Memorandum submitted by Burton Joyce Residents'
Association (FL 10)
FLOODING IN THE VILLAGE OF BURTON JOYCE,
NOTTINGHAMSHIRE JUNE/JULY 2007
SUMMARY
This submission relates to the flooding experience
of Burton Joyce.
It describes the sources of flooding, the causes
of the flooding and residents' experience of emergency arrangements.
On the basis of this experience it concludes:
— Watercourses and drainage systems
must be properly maintained on a regular basis.
— Existing drainage channels must be
retained or replaced with equivalents.
— The impact of additional housing
or other development on the potential to overload the drainage
and sewage systems must be considered when assessing planning
applications.
— The impact on the drainage system
of the creation of large areas or driveway or hard-standing where
there used to be gardens should be understood and controlled.
— Development should not be permitted
in flood risk areas particularly where development will increase
the flood risk to another property or another area.
— There should be integration of the
various agencies responsible for different aspects of drainage/sewage/flooding/watercourses.
— There should be better co-ordination
of information and provision in times of emergency.
1. Location:
Burton Joyce lies in the flood plain of the
Trent River, 6 miles north-east of Nottingham. It has no formal
flood defences but a railway embankment between the River Trent
and the village serves as an informal defence against flooding
from the Trent at a 1:30 year level.
2. Sources of flooding:
There are several potential sources of flooding
in the village
— the river Trent, which lies to the
south
— the stream that runs through the
village in a dumble from the hills on the north side of the village
to the Trent on the south side
— run-off from the hills on the north
— groundwater as the village lies on
a significant aquifer near to the surface
— inadequacies in the capacity of the
drainage/sewage systems and in their maintenance
3. Historical flooding events:
Much of the village was severely flooded in
1947.
Some of the village was flooded in 2000—a
1:30 event. In both these events flooding was mainly from the
River Trent but was exacerbated by water backing-up in the dumble
as it was unable to flow into the river.
4. Flooding in summer of 2007:
Flooding took place in the village four times—on
the night of 22-23 June, on 24-25 June, on 20-21 July and on 26-27
July. About 24 houses and a considerably larger number of garages,
outbuildings and gardens were flooded.
5. Sources of flooding in 2007:
5.1 This time flooding was not caused by
the river but by the other sources listed in paragraph 2.
5.2 Flooding affected different parts of
the village in different ways.
5.3 The major source of flooding was the
stream in the dumble which resulted in the flooding of property
alongside the dumble. Exploration of this type of flooding suggested
these causes:
— Unprecedented volumes of water in
the dumble.
— Lack of capacity in the dumble to
allow passage of such a high volume of water particularly under
highways.
— Poor maintenance and possibly encroachment
of gardens into sides of dumble
— Blockages in culverts and under highways
5.4 Flooding was also caused by run-off
from the hills and roads. Exploration of this type of flooding
suggested these causes:
— Drainage ditches—some that
existed in earlier years on the edges of fields or alongside roads
have been filled in or built over.
— Drains on roads—blocked or
overflowing due to undercapacity.
— Paved frontages—a large number
of front gardens have been converted into hard standing which
now directs run off into the road.
— Additional housing—much housing
has been added to the village over the years without upgrading
the drainage/sewage capacity.
5.5 There were also problems where the drainage/sewage
system overflowed into some properties.
6. Flooding experience in 2000:
6.1 In 2007, the River Trent did not rise
high enough to contribute to village flooding but the village
of experience of 2000 is relevant in relation to other potential
causes of flooding in the village.
6.2 In 2000, houses were flooded by:
— Overflowing stream in the dumble
as it backed up when unable to exit to the Trent because of high
river water levels. This would not have occurred if the function
of the drainage channel alongside the railway embankment had not
been ignored and planning permissions given at various times for
building on this site.
— High groundwater levels and seepage
through the railway embankment on a site where new housing was
built in 1980s—where planning permission was given against
local knowledge and advice of the unsuitability of this site.
6.3 Both these instances highlight the contribution
made to flooding risk by poor planning decisions which ignore
local knowledge and advice and fail to understand the purposes
of features such as drainage channels.
7. Emergency arrangements:
7.1 Residents generally praised the workers
from the EA and the Council who dealt with the aftermath of the
flooding. But there was criticism of the administration of the
emergency arrangements, specifically:
— There was no information available
on the spot about who to call for assistance or whether there
was a general flooding assistance number
— Severn Trent Water had only one national
number which deals with general inquiries about drainage and sewage
as well as emergencies. One person reported a delay of 35 minutes
to get through to the emergency number to report sewage backup
into his property; others criticised their "nothing to do
with us" attitude.
— Sandbags arrived from the local borough
council about 12 hours after the waters had receded. Some people
(including pensioners) phoning for sandbags were told there were
none and that they would have to get their own from a builder.
7.2 It is understood that Nottinghamshire
County Council has a Beacon Award for its emergency arrangements.
None of this excellence was evident in the flooding event in our
village in 2000 or 2007.
8. Concluding comments:
On the basis of the experiences outlined above
we make the following suggestions for action by public authorities:
8.1 Watercourses and drainage systems must
be properly maintained on a regular basis. It is not clear to
the public which authority is responsible for which system and
to whom problems can be referred.
8.2 Existing drainage channels must be retained.
Where planning permissions are given that affect drainage courses,
alternatives must be provided. But equally important is that developments
that do not currently require planning permission—such as
creating a hard standing in a garden—must not be permitted
if they affect a drainage channel. Similarly farmers and other
landowners must not be permitted to fill in land drainage channels.
8.3 The impact of additional housing or
other development on the potential to overload the drainage and
sewage systems must be understood and considered when assessing
planning applications.
8.4 The impact on the drainage system of
the creation of large areas or driveway or hard-standing where
there used to be gardens should be understood and controlled.
There is currently no requirement for planning permission for
such developments. Consideration should be given to this—or
to creating appropriate building regulations. These could take
the form of restricting the proportion of hard-standing that can
be created in a garden, or requiring hard standing or driveways
to drain into a soak-away instead of into the drainage system.
8.5 Development should not be permitted
in flood risk areas particularly where development will increase
the flood risk to another property or another area. While government
guidance requires this, it is often ignored by planning authorities.
8.6 There should be integration of the various
agencies responsible for different aspects of drainage/sewage/flooding/watercourses
as there was confusion and buck-passing in evidence in terms of
responsibilities for the different sources of flooding.
8.7 Co-ordination of information and provision
in times of emergency. There was a total lack of co-ordination
of services and immediately accessible information which gave
rise to a lot of anger and frustration as well as unnecessary
multiple phone calls to various agencies. An emergency number
should be established by the County Council, or the equivalent,
through which inquiries should be channelled. At the local level,
parish councils, or the equivalent, should hold up-to-date information
about emergency arrangements and make this immediately available
on the spot.
Burton Joyce Residents' Association
August 2007
| 
