Memorandum submitted by Tony Smith (FL
134)
1. My name is Tony Smith and I live with
my family in Quedgeley, Gloucester.
2. I am sorry that I have missed the Committee
deadline of 13 September 2007, but I believe it is worth adding
my story from the flooding on 20 July, however small in impact
when compared to the massive floods elsewhere, in case it may
be needed to support a line of comment or action by your Committee.
Briefly, The deluge of rainwater on 20 July
overwhelmed the surface water drains which stopped taking water
at about 2.30 pm that resulted in the rainwater collecting in
the lowest point in my area and then quickly flooding my house
and that of my neighbour's, the first time ever in the life of
both properties built in 1993. The depth of the water in the house
was about three inches. I could not enlist the help of the Fire
Service through the 999 system since it was dealing with other
emergency calls. Other neighbours rallied round and between us,
with the help of a submersible pump purchased that afternoon,
the water was drained from the two houses in about five hours.
At 8.25 pm, water began flowing again through the drainage system,
by which time no standing water remained in the houses other than
that soaked up by the carpets. But, the damage to the house and
contents at floor level had been devastating.
3. Since that day I have been in contact
with Severn Trent Water. From numerous contacts I have discovered
that the rainwater drains feed into Dimore Brook that flows for
part of its course at the back of my property and alongside the
Gloucester/Sharpness canal. On 20 July the rainwater drains stopped
working because the brook itself burst it's banks, meaning that
the rainwater from my part of the estate could not flow into the
stream. Severn Trent Water charges me on my regular water bill
for taking away surface water but, when challenged in writing,
merely stated that it could not be faulted because of the
unprecedented rainfall on the day. I have in turn responded suggesting
Severn Trent Water should take a greater interest in ensuring
the flow of surface water is not hindered by a partially blocked
brook that is overgrown with vegetation. I await a response, however
there are other points I wish to make for consideration:
(a) The brook belongs to British Waterways
for the part that runs alongside the canal.Where it deviates from
the canal another owner is responsible, whom I do not know. The
path that runs along the brook belongs to Gloucester City Council.
(b) According to people who have lived or
worked in this area there has always been a brook in the same
location before the construction of mine and several hundred other
houses built on the estate. Moreover, those same people say that
the brook has not been enlarged to accommodate the extra
rainwater flow from this estate and another being built now.
(c) The vegetation and trees that grow on
the banks of the brook are cut back once per year, about September
time, and the debris cleared away. This does not appear to be
adequate if the flow of water is to be unhindered. I believe this
aspect had a major bearing upon the cause of the flood on 20 July—the
rainwater was hindered in it's flow along the brook, thereby preventing
surface water from the estate flowing into the brook. In considering
the brook, perhaps it needs widening and deepening, together with
the introduction of a more frequent clearance programme, perhaps
even quarterly.
SUMMARY
4. On 20 July 2007 the heavy, prolonged
and unprecedented rainfall overwhelmed the drainage system in
parts of Highclere Road, Quedgeley, Gloucester, that resulted
in at least two houses being flooded by rainwater. The drainage
system normally takes the surface rainwater into Dimore Brook,
but the overgrown vegetation and debris littered brook could not
absorb the deluge of rain on 20 July, with the result that the
drains stopped working and rainwater collected and eventually
flooded two houses.
5. Dimore Brook is owned by British Waterways
for that part of the brook that runs alongside the Gloucester/Sharpness
Canal: that Company arranges for the brook to be cleared of debris
and the vegetation to be cut back on one occasion each year. Who
is responsible for other parts of the brook I cannot say, but
is divided ownership likely, to be a factor in why the brook failed
to take away the rainwater as expected? Also, is the frequency
of brook clearance adequate? I am trying to find answers to my
questions by contacting Severn Trent Water, the City Council and
the Environment Agency, but these are early days as yet.
Tony Smith
October 2007
|
