Portmore Park & District Residents Association

Supporting local heritage, quality of life and community

  • Home
  • About
  • Join
  • Links
  • Contact
  • Archive
  • Guest pieces
  • Privacy
  • Events
  • Planning
  • Parking
  • Traffic
  • Schools
  • Green Belt
  • Riverside
  • Litter
  • Surrey
  • Opinion

Archives for January 2016

Flood Update — River Thames Scheme interim answers

Following questions from PPDRA about the predicted effects of the proposed River Thames flood diversion channels — designed to discharge an additional 150 cubic metres of water per second back into the river at Weybridge — the Environment Agency River Thames Scheme team has helpfully provided some interim answers.  See below.

These are reassuring in some respects, but show that the updated flow modelling, drawing on recent new evidence, has some way to go yet.  We await further news.

—————————————————————————-
From: River Thames Scheme
Sent: 20 January 2016 17:08
To: ‘Miles Macleod’
Subject: Query regards modelling of tidal interface and thames barrier

Dear Mr Macleod

I apologise for my delayed reply.

Please see below our table of responses to your recent questions regarding modelling  and tidal interface and Thames Barrier from our specialist teams.

Please be aware we are still awaiting the river modelling which we anticipate will be available in summer 2016.

Please do get in touch with us again if you have any further questions.

Yours sincerely

Felicitas Wappler
River Thames Scheme
Environment Agency Kings Meadow House, Kings Meadow Road, Reading, Berkshire RG1 8DQ

No. Question Answer
1 How would the progressive rise in level in the tidal Thames (upstream of the barrier) from river flow, over a high tide cycle (with/without the barrier closed) be changed by the increased maximum projected possible flow over an increased capacity Teddington Weir, as proposed under the RTS?  (i.e. by how much would RTS increase the water level in the tidal Thames throughout the tide cycle, in a worst case scenario) The hydraulic model that will be used to assess the impact of the RTS (including downstream of Teddington) is currently being finalised.  The potential impact of the RTS will be tested with and without the Thames Barrier closed.
2 On what assumptions has that been calculated (worst case projected rainfall, worst case prior groundwater conditions, maximum flows upstream etc); how has it been modelled, and how has it been independently verified? The hydraulic model of the lower Thames to test the RTS design is currently being finalised.  The model extends from Hurley to Southend.Design flood conditions are represented in the model as inflow hydrographs for the Thames and its main tributaries, and a tidal water level boundary at Southend.  The magnitudes of flows tested in the model are based on analysis of long-term flow records at gauging stations such as Windsor, Staines and Kingston.  Therefore, the inflows to the model represent the effect of extreme rainfall and groundwater conditions, rather than modelling rainfall or groundwater directly.  The model has been tested for a range of design flood magnitudes covering the following chances of occurring in any given year: 1 in 2 (50%); 1 in 5 (20%); 1 in 10 (10%); 1 in 20 (5%); 1 in 50 (2%); 1 in 75 (1.3%); 1 in 100 (1%); 1 in 200 (0.5%); and 1 in 1000 (0.1%).  The downstream impact of the RTS is being assessed for each of these design events.The modelling work is being independently reviewed by CH2M.  Their review covers the appropriateness of the model boundary conditions.
3 What is the current calculated effect of the RTS on levels in the Thames between Shepperton and Teddington, in worst case scenarios? The hydraulic model that will be used to assess the impact of the RTS (including between Shepperton and Teddington) is currently being finalised.The objective of the downstream compensation measures (at the Desborough Cut and Sunbury, Molesey and Teddington weirs) is to reduce flood risk at all locations in this reach of the river with the RTS in place.
4 Is there a conceivable scenario in which the flows at Hampton / Molesey / Teddington weirs might be constrained to protect London from flooding, and what would the impact of that be on river levels between Shepperton and Teddington? No, there is not a conceivable scenario where the lower Thames weir complexes would be operated to deliberately limit flows passing downstream to prevent flooding downstream of Teddington.  With the RTS in place, the gates at Sunbury, Molesey and Teddington will continue to be operated in the same manner as they are currently.  The gates at the weir complexes are progressively opened as river flows increase, so that in major floods all gates would be fully open.
5 Would it be correct to assume that the thinking (and conceivable maximum flows) may have moved on a little since the original work in framing the Lower Thames Flood Relief Strategy? The magnitude of the design floods used in the modelling work have been reassessed as part of the update to the hydraulic model.  This update makes use of the additional recorded flow data available in the last decade.  This has resulted in changes to the peak flows to be used in the model, although these changes are relatively small.

———————————————————————————–

FURTHER UPDATE  10 February 2016

From: River Thames Scheme [mailto:rts@environment-agency.gov.uk]
Sent: 10 February 2016 09:16
To: ‘Miles Macleod’
Subject: FW: Query regards modelling of tidal interface and thames barrier

Dear Mr Macleod

Please find below the response from our specialist addressing your questions about peak flows and appropriateness of the model boundary conditions.

The peaks flows used in the modelling work are based on a statistical analysis of long-term records at flow gauging stations.  The key station for the Lower Thames is Kingston, for which records are available since 1883 and is the longest continuous flow record available in the UK.  The record has been extended up to the present day and this showed that including the Jan/Feb 2014 flood in the statistical analysis does not have a large impact on the peak flows used in the model compared to the estimates used previously in the Lower Thames Strategy.  Partly this is because such a long flow record was already available.  The second important factor is that the peak flow observed in February 2014 (500m3/s), whilst significant, is smaller than several other previous floods that will have been considered when deriving the Strategy peak flows.  These floods include November 1894 (800m3/s), March 1947 (700m3/s), January 1915 (600m3/s), September 1968 (600m3/s), December 1929 (550m3/s) and November 1974 (550m3/s).

The 2014 flood was more exceptional in terms of its overall flood volume than its peak flow.  That is, the flows remained very high for a longer duration than previous floods.  The 2014 flood volume has been accounted for in the modelling work in the same way as peak flow, utilising statistical analyses of the long term flow records over a range of durations.

The scope of the CH2M review of the modelling work does cover the appropriateness of the flow peaks and flood volumes, and their assigned probabilities.

Please do contact us again if you require any further information.

Many thanks.

Kind regards

Felicitas Wappler
River Thames Scheme
Environment Agency
Kings Meadow House, Kings Meadow Road, Reading, Berkshire RG1 8DQ

 

Weybridge Parking Review – PPDRA Response

On 17 January 2016, PPDRA sent the following to the Surrey Highways Parking Strategy & Implementation Team. It draws on extensive local discussion by our committee, input from residents at meetings and via a survey, and discussions with local groups.

PPDRA submission to SCC Weybridge Parking Review

Portmore Park & District Residents Association (PPDRA) recognises that Weybridge needs adequate parking for residents, shoppers, visitors and workers, if our town is to thrive.  We also know that this is a difficult balance to achieve.

The PPDRA committee broadly welcomes the principle of reducing parking restrictions to help increase capacity, where that is possible and desirable, so long as

  • a good balance of priorities is achieved (especially the balance between parking for residents, shoppers and workers)
  • safety is kept as a prime consideration.

We welcome the principle of consulting residents of individual roads about the specific needs of their road, especially where residents are being displaced from limited parking spaces in their own road.

PPDRA believes there is a very strong need for more public off-street parking, priced more affordably, and convenient for Weybridge town centre.  This is a view which has been widely expressed by local residents in our community meetings and surveys.  Cheap or free short stay parking in particular could help the town centre thrive. Affordable long stay off-street parking is also much needed, within reasonable walking distance.

We recognise that allowing on-street parking can have positive outcomes beyond a simple increase in parking capacity, especially in potential rat runs.  Traffic speeds in our local residential roads are a major issue.  Parked cars can be a positive natural form of traffic calming: for example, Portmore Park Road and Thames Street are unclassified residential roads which without parked cars might become high speed rat runs for through traffic.

Thames Street and Portmore Park Road include schools and a church, which have different parking needs and impacts on the community, meriting additional thought about how best to enable the required mainly short stay parking nearby.  PPDRA has met with St George’s Junior School 3 times a year since 2002, liaising on issues including how best to manage school run drop off and pick up parking. We have also discussed parking issues with representatives of Christ The Prince of Peace church and other local groups.  We note that Thames Street has recently faced issues of excessive obstruction caused by inconsiderate parking at the upper end between the junction with Grotto Road and Monument Green.

The most serious parking issues locally arise close to Weybridge High Street. The Portmore Park and District area of north Weybridge has a fair density of mainly Victorian homes with no off-street parking.  The lack of private off-street parking is a particular issue in roads adjacent to the High Street, where shoppers and town centre workers look to park their cars. The result has been that residents of these roads, returning from a school run or shopping journey, risk finding nowhere to park within walking distance of their home. Hence many living in these roads favour residents’ parking schemes.

PPDRA has long supported the principle that Surrey County Council should consult residents of individual roads about specific residents’ parking schemes for their road.

The PPDRA committee also recognises the need to permit short term shopper and visitor parking in such roads, with a good level of churn, so long as it allows for the needed level of daytime residents’ parking.  It is not good to see ‘residents only’ parking zones with few parked cars in daytime, when shoppers can find nowhere to park and when local shops are in need of footfall.

Further from the High Street, many homes in Portmore Park & District have private off-street parking.  For roads where there is no issue of residents being displaced from essential on-street parking, as a general principle the majority of the PPDRA committee would favour only minimal restrictions, simply where safety issues demand double yellow lines on dangerous corners.  However, we appreciate that there is concern among residents in some roads (particularly Wey Road and Round Oak Road) about potential displacement of parking into their roads if CPZs are introduced elsewhere, and we feel this issue needs careful consideration by Surrey.

We are aware of specific issues in Radnor and Glencoe Roads where there is a very high density of houses and almost no off-street parking, and Church Walk which has very limited parking.  Some residents of these and other roads rely on their parking being able to overflow into on-street parking in Portmore Park Road.

PPDRA would be happy to contribute further on any way possible to help support Surrey County Council (and Elmbridge Borough Council) in finding ways to achieve adequate parking for Weybridge residents, shoppers, visitors and workers.

Search

Local News – Downloads

UPDATED PPDRA Comments for WeyBetterWeybridge (Sept 2021)

Town Centre: PPDRA Comments for WeyBetterWeybridge (April 2021)

PPDRA 2021-0045 letter to EBC re Las Lilas Devonshire Rd (Mar 2021)

PPDRA 2020-3496 letter to EBC re Grenside Road garages (Mar 2021)

Weybridge Parking Review 2019-20 Decision Report (Jan 2021)

PPDRA 2020-3495 letter to EBC re Grenside Rd garages (with pictures)

PPDRA 2020-2821 letter to EBC re Thames St Warehouse (Dec 2020)

Weybridge Parking Review 2019-20 maps + Wey Road & Round Oak Rd CPZ (Sep 2020)

Parking Review 2019-20 Statement of Reasons (Sep 2020)

Elmbridge Local Plan 2019 Consultation – PPDRA Submission (pdf)

LOCAL PLAN SPECIAL NEWSLETTER  (August 2019 – pdf)

News Articles

  • May 2022 (1)
  • January 2022 (1)
  • October 2021 (1)
  • June 2021 (2)
  • April 2021 (1)
  • January 2021 (1)
  • September 2020 (1)
  • February 2020 (1)
  • January 2020 (1)
  • September 2019 (1)
  • August 2019 (1)
  • July 2019 (2)
  • June 2019 (1)
  • May 2019 (1)
  • March 2019 (1)
  • December 2018 (2)
  • November 2018 (1)
  • October 2018 (2)
  • September 2018 (3)
  • August 2018 (2)
  • July 2018 (1)
  • June 2018 (1)
  • December 2017 (1)
  • November 2017 (1)
  • October 2017 (1)
  • September 2017 (2)
  • July 2017 (1)
  • February 2017 (1)
  • January 2017 (2)
  • December 2016 (1)
  • September 2016 (2)
  • August 2016 (1)
  • July 2016 (1)
  • June 2016 (1)
  • May 2016 (2)
  • April 2016 (1)
  • February 2016 (1)
  • January 2016 (2)
  • December 2015 (1)
  • November 2015 (1)
  • October 2015 (3)
  • September 2015 (1)
  • June 2015 (1)
  • April 2015 (1)
  • March 2015 (1)
  • February 2015 (1)
  • January 2015 (1)
  • December 2014 (1)
  • November 2014 (2)
  • October 2014 (2)
  • August 2014 (4)

Copyright Portmore Park & District Residents Association 2002-2021