FLOOD REPORT “DISAPPOINTED” AS CRAIGHOUSE PARTNERSHIP FAIL TO SORT FLOODING ISSUES

Flood Prevention Unit Outlines Technically Incorrect Information in Scheme 3 Application as Craighouse Partnership Ignores Agreement on Allowable Surface Discharge

flooding balcarres

Floods in Balcarres St. reproduced from Flickr – Chris Hill photostream – under a Creative Commons License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/. Click for link.

The flood report recently released from the Council’s Flood Prevention Unit shows that – despite three years of work – the Craighouse Partnership have failed to solve any of the substantial flooding problems that will be created by this development.

In their leaflet disseminated to thousands of households in the area, the Craighouse Partnership claimed that the development didn’t just deal with the issues – but improved them. The Craighouse Partnership’s leaflet stated confidently:

“SUDS ensures 12 % reduction in storm flow, substantially reducing flood risk in local area”.

However, the flood report does not agree and states that it is “disappointed”.  The Flood Prevention Unit’s report outlines that the Craighouse Partnership have gone against the allowable surface discharge agreed with the Council and there is inadequate detail and technically incorrect drawings. The Flood Prevention Unit’s report says:

An allowable surface discharge of 8.4l/s was agreed during previous consultations with the Unit. The developer has increased this to 10.4l/s due to an additional 2l/s of existing hard surfaced landscape. This increase goes against our guidelines, taking the discharge to 5.68 l/s/ha instead of the allowable 4.5l/s/ha.

It adds:

It is disappointing that this could not have been designed to a greater extent prior to planning approval being sought. The current proposals outlined in drawing 503 rev H is not of adequate detail and is technically incorrect.

It adds:

The Flood Prevention Unit will not take on the responsibility of maintaining the proposed ‘swale banks’.

As anyone living locally knows, flooding is a big problem in the area – particularly for Balcarres St, but is also a big risk at Meadowspot which already suffers from flooded gardens. It is a problem Local Councillors, the Community Council and local residents have been battling for years.

flooded balcarres

Balcarres st flooding from the bbc click to link to story

So, we have a situation where the independent experts brought in by the Council’s roads department outlined that the roads plan is potentially dangerous for children and pedestrians on the site and does not properly accommodate emergency vehicles. We now have the Flood Prevention Unit outlining the errors, inadequate response and technically incorrect information submitted about flooding.

Both reports appear now to wash their hands of the whole thing and state that sorting out these messes should be added to any conditions. It’s a bit like saying – give them permission so they can get their land-value rise and sort out the mess afterwards.

Are these departments being pressurised because others in the Council or perhaps the planning department itself wants to wash their hands of the whole thing? We hope not.

For the Council to attempt to push through such an application, when there are such serious problems – and when the developer has so far been incapable or unwilling to put the time and effort into sorting them out, would not just be incompetent but seriously negligent.

It is clear from both these reports that the issues remain and nothing has been sorted from the previously inadequate and inaccurate Scheme 2.

It is also clear that the Craighouse Partnership’s own statements about flooding to the public have been inaccurate and misleading. We hope the Councillors take note of this extremely important issue as flooding is a very serious problem locally.

Advertisements

About friendsofcraighouse

A local group wanting to preserve the beautiful Craighouse Campus site in Edinburgh.
This entry was posted in Planning process. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to FLOOD REPORT “DISAPPOINTED” AS CRAIGHOUSE PARTNERSHIP FAIL TO SORT FLOODING ISSUES

  1. Lizzie says:

    not just the surface water issue is not being addressed properly, but also removing many mature trees and replacing them with even the same number of smaller ones will increase the risk of flooding as bigger trees soak up lots more water water

  2. You actually make it appear really easy along with your presentation but I in finding this topic to
    be really something that I think I’d never understand.
    It kind of feels too complex and extremely vast for me.
    I am looking forward in your subsequent submit, I will attempt to get the dangle of it!

  3. Pingback: Craighouse for sale? – Website created even before Hearing | Friends of Craighouse Grounds and Wood

  4. Pingback: Developer Tries to Get Out of Important Flooding Condition as Diggers Move Onto the Site | Friends of Craighouse Grounds and Wood

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s