Jump to content

Wellbeing in Worksop....CRT in trouble


matty40s

Featured Posts

Old maps of the Chesterfield Canal might explain the water supply element. The mill it seems was mostly demolished. Yet there was a leat that flowed into the Chesterfield Canal east of the lock at the Aqueduct. Ordnance survey maps show four sluices along this leat course.  I assume the sluice in question was at the former mill site, but in opening this sluice would the flow be stopped by others along the leat. The question that must be asked is regards to the last sluice  by the lock that admits water into the canal. If this was closed then the water would probably flow back to the river, but then another question arises as to the extent of the flooding by the aqueduct. and any potential danger to the  leat channel that passed in a culvert under the canal south of the aqueduct. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 17/11/2019 at 10:42, Murflynn said:

hey, don't shoot the messenger...................................   if a spokesman for a major homeless charity has got it wrong then go heckle them, not me.

I bet they didn't describe the issue as flippantly as you did.

On 17/11/2019 at 10:42, Murflynn said:

 

your observation about my political leanings says more about you than it does about me.

 

.................  nuff said.

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With thanks to the Chesterfield Canal Society, it would seem that this water supply was called KILTON FEEDER, and so is part of the Chesterfield Canal Navigation. The CRT should have access to all sluices, unless off course they or BW had sold off the feeder. This seems unlikely in view of the calls made to the CRT to open the sluice. As owners they have a duty to maintain access rights and safe access for their works people, I would suggest. If the building in which the sluice was considered unsafe then the council had to remedy that situation.

 

CRT's lack of response is worrying as there were/ are other sluices that would turn water back into the river down stream.

 

Questions need to be asked of CRT as how have they maintained this feeder and in a more general way how much attention is paid to other similar feeders.  With their policy of removing skills and local knowledge in a rush it seems to save money, there is a strong danger that they will be found liable in the courts for costs incurred by residents at Worksop, 

 

All those people who actively campaign for funds appear may well be wasting their time, if CRT management remain aloof to their responsibilities in managing their waterways and infrastructure.

 

 

Edited by Heartland
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Athy said:

I thought that all maintenance work on the Chesterfield was done by volunteers. Not so?

The Chesterfield canal is in two parts, the navigable bit east of the tunnel is CRT where they are assisted by volunteers especially on vegetation clearance using the Chesterfield Canal Society historic boat Python.

The isolated sections west of the tunnel are being restored by a mixture of volunteers, grant aided work and by developers 

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Heartland said:

With thanks to the Chesterfield Canal Society, it would seem that this water supply was called KILTON FEEDER, and so is part of the Chesterfield Canal Navigation. The CRT should have access to all sluices, unless off course they or BW had sold off the feeder. This seems unlikely in view of the calls made to the CRT to open the sluice. As owners they have a duty to maintain access rights and safe access for their works people, I would suggest. If the building in which the sluice was considered unsafe then the council had to remedy that situation.

 

CRT's lack of response is worrying as there were/ are other sluices that would turn water back into the river down stream.

 

Questions need to be asked of CRT as how have they maintained this feeder and in a more general way how much attention is paid to other similar feeders.  With their policy of removing skills and local knowledge in a rush it seems to save money, there is a strong danger that they will be found liable in the courts for costs incurred by residents at Worksop, 

 

All those people who actively campaign for funds appear may well be wasting their time, if CRT management remain aloof to their responsibilities in managing their waterways and infrastructure.

 

 

Whilst that reference to Kilton Feeder is helpful in understanding this situation it leaves me not really much clearer where the sluice in question is located and what it would do. As far as I can see from the EA website regarding the feeder, the only connection to the canal is below Kilton Lock although there may be something possible just above Priorswell Street. Do you know just what flood relief/avoidance the sluice would have achieved?

 

See also https://www.bassetlaw.gov.uk/media/1982/bssfra023worksopflooddepth100yr3.pdf

 

Also, https://maps.nls.uk/view/101602350 seems to suggest that above Priorswell the water course was originally a mill stream and the canal feeder comes off that. How would CaRT have come to have responsibility for the mill stream?

Edited by Mike Todd
Add flood map
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Mike Todd said:

Whilst that reference to Kilton Feeder is helpful in understanding this situation it leaves me not really much clearer where the sluice in question is located and what it would do. As far as I can see from the EA website regarding the feeder, the only connection to the canal is below Kilton Lock although there may be something possible just above Priorswell Street. Do you know just what flood relief/avoidance the sluice would have achieved?

 

See also https://www.bassetlaw.gov.uk/media/1982/bssfra023worksopflooddepth100yr3.pdf

 

Also, https://maps.nls.uk/view/101602350 seems to suggest that above Priorswell the water course was originally a mill stream and the canal feeder comes off that. How would CaRT have come to have responsibility for the mill stream?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Martin@75 said:

If I am correct the sluice is within the building group just off the flood map at 9 o'clock.
Below the P in Priory and just left of the words saw mill on the OS map.

Thanks. If so, it appears to be part of the old mill stream but controls how much of that stream is diverted into Kilton feeder and hence down below Kilton Lock into the canal.

 

If the sluice is still where indicated on the old map then opening the sluice presumably allows more water to go down the river rather than the canal. In what way was it expected to alleviate flooding from which area?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Map, for the Chesterfield Canal shows the feeder starting with the river Ryton and includes the mill pool and dam. The mill was a flour mill, then a saw mill, owned by Holley Brothers, which burnt down in 1895. Ordnance survey maps show a sluice into a leat that rejoins the Ryton. However it seems there was another sluice in the saw mill complex and presumably the dam that may have replaced the water wheel when after the fire and the site was abandoned. I gather that this is the sluice that is a matter of concern. It also appears water course have been altered. With a working mill the water was used to power the mill and then passed into the feeder. This arrangement was not uncommon, the Montgomery had examples, for example.

 

By opening this sluice water would have been diverted away from the area in danger of flooding, and I gather this remains the issue that had brought criticism to the CRT front door. 

 

Such an alteration may have been carried out by the Great Central railway,, but that is only a guess. Water supply to the feeder would need to be controlled other wise the flow would hit the  canal at times of flood, I suspect.

 

 

Edited by Heartland
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tim Lewis said:

From elsewhere:

 

Interesting extract for New Civil Engineer about the flooding in Worksop :-

 

In a statement the CRT said: “The leader of Bassetlaw District Council is wrong to suggest that we didn’t step up to respond. The Trust was in liaison with the agencies involved throughout and our staff have worked admirably at numerous locations across the region to deal with incidents, including through the night and alongside the emergency services in many cases.

“Specifically, at Worksop, the sluice in question is not a drainage sluice, but a sluice that feeds the Chesterfield Canal. Definitively, it would not have alleviated the flooding in the town. The water would have stayed in the area as the feeder, as the canal and river all run in parallel a very short distance apart.

“Separately, the sluice gate is in a council-owned derelict building deemed to be unsafe and therefore dangerous to enter. One of the large roof beams has rotted through and is hanging down into the building and could fall at any time. The Trust has been in contact with council about the state of the building for a number of weeks.”

as a retired Old Civil Engineer, I am glad the Institution's professional journal has been able to clarify the matter.  As expected, the general meedya is trash.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tim Lewis said:

From elsewhere:

 

Interesting extract for New Civil Engineer about the flooding in Worksop :-

 

In a statement the CRT said: “The leader of Bassetlaw District Council is wrong to suggest that we didn’t step up to respond. The Trust was in liaison with the agencies involved throughout and ,

...a far better response than the one originally reported by the BBC. ...and yes, looking at the historical information on here, the local knowledge and this response, CRT are not in trouble.

Had this message been relayed at the time, the original article wouldnt have existed and local people would have been venting their ire at the local council instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tim Lewis said:

From elsewhere:

 

Interesting extract for New Civil Engineer about the flooding in Worksop :-

 

In a statement the CRT said: “The leader of Bassetlaw District Council is wrong to suggest that we didn’t step up to respond. The Trust was in liaison with the agencies involved throughout and our staff have worked admirably at numerous locations across the region to deal with incidents, including through the night and alongside the emergency services in many cases.

“Specifically, at Worksop, the sluice in question is not a drainage sluice, but a sluice that feeds the Chesterfield Canal. Definitively, it would not have alleviated the flooding in the town. The water would have stayed in the area as the feeder, as the canal and river all run in parallel a very short distance apart.

“Separately, the sluice gate is in a council-owned derelict building deemed to be unsafe and therefore dangerous to enter. One of the large roof beams has rotted through and is hanging down into the building and could fall at any time. The Trust has been in contact with council about the state of the building for a number of weeks.”

In which case where did the water go after the fire service opened the sluice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Naughty Cal said:

In which case where did the water go after the fire service opened the sluice?

The answer was given in the CRT statement:  "Definitively, it would not have alleviated the flooding in the town. The water would have stayed in the area as the feeder, as the canal and river all run in parallel a very short distance apart."

 

I don't know if it was correct though! :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Heartland said:

It is good to see that the CRT have explained the situation in the New Civil Engineer.

 

In the BBC article, it did show a fireman at the sluice, who evidently opened it, but has anything been said of the result of that.

 

 

Worksop10.jpg

It shows a fireman rescuing two homeless people from a bin....

  • Greenie 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sea Dog said:

The answer was given in the CRT statement:  "Definitively, it would not have alleviated the flooding in the town. The water would have stayed in the area as the feeder, as the canal and river all run in parallel a very short distance apart."

 

I don't know if it was correct though! :)

 

It is at least consistent with what seemed to me after looking just a bit at the maps and aerial views and was why I was gently prodding for a bit more information. The original report did not seem to hold up with the situation on the ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At last the CRT have issued a more comprehensive statement, which includes a mention that the sluice was already partly open to supply water to the canal and the fact that to divert more water could damage the canal. There is also a pertinent reference to the EA and not being part of the their flood relief policy. The CRT notice was published on the 24th November, I gather. 

 

This now does seem that the BBC reporting standards have fallen.

 

 

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.