flood alert sign

Drainage network in Bembridge not understood, says councillor

“We must work together to tackle the flooding issues that damaged 12 properties in Bembridge.”

That was the message from an Isle of Wight councillor after receiving a much-awaited flooding report.

Severe flooding
Following the severe flooding, one village resident had to move out of their home and was still living in temporary accommodation nine months later.

The Old Village Inn was also flooded and in some locations it reached around one foot deep and took up to ten hours to recede.

Damage has also been estimated to have cost between £11,000 and £100,000.

Robertson: Funding needed
Bembridge representative, Cllr Joe Robertson is asking for funding to be made available, equivalent to what has been promised to other areas, such as Binstead where £170,000 had been approved for mitigation works.

The council’s flood report detailed the stress and the disruption caused to residents, and the worry of future flooding resulting in anxiety, depression and loss of sleep.

Severe rainfall event
During the heavy rainfall last summer, one event, between 28th and 29th June, was classified as a severe rainfall event with only a two to five per cent chance of it happening within any year.

The rain caused surface water runoff above the capacity of the highway drainage and sewer networks, despite scheduled drainage maintenance having already taken place.

The report says the efficiency of the drainage system to intercept and convey flows was impeded by narrow in-kerb slot drains and blockages.

Gravel blocked drains
Gravel from village roads had been washed down into the drains, causing some of the blockages, but as they are unadopted, the council could not make any changes.

It is recommended the council look at a surface water management plan for the village, implementation of a property flood-resilience scheme and appraise the feasibility of providing rain gardens.

Robertson: Long time for report
Cllr Robertson welcomed the report, but said it took a long time to publish and the recommendations need to be implemented with greater urgency.

He said the council, Island Roads, Southern Water and others must now work together to resolve the unique issues.

He said,

“This report cannot be left to gather dust on a shelf while additional homes are plumbed into a drainage network that is not understood.”

Remove field from Island Plan
One field, which developers want for over 150 homes, has impermeable geology and should be taken out of the council’s 15-year land supply, said Cllr Robertson.

However, the report suggests further development in the village offers a way of mitigating the water run-off.


This article is from the BBC’s LDRS (Local Democracy Reporter Service) scheme, which News OnTheWight is taking part in. Some alterations and additions may have been made by OnTheWight. Ed

Image: howardlake under CC BY 2.0

Advertisement
Subscribe
Email updates?
1 Comment
oldest
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Lee
16, March 2016 2:01 pm

Would Mr Berrisford be involved in the setting up or operation of any Tramline service if this was the preferred option of the DFT?

Del Boy
16, March 2016 2:09 pm

It’s almost as though he has some form of vested interest in the tram industry… “independent” my foot….

Del Boy
16, March 2016 2:20 pm

So, this would be the “Isle of Wight Tramway Co. Ltd” of which Berrisford is the director NOT an “independent light rail/tramway advisor”. The company is even registered to his home address. Berrisford is misleading the public and OTW. This is not news: it’s free marketing! He has a direct financial interest in publicising his little company which has, according to recent documents at Companies House, no… Read more »

Lee
16, March 2016 2:30 pm

The very same!

He also acknowledges that this report was compiled with the “kind assistance of Christopher Garnett”. I hate to be childish but……quelle surprise!

Adam
16, March 2016 2:45 pm

As he doesn’t appear to be independent after his acknowledgement, I think tramway campaigner is more appropriate than independent advisor. Nevertheless, some interesting points and it is very much a numbers game – which option will produce the best for the least in terms of set up and operating costs. Mr Brinton’s view to stay put with the existing stock is not good enough – the Island… Read more »

Lee
Reply to  Adam
16, March 2016 3:38 pm

Deserves better than the most reliable train in the country that costs the local population nothing to run, provides an affordable alternative to the buses, a convenient connection with the catamaran and employs nearly 50 people on a decent wage , much of which finds its way back into the local economy? As someone who talks to the visitors who use our train on a daily basis… Read more »

Adam
Reply to  Lee
17, March 2016 12:19 am

As per my comment, I was referring to the rolling stock not the service. Just because the line runs well doesn’t mean that there should be no change to it whatsoever. To clarify, I support the efforts to remain in the franchise, but I would very much like this to be with improvements to the line, namely the rolling stock. We should not just sit back and… Read more »

Chris
Reply to  Adam
17, March 2016 11:46 am

When suitable replacements become available they should be seriously considered, but trams would involve a very costly conversion, potentially push *up* costs relative to the existing non-standard operation, and risk the line being removed from the national network and the protection, through-ticketing etc that come with it.

John Farmer
Reply to  Adam
16, March 2016 3:43 pm

Brinton wasn’t suggesting that we keep the rolling stock indefinitely: merely that it could be maintained until the Bakerloo or Victoria assets become available. They would represent a better investment than the obsolete trams from Midland, which have a lower build-quality. In any event, it’s a moot point, as there is never going to be a major capital investment (circa £250m) from government needed for trams/lightrail. We’re… Read more »

Chris
16, March 2016 6:46 pm

What an infruriating response – he seems he has no actual technical knowledge, and has peddled nonsense for so long that he can’t admit that his fundamental arguments just don’t apply to this line. In particular the reference to track standards – poor by mainland standards but NOT dangerous, merely adequate. They would have to be raised for trams, *increasing* costs. I really hope he isn’t responsible… Read more »

ThomasC
17, March 2016 12:47 pm

Tarmac over the bl**y lot, run electric or hydrogen-powered buses only along the route, allow them to pass in the stations and put a dedicated cycleway alongside it.

I’ll bet it’ll net out cheaper and more sustainable than all these ideas that are being put forward by those who are locked to rails for some reason.

Richard
17, March 2016 6:06 pm

Thomas C

What if this line was planned to use a tunnel to go under the Solent to form your golden goose fixed link?
Would you be so anti-rail?
But the chances of this happening are about as great as your golden goose being built.

nico
9, November 2016 5:10 pm

Given the tram crash and fatalities in Croydon today, how many accidents have affected life and limb on Island Line, and is the transport thingy considering relative safety records of tram and rail?

VentnorLad
Reply to  nico
9, November 2016 5:54 pm

The death of 5 people in Croydon today is tragic. The friends and families of those people will never be the same again. It’s natural to question the safety of such transport solutions after such an incident. It’s hard to find comparative data that includes trams. I’m sure following this tragedy, it’ll find its way in to the public domain and consciousness. I don’t recall any other… Read more »

nico
Reply to  VentnorLad
10, November 2016 2:32 pm

Those statistics are horrific, Daveiow. If road traffic was to be newly introduced all of a sudden, surely we wouldn’t allow it. I’m hoping we will continue to have trains here rather than trams, and wonder if this current tram tragedy in Crydon will be another indication that we should stick with the former. No doubt an expert will tell us here, though perhaps once all the… Read more »

VentnorLad
Reply to  nico
10, November 2016 3:25 pm

You’re right, we probably wouldn’t allow motorised transport if it was new and we were presented with those statistics. But neither would we eat the flesh of cows. We wouldn’t ferment grape juice and drink it. We wouldn’t roll tobacco leaves into tubes and set fire to them in order to inhale their smoke. But who would go through life without a steak dinner with a great… Read more »

nico
Reply to  nico
10, November 2016 4:45 pm

Are you kidding, daveiow?! First of all, I know we’re sensitive to possible lines of enjoyable disagreement here :) but I wasn’t suggesting doing away with roads and vehicles. I was stopping at the observation I made. ButI would *never* say what you subsequently seem to, that a type of meal and cigar made all those people’s deaths worth it!! If by forgoing favourite things of mine… Read more »

nico
Reply to  nico
10, November 2016 4:52 pm

Ok, I see now you weren’t talking about transporting stuff you like to consume :s

VentnorLad
Reply to  nico
10, November 2016 4:58 pm

Kidding? No.

I’m just taking your thought and running with it.

I find thought experiments a fascinating way to examine ideas.

reCaptcha Error: grecaptcha is not defined