Memorandum submitted by Pickering &
District Civic Society (FL 99)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I. Situation and geography of Pickering,
North Yorkshire.
III. Existing flood protection scheme
IV. Lack of action despite repeated flooding
V. Major flood in June 2007
VI. Civic Society agenda for flood alleviation
VII. Concerns, suggestions and observations.
1. Pickering is a small town in North Yorkshire
bisected by Pickering Beck, normally a small river. The Beck rises
in the NY moors and although picking up water from only a number
of small tributaries, can swell rapidly given sufficient rain
or melt water from the substantial moorland catchment area. Flooding
generally both rises and recedes relatively quickly.
2. Most of the flooding in Pickering is
not directly from the huge volume flowing down the beck, rather
it is that which cannot escape, backing up due to the constricted
nature of the watercourse through the town, with a number of pinch
points and low bridges.
3. Between 1999-2002, Pickering suffered
several serious floods, the last being the highest ever recorded
at that time. Around 50 properties and businesses were affected.
Other local towns, primarily on the River Derwent also suffered
major flooding.
4. Consequently, several flood alleviation
schemes were hastily drawn up and implemented. All were inaccurately
costed and went substantially over budget. The Pickering scheme
was rejected locally as being badly engineered and unsightly in
a conservation area.
5. The re-engineering process cost £750,000,
with the building costs put at £6.7 million (a figure which
spiralling building costs will have now increased significantly).
It was rejected by the Environment Agency (EA) on a cost-benefit
basis, as the funding source had been decimated by the other local
schemes. ie Pickering missed the boat. Building flood defences
in Pickering is very different to the Derwent schemes. The river
channel flows through the town centre, is often narrow and of
much smaller capacity, has a secondary channel and a railway line.
Properties, many of which are listed buildings, are closely packed
around the riverside and there are numerous bridges. It is therefore
a much more difficult terrain to defend when the river flash floods
with tremendous volumes of water.
6. Following the major flood of 2002, many
meetings were held and much hot air expended. Other than dredging
out one weir, nothing concrete happened. Pickering Flood Defence
Group (PFDG was formed, primarily pressing for the re-engineered
scheme to be built.
7. 25 June 2007 once again brought major
flooding, with water levels about 18ins-2ft above the previous
highest recorded levels. Many more properties were flooded than
before and the town completely cut in two, with access impossible
between the two sides. The water rose very quickly from about
21.00, peaking about 02.00, meaning many businesses and householders
were left unprotected or unable to act quickly enough, particularly
those never affected before. There were a number of logistical
problems with the relief effort of official bodies, but these
have been addressed by Pickering town council. The water was receding
significantly by morning and flooding had all but cleared by the
same evening, 26 June.
8. Inevitably, the usual meetings, forums,
writings and petitions have been rife, with very strong calls
for the flood scheme to be delivered. EA have reiterated its low
priority, particularly in view of extensive floods elsewhere nationally.
With justification, residents feel abandoned to their fate once
again, with little promise of any action. Being a lightly populated
rural area, will any resources ever be made available under the
current policy of cost-benefit, irrespective of need, or frequency
of flooding? Several months ago, local authority, Ryedale DC,
pledged the sum of £1 million towards flood defences for
Pickering. Is it unreasonable to expect at least match funding
by NYCC and government agencies? There has been absolutely no
sign of any thus far.
9. The Pickering & District Civic Society
(PDCS) take a more pragmatic approach than the PFDG and propose
a 3 point agenda:
a. To slow the water down to the North before
it reaches the town.
b. To waterproof vulnerable properties within
the town.
c. To drain the water away more quickly to
the South of the town.
10. With reference to 9a, the society is
not convinced that sufficient serious thought has been given to
one or more simple low earthworks or dams in the valley above
the town. These would have a limited bore outlet pipe and spill-over
in order to temporarily restrict and even out the flow of large
volumes of water during flood conditions. Under normal conditions,
they would be empty and fairly inconspicuous. We also feel there
should be dialogue with the Forestry Commission about the effects
of both tree planting and harvesting as a means of delaying or
evening out water flow.
11. With reference to 9b, the society is
concerned that the existing flood plans only address the problem
of protecting the town by constricting an already narrow channel
between flood walls. We strongly suspect the volume of the June
07 flood would have over-topped the walls and also that the water
may have backed up and flowed around the start of the walls, with
the potential to flood previously unaffected properties. Only
the EA are in a position to confirm or deny this. At the very
least, consideration should be given to alleviating some of the
pinch points and modifying low bridge arches.
12. Why are drains and gulleys cleared so
infrequently, meaning they are often incapable of coping with
excessive surface water drainage? Routine maintenance seems to
have become anathema to the big agencies and councils (easy targets
for spending cuts?), while large capital projects give far more
kudos.
13. It should go without saying, but the
importance of protecting and preserving flood meadows in the valley
bottoms and limiting areas of concrete and tarmac that speed up
the run off of water cannot be overstated.
14. It should be mandatory that purchasers
or tenants of properties be made fully aware of any previous flooding
and have redress in law for compensation should this not be done.
Property values would consequently adjust to reflect this risk
of potential cost and disruption.
15. Owners of properties susceptible to
regular flooding and builders of properties likely to be susceptible
should have strong inducements or a compulsion to make them flood
resilient ie reducing potential damage with high level electrical
wiring, split level plastering, solid floors etc. Any remedial
work carried out under insurance cover should include this caveat.
While it must be accepted that insurance is a business, with premiums
related in many ways to gambling odds, there needs to be some
protection for people who have not been flooded, despite being
in flood areas as defined by the EA. One would also hope that
reasonably priced premiums would be available to those willing
to exclude flood risks, or perhaps with restricted flood damage
risks for those that install reasonable flood resilience &
resistance measures. There has been a worrying precedent in recent
years of insurance companies all offering similar "one size
fits all" policies, which could price many properties out
of the market for any form of household insurance (including all
risks other than flooding).
16. With reference to 9c, there is much
anger locally and nationally at the EA/DEFRA policy of not maintaining
waterways effectively and restricting farmers to clearing drainage
ditches one in five years. There is a balance to be struck between
nature conservation and the economic well-being of communities,
where the pendulum appears, yet again, to be at one extreme. Water
cannot flow properly along silted and weed choked channels. Additionally,
fallen trees and low branches with the potential to cause log-jams
during floods are rarely cleared. We accept that some of this
responsibility lies with riparian owners, who must be educated
to take their responsibilities seriously. People generally also
need educating to not treat rivers as surrogate rubbish dumps
to carry their waste "somewhere else". It rarely travels
far and can build into effective dams during flood conditions.
Pickering & District Civic Society
September 2007
| 
