Planning – Page 2

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

Survey 2015: What do you want for Weybridge?

PPDRA is conducting a survey of local residents’ concerns and wishes for Weybridge, to help us continue to reflect local views.

Our Survey 2015 covers:

Weybridge Town Centre – how to make it more attractive to visit.
Parking – on-street and off-street provision.
Traffic through residential areas – volume and speed, and how to manage it.
Public riversides, green spaces and footpaths – appreciation, concerns and wishes.
Other local concerns.

Survey forms are being distributed with our October 2015 PPDRA Newsletter.
You can also download copy of PPDRA Survey 2015 here.

Portmore Park & District Annual Residents Meeting – 3 Nov 2015

Residents of north Weybridge are invited to share views at our
Portmore Park & District Residents Annual Meeting
Meet other residents and local councillors
Tuesday 3 November, 7:30 for 8:00 pm
St Charles Borromeo School Hall, Christ The Prince Of Peace (Portmore Way)
7:30 – Chat and light refreshments
8:00 – Hear about and discuss local matters which affect our community
We will also briefly conduct the formal business of the PPDRA AGM

Elmbridge Borough Councillors for Weybridge North, Andrew Davis and Ramon Gray, plan to be at our meeting to listen to and speak with residents. This year Ramon Gray was also elected as Surrey County Councillor for Weybridge (his predecessor Christian Mahne was at last year’s meeting).
We hope also to have a guest to speak about the parking review.
Note that PPDRA and our AGM are always careful not to be party political.

Download our October 2015 PPDRA Newsletter (pdf, 1334KB) here.

You can also download copy of PPDRA Survey 2015 (pdf, 508KB) here.

Estate agents’ signs a blight?

estate-agents-signs-weybridge-october-2015

Estate Agents’ signs in Weybridge

Are all those estate agents’ signs that line our local roads really what they seem? Or are they just free advertising, exploiting the goodwill of residents and councils? Some councils ban such signs entirely. Elmbridge Borough Council seems to be more lenient.

Two signs have been displayed prominently in Thames Street, Weybridge, attached to a telegraph pole on private land, for 15 months after the advertised properties were sold and let.

Estate agent signs overstaying their welcome in Thames Street Weybridge

Signs displayed for 15 months after sale & letting

That’s 15 months during which these signs have been blown down in gales and somehow reappeared, become tatty and somehow been refreshed.

It appears that estate agents have teams who go around re-erecting their unpaid advertisements on private property in our local residential roads until someone actively stops them.

Is it time to put an end to this abuse, and free our streets from the clutter of roadside advertising?

Hammersmith & Fulham Council has a blanket ban on signs put up without written council permission, and prosecutes estate agents who offend. Should Elmbridge do the same?

Would you prefer a ban on all roadside Estate Agent signs, or a requirement for written consent from the Council together with meaningful fines for overstaying legitmate use?

Landmark Weybridge building at risk

A local landmark building in Church Walk, with a significant history as the first generating station for electric street lighting in England, is at risk.

Its fanlight windows with elegant arched brickwork on three aspects are key visual features in the local street scene, as are its traditional proportions, and its courtyard with an open view to the River Wey.

All these would be lost if the proposed new design as set out in planning application 2015/3135 were to be permitted– a two storey building with square windows, higher roof with large dormers, a blank gable end, and a huge single storey side extention and garage.

This historic street scene is too significant to lose.

Below is a photograph from 1989, when the original Weybridge Electric Light nameplate was still in place (photo courtesy of Di Balding).

UPDATE 3 October : Current application withdrawn. We await future proposals, which we hope willl be more sympathetic to the history and setting, given the number of strong and well argued objections lodged against 2015/3135.

Here is what PPDRA had to say about the application:

2015/3135 – Riverside Church Walk Weybridge Surrey KT13 8JT

This application proposes to change beyond recognition a landmark building in Weybridge, a building with a significant history as the generating station for the first electric street lighting.

We object to the proposed development on the following grounds:

1. Impact on Street Scene.

Visually this historic building is characterised by its fanlight windows with elegant arched brickwork on three aspects. Allowing the replacement of those features as proposed, with the visual mass of the additional height and dormer windows, would have a very negative impact on the street scene of this picturesque backwater.

The proposed single storey side extension and attached double garage would add considerable further visual mass (as would the proposed blank second floor wall on the north-eastern aspect, replacing what are currently attractive fanlights).

This would intrude strongly on the street scene in Church Walk, where currently the view approaching from the north is of the historic fanlights seen across a courtyard. It would intrude on the view from the east, especially as seen when approaching Church Walk along Beales Lane, from which the present the view is of courtyard and riverside trees beyond.

The proposed radical transformation of the aspect facing the River Wey would have a significantly damaging impact on the view from the Grade 2 Listed bridge over the Wey.

The removal of 5 metres of existing wall along the Church Walk footpath would expose the view of the proposed new bin area, directly in front of Portmore Cottages. We note that the front elevation shown in the application does not extend to this significant part of the proposal.

2. Impact on flood plain

The proposal design would more than double the footprint of a building in a Class 3 Flood Zone, which was threatened by flood as recently as last year.

3. Overdevelopment of riverside site

The proposal is to divide the current site of Riverside Studios 1 & 2 plus outbuilding Studio 3 in a new way, reducing the land attached to studios 2 & 3 (while leaving the portion of the site with the outbuilding Studio 3 undeveloped for now), and to more than double the footprint of the Studio 1 & 2 buildings in the truncated site to create two much larger dwellings. The impact on density would be dramatic and entirely unsuitable for this sensitive site.

4. Lack of parking provision

The proposal is to remove all onsite parking in the application site, and simply to offer a garage attached to one of the proposed dwellings. No parking space is proposed for the other dwelling. This is unacceptable for this non town centre site, given the severe lack of parking space in the privately owned stretch of Church Walk in front of Studios 1 & 2.

5. New vehicular access

The proposed removal of 5 metres of existing wall along the Church Walk footpath appears to be proposing vehicular access across what has always been solely a footpath (SCC FP18) at this point, relocating the access to Studios 1 & 2 and presumably allowing for future access to the Riverside Studio 3 site – whose current access would be obstructed by the proposed double garage – along and across FP18.

6. Amenity and safety of footpath users

The garage and bin access design do not appear to take into account the amenity and safety of users of the footpath (FP18).

Overall, the design proposed in 2015/3135 would have a significantly negative impact on an area which is prized for its charming street scene and history. Hence we urge refusal of this application.

—————-

Historic note: Here is a piece on the history of the building, from the Parish Magazine, 1989

Excavated basements — good or bad?

A planning application for an excavated basement in Oakdale road, Weybridge, has raised some significant questions and divided views. Extending a house downwards has less impact on the street scene than a traditional extension, once completed. But the work of construction is a major undertaking that can disrupt local life for months.

London Boroughs have found unexpected problems during basement construction, resulting in prolonged projects, and substandard basements that leak and don’t live up to hopes. So they have tightened up on the requirements for granting consent, to ensure up front that the method of construction will be acceptable, in terms of impact during construction and the end result.

PPDRA feels that Elmbridge Borough Council should do the same. Here is the letter we wrote to the Head of Town Planning.

Weybridge parking review – hope on hold?

People hoping for early action on chronic parking issues which afflict some roads in Weybridge may be disappointed at new plans from Surrey. The idea is sound – a strategic parking review looking at needs as well as restrictions, seeking to free up spaces – but the timing and interim arrangements have left some residents feeling badly let down.

Despite previous talk of Weybridge getting an early review, we have been moved down the queue, behind Cobham. That may mean waiting until 2017 for changes.

Frozen out for now?
Until after the review, Surrey propose not to act on local parking issues unless there is an ‘irrefutable serious road safety implication’. The current system for making numerous changes yearly – to deal with specific local problems soon after they arise – will cease. This would mean proposals to deal with pressing parking issues in Dorchester Road and near the top of Thames Street being left in limbo.

So where does that leave Dorchester Road residents who were given hope of early action when they took a petition to Surrey (see PETITION RESPONSE DORCHESTER ROAD. WEYBRIDGE FOR INFORMATION)? They would love to know.

Consultation
More positively, the SCC ELMBRIDGE PARKING STRATEGY EXECUTIVE FUNCTION REPORT — presented to the Surrey County Council Local Committee on 23 February 2015 — proposes a high level of consultation, using an external consultant to engage with local groups. PPDRA is determined to ensure that local Weybridge views get a good hearing.

There is a strong feeling locally that there is an overall shortage of parking in Weybridge town centre, and better collaboration is needed between Surrey County Council (responsible for on-street parking), Elmbridge Borough Council (responsible for some off-street parking) and businesses (also responsible for some off-street parking).

Surrey County Council Proposals

So what has Surrey proposed? Well, the SCC Elmbridge Parking Strategy Executive Function report prepared by Rikki Hill has a promising start:

Reasons for Recommendations. In the past, reviews of parking have tended to be reactive in nature and concentrated on where parking was not desirable and so should be controlled or restricted. A more strategic approach would allow us to also consider where parking is needed and how those parking needs may be met.

But the analysis suggests a longer than anticipated wait for action on local issues:

2.8 Adopting this new more holistic approach to reviewing parking will mean that it will not be possible to review the whole of Elmbridge at the same time. We would therefore need to review each area within the borough on a rolling programme and it would make sense to start with the Cobham area (including Stoke D’Abernon and Oxshott) as the Cobham Chamber of Commerce have already collected a considerable amount of information about the needs of local businesses and the amount of existing private off street parking spaces.

2.9 Taking into account the number of possible problems that have been brought to our attention in the last couple of years, we should then look at Weybridge, followed by the Moleseys and the Dittons, then Esher, Claygate and Hinchley Wood. We should finish with Walton & Hersham, as this is where there has most recently been a comprehensive review.

2.10 The aim would be to complete the reviews in all the areas within the next three financial years after which we would review our strategy and consider whether to start the process again or adopt a new approach.

2.11 As there may still be parking issues that arise outside of the above programme, where there is an irrefutable serious road safety implication, we would want to continue with a smaller version of the current review system to deal with these.

The parking issue in Dorchester Road probably doesn’t have “an irrefutable serious road safety implication”. A case might be made for safety improvements at the top of Thames Street, but our previous experience of arguing for restrictions on safety grounds — at the end of Grotto Road — was that Surrey County Council really wanted evidence of someone being seriously injured (“anyone can say a road is dangerous, but we need to see evidence”).

The root of the issue north of Weybridge High Street is that parking by non-residents has been squeezed out of adjacent roads by restrictions (including residents-only parking). So Dorchester Road and the top of Thames Street have become the nearest accessible places for town centre workers looking for spaces, leaving some residents with nowhere to park. And now Weybridge has a new supermarket with no on-site staff parking spaces.

School buys local Green Belt land

Aerial photo of St Georges Junior Land Purchase

St George’s Junior land purchase (in red)

St George’s Junior School has completed the purchase of the adjacent Green Belt land at Greenlands Farm — part of the remaining riverside farmland between Weybridge and Walton — which had been offered for sale as a ‘strategic development opportunity‘.

Ownership by the school looks to be a significantly better outcome, in terms of impact on our local community, than the land being sold to a property developer or to someone interested in extracting the underlying mineral aggregate.

For the immediate future, the land will remain as grazing land.

St George’s has provided information about their new acquisition, and an informative set of answers to frequently asked questions. Download the details of the land purchase here. While the extra land adds substantially to the estate of the school, the land purchase “is not expected to increase pupil numbers”.

The purchase includes the road leading to the Weybridge Health Club, and the lane linking to the school. This opens up possibilities for an additional access route to the school. The purchase also includes the source of the Engine River and a length of Broadwater, adjacent to the gardens of houses in Greenlands Road.

Surrey Flooding Task Group Report

Surrey County Council has released the findings and recommendations of its Flooding Task Group, which was commissioned by the Environment & Transport Select Committee to investigate the impacts of the recent flood events that affected Surrey in December 2013 and early 2014. The report focuses on areas most affected by floods, not mentioning Weybridge. Portmore Park & District residents may wish to consider local implications of the recommendations.

The Task Group’s report and recommendations are:

a) Surrey County Council should lobby Central Government to change the powers of the Water Company regulators, such that proper investment in the drainage networks of the water companies can be directed, until such time as the Secretary of State is satisfied that those drainage networks fully comply with current standards.

b) The Environment Agency should be pressed to give strong consideration to a programme of selective, tactical dredging of specified areas of the Thames.

c) Surrey County Council should work with partner organisations to make significant improvements to the arrangements for communications in emergencies, and in particular to provide for communication structures between residents and the relevant authorities. Particular attention should be made for special arrangements in holiday periods.

d) Surrey County Council should work with all the Boroughs and Districts and with residents in the relevant areas to establish flood fora.

Download FloodingTaskGroup-SCC-2014–FinalReport
Download FloodingTaskGroup-SCC-2014-Annexe1
Download FloodingTaskGroup-SCC-2014-Annexe2

Local Green Belt landscape at risk

Land for sale: green belt floodplain Feb 2014

Development Land? Local Green Belt floodplain for sale

Land at Greenlands Farm has been offered for sale as a ‘strategic development opportunity’, despite being Green Belt, working floodplain, a potential mineral zone, and an important element of Thames riverside landscape.

This is part of the remaining farmland which separates Weybridge from Walton — a significant piece of local countryside, with traditional hedgerows and field pattern. The farmland helps define the local landscape, and is included in the Strategic View from historic Oatlands Park, and the Thames Landscape Strategy.

This farmland also serves an essential function as a working floodplain. The underlying gravel, linked to the Thames by underground aquifers, helps absorb floodwater , which rises in the fields when the Thames is flowing high, as the attached picture shows.

PP&DRA first raised local concerns about development ambitions for this land back in 2005, on the front page of our newsletter.

As Green Belt with exceptional landscape value, and working floodplain, this land should be safe from development. There would be an outcry in the local community if serious plans for developing this land were ever to be put forward.