subsequent changes to the overall design plans
and delays in programme. A Form G to increase the approved scheme value by a further bid for £3.5 million is being prepared for
submission to NRG. A decision is expected later in 2010.

o Did you query with the EA why the cost had increased by over 30% since 2005 and ask for a breakdown of these increases before presenting the Scheme to DEFRA?

o What answer were you given? (We have been querying this with the EA for some time but have received no answer)

· In your December 2011 press release you confirmed that funding was still in place: ‘Salmons Brook [Flood Alleviation Scheme] has a projected total cost of £15.2 million’

· This is £.2m more than the EA have made public. (ref: Mike Gara’s letter to me 24.4.12 –‘ The overall cost to implement the scheme is £15m’)

o What date did you inform DEFRA that the Scheme, originally to safeguard 3976 households and costing £15m, was now amended to a scheme to safeguard 35% fewer households but still costing at least £15m?

o What was DEFRA’s response?

· This would have obviously been important to DEFRA as the Scheme had been shortlisted amongst 39 other schemes for funding based on a household safeguard figure of 3976 (‘by far the largest number of households’). It would, of course, be morally wrong to proceed with a Scheme which had been funded at the expense of another scheme elsewhere, which possibly had a higher priority based on safeguarded household numbers and represented better value for money from the public purse.

o Which of the other 38 schemes would have benefitted from the funding had the revised figure of 2587 households been used rather than 3976?

o What was the projected cost and household number benefit of the scheme which just missed out on funding because of the Salmons and Ching Brook Package?

· We also understood from all the EA history of the 2000 flood that the 192 flooded properties in the Montagu Road area of Edmonton included all properties (including any business properties) yet you have added the Montagu Road Industrial Estate as additional in both of your press releases.

o When did the EA give you this information of additional properties flooded?

· By December 2011 you would have been aware of discussions in the pipeline regarding the Meridian Water project.

o Did you bring this to the attention of DEFRA especially as, if the Meridian Water proposal is implemented properly, it would remove the need for the Salmon’s Brook Flood Alleviation Scheme, thus allowing the £15m to be better spent in other areas?

I shall obviously forward this to Mike Gara of the Environment Agency as he may also be able to shed some light on the newly-revealed Ching Brook element of the Scheme.

As we are currently in the consultation period prior to the Planning Department making their recommendation, and before the Planning Committee deliberate on the facts of this Application, it would be very helpful to receive the answers to my questions as soon as possible to ensure absolute transparency and full information being available to all. For this reason, I have copied the Planning Committee Members into this email, in the expectation that they will have adequate time to consider these additional explanations prior to the Meeting. These are important decisions relating to the funding of SBFAS and whether it does represent value for money, especially in the light of the proposed Meridian Water project being under consideration, the scale of which looks certain to outperform any other scheme in flood protection.

I realise that some of these questions regarding the other 38 competing schemes may be difficult for you to answer without the information which DEFRA holds, so, in the interest of speed, I shall be forwarding this letter to Richard Benyon and asking him to respond. I shall also ask about the safety of this funding continuing given that the number which was submitted in 2010/11 of households the Scheme was planned to protect has dropped by 35%, the cost of the Scheme has risen by 30% since 2005 and it appears there is another project in the pipeline which may well negate any need for the SBFAS in the near future. I am sure you will agree that spending such huge sums of money in this time of austerity surely must be challenged to ensure the best value possible. Should answers to these questions not be available for timely consideration before the Planning Department deadline then I shall be requesting that the Planning Committee meeting is deferred until such answers and assurances are available

I am aware that another Grange Park resident has written to you pointing out that this is not nimbyism on our part. I echo what he said in that the worries of those living with flood risk are different from those of us living with the risk of damage to our properties and neighbourhood by the intensity of the works traffic related to this scheme, but they both represent real concerns. We have to do all we can to ensure that a flood alleviation scheme is warranted and guaranteed to work and that the threat of preventable damage with which we in Grange Park are expected to be exposed is proportionate to this gain. This would not appear to be the case given the current information.

I do look forward to your response.


Sue Woollard

Uplands Way, N21

If you wish to see the attachments email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: SALMONS BROOK FLOOD PROJECT 6 years 6 months ago #115

  • Lee
  • Lee's Avatar
  • Fresh Boarder
  • Posts: 1
  • Karma: 0
If you live at the bottom of Old Park Ridings or in Park Drive you will have seen the brook has burst its banks a few times this year.
Me and my neighbours have had a few inches of water in our cellars and had waterlogged back gardens.
A few of us have submersible pumps installed and have had to use them a few times.
I'm not saying the scheme is ideal but having been flooded with 18+ inches of water that took a week to clear, even with a fire brigade pump and sandbags, I look forward to the scheme at last being built
The administrator has disabled public write access.
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2
Time to create page: 0.155 seconds