Sluice Gates - flood defences or not?

[Josher]

Hope the EA know what they are doing, picking a fight with the Peel Group!

 

High Court challenge to Manchester flood risk zone Wednesday, 19 October 2011 Planning Resource

 

A developer has been given permission to mount a High Court challenge against a decision that designates large swathes of land next to the Manchester Ship Canal as a high-risk flooding zone.

 

 

High Court judge Mr Justice Collins has given the go-ahead to the Peel Group, which owns Manchester Ship Canal Co - the statutory operators of the canal, as well as much of the land around it - to bring a full court challenge to the Environment Agency’s (EA’s) stance on the official flood map for the canal. The judge ruled that the Peel Group had an "arguable" case and deserved a full hearing.

 

The Peel Group says that, contrary to the EA’s stated policy – which it says was followed in respect of flood maps around the River Thames and the River Nene – the EA has treated sluice gates in the Manchester Ship Canal as "flood defences" and, as a result, drawn up the flood map on the basis of what would happen if they failed. The result, it says, is that large swathes of its land have been placed in the high-risk Flood Zone 3, rather than the lower risk Flood Zone 1. This, it says, would not have been the case if the sluice gates – devices that regulate water levels on the Canal to allow ocean-going ships to pass along it via a set of locks – were not treated as flood defences, and therefore assumed to remain open.

 

The Peel Group says that the sluice gates are structures intended to aid the normal operation of the canal, not flood defences, and that the EA’s published policy treats them as such. It says that, in respect of the Thames and Nene flood maps, the sluice gates were modelled as fully open and operational. In any event, it says that they have not failed to operate in more than 100 years since the canal was opened. It argues that undisputed figures show that the probability of failure at a time of flooding is less than 0.01 per cent - 1 in 10,000. However, it claims, the EA failed to take into account the statistically tiny risk as a material consideration in its decision.

 

The EA maintains that the flood map has been correctly prepared consistently with its policies, and is defending the action.

[Phoenix_V]

Interesting because currently on the Thames they (EA) are trying to claim that the sluices are nothing to do with flood prevention and should be paid for by the boaters and not flood prevention funds.

[OldGoat]

Interesting because currently on the Thames they (EA) are trying to claim that the sluices are nothing to do with flood prevention and should be paid for by the boaters and not flood prevention funds.

 

 

Really?? - can you quote your source, please.

[Timleech]

Interesting because currently on the Thames they (EA) are trying to claim that the sluices are nothing to do with flood prevention and should be paid for by the boaters and not flood prevention funds.

 

I seem to remember that soon after Peel (or whatever they called themselves at the time) took over the canal they were wanting a substantial contribution to dredging costs, on the grounds that the canal was a significant 'flood drain'.

Methinks they want to have their cake & eat it, but that comes as no surprise at all. Property development is their real game, port operations are secondary.

 

Tim

[Phoenix_V]

Really?? - can you quote your source, please.

Report from barge Association chairman

 

"During August I have attended a number of meetings and had discussions with

Environment Agency (EA) managers and other boating associations. Edward

Burrell has also assisted by attending the National Navigation Users

meeting.

 

The EA is reviewing how the Thames is funded. They look at it holistically

and including all its water control weirs the annual budget needs to be in

the order of £19M to fund operation, maintenance, and replacement of weirs

and locks as it becomes necessary.

 

Looking at the income figures for 2010/11 boaters contributed about £4.1M of

the cost in boat registrations, moorings and accommodations (payments for

jetties and piles). Government Grant in Aid (GIA) funding from DEFRA has

provided about £12.6M. Water companies contribute about £1.1M, Flood Risk

Management (FRM) pay £0.5M for weir operation and other commercial income

generates a further £0.5M. The £12.6M GIA is split by the EA into £2.6M for

Navigation and £9.9M from FRM.

 

The government has now changed the way in which flood risk is assessed and

it is now suggested that not all of the Thames weirs are there for flood

control and in the main are only needed for navigation. EA are suggesting

that there is an £8M hole in their budget as the FRM GIA will drop

dramatically next year.

"

 

Be interesting if they abandoned the weirs and let the river return to nature

property prices might be a little affected.

Edited October 22, 2011 by Phoenix_V