The Meadlake Ditch can handle normal rainfall but not fluvial floodwater ( from the River Thames ) . In 2014 Egham Hythe and parts of Thorpe had to be pumped out over a three to four week period because the only drainage path for the area is through a 1.7 metre culvert under Norlands Lane. Raised landfill on the Viridor Landfill site that has no flood drainage paths prevented surface water breaking across Norlands Lane it would have done before 1998 when the Meadlake Ditch was diverted.
The numbered points below demonstrate how the EA and SCC tried to explain that there were no problems and what we discovered when we dealt with things ourselves.
1. We walked the ditch , local area and spoke to residents
2. We created a flood model , marked out levels along the ditch and local landmarks . ( Link to Flood Model - 2014 Version )
3. We received a letter ( Dated 8th July 2014 ) from Julia Simpson , the EA's area manager for our area. She stated that , after inspecting the watercourse , there was no flood drainage problem in the Norlands Lane area ( Copy of the EA's letter ) . Recently I wrote to the Julia and asked for a copy of the site report that would provide evidence to back up her statement , It was not answered so I can only assume that her statement was untrue and that her staff never actually visited the site..
4. In October 2014 we proved there was a drainage problem in the Norlands Lane area after looking inside the culvert and later, producing graphs of historic upstream and downstream at the Norlands Lane Bridge. The graphs were derived from EA's own upstream and downstream level gauges. The culvert under Norlands Lane could not handle water pumped in from two 30cm dewatering pipes from the Coldharbour Lane site let alone Thames floodwater. Local residents had previously reported the problem to the EA that was clearly evident whenever the dewatering plant on the Viridor Site was running . Water was seen to be whirlpooling in front of the Norlands Lane Bridge because it couldn't get under it. ( Upstream and Downstream Graphs ).
5. In October 2014 , a team of divers working for the EA inspected the culverts under Norlands Lane and inside Thorpe Park and, after clearing a number of problems , produced a report. ( Copy of Divers Report ) . The report contradicts the EA's statements in their letter dated 8th July 2014 .
Five tonnes of silt was removed from a culvert under the service road in Thorpe Park and another 5 tonnes of silt was removed from the small entry pond in Thorpe Park. Tree roots were removed from side entry pipes inside the culvert under Norlands Lane . All of this evidence makes one wonder what evidence the EA used to justify their statement that there were no drainage problems at Norlands Lane.
It's impossible to investigate flooding problems from behind a desk 30 miles away and we have major concerns about the competence of most of the people we have been dealing with.
6. In November / December 2014 we removed a culvert and earth banking 50 metres north of the Norlands Lane Bridge. The culvert and bunds were installed in 1998 when the ditch was diverted . We had to obtain Flood Defence Consent from the EA to allow us to remove the culvert and the earth banking and removed them in November/December 2014 . ( Link - Before and After Photos )
7. Photos of the culvert being removed. ( Link to Digger removing Culverts )
8. In April 2015 we received a letter from Surrey County Council, via our MP , admitting that they didn't realise that there was a culvert running under Norlands Lane. (Link to SCC Letter )
SCC are responsible for culverts under roads , they are also the Local Lead Flood Authority ( LLFA ). They are supposed to investigate and deal with flooding problems on behalf of local councils and local residents. This culvert was obviously involved in the 2003 , 2007 and 2014 floods. In October 2014 , a company named JMP produced a lengthy report explaining why the floods occurred . They obviously didn't investigate the 2003 and 2007 flooding properly or look at the Norlands Lane culvert so the report covering Egham Hythe was a whitewash .
( Link to the JMP Report - October 2003 )
9. In October 2015 , Meadlake Briefings started to appear ( Link to one of the briefings ). The briefings were written by a team from the EA , SCC and RBC who would not identify themselves. Among other things , they mentioned that it was not viable to do anything about the drainage problems in the Norlands Lane area. The cost of repairing properties and infrastructure upstream cost local residents , businesses and SCC an estimated £50M . Removing a few culverts cost us a few thousand pounds . We have no idea whether the author was suitably qualified to produce the report and no evidence has ever been produced to support any of their statements .
10. During 2016 another member of our team and myself attended all of the Design Workshops for the River Thames Scheme.
11. Flytipping over the Norlands Lane Bridge . Debris was floating under the bridge and getting caught up where the upstream concrete culverts is jointed to a smaller steel one . Our requests to SCC for trash screens and / or raised fencing to be used to protect the culvert from flytipping were refused . After meeting the manager of Thorpe Park in November 2016 he very kindly erected raised fencing across the Norlands Lane Bridge. Before that , tipper lorries had been able to dump their loads over the existing low railings that run across the bridge . It did the trick and , nearly two years later , there have been no further flytipping incidents at the bridge. ( Link to Photos of flytipped debris in the ditch )
However , a jobsworth from SCC wanted to take the fencing down because it didn't have planning permission .
12. In November 2016 , we went inside the culvert under Nolands Lane and cleared it ourselves because rubbish was getting trapped under the bridge. It proves why trash screens and fencing across the bridge were needed . Link - Local residents in action and photos of what was found under the bridge
13. The Environment Agency provided online access to the water level gauge on the downstream side of the Norlands Lane Bridge to allow us to monitor levels remotely. Link to www.riverlevels.uk)
14. After attending the last River Thames Scheme Design Workshop in December 2016 we asked to see the proposed changes to the land levels on the west bank of the Meadlake Ditch between Green Lane and Norlands Lane. The RTS Design Team Leader had mentioned proposals for re-profiling the west banks of the flood channel to provide sightseeing areas on the raised landfill mounds. We wrote to them asking if we could see the proposed new site levels and didn't get a reply.
Two years later , we received the 1992 agreed site levels for the Viridor Site under a freedom of information request . ( Link to 1992 Levels Site Plan ). They show that there should have been a flood relief path at about 14 metres AOD reducing to 13.2 metres at the Norlands Lane end . The upstream floodwater level was 14.90 metres so 90cm ( 3 feet ) of flood water should have been able to drain across the site. However , in 2003/4 a Surface Water Flooding Lagoon and raised earth banking was built that dammed off the southern end of the site . It doesn't matter how high the mounds are on landfill sites as long as compensatory land drainage paths are provided . The landfill site was previously a flood plain.
No planning documents exist to explain why the lagoon and banking was built . Local residents wouldn't be aware of it being built because the site is fenced off . The site is also screened off behind tall earth bunds . We assume that representatives for the EA and SCC would have been on-site for progress checks and sign-off when the site closed down. We are still unable find any of them to confirm this .
We obtained the actual land levels on the site ourselves when we bought the LIDAR data for the site and produced our own LIDAR Maps . Lidar data can't be doctored and can be considered to be accurate, unlike most of the planning documents we've seen. ( Link to Lidar Maps showing hidden landfill levels around the Norlands Lane Bridge area ) .
15. In September 2017 we wrote to the CEO of Viridor and a site meeting was arranged with his site manager ( Link to Email sent to Phil Piddlington , the CEO of Viridor ).
16. We visited the site a few weeks later with his Site Manager who agreed that there was a problem ( verbally and confirmed in writing ) . He also agreed to sort the flood drainage problem out . ( Link to an Email from Viridor confirming that remedial work would be carried out )
Copy of email conversations with Viridor October 2017 - November 2017 ( Link to Copy of email conversations with the site manager for the Viridor Site )
Over a year later , nothing has been done. The problem was escalated to the SCC Flooding Resilience Team who haven't managed to arrange another site meeting . They have also failed to visit site themselves or use their executive powers to gain access.
17. In August 2018 we were still getting nowhere with Surrey County Council so we sent some slides to RBC describing the causes of the drainage problem across the landfill site. Unfortunately , RBC were unable to help us . Landfill sites and gravel extraction is controlled by Surrey County Council and RBC's planners were not familiar with the site. ( Link to Slides sent to RBC )
Their planners and flooding resilience team , are still not willing to meet us or explain how the problems were allowed to be created under their noses .
They turned down an opportunity to meet the local flood group at a recent the group meeting. However , a report of some sort was was read at the last meeting by SCC's representative for Flooding Strategy. After "the reading" the report wasn't handed or copied to the chairman of the meeting. It must have been a very sensitive document and we are still waiting to see a copy of it.
18. We have asked the EA to check the accuracy of some of their site plans relating to Flood Maps published in a brochure for the landfill site and also planning proposals for new housing in Green Lane. The Flood planning documents show a flood relief path running north to south down the site . There is actually no drainage path as can be seen on our LIDAR Maps and it would also be obvious to anyone walking the site. The background map used in the flood as the datum level to show the flooding area is based on land levels in the mid 1990's that were lower than they are now ( the flood maps are dated 2014 ) . The southern end of the site wasn't landfilled until 2003 / 2004 . It hadn't been excavated for gravel so the original land elevation was about 13.20m AOD. We aren't sure if the flood map errors are due to negligence or deception . Link to Flood Maps that need to be verified for accuracy . ( Link to Flood Maps that need to be checked for accurancy )
Both the EA , who produced the plans , and SCC planners must have visited the site during the life of the project and failed to notice the "mistake" and they have yet to comment .
At a recent flood group meeting , the Team Leader of SCC's Flooding Resilience Group actually admitted to never having visited the site because he was afraid of being prosecuted for trespassing. For the previous 2 years he had obviously misled the flood group at meetings because he had wrongly given the impression that he actually knew what he was talking about. Several members of the flood group have visited the site themselves and it is clear to the naked eye that there is no drainage path at the southern end of the site due to the slope of landfill that was completed in 2003 . This has destroyed our confidence in the ability of both the Environment Agency and Surrey County Council to deal with the problem .
19. We have been monitoring the levels of the Chertsey Bourne and the effect on the levels of the Thorpe Park Lakes and flooding in the fishing lakes and field south on the M3. We wrote to Thorpe Park in October 2018 and they removed removed their weirboard . We were already aware that the boards were higher than the agreed level and and since then there has been no flooding in the Twynersh and Chertsey Fishing Lakes . We had already made the Environment Agency aware of this problem over 4 years ago and assumed that they had dealt with it. ( Link to Agreed weirboard levels and procedures ).
20. We are still waiting for written answers to the questions we sent to SCC's Flooding Resilience Team Leader in March 2018. ( Link to Outstanding Questions )
It's very noticeable that , since late 2014 , we've had no assistance from any of the agencies involved. None of them have shown any concern about having failed to even tackle or resolve what is a simple land drainage problem. This can only be due to the fact that taking positive action would expose them to claims for both negligence and corruption.
MAIN OUTSTANDING ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE DEALT WITH
1. Damage to raised fencing across the Norland Lane Bridge that prevents lorries flytipping their loads into the Meadlake Ditch which blocks the culvert under Norlands Lane. The fencing was damaged in early 2018 when a car crashed into it when it was snowing . The cost of replacing the fencing should have been claimed from the drivers insurance but SCC missed the opportunity to do this.
2. The lack of a flood relief path across the Viridor Landfill Site that was dammed up in 2003 when a Surface Water Drainage Lagoon was built about 30 metres north of Norlands Lane. The banking around the lagoon dammed off the only flood drainage drainage path that existed across the site and the evidence is clearly visible in satellite images on this website.
3. Concerns about the management of Thorpe Park Lake levels due to poor weir management and the failure of the EA to ensure that the correct weirboards are used when required.
4. Concerns about the EA and SCC being capable of dealing with the a simple land drainage problem that they allowed to be created. This refers to the upstream flooding events in Egham Hythe and Thorpe that could have been prevented if they had been investigated properly. Flood drainage paths were not provided across the Viridor Landfill Site that had previously been a flood plain. The representative from SCC actually called me and informed me that , in 1997/8 , flood relief paths across old landfill sites were not required. He also referred me to Land Drainage Act which was when we all realised that he was in the wrong job.
5. The accuracy and lack of documentation referring to planning issues on all landfill sites in the Egham Hythe and Thorpe area and the refusal of SCC's senior planning manager to discuss the problem with us.
6. The failure of Surrey County Council and the Environment Agency to issue enforcement notices on the Viridor Landfill Site to make them clear the drainage problem they created . It would take one man and a digger about two days to resolve and would not cost either agency anything because it would be down to poor workmanship on the part of the landfill company. We relied on them to act on our behalf and they have let us down.