Item 1: Reports on Actions from previous meeting
1. Provision of EA maintenance records. JOHN GORDON/KEVIN NEWSHAM meeting with NICKI RUSHTON at Great Hanging Bridge Depot on Thursday 9th February. Maintenance manual emailed after meeting.
2. Arrangement for group members to accompany EA Assets Inspector on part of River Douglas Inspection. JOHN GORDON/KEVIN NEWSHAM met Nick Bamber EA assets inspector on 27th January. NB pointed out the part of the embankments that had received a class 5 rating ( FAIL). This was caused by grazing animals.
3. Arrangement for group members to observe (class 5 Embankment under repair) this is due to take place in March. NICKI RUSHTON (no date yet)
4. Arrangements with JONATHAN CROFT for water Quality Reports he has passed us on to Alicia Cottam who has promised to supply information by the 2nd of March JOHN GORDON
5. Arrangement to meet EA ecologist we have a name Christie Webster. Ongoing.
6. Arrangements to meet Borough Council Planners ref Utilities JANE HOULGRAVE supplied contact details. JOHN GORDON/KEVIN NEWSHAM met with Colin Brady and Gillian Whitheld of WLBC Planning Department on 22nd of February. Colin Brady is to supply contact details for direct meeting with Utilities.
7. JONATHAN CROFT answers to JIM GOLDING'S question regarding cheaper electricity, negative reply. JIM GOLDING/JOHN GORDON believe that there must be some room for negotiating cheaper prices in today's competitive markets. Ongoing.
8. LCC Gthanging Bridge. It was noted that drilling rigs in place at bridge on Wednesday 22nd February, (To ascertain depths of sandstone). Elizabeth Lowe has been waiting for this information to enable her to finalise construction details and costings.
JOHN GORDON will email next week to seek answers to our questions. Provision of engineering report/cost and viewing some phase of construction.
9. JANE HOULGRAVE to provide written details of LCC task group meetings. Completed.
10. JANE HOULGRAVE to write to David Cameron, Caroline Spelman and Lorraine Fulbrock. Copies of letters to be made available. Ongoing.
11. JOHN GORDON relevant documents for SANDRA BETTS to publish on website. Update.
12. JOHN GORDON to ensure basic Flood Group information is included in Parish Council News Letter. Completed. Copies of article will be given out at 2nd March meeting.
JONATHAN CROFT in answer to KEVIN NEWSHAM question, Insurance reference flood risk, has sent some info regarding a Flooding and Insurance: conference being held in London on 7th March
Links to National Farmers Union JIM GOLDING will be attending a further meeting with the NFU on 12th of March, regarding EA updates and plans.
Item 2: Catchwater Drain
Item 3: Nitrates in Water Courses
Item 4: Dredging River Douglas
Item 5: Responses to updated key messages - Jonathan Croft EA
Item 6: Any Other Business
Date of next meeting
APOLOGIES
None
PREVIOUS MINUTES
Not discussed
AGENDA ITEMS
Item 1
Mr Croft explained that the key issue is the ongoing cost of pumping stations.
Mr Fenemore asked if there were known predicted rates of land sinkage. Mr Croft explained that results from the latest peat survey were needed to answer the question. He said that surveys had been done in 1959 and 1985 and that another was due anytime now.
Mr Fenemore said that he would like to see how the reports were done as he believed that they were partially dependant on the state of the tide. Mr Newsham stated that such surveys were difficult to analyse anyway. Mr Croft replied that there were bigger issues in the EA Strategy to deal with and that peat-surveys had been over-emphasised in the Strategy.
Mr Newsham wanted to know what would happen if the pumps were turned off. Mr Croft replied that all the drainage ditches would be filled but the EA were not considering turning off the Crossens Pumping Station and that this point had already been clarified at the LCC Task Group Meeting. They are homing in on rural areas and it is difficult under the 2010 Water Act, to spend more on pumps and drains.
Mr Askew asked if it was just the cost of this that was the issue. Mr Croft said that protection of people and property was a priority and that the EA were running with government policy detailed in the Pitt Report.
Mr Askew stated that the policy was in direct conflict with any government plans to increase food production and to benefit employment. Mr Croft stated that other areas of the country were also affected similarly.
Mr Massam asked if rural areas were providing a buffer for urban areas. Mr Croft replied that it depends on the method of getting rid of water and that new pumps being put in are more efficient.
Mr Fenemore stated that a level slightly above target level was allowable but not significantly above. If spread over the area then a large surge capacity was possible and that pumps should be modified accordingly. Mr Croft replied that pumps are being modified.
Mr Massam stated that the problem is that the waterways and ditches are not being maintained. Ms Rushton stated that it is EA policy to prioritise watercourses and that work has only been going on at Hanging Bridge Depot since last August. She said a map of the system was available to the public.
Mr Newsham asked whether previous reports were available on the EA website. Mr Croft replied that the reports in question were not on the site and that records were not available.
Mr Fenemore stated that serious cutbacks were affecting the dredging and maintenance of riverbanks. He said that he had requested details from County and Borough Councils but no numbers had been forthcoming. He was concerned that spot checks were not done to test effectiveness. Mr Croft said that Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems were not EA remit.
Ms Rushton stated that information regarding water course maintenance is published on the EA website. Mr Croft added that the information was not available prior to last year. Mr Gordon stated that the Flood Risk Group had done its own studies and that in the main arterial sluices, reed beds restricted flow.
Mrs Almond said that it was clear that no maintenance had been done for 20 years on the River Douglas. It was agreed that this point would be discussed at Agenda Item 2.
Mr Newsham asked about optimum levels and Mr Croft replied that this varied between pumping stations. Some are altered to suit farming practices, for example differences between summer and winter levels. He said that all of this is up for review.
Mrs Houlgrave stated that there seemed to be mixed messages from the EA regarding the preferred option to tackle the pumping issue:
1] Investment
2] Reduction of pumping resulting in possible flooding
Mr Croft replied that the EA wants to spend less than £3 million whilst at the same time ensuring the protection of people and property. Mrs Houlgrave stated that Caroline Spelman (Secretary of State for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) had said that things are being and would be done to help rural economies.
Mr Croft was asked if the EA just wanted someone else to pay for their cost-cutting. Mr Croft replied that the required cost-saving was not actually £3 million. Ms Betts asked what the figure actually was. Mr Croft was unable to answer and said that no figures had actually been agreed.
Mr Newsham asked whether the EA were taking on the Proposals in the Pitt Report concerning electronic mapping. Mr Croft replied that the EA was not responsible for this and that it was not clear who was responsible although it was likely to be the District Council.
Mr Newsham asked whether the EA would be working with Local Authorities to implement the proposed system. Mr Croft replied that the EA would ensure District Councils would work on this matter and that mapping information was already available.
Mr Newsham said that there was difficulty obtaining such information. Mr Croft named Colin Brady and Trevor Dunn as two people who would be aware of roles and responsibilities. He said that Lancashire County Council is the lead authority under the 2010 Water Act and that all relevant parties were only just beginning to get a grip on roles and responsibilities.
Mr Gordon asked Mr Croft to summarise the maintenance issue.
Mr Croft said that the top priority (P1) is the arterial water courses and that ditches are the lowest P3 priority. This could mean issues for particular landowners but not as a whole.
There was some discussion about particular sluices and ditches. Mr Croft said there was no evidence of any negative impact. Mr J. Golding offered to show photographs he has taken to attendees. ACTION
Mr Croft Provided a list of Updated Key Messages which he requested be included in the minutes of this meeting
Lower Alt with Crossens Strategic Plan - Updated Key Messages
1. In line with government policy, we have to prioritise reducing the risk of ?oods in urban areas over land drainage in rural areas.
2. We need to reduce the amount of money we spend on land drainage in the Lower Alt with Crossens Catchment.
3. We have not decided how land drainage in the catchment will be managed in the future.
4. From spring 2012 until spring 2013, we will be working with local communities to agree a way of managing future land drainage.
5. Any changes to land drainage will be phased in from spring 2013 until spring 2015.
6. We will continue to manage Altmouth and Crossens pumping station because they are important in reducing ?ooding risk to the urban areas in the catchment.
Mr Cropper wished to question the Updated Key Messages but Mr Croft said that the EA needed to await feedback and that any reduction in funding claw back was not within the EA's control.
Mr Askew said that it seemed as though decisions had been made and that there was no genuine public consultation. It was agreed that there had been a major issue with the 'public consultation'; that the 'consultation' document had been badly worded and had caused general confusion.
There was some discussion about the merits of using Economy 7 to control pumps.
Mr Gordon asked why the Rufford Causeway pump, pumped to Crossens instead of the River Douglas. Mr Croft said this was being looked at.
Item 2
Mr Cropper asked about when the River Douglas was last dredged and was told that it was in the mid 1980s. Mr Golding stated that the last time it was done properly was in 1960 and that the job took two years to complete. Mr Cropper said that he was staggered at this. He said that the outer arches of Great Hanging Bridge were two-thirds silted up which puts huge pressure on the middle arch. Mr Gordon stated that there were photographs available for anyone to examine.
Mr Croft said that dredging work done previously was linked to the development of Skelmersdale and there was no possibility of doing the same type of work now as new ways of doing the work had been developed since the 1960s/70s.
Mr Croft also stated that the philosophy of Urban Drainage had changed and mentioned the Wigan Scheme as an example. Mr Gordon complemented EA on the Coppull Lane Water Storage Scheme in Wigan as he and Jim Golding had recently visited the site, unfortunately this scheme would have little impact on our part of the Douglas. This was followed by a lengthy discussion about dredging.
Mr Newsham asked if any pollution tests had been done and whether the EA would provide records. Mr Croft agreed to this.
Ms Lowe was invited to talk about Great Hanging Bridge and she stated that there was normally just a maintenance operation in respect of the bridge. She said that regarding inspection, action could be taken to monitor the state of it depending on the amount of work involved and whether such action would be economically viable.
The current view is that it is economically viable to restore it as an asset and keep the present bridge in service for a number of years. An added complication is that it is a Listed structure so there would have to be discussion with heritage organisations.
Ms Lowe stated that the bridge is spreading slightly and that planned works include reinforcement to stop lateral spread and the use of concrete on top of the arches to strengthen the bridge. She accepted that she and her colleagues had not looked at flooding issues as the priority was to keep the highway open.
Mr Newsham asked if an Engineering Report could be made available. It was agreed that it could.
Mr Croft stated that the EA cannot dredge the river. Ms Lowe said that the aim of repairing the bridge was to keep the highway open and that dredging the river could actually damage the bridge due to Tide action scouring and possibly eroding bridge foundations.
Mr Massam stated that any bridge faults were associated with water pressure and Mr Gordon asked if the bridge was acting like a dam. Ms Lowe replied that the degree of the bridge failure was not significant and that the bridge was no different to any other bridge along the river, therefore treating Great Hanging Bridge in isolation would have minimal impact on any flood risk.
Ms Lowe said that the removal of silt had been considered but it was decided that the build-up is actually helping to maintain the structure and that whether it was hindering flow, was a mute point.
Mr Fenemore asked if the bridge's foundation of timber and cotton bales had deteriorated. Ms Lowe said that the foundations were "immaculate". Mr Fenemore stated that the original engineers were very good but the bridge was designed for horses & carts travelling at 4mph and questioned the damage potential as the bridge now has to cope with 48 ton loads at an average 48mph. The kinetic energy on the bridge is now 2000 times more than the bridge was designed for. Ms Lowe replied that the bridge was over-engineered at the time. [It is c.300 years old].
Mr Fenemore suggested that the weight restriction should be limited to 5 tons at 10mph. Ms Lowe said this cannot be done. Mr Fenemore replied that until the 1940s, loads on the bridge were in line with the original intent which was probably a maximum of 3 tons and that the real problems had arisen in the past 20 years. Ms Lowe replied that the bridge had been assessed and approved for current traffic loads.
Mr Fenemore said that although the silt may be protecting the bridge, it should be possible to source better materials to protect it whilst conforming to Listed status so that the silt could be removed making the bridge less restrictive to the flow of water.
There was some discussion on the pros and cons of this and also the negative effects of silting. It was mentioned that the EA is being actively encouraged to address this upstream at Eccleston (Yarrow) and Mr Croft responded that this is part of EA's medium-term planning.
Mr Fenemore suggested that a pipe containing a pump which could be tractor-driven, be put through the main arch of the Great Hanging Bridge. Ms Lowe replied that it is not possible to do this without displacing masonry. Mr Fenemore said this is not a problem as reinforcing masonry is not a heritage issue and would only involve the EA and whoever is responsible for maintaining water courses.
Mr Golding made the point that 33-34ft tides could cause the river to burst its banks. There was then some discussion regarding bridges at Banks/Tarleton.
Mr Newsham asked if any areas had been identified for flood storage similar to the Wigan scheme. Mr Croft said this was not in the EA medium-term (5-year) plan although there is some potential for storage there are many other plans which involve the River Douglas.
Mr Newsham gave a brief demonstration concerning the effect of damage to the river banks and stated that small wildlife such as rabbits and moles can tear into large stretches of riverbank very quickly. There was then some discussion about the protection of water voles.
Mr Gordon moved on the meeting, saying that there were genuine concerns being raised but they were not being addressed in full.
Ms Lowe stated that LCC will continue with the maintenance of Great Hanging Bridge. She stated that even if the money was available to replace the bridge, it would take many years and there would be legal problems with English Heritage to consider. She confirmed that maintenance work on the bridge would begin in June (2012). She agreed to keep the Flood Risk Group informed of any developments, via email.
Mr R. Golding confirmed that the police are responsible for enforcing highway weight restrictions and that the County Council do communicate with the police on the matter. Mr Massam asked how many prosecutions there had been locally for breaching weight restrictions but nobody had knowledge of this data.
Mr Gordon showed maps of the area whilst Mr J. Golding passed around his photographs which he had been taking since 1997. Mr Golding voiced his concerns about the riverbanks bursting at high tide and mentioned that the relevant electricity company had recently put protective bund wall around their sub-station.
There was lengthy discussion about lobbying; the fact that LCC had to save £180 million; that the river issues could not be solved within the present administration and agreement that although Great Hanging Bridge was being repaired to ensure the highway was kept open as much as possible, the flood risk would be taken into account.
It was agreed that LCC was moving in the right direction, all bodies concerned would work co-operatively together and that there was a requirement for relevant meetings to be open to the public.
It was agreed that it was necessary for all parties concerned to know precisely the pertinent roles and responsibilities to ensure smooth co-ordination of meetings and events; correct dissemination of information and that everything was being done within the remits of the 2010 Water Act.
Mr Croft stated that there is an asset inspector who walks the road and river defences to grade the banks and that any part in a poor condition is flagged on the EA database. There are pre-set percentage targets which are monitored quarterly and which have to meet the requirement of year-on-year improvement. There are not currently many in poor condition.
It was agreed that an arrangement would be made for the asset inspector to do a bank inspection and that he could be accompanied by any Flood Risk Group member who wished to observe.
Mr Newsham asked if it would be possible to watch any in poor condition being repaired. Ms Rushton said that there has been some cattle damage to a part of the river bank which is due to be repaired before the end of March and that depending on any site constraints it should be possible to go along to this. She was unaware of any other, recent work on the River Douglas.
Mr Croft pointed out that monitoring methods are referred to in the Catchment Flood Management Plan which is available on the EA website.
Mrs Almond queried what exactly is underway at the moment regarding the bridge repair. Ms Lowe explained that the intention is to put down 24mtr piles into the earth with a concrete layer on top. Investigations will take place in February (2012) to find out exact depth the sandstone is as this will allow exact sizing of piles.
However deep the piles will be, they will be wrapped in concrete. It is not possible to repair the bridge without piles as concrete alone would sink. There will be no visual issues. The bridge will be professionally pointed with Listed Building consent. A copy of the plan will be provided to the Flood Risk Group.
Mr Croft asked if everyone was aware that there is a National Flood Forum and said that there is a National Meeting due to take place soon.
Ms Lowe confirmed that Little Hanging Bridge would be replaced, not repaired and that there would be minimal impact on road. She confirmed that the A581 Croston Road/Meadow Lane will be closed for about four months from June (2012) whilst the bridge is repaired.
After thanks for invitations to and attendance at the meeting, all attendees except Mr Gordon, Mrs Cummings, Mrs Houlgrave, Mr Newsham, Ms Betts, Mr Askew and Mrs Askew, then left the meeting.
Item 3
AOB
Brief references were made to the Pitt Report and Flood Insurance and MS Betts provided both a verbal and a written summary of the 2009 Lancs Borough Council Economic Baseline Report.
Mrs Houlgrave gave an update on recent meetings she had attended in her role as part of the LCC Task Group. She said that the EA had attended the first meeting and admitted that they had made mistakes regarding their 'public consultation' and had agreed that the process would now be described as a 'review' and not a 'consultation'.
Mrs Houlgrave will provide written details of questions and answers arising from the meetings.
Mr Newsham mentioned that he would be very interested in watching the GH Bridge being re-pointed underwater.
There was some discussion about the distribution of a Flood Risk Group flyer throughout the parish to keep residents informed as well as updating the Rufford & Holmeswood website. Mr Gordon mentioned that the Parish Council newsletter was due to be published soon.
Further agreed Action Points:
o Provision of EA records from Mr Croft/EA re pollution testingo Provision of Engineering Report from Ms Lowe/LCC re the repair of GH Bridgeo Provision of any updates/developments from Ms Lowe/LCC re the repair of GH Bridgeo Arrangement via Mr Croft/EA for any Group members to accompany asset inspector re riverbank inspectiono Arrangement via Ms Rushton/EA for any Group members to observe riverbank repair scheduled for Marcho Provision of GH Bridge Reinforcement Plans from Ms Lowe/LCC
TIME, DATE AND PLACE OF NEXT MEETING: