Memorandum submitted by Fred and Jean
Hollier (FL 53)
We consider the flooding to our houses occurred
as a combination of the following factors:
1. Estimate of the total rainfall on the
catchment area associated with the six houses.
2. Flooding from the suspected damaged manhole
in an underground pipe carrying a natural water course.
3. Outstanding repairs to damaged stormwater
drains promised by City Council.
4. Flooding from stormwater drains/balancing
pond which have not been completed by a new development of 99
houses.
5. Inability of the combined sewer/stormwater
system and local pumping station to function during heavy rain.
On 20 July six houses on the Bristol Road, Quedgeley
were flooded. Our houses are in a natural dip between the A38
bypass and A4008 Bristol Road to the east and west and slightly
higher ground to north and south. The pool formed in this dip
was 20 inches deep at the deepest point, which resulted in 4-12
inches of water entering the houses. The total volume of water
in the flood pool is estimated to be 650,000 litres. Our investigations
have shown the following expected sources of the flood.
1. The total catchment area of the dip is
approximately 300 ft x 100 ft and with 3 inches of rain falling
during the day, this amounted to a flood of 450,000 litres. We
consider it would be feasible for the Local Council to install
an emergency drain which could divert this water from the dip
and allow it to drain into the storm drain on the main A38 bypass.
2. We have a storm drain system across our
rear lawn which leads to a manhole on the north side of our property
associated with a large underground pipe carrying a natural water
course. Unfortunately, during heavy rain, instead of this main
pipe carrying away our storm water, the large pipe runs full and
backs up to the manhole. The water gushes out from the manhole
cover at a flow estimated at 10 litres per second which over the
six hour period on the day amounted to 200,000 litres.
The underground pipe runs from the former RAF
Maintenance Unit under the A38 bypass, under next door's garden
and under B4008 beyond which it becomes an open brook. This pipe
has been in place since the 1930's and was originally maintained
annually by the RAF. However, over the last ten years houses have
been built on the land and no maintenance has been done since,
the Council say, the landowner is responsible. However, when council
workers attended immediately after the flood they were unwilling
to check the status of the manholes unless it was done by properly
clad and trained operatives. The manhole from which the water
gushes is at a junction of a 1 x 650 mm pipe with 2 x 450 mm pipes
which carry the natural water course. We consider that such a
major water course should be maintained and repaired by the local
council since it is unreasonable for a householder to maintain
such a large pipe.
3. We have correspondence from the local
council, dating back to 2003, that they have surveyed the storm
drain piping on the south side of our property and proposed a
scheme which would sort out the flood problems experienced by
a property 2 houses away. To date this scheme has not been instigated
and we are pressing the council to include it in their current
budget.
4. On the north side of our property there
has been a development to build 99 houses, which is the responsibility
of Charles Church Limited. The development included an area designated
as a children's playground which included a natural pool that
was to be developed as a balancing pond. The planning application
stated that work on sewage and storm drains should be completed
before any houses were occupied. However, the City Council has
advised that they have not received calculations for the storm
drain scheme and have not been able to check or approve them.
Hence, we have a situation where most of the houses have been
built with a storm drainage system connected to the existing pool
and many of the houses are now occupied.
The developers have completely ignored the Planning
Regulations, the City Council have been negligent in not enforcing
the Planning Regulations and the house buyers' solicitors have
seemingly been misled when requesting a local search, since the
storm drainage arrangements are not approved. In addition we have
experienced a pool which during the flood, overflowed into our
flood pool. The water is still lying over part of the (designated)
playground area. It has been there over two months and is now
becoming a stinking mess, and still nothing has been done by the
developers to establish a proper overflow from the balancing pond
into the open ditch system.
5. One hour after the flood started to develop
above ground it was noted that the water level in our sewage water
pipes was already at ground level and it did not lower to its
normal level until 32 hours later, whereas the flood pool had
disappeared after 20 hours. This situation has been reported before
to Severn Trent Water who advise that they will get someone to
check whether the pumping station (approx 400 metres from our
properties) has cut out or is operational. Although a large expansion
pipe has been installed in the system to cope with peak flows
it is obvious the system still cannot handle large flows of water.
We have had meetings with Severn Trent Water and they have done
a TV survey of the Sewage Pipe Line up to the Pumping Station.
However, we still await any feedback on why the system does not
work.
We consider that our flood occurred as a combination
of the above five factors. Our concern is that the different bodies
associated with each problem, will come up with reasons why their
particular problem cannot be dealt with—and so when we experience
the next heavy storm our houses will be flooded again. In addition
we consider that underground pipelines greater than 300mm diameter,
should be maintained by the Local Authority.
Fred and Jean Hollier
August 2007
| 
