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