Council Plans to Flood Dulwich Park - Consultation Close to Closing

[lemerson]

Dear All

Is anyone aware of the plan to build 'bunds' in Dulwich Park in order to flood the park rather than Turney Rd, Burbage Rd etc plain during the 1 in 75 year flood that might affect Dulwich? I would have thought that heavy rain is going to affect the local area much more than their consultants suggest.

I am a local resident whose property would not be affected by this flooding so I have no vested interest in opposing the plan. I am however annoyed that a large open public space used by so families across the borough could be sacrificed because the council says it can't afford to put in proper drainage and is just shifting the problem and potentially affecting many more people.

Does anyone know anything about how these works or seen any consultation at all? It would mean that a large area of the park would be off-limits to the happy band of young, aspiring footballers who go there to train at weekends? Where will they go then?

The plans are on the Southwark website if anyone is interested in seeing them but the consultation period appears to have opened quietly and closes imminently.

[spider69]

But they can spend ?175 million on a new prestige office block in tooley street.

[uncleglen]

Whilst there is a Labour Council and a Tory/LibDem government then the council will use the Southwark residents as a political football and blameit on 'cut-backs' from central government. They did it the last time the Tories were in power.

[mikeb]

link here

http://www.southwark.gov.uk/downloads/download/3681/herne_hill_and_dulwich_flood_risk_management_proposal

from a quick look through, it's not straightforward to see the extent of impact on the park. Would have been helpful to have seen the exhibition.

But I will say that citing the HH floor last year is a pretty disingenuous and alarmist way of garnering support. The flood at HH was caused by a burst water main so is irrelevant to flood plain discussions.

[edited to correct for the photo being from 2004 not 2013]

[Townleygreen]

Surely it is far better to use a park as a very temporary flood relief area than to spend thousands on drainage which is only going to be used every 75 years? The water would gradually drain away once the rains stopped for a while. The footballers could survive without a park for a couple of weeks.

This is a widely used method in this country. It is far more cost effective to flood a park, a golf course or grazing land than buildings.

Another "natural" solution is to plant lots more trees in suitable parts of parks and sports grounds. Trees transfer millions of litres of water from the soil back into the atmosphere. Again far cheaper than artificial drainage.

[Toldyouso]

I agree with Townleygreen - the park will recover from a flood far more quickly than the residents of the affected streets would.

[ruffers]

lemerson Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> I am however

> annoyed that a large open public space used by so

> families across the borough could be sacrificed

> because the council says it can't afford to put in

> proper drainage and is just shifting the problem

> and potentially affecting many more people.

>

>

I'd be annoyed if they didn't use this option frankly. Seems a common sense way of going about things as tgreen suggests and if it's saving money for other things then so much the better.

[bloodyjon]

What an ill informed alarmist post by the OP, who would rather see homes get flooded so a bunch kids can continue playing football whenever it rains heavily.

[mikeb]

I think we need (a) more detail on which floods this could prevent e.g. how often, how severe, where and (b) what will be the impact on the park throughout the year particularly when it's not flooded.

As I said, my first impression was that it was hard to work out (b) from the drawings though I will have another go.

The council's document refers to floods in 1984, 2004 and 2007. Does anyone remember more detail on these? There's not a lot in the press except for the 2007 flood, where Brockwell Park is mentioned.

[spider69]

I seem to recall that these floods happened because the drains were all blocked after not being cleaned for a long time.

When was the last great flood to engulf Dulwich?

[lane lover]

I agree with Townleygreen, Toldyouso and bloodyjon.

The Park is the best and most efficient way to deal with flood relief. I much prefer an open green space to be temporarily underwater than have homes flooded. I am thinking most sports would be called off if there was such a big flood, as surrounding parks would be waterlogged anyway.

If this option indeed works and saves homes from flooding, then why spend a huge amount of money on artificial drainage when funds are desperately needed elsewhere.

[the-e-dealer]

Thanks for drawing my attention to this. I am in favour and will fill in the consulation. I think Peckham Rye Park could also help - after the awful (social) life threatening disaster when the Clockhouse was flooded!

[lemerson]

It is about protecting the sancticy of publicly owned open spaces for local communities to use = amenity for all?! We do not know how long these flood plains might last as there is no mention of how the waters would be dispersed? Why can't they flood the fields the other side of the South Circular which are used far less? Doesn't a river u run under the Park so there's an obvious water course to use?

[bloodyjon]

So people's homes are worth destroying so you can carry on using a waterlogged park??

[the-e-dealer]

And park or just part will be out of use for how long ? Week or two. Seems very sensible to me. Lets campaign to to get Peckham Rye Included in this brilliant scheme!

[spider69]

Silly question.

How does the water get into Dulwick Park?

[AbDabs]

lemerson Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It is about protecting the sancticy of publicly

> owned open spaces for local communities to use =

> amenity for all?! We do not know how long these

> flood plains might last as there is no mention of

> how the waters would be dispersed? Why can't they

> flood the fields the other side of the South

> Circular which are used far less? Doesn't a river

> u run under the Park so there's an obvious water

> course to use?

Unfortunately you can't pick and choose the appropriate flood plain on the basis of personal/public preference; it's a matter of hydrological design. The river may run through the park but if it flows the wrong way (ie because of relative ground levels), if it doesn't have sufficient bore, or if the underlying subsoils won't allow natural soakaway*, then a particular piece of land won't be suitable. In any event, this is not intended as a regular flood area, but as an emergency capacity. Seems entirely sensible. The cost of the alternative, for relatively rare occasions, would be a ridiculous waste of taxpayers money.

*or the opposite if the intention is simply to store and then extract by pumping

[AbDabs]

spider69 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Silly question.

>

> How does the water get into Dulwick Park?

Not a silly question at all. The consultation document doesn't explain (I admit to only skimming the drawings) but I would suggest a) Natural flow, b) Diverted flow, c)(most likely?) pumping from the piped/culverted underground rivers and streams in the local area, allowing them to take greater capacity where the flooding event has actually occurred.

[Otta]

Townleygreen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Surely it is far better to use a park as a very

> temporary flood relief area than to spend

> thousands on drainage which is only going to be

> used every 75 years? The water would gradually

> drain away once the rains stopped for a while. The

> footballers could survive without a park for a

> couple of weeks.

> This is a widely used method in this country. It

> is far more cost effective to flood a park, a golf

> course or grazing land than buildings.

> Another "natural" solution is to plant lots more

> trees in suitable parts of parks and sports

> grounds. Trees transfer millions of litres of

> water from the soil back into the atmosphere.

> Again far cheaper than artificial drainage.

^^^^ This ^^^^

[steveo]

I rather fancy having a lake in the manor

I could sail to the Dog

[KidKruger]

if you had a shop / house near the flood area surely you'd be keen to avoid a flood and the damage it can cause - a la The Great Herne Hill Flood.

[spider69]

AbDabs Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> spider69 Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Silly question.

> >

> > How does the water get into Dulwick Park?

>

> Not a silly question at all. The consultation

> document doesn't explain (I admit to only skimming

> the drawings) but I would suggest a) Natural flow,

> b) Diverted flow, c)(most likely?) pumping from

> the piped/culverted underground rivers and streams

> in the local area, allowing them to take greater

> capacity where the flooding event has actually

> occurred.

Thank you for the reply.

I am in my late 60's and have always lived in the area and can recall much of the flooding is due to 2 things, not keeping the sewers and drains cleared, And burst water pipes which the blocked drains etc cannot carry away.

How many times can people recall seeing a regular drain cleaning lorry on the streets

I cannot ever recall a Biblical flood in the area due to adverse weather

Perhaps other long standing residents can comment

[Penguin68]

The DoE flood map suggests that we are nowhere near any riverine flood risk

Environment Agency - What's in your backyard?

http://maps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiybyController?x=534633.0&y=173784.0&topic=floodmap&ep=map&scale=9&location=SE22%200QU&lang=_e&layerGroups=default&distance=&textonly=off#x=531758&y=173130&lg=1,&scale=8

This must all be about burst water mains and blocked rain-water drains.

The first cannot be readily predicted, the second can be avoided with proper maintenance.

[AbDabs]

spider69 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> I am in my late 60's and have always lived in the

> area and can recall much of the flooding is due to

> 2 things, not keeping the sewers and drains

> cleared, And burst water pipes which the blocked

> drains etc cannot carry away.

>

> How many times can people recall seeing a regular

> drain cleaning lorry on the streets

>

> I cannot ever recall a Biblical flood in the area

> due to adverse weather

>

> Perhaps other long standing residents can comment

The OP refers to the proposal relating to risk of 1 in 75 year flood. This is a statistical risk event not a record of historical frequency. As Penguin68 suggests it may have nothing to do with riverine flood risk, which I understand - please correct me if I'm wrong - is due to flooding emanating from a river. I certainly agree about the lack of maintenance (although I do often see the drain cleaning lorry outside my house as I report every blocked drain in the street), but I would have thought that the (increased) risk may simply be due to run off (ie rain) that has less ability to escape due to overdevelopment (infill housing and extensions, and to a lesser degree off street parking) which all reduce natural percolation. The recent rains have demonstrated that once land is entirely saturated there comes a point where the water has nowhere to go; I could dig a pond in my lawn at present and it would fill immediately.

[spider69]

I suppose we should look on the brightside, It will enable Southwark to put in place another expensive department with a good fancy name and offer employment to all.

Unfortunatley a 1 in 75 year statisical risk is all that is required to set the ball rolling.