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

TOPIC: SALMONS BROOK FLOOD ALLEVIATION PROJECT

SALMONS BROOK FLOOD ALLEVIATION PROJECT 5 years 3 months ago #47

  • helen
  • helen's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 19
  • Thank you received: 1
  • Karma: 0
As you are aware, there is much concern in Grange Park about the risks, both environmental and physical, involved in the execution of this project. However I also have concerns regarding the rationale for a project predicated on data at least 10 years old. Much has changed in terms of rainfall expectations during those 10 years and even a cursory examination of available rainfall data for the Salmons Brook drainage basin leads to questions regarding the rationale for resuscitating a project which now seems totally unnecessary. I speak not just as a resident of Uplands Way but also as a tax payer. We are all being told to tighten our belts in the face of an extremely threatening financial situation but the Environment Agency seems sufficiently unaffected to be able to re-present, at best, a very marginal proposal. It chooses this time to resuscitate a project which it was quite happy to leave on the back burner for 8 years. Why?

Much is made of the assumed improvement the project would effect in flood risk, but with end data unsupported (as far as I have been able to ascertain) by any statement of actual and assumed rainfall levels in the Salmon’s Brook drainage basin, on which such end data is surely based. Could you please share with us or point us in the direction of the rainfall data used. Could you also explain why the Environment Agency put this project on the back burner for 8 years and has chosen now to resuscitate it, given that we are now in the midst of potentially the greatest financial crisis since the 1930s.

Posted on behalf of Graham Findlay
Last Edit: 5 years 3 months ago by helen.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: SALMONS BROOK FLOOD ALLEVIATION PROJECT 5 years 3 months ago #54

  • helen
  • helen's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 19
  • Thank you received: 1
  • Karma: 0
I am Chairman of a small sub-committee formed at Enfield Golf Club to respond to the Environment Agency’s planning application. The purpose of this post is to convey the Club’s position.

We are drafting our objections to the scheme and will send these to Enfield Council in good time. Our letter will be lengthy and technical in parts over issues such as the flume design. However, we have also prepared a draft summary of our position, the text of which is set out below, with just a few details to check. Although we are still fine tuning the main objections, our summary is unlikely to change much and you may therefore regard it as our final position. As I personally will be away for the next three weeks, I am sending you the draft summary now so that you will more easily appreciate the Club’s position.

Enfield Golf Club is not objecting to the flood alleviation scheme as such, but has grave concerns for the future of the Club if the scheme is implemented without measures being taken to protect us against new, excessive and frequent flooding in the future as a result of the work.

The Club would like your support in seeking amendments to the scheme designed to protect the course in the event of low level flooding events which for this purpose we will treat as predicted floods ranging from a 1 in 1 year scenario, up to 1 in 5 years. These would happen here on the course even when there is no risk of flooding at Montagu Road which in 2000 was a 1 in 20/25 year event. It does not seem unreasonable to ask that amendments be made that will benefit the Club whilst not affecting the objective of the scheme.

To give you a better idea of the extent of the new predicted flooding you can view the map here, which demonstrates that following construction of the Bund, the Club will be exposed to a vastly increased risk particularly up to the 1 in 10 year predicted events. The maps which you can view here show a before and after scheme scenario for a range of years from 1 in 1 year upwards. The blue areas vividly show new flooded parts of the course. These areas would not just be flooded for a few hours, as the Agency suggests. There will be considerable cleanup costs and delays in dealing with the resultant debris and silt. Persistent and irritating partial closures of the course will have an effect on membership, and, ultimately, on the Club’s finances. I perhaps also need to remind you that the Club currently pays over £100,000 pa to Enfield Council by way of rent and rates which could be in jeopardy should the Club fail.


David Haywood
Chairman, Bund Committee
Enfield Golf Club
Last Edit: 5 years 3 months ago by helen.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: SALMONS BROOK FLOOD ALLEVIATION PROJECT 5 years 3 months ago #57

  • helen
  • helen's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 19
  • Thank you received: 1
  • Karma: 0
There are lots of interesting PDF docs at the link below. I am particularly intrigued by PFRA LB Enfield FigB-4 SW Flood Hazard 100CC, a “climate change” scenario analysis of flood risk in Enfield as it relates to the relative Grange Park/ Montague Road projected flood risks.


www.enfield.gov.uk/downloads/download/15...lood_risk_assessment

Graham Findlay
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: s1u5e

Re: SALMONS BROOK FLOOD ALLEVIATION PROJECT 5 years 3 months ago #58

  • helen
  • helen's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 19
  • Thank you received: 1
  • Karma: 0
Dear Ms Dye

Further to our letter in response to your consultation letter regarding the above scheme, we would like to update our response following the unprecedented rainfall in the last week.

The heavy and persistent rain in the area over the last few days has caused the height of the water in the tributary of Salmon’s Brook, which runs behind our house, to be higher than we can remember since we moved here in 1988. This joins Salmon’s Brook just on the Golf Course boundary at Cheyne Walk Open Space. Salmon’s Brook is high, the Open Space is waterlogged, with paths being flooded so, presumably, if the Bund had already been built – without an adjustable valve, and with the current Environment Agency Flood Warnings being in operation, someone would have taken the decision to close the ‘valve’ to ‘protect Edmonton’ with the result that the Golf Course and potentially, the Allotments, would have been flooded with the resultant clear-up then being required? However, I have just driven along Montagu Road, and back to Grange Park in the pouring rain, adjacent to the course of Salmon’s Brook and there is absolutely no flooding. In fact, Montagu Road, whilst obviously not bone dry, had hardly any puddles, far fewer than Enfield Town and parts of Western Enfield yet I understand the rainfall has been just as heavy in that part of Edmonton over the same time period.

So, in an instance like this, the Golf Course would have been needlessly flooded. However, in a flash-flood situation, anywhere in the country could experience the effects which Montagu Road suffered in 2000 – as we witnessed this week in Mid Wales and other parts of the UK. Schemes cannot be put into place to take into account every eventuality of one-off situations. Our garage, like many others, was flooded by the same storm in 2000 but we don’t envisage a dam being built in Langham Gardens to prevent this happening once again at ‘sometime in the future’.

We have to repeat that we believe the flood danger warnings to be based on data which cannot be realistic, and that this vast amount of money which is proposed to be spent together with the potential damage to our properties caused by the construction lorries must not be allowed.

We trust your recommendation will be that this Scheme is flawed and planning permission will not be granted in the current format with access and egress to and from the works being via Uplands Way.

POSTED ON BEHALF OF AN UPLANDS WAY RESIDENT
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: SALMONS BROOK FLOOD ALLEVIATION PROJECT 5 years 2 months ago #79

  • helen
  • helen's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 19
  • Thank you received: 1
  • Karma: 0
SW's excellent dissection of the EA’s (and LBE’s) duplicity, manipulation of data, collusion and dishonesty over virtually the whole range of issues surrounding this ill-conceived and valueless project is a tour de force. Without wishing to steal her thunder, I would like to elaborate a little.

1. The only flood ever evidentially recorded in the Montague Road area was that in October 2000. Every other flood mentioned in the context of this project has not been significant enough to qualify within governmental criteria as a flood. All are anecdotal and have no evidential value so unless the EA and LBE are about to accept evidence from Russell Grant (as I’m typing, I’m thinking “OMG it might be true”) the 2000 flood, and the circumstances of it, is the only permissible flood evidence.

2. The EA is still presenting that their accessibility data is reliable, accurate, honest and even handed. That is tosh. I repeat below my analysis of the accessibility issues put to the EA and LBE in my email of 26 June referencing the Q&As on the EA website, without reaction

The EA anticipates 54,000 tonnes of clay are needed at Enfield Golf Course/ CWOP (why do I think it will be more) and will be delivered to site over 15 weeks (i.e. a maximum of 75 working days). The juggernauts will be restricted to a maximum of 20 loads a day each comprising 20 tonnes, so maximum daily delivery is 400 tonnes. 75 days’ worth of deliveries is therefore 30,000 tonnes. Can no one at the EA do the maths or have I missed something? Alternatively is the EA being deliberately misleading about the period required for deliveries, the size of the juggernauts or the maximum number daily deliveries of clay? It is clear from past experience that the EA skews all its numbers to present the best possible case to the public, but I think this goes beyond skewing. The fact is that what has been presented still looks awful and leaves a sense of dread about what is truly intended.

The EA says 20 deliveries per day, so 40 juggernaut movements in and out. With a 10 minute gap maintained with pit lane precision, that is nigh on 7 hours of continuous juggernaut traffic. It will manage that whilst avoiding juggernaut movements at the beginning and end of the school day; sorry, that will be done “whenever possible”. But hold on, it is going to ask the juggernaut drivers to stick to a 15mph speed limit. Nothing like a firm hand is there.



There is no mention of actual times when juggernauts will be on local roads, or actual times when they will not be allowed to drive past local schools, or what happens when vehicles stack up as they inevitably will, or what parking restrictions will be imposed, or whether any diversions will be put in place, or what other vehicles and contractors plant will be rumbling along our residential roads (the EA helpfully confides that they will vary in size, so some will obviously be even larger than those shifting the clay) ….

The EA suggests that juggernaut movements “have been carefully planned to minimise disruption to local communities”. Surely it means “to minimise disruption to the contractor”. It might also have paid a bit more attention to health and safety. There is also nothing about the impact of all this heavy traffic on levels of noise and air pollution.

The EA is also particularly dishonest about damage to property, changing its stance as each lie is uncovered. Again I repeat below a section of my email of 26 June

As you acknowledge, there is the risk of structural damage to all property on the route of these 30 tonne juggernauts, particularly given that they are on residential roads not designed to take such heavy vehicles on such an intense basis. Even if this risk is less than that associated with some construction activities, a risk is still a risk (isn’t that the point of SBFAS?). If you are imposing any risk it is difficult to see how you can withhold the means of determining whether that risk has matured. Even to determine whether “minor cosmetic damage” has occurred, you have to know what the condition of the property was prior to assessing whether contractor’s juggernauts caused damage. With respect but without survey, there is only one way that that judgment will go.

What is becoming clearer as each EA and LBE lie gives clues to their motivation in promoting this project (and be sure that this is an LBE initiated project), is that far from providing even the smallest benefit to anyone, this project is much more likely to make any Salmon’s Brook flood risk worse. The intention to promote the building of houses on a flood plain using the lie that this project insulates those houses and the people that would live in them from flood risk, is very wrong in any circumstance but seems to me to be particularly wrong in pursuit of mere political advantage.

Graham Findlay
The administrator has disabled public write access.

Re: SALMONS BROOK FLOOD ALLEVIATION PROJECT 5 years 2 months ago #82

  • helen
  • helen's Avatar
  • OFFLINE
  • Administrator
  • Posts: 19
  • Thank you received: 1
  • Karma: 0
If you missed the Environment Agency public meeting at Highlands School on Monday July 9th, about the proposed flood alleviation project you can view the presentation here
www.slideshare.net/helenos/salmons-lbe-p...anel-9-jul12-final-1
The administrator has disabled public write access.
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2
Time to create page: 0.140 seconds