REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE OF ALBERT EDWARD ANSFIELD AND GEOFFREY SHEARD SANDERS
REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE OF TYNWALD ON THE PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE OF ALBERT EDWARD ANSFIELD AND GEOFFREY SHEARD SANDERS
To the Hon Noel Q Cringle, President of Tynwald, and the hon Council and Keys in Tynwald assembled.
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 On the 19th October 2000 Tynwald resolved:
That Tynwald appoint a Select Committee of three members to consider and report on the Petition for Redress of Grievance of Albert Edward Ansfield and Geoffrey Sheard Sanders representing the Carrick Park Residents Association at Tynwald assembled at St John's on Tynwald Day 2000 and we were elected to be that Committee. The petition is set out in Appendix 1. The prayer reads —
Tynwald Court establish a Select Committee to examine and report on the aforementioned flooding which took place on the 24th October 1998 with particular regard to events and circumstances impacting on the overflowing of the Sulby River and the flooding of dwellings in Carrick Park; and seek to:
A. determine responsibility for the flooding in question and make recommendations to enhance Government policy, structures and procedures to prevent a reoccurrence of such flooding, and
B. evaluate the Drainage Act 1934 and other relevant legislation to determine its adequacy in relation to present day requirements.
1.2 The Committee set a timetable for receipt of written evidence and the hearing of oral evidence. This timetable was, by necessity, changed after the subsequent flooding event in Sulby on Friday 8th December 2000. The Committee extended its remit to incorporate this most recent event.
1.3 On the 16th January 2001 Tynwald resolved
That the Select Committee on the Petition for Redress of Grievance of Albert Edward Ansfield and Geoffrey Sheard Sanders, representing the Carrick Park Residents Association, be instructed to commission as a matter of urgency an independent engineering study of the Sulby River, including a hydrological
study, to the extent required to determine the measures necessary to alleviate or prevent the flooding of properties in the Sulby Village area.
1A The list of parties who submitted written evidence and a data base summary of the local resident's evidence is included in Appendix 2. The volume of the written evidence is too large for inclusion in this report. A full copy of this evidence is lodged in the Tynwald Library.
1.5 We heard oral evidence from (in order of appearance)
Mr R Phillips Resident of Carrick Park Mr P Wood Owner of a property in Mill Race Mr P Scullin Resident of Mill Race Mr R Peel Clerk to Lezayre Parish Commissioners Mr A Hamilton Chief Executive DoLGE Mr B Sinden Development Control Officer DoLGE Mr J Crombie Director of Generation MEA Mr P Heaton-Armstrong Chief Executive IOM Water Authority Mr J Ballard Freshwater Fisheries Inspector DAFF Ms E Charter Wildlife & Conservation Officer DAFF Mr C Quaggin Operations Manager - Highways & Traffic, DoT Mr J Corlett QC Attorney General Mr N R Cooil Chief Executive, DoT
The transcript of the oral evidence is set out in Appendix 3.
In the Report, the commonly used abbreviations for Government Departments are:- MEA Manx Electricity Authority DoT Department of Transport DoLGE Department of Local Government and the Environment DAFF Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
1.6 The Committee appointed a specialist adviser, Mr Clive Mason C.Eng, M.I.C.E of Bullen's Consultants, to assist in its assessment of the evidence and to undertake a Catchment study including hydrological and hydraulic assessments together with suggestions for improvements. This study is published under separate cover as Part 2 of this Report.
1.7 The Committee and our adviser, either all or in part, have made a number of informal visits to Sulby to meet with various local parties and view the situation on the ground. We would like to thank all those who have presented both written and oral evidence and taken time to meet with our
2
Committee on our visits to the locality. Similarly, we are grateful to Lezayre Parish Commissioners and the many officers of the DoT, DAFF, DoLGE, MEA and the Water Authority who have provided assistance to the Committee in progressing our investigation. We thank the Water Authority and the MEA for a comprehensive tour of their operations at the Block Eary and Sulby Reservoirs and the hydroelectric station.
1.8 The Committee would like to strongly empathise with the many local residents of Sulby, and the Kella Mills, who have been adversely effected by the flooding events. The flooding of one's property is a traumatic event which is followed by many months of disruption and worry.
2. SUMMARY
2.1 The houses in Carrick Park and Mill Race have been built in the natural flood plain of the Sulby River. Their location makes them potentially susceptible to flooding. This fact appears not to have been considered by any of the appropriate authorities prior to the development of Carrick Park, (possibly because evidence of previous flooding was anecdotal and sparse). Specific evidence of previous flooding was considered for Mill Race. In neither case was a flood risk assessment carried out, or measures taken to provide an acceptable standard of flood defence.
2.2 The evidence suggests that there may have been a failure to exercise a proper 'duty of care in the development, marketing and sale of the flooded properties in Mill Race.
2.3 Apportionment of responsibility for this failure is a subjective exercise. However, the Committee feel the following must at least be included —
a. the Departments of Government who, in light of the historical evidence of flooding, failed to ensure that the issue of flooding was addressed by the eventual developer;
b. the developers of Mill Race for ignoring the categorical evidence of flooding on that land and the need for appropriate measures;
c. the many parties involved in the marketing and sale of individual properties who may have failed to disclose the history of flooding.
2.4 The existence of the Sulby Reservoir and the activity of the MEA hydroelectric plant already provide a degree of flood attenuation. The IOM Water
3
Authority took no measures that contributed to either of the flooding events. Currently it has no obligation to operate the Sulby Reservoir as a flood alleviation asset.
2.5 It is not possible to give a definitive reason why flooding took place on these two occasions of heavy rainfall and not on other such occasions. The absence of comprehensive rainfall data, catchment data and river flow measurements preclude a full analysis of the events.
2.6 Some responsibility for the flooding events must apportion to the appropriate divisions of the DoT and its predecessors in its lack of attention to the Sulby River to the extent that its capacity to carry flood waters had been reduced.
2.7 There are no measures that can give an absolute guarantee against re- occurrence of flooding in Sulby. Our recommendations (as summarised in Section 20) and those contained in the Consultant's Report (Part 2) should provide a greatly reduced level of risk than currently exists. A phased action plan implementing the recommendations could substantially reduce the risk of further flooding. Failure to take appropriate steps could result in reoccurrence.
3. ANALYSIS OF THE FLOODING EVENTS
3.1 There is only limited rainfall data. Readings are taken daily at the Water Authority Filters Plant just south of Sulby and also at the Sulby Dam. There is no data from the high ground of the reservoir catchment area where rainfall can be far heavier than further down the Sulby valley. Daily readings can only give the quantity of rainfall in the 24 hour period and there is no indication whether such rainfall occurred within the space of a few hours or otherwise. Nor is there flow data from the river to correlate with the rainfall data to determine how the catchment area will respond under differing rainfall conditions. (We welcome the plans of the Water Authority to develop the hydro metric studies of the catchment areas.)
3.2 Rainfall in the catchment area will have a variable effect on flows in the main river. The rate of run off from the catchment area will vary according to the topology of the land, the ability of the land to absorb rainfall, and the duration and intensity of the rainfall. Without more comprehensive data, theories as to why these periods of heavy rainfall caused flooding, and others did not, cannot be substantiated.
4
3.3 A further complicating factor to the rate of run off is the existence of the Sulby Reservoir. The Reservoir serves to both modulate the peak of the run off from the upper Sulby catchment area and delay this peak by around one hour (see transcript of oral evidence from Mr P Heaton-Armstrong).
3.4 The following analysis of the two events was written prior to the completion of the independent study from Bullens and consequently the two analyses do not match precisely. However, as the hydrological assessment is a statistical exercise which cannot cater for all local variables and as there is only limited rainfall data, the Committee, and its advisor, are content that it should remain as originally written.
October 1998
3.5 In the event of October 1998, there was 54 mm of rain recorded on October 20th at the Sulby Dam and this caused the Reservoir level to climb from 182.5m to 185m AOD (Above Ordnance Datum). At 185m AOD the reservoir starts to overflow. (NB. A reading for a particular day, say October 20th, shows the amount of rainfall from 0900 hours on October 20th to 0900 hours on October 21st.) It remained at overflow level over the following days and the whole Sulby River catchment area would probably have been saturated. There was only light rainfall recorded for October 21st and 22nd. Further heavy rainfall is recorded on October 23rd and 24th both at the Sulby Dam (26 mm & 44 mm) and the Sulby Filters (21 mm & 33 mm). From evidence provided by the Ronaldsway Meteorological Office, it would appear likely that a good proportion of the two days readings of rainfall fell to ground between 0600 and 1100 hours on the morning of October 24th.
3.6 It is worth noting that the storm was moving in a largely Southerly direction during this period. The storm is classified by the Meteorological Office as having a return period of 2 or 3 years and can be described as 'Not Significant'. We have no localised data which might change that classification.
3.7 The estimated rate of discharge of water over the bell mouth at 1.30 p.m. was 35 m3/s. Equating a flow of 35 m3/s to the whole Sulby catchment area, the DoT report estimates a flood river flow of 87.5 m3/s through Sulby. We do not know whether this 35 m3/s is greater or less than the rate of discharge two hours earlier when the flooding in Sulby commenced. We do not know whether the intensity of rainfall in the higher catchment area of the Reservoir was similar to that of the catchment area below the Reservoir (the daily readings given above suggest a weakening of intensity). Thus the figure of 87.5 m3/s could be incorrect by a considerable margin.
5
3.8 Such a flow would have caused over topping of the banks at a number of places prior to reaching the Kella Mill weir, where further over topping would have taken place. The channel capacity underneath the Kella Mill footbridge is given as 56 m3/s. The angle of the large RSj supporting the bridge would have forced the flood water (over the 56 m3/s channel capacity) northwards down the public footpath into the area of Kella Mill (and joining existing flood waters) and thence directly into the Mill Race development. Owing to the largely defunct and blocked Mill Race, such water had no easy avenue of escape and return to the river.
3.9 Some water would have been forced southwards into the fields behind Carrick Park. The channel capacity below the Kella Mill footbridge is insufficient to contain such flood waters. Further over-topping would have taken place in a number of places and, in particular, in the vicinity of the North West of Carrick Park forcing water into the estate close to the river and also into the field to the west of the estate and thence continuing its journey into other areas of the development.
3.10 There is little evidence to substantiate the claim that properties on the South and East of Carrick Park were flooded as a result of waters running down from Narradale. Undoubtedly, there would have been water coming down from this direction but we cannot find any evidence, to contradict the resident's accounts, of any significant volumes that would have caused the extensive flooding that took place.
3.11 It has been alleged that the build up of debris on the central span of the Sulby Bridge was a key factor in the flooding. We cannot find any evidence to substantiate this. Whereas there is evidence of a build up of debris in the latter stages of the flooding event, it was not a sufficient blockage to cause flooding. The adjacent Riverside Cottage, which is low-lying, narrowly escaped flooding. (It is pertinent to note that had the flood waters not been dissipated further upstream then Riverside Cottage would have been vulnerable to the flood waters as the channel capacity at the bridge is given as only 40 m3/s.)
3.12 A number of residents referred to a 'wall of water' as if the flooding was caused by the sudden release of water upstream. It is possible that there was a blockage further upstream which could have been either a major or a contributory factor in the flooding. It is evidenced that a whole hawthorn tree was washed down river from Irish Cottage. This may well have caused the destruction of the two footbridges lower down. There are reports of other trees and vegetation being swept down by the floods. The release of any
6 blockage, possibly under the pressure of increasing volumes of water coming down the river, would have created a major surge of water in Sulby.
3.13 However, the combination of a high discharge rate over the bell mouth and a high level of run off from the rest of the Sulby catchment area must remain as the most likely cause of the flooding.
December 2000
3.14 Autumn 2000 was the wettest period for over 20 years. The events of December 2000 are less well documented. The flooding took place in darkness in the early hours of December 8th. There had been heavy rainfall over the previous 4 days and the catchment area would have been saturated and the Reservoir was already overflowing at the bell mouth. Readings at the Sulby Dam and the Sulby Filters on the morning of Friday 8th show rainfall of 67 mm and 68 mm, respectively, in the previous 24 hours. By correlation with Point of Ayre data and on advice from the Meteorological Office, this rainfall was concentrated within the hours of 2100 on Thursday 7th and 0400 hours on Friday 8th being carried on a strong South West wind across the catchment area towards Sulby.
3.15 It is evident that intense rain fell on the whole catchment area. The debris lodged on the dam wall of Block Eary indicates that this reservoir was being over topped far in excess of its normal overflow capacity. A high rate of discharge over the Sulby Reservoir bell mouth is likely to have combined with a high run off from the remaining Sulby catchment area to provide the flash flood experienced. The storm is classified by the Meteorological Office as 'Noteworthy' with a return period of around 10 years.
3.16 There is local evidence that the flood waters were higher than in 1998 but did not last as long. A possible explanatory factor of this variation may lie with the respective wind directions. The 1998 storm was borne on a North Easterly wind and would have passed over the lower catchment area first whilst the 2000 storm came from the opposite direction. The delaying effect of the Reservoir on the 2000 flooding event may have been less significant, in comparison with the 1998 event, as the storm passed over the upper reaches of the catchment area first. Thus the combined peak of overflow from the Reservoir and run off from the lower catchment area might have occurred slightly earlier, with greater intensity and with slightly less duration.
7
4. THE IMPACT OF THE FLOODING EVENTS
4.1 The impact of flooding on the households cannot be fully quantified. Whereas the householders will have had the majority of their financial losses met by their insurers, they will have suffered considerable disruption to their lives in finding alternative accommodation, dealing with insurers, builders, etc. The trauma of being flooded twice, especially once in the middle of the night, cannot be overstated.
4.2 At the time of writing, the majority of these residents will have been able to return to their homes. They do not return to security from further flooding except for a few summer months. They live in fear of the coming autumn and winter. Some of the residents are already taking measures to protect their properties by the building of walls and banks and other measures on their buildings.
4.3 The householders/owners of about 30 flooded properties now have properties which may prove very difficult to sell. For some it will represent a major mortgage commitment for many years to come and for others the original equity will represent a life time of work and saving. For all, it is likely to represent a significant financial loss.
4.4 The value of other properties in the vicinity of the river will also be reduced by association - particularly those adjoining the flooded areas in Sulby.
4.5 The distillery at Kella Mills has reported significant losses, both insured and uninsured, from the two flooding events.
4.6 Although the Committee has consulted the insurance industry, an accurate figure for the substantial losses incurred by the industry as a result of meeting claims from the two flooding events is very difficult to identify. One leading Insurer (Appendix 9) has indicated losses of circa £1. million although we do not know how many properties this covers.
4.7 One household reported insurance claims of well over £100,000 for the two events whilst another smaller property incurred an insurance claim of circa £30,000 for the December 2000 event. It is probable that the overall claims for the two events will be in the range of £2 million to £5 million.
4.8 The general policy of the Association of British Insurers is encapsulated in their letter enclosed in Appendix 9. It is evident from this letter that Insurers will endeavour to continue to provide insurance cover provided appropriate action is taken, or is planned to be shortly taken, by the relevant agencies of
8
Government. Insurers reserve the right to discontinue cover in "exceptional circumstances" which "might be habitual flooding of a property, or properties situated in a locality where there are no imminent plans to improve weak flood defences."
4.9 The residents of Carrick Park and Mill Race would presently be justified in fearing that their circumstances might be viewed as 'exceptional'. The residents will be hoping that the practical outcome of this Select Committee's Report will ensure that the Insurance industry continues to provide insurance cover.
5. THE ISLE OF MAN WATER AUTHORITY
5.1 The Authority has no responsibility to use the Sulby Reservoir as a flood attenuation measure. Prior to October 1998, there is no recorded suggestion that it should have such a responsibility. The Water Authority did not release any water from either the Sulby or Block Eary Reservoirs to contribute to the flooding events. It was correctly believed that the existence of the Sulby Reservoir would have, by its very nature, a flood attenuation effect. As explained in their oral evidence, the Reservoir serves to both delay the effect of high run off from its catchment area and modulate its effect. If the water level of the Reservoir has been reduced below 185m AOD as a result of abstraction by the MEA, then there is a further flood attenuation effect to the extent that the MEA's activities have reduced the water level below the overflow level.
5.2 If the Reservoir did not exist, then it is highly probable that there would have been more flooding events than the two recently experienced and that these latter events would have been of greater intensity (i.e. higher depth and affecting more properties) although of possibly less duration.
5.3 However, we believe that there is scope to use the Reservoir to reduce both the likelihood and severity of further flooding, although any measures employed could not guarantee that flooding would not occur. The Authority cannot prevent further flooding, it can only make it less likely.
5.4 The two charts in Appendix 4 show the daily rainfalls and the Reservoir water levels, as recorded at circa 0900 hours daily, for the periods of the two flooding events. On both occasions, once the Reservoir had reached overflow level in the days prior to the flooding events, the Authority could have released water from its 'scour' pipe. In the absence of continuing major rainfall, this could have reduced the water levels below overflow. The precise
9
reduction would depend on the continuing level of run off from the catchment area and any intermediate rainfall. On both occasions this may well have created a sufficient buffer for the subsequent storm waters to either prevent or lessen any serious flooding in Sulby.
5.5 However, it must be emphasised that had the first period of heavy rainfall, which served to bring the Reservoir level to overflow, been shortly followed by another period of heavy rainfall then any release of water through the scour pipe would have had little or no effect on the Reservoir level. Depending on the quantity and intensity of that subsequent rainfall, flooding could occur. It must also be emphasised that the Sulby Reservoir collects water from only 40% of the catchment area.
5.6 Since giving their oral evidence in March, the Authority have further considered their figures on the capacity of the scour pipe. They now believe that its capacity is 3.2/3.1 m3/s (not 4 m3/s) and only 2.3 m3/s over and above the MEA's abstraction which uses the same pipe. Average winter run- off from the catchment area, without the immediate influence of major rainfall, is circa 1 m3/s which roughly equates to the existing draw off for public water supply, compensation water to the Sulby River and the MEA's hydroelectric plant. Thus the Water Authority's original estimate for lowering the reservoir level by opening the scour pipe has been reduced from 1 m per 24 hours to a lower less definable figure.
5.7 The top 4 metres of water in the Reservoir represents approximately 20% of the total capacity of the reservoir. This top 4 metres is owned by the Government (for MEA purposes) and is not part of the reliable yield of the Water Authority. Thus any release of this water in potential flooding conditions has no impact on the Authority's water resources. The Authority have stated that they may wish to acquire this top 4 metres some years hence to enhance their supply to meet demand growth. The need to provide a flood attenuation measure for the residents adjoining the Sulby River would have to be balanced against this extra source of water supply. The costs of measures to encourage conservation of potable water would also need to be considered.
5.8 Understandably, the Water Authority are very reluctant to take on the role of providing a further flood attenuation measure by management of the Sulby Reservoir. We had initially proposed recommending a regime which would have required release of water from the scour pipe when the three following conditions applied:- a. that the catchment area is already saturated and unable to absorb major rainfall,
10 b. there has been heavy rainfall which has brought the Reservoir to overflow level or approaching overflow level, and c. further heavy rainfall is expected.
Such a regime would have allowed the MEA to continue its abstraction for hydroelectric generation in the most part.
5.9 We now appreciate that such a 'fine tuned' regime would. require considerable expense to initiate and be of less practical value than the initial evidence suggested. It would also create problems for the Authority in respect of their Insurers and their liability if flooding occurred whether they had released water or not.
5.10 In practical terms, we concur with the Authority that the provision of flood attenuation, in addition to that already provided (see Para. 5.1) and without reducing the reliable water yield for public supply, could only be achieved by maintaining the water level more consistently at some target level no more than 4 metres below overflow level. This would seriously restrict the availability of water for hydroelectric generation at a cost to the MEA and electricity consumers.
5.11 We emphasise again that, however successful the Authority may be in keeping the Reservoir level to circa 181m AOD, this may not prevent flooding. A rainfall event of circa 70 mm is sufficient to bring the Reservoir level from 181 AOD to 185 AOD (overflow level). If the first heavy rainfall event is closely followed by a second heavy rainfall event, then the Authority is powerless to take any action to prevent flooding.
5.12 We believe that it should be possible to implement a regime to provide a buffer for storm waters in most instances. Even if the reservoir level were only to be reduced by 1 metre below overflow, this buffer, combined with the reservoir's existing capacity to delay run off from its catchment area, could be sufficient to prevent flooding or at least minimise its effects.
5.13 We recommend that the Water Authority endeavour to develop and operate a regime of controlled release of water to maintain the Reservoir at a target level of 4 metres below overflow during the critical winter months. It must be accepted that such a measure may not be sufficient to prevent flooding. We recommend that such a regime be implemented on an interim basis for the winter of 2001/2002 and the appropriateness of a statutory responsibility be considered in the light of that experience and the potential impact of other planned measures.
11
6. THE MANX ELECTRICITY AUTHORITY HYDROELECTRIC PLANT
6.1 Two pipes serve the hydroelectric plant from the Block Eary Reservoir and the Sulby Reservoir. The two pipes are connected just above the hydroelectric plant. When the plant is not in operation and its inlet valves are closed, the pipes form a 'U' tube and equalise the levels of the two reservoirs. The MEA has the right to use the top 4 metres of water (181 to 185m AOD) in the Sulby Reservoir for electricity generation.
6.2 This water represents cheap fuel. The hydroelectric plant has low maintenance and low operation costs and the MEA will wish to use the plant whenever there is sufficient water in the Sulby Reservoir. Water from Sulby represents 60% of the resource input and the water from Block Eary the remaining 40%. The abstracted water returns to the Sulby River directly below the hydroelectric plant. If rainfall levels are low and the Sulby Reservoir level falls below the point where water can be drawn off for electricity generation, then the plant is closed down. Any surplus water in the Block Eary Reservoir will then be transferred automatically to Sulby Reservoir through the 'U' tube. Thus, in a dry period, the Sulby Reservoir catchment area is extended by the Block Eary catchment area.
6.3 As the MEA withdraws water constantly from the Reservoir whenever the water level is higher than 181 /182m AOD, it serves to reduce the water level in the Reservoir, prevent constant overflowing at the bell mouth and create a buffer into which flood waters may fill. Thus the hydroelectric plant acts, inadvertently, as a flood attenuation measure.
6.4 If the proposal to manage the Reservoir level through the controlled release of water from the scour pipe is implemented, the probable effects on the MEA's operation would be to close the hydroelectric plant. The hydroelectric plant would have to shut down whilst the scour pipe was being used for lowering the water level as the same pipe is used for both scour and the MEA draw off. Thus there would be a pressure drop on the MEA's pipe which would not give it a sufficient 'head' to operate the hydroelectric plant.
6.5 The value of the electricity produced, based on the marginal fuel cost of diesel generation, has been identified as circa £33,000 to £34,000 per annum (see oral evidence of Mr J Crombie). However, this electricity is the Island's only source of 'green' electricity and, with the development of trading arrangements into the UK market via the undersea cable, this electricity can attract a premium price. It is therefore with some reluctance that we accept the plant may be closed.
12
6.6 The loss of this source of electricity will have to be balanced against the cost of other measures to alleviate flooding in Sulby in future years.
7. BLOCK EARY RESERVOIR
7.1 This reservoir (capacity circa 11 million gallons) is no longer used as a public water supply and only serves the hydroelectric plant although under certain conditions there is a transfer of water to the Sulby Reservoir through the 'U' tube of the hydroelectric pipes. However, it has a long term strategic role for the Water Authority as a reserve supply should problems (pollution, etc.) be encountered with the Sulby Reservoir.
7.2 Its impact on the Sulby River is insignificant. At times of high rainfall, the reservoir is too small to have a significant flood attenuation effect although a small buffer will be created by reduced water levels from hydroelectric abstraction. High rainfall in its catchment area will simply pass through the reservoir and into the stream below and onwards into the Sulby River.
7.3 The path of the stream from the reservoir down to the main river is often obstructed by stone waste from the old slate quarries. This has been well documented in the environmental impact studies for the proposed Ballaskella plantation. This quarry waste is alleged to be a source of much of the gravel that finds its way down to the lower reaches of the Sulby River and which accumulates in a multitude of places. Without a period of targeted study, it is difficult to quantify the validity of this allegation. However, it does seem to be a feasible proposition. The combined potential of improving the environmental quality of the stream and reducing a nuisance source of gravel, makes the clearance of the stream passage an attractive proposition.
7.4 We recommend that the DoT give early consideration to clearing the quarry wastes from the Block Eary tributary.
8. LEZAYRE PARISH COMMISSIONERS (LPC)
8.1 LPC had a number of responsibilities in relation to the developed land in Sulby which was subject to flooding.
13 8.1.1 Planning 'In Principle'
Prior to the publication of the Draft Planning Scheme in 1979, the subsequent Public Inquiry in 1981 and Tynwald approval of the Plan in 1982, such land was not subject to a 'zoning' process as we are now familiar with.
A request for this Sulby land to be zoned for development would have been made outside of the process of constructing a development plan by the simple submission of a planning application for approval of such a development 'in principle'.
The views of the local authority are sought prior to the first consideration of the application. They have a right to be involved either as a main party challenging a decision or simply as an interested party at both Review and Appeal stages.
The applications 'in principle' for Carrick Park (1968 onwards) were not opposed by LPC on the grounds of flooding.
The applications 'in principle' for Mill Race (1971 - 1984) were consistently opposed by LPC on the grounds of flooding - that the land to be developed had a history of being flooded.
8.1.2 Planning 'In Detail'
There were no objections to any of the Carrick Park detailed applications except on minor unrelated matters.
Detailed applications for Mill Race in 1987 and 1988 were again opposed by LPC with 'flooding' being one of the grounds. Subsequent applications in 1996 and 1997, for the houses which were finally built, were not opposed on the grounds of 'flooding'. The oral evidence from LPC suggests that the Commissioners had, by this stage, given up on their opposition on these grounds as their views had been consistently disregarded although they continued to make representations on the mill race and how its drainage function was being compromised.
8.1.3 Property Searches
Sales of all the subsequently developed properties, and any property in the Parish, results in a property search request from the purchaser's advocates to LPC. There would not necessarily have been a question in relation to flooding and the Commissioners are unlikely to have volunteered such
14
appropriate measures to prevent flooding of their properties. However, such comfort is lessened by the concluding sentence of Section 13, which states
"The Department shall not be liable or responsible in tort for anything done or omitted to be done by the Department under this Act or in connection with a main river."
9.3 DoT and Planning
9.3.1 As a matter of course, all planning applications are submitted to the Department for their consideration. Whilst such consideration is largely concerned with highways, drainage and sewage matters, it must be recognised that the Department is the only authority which contains expertise on flooding issues and has responsibilities to prevent flooding damage. The Department should therefore have had a greater input to the planning process in respect of the Mill Race development where the flooding problem was known.
9.3.2 The Department has a well-defined responsibility in respect of drainage issues and could have recommended that the Mill Race development should not proceed without —
a. ensuring that the access over the Mill Race was constructed with a culvert of a suitable size;
b. insisting that the identified need for a hydrological study on Mill Race was complied with;
c. ensuring that the gully from the rear of Kella Mill into a ditch through the Mill Race was not simply blocked off (see 1869 parish map and aerial photograph - appendix 5 & 6); and
d. making adequate provision for the two springs (see appendix 5) on the Mill Race land.
9.3.4 We recognise that the implementation of the Recommendations (Nos. 2, 7-10) of the Joint Working Group Report (JWGR) of January 2001 (see Appendix 12) will greatly assist the recommendation below.
9.4 We recommend that the DoT review its input into the planning process to ensure that its expertise on drainage and potential flooding are given full weight.
16 9.5 The filling in of the Mill Race (PA 97/0748)
9.5.1 A section of the Mill Race, to the East of the access road and behind the property 'Sabrew', has been filled in with earth. The already unsatisfactory culvert under the access road has been reduced to a 9" perforated plastic pipe which then runs under the fresh earth and along the length of the remaining open section of the Race to the river. The pipe has been laid unsatisfactorily and contrary to the planning conditions.
9.5.2 Whereas the Department of Transport, in its 1999 Flooding Report, correctly identifies this section of Mill Race as an issue of concern which requires rectification, the Department had a major input into the decision on the planning application which allowed such a development (see Appendix 7).
9.5.3 Part of the eastern section of the Race was filled in without planning permission and was subject to a planning enforcement 'stop' notice for the remainder of this section, subject to a retrospective planning application. The planning application was subsequently approved for the whole of the eastern section of the Race, but the work has not yet been completed. Lezayre Parish Commissioners and local residents strongly objected as the Race is used for road water drainage, domestic surface water drainage and storm/flood water drainage. Its value was clearly recognised in their submissions to the Planning Committee.
9.5.4 The DoT did not object to the application. In their letter of suggested conditions which then became the planning conditions, they stipulate the 9" pipe which was already in place. This pipe, we understand, had been supplied to the owner of Sabrew by a member of the DoT without any recognition of a requirement for planning permission. We realise that the open supply of the pipe was part of an honest attempt to resolve a drainage grievance felt by the owner of Sabrew. The planning conditions for the connection of road gullies and down spouts appear to be unenforceable and remain unresolved. The concerns over the effect on the water table were lightly dismissed but still remain. There are no access manholes on the filled section. The concerns of the owners of Kella Mills, who have traditional rights to use the Race for water discharge, have been ignored.
9.5.5 Finally, the role of the Mill Race as a necessary and historically established route for flood waters to return to the river has been effectively halted - initially reduced by the undersized culvert and then completely by the inadequate 9" pipe and subsequent filling in.
17
information in answer to an all purpose question requesting views on any other aspect of the properties proposed for sale.
Thus prospective purchasers of houses at Mill Race, prior to October 1998, may not have been informed by LPC of their opinion that the land was subject to flooding. After October 1998, prospective purchasers of properties which had been flooded in Carrick Park, Mill Race and on the main road, likewise may not have been informed by LPC of the flooding problem.
This is a 'grey area' in terms of exercising 'duty of care' which we believe needs to be thoroughly addressed by other parties. If LPC had volunteered information concerning flooding, then potential purchasers would have been aware of the risks.
8.1.4 Reduction in Rates
The residents of Carrick Park and Mill Race have recently been awarded a 60% rate reduction on the legitimate basis of decreased rentable values for their properties. LPC are concerned that they have suffered a loss of rate income as a result of the actions (or inactions) of others beyond their control. However, the services provided by LPC, the Northern Parishes Refuse Board, and the Water Authority, have not diminished. To maintain services, a higher rate burden will fall on the remaining ratepayers which the LPC consider to be unjust.
9. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT
9.1 The DoT's involvement with the Sulby flooding is manyfold. Under the 1934 Land Drainage Act (the Act), it is the responsible authority for the maintenance of any watercourse which is designated as a 'Main River'. Sulby River is a designated 'main river'. In Section 13 of the Act it states —
"The Department shall out of monies provided by Tynwald and in such manner as the Department may determine, execute such works in and in relation to the main rivers of catchment areas as they may consider necessary or desirable for maintaining, repairing, and improving such main rivers and rendering the same adequate to carry the water from time to time flowing therein, and for preventing the overflow or discharge of water from the main rivers on to the adjoining property."
9.2 Thus the Act should be a source of comfort to householders living adjacent to such main rivers as there is a clear responsibility to maintain and take any
15
9.6 We recommend that the DoT review the adequacy of its input into the planning applications as they affect the Mill Race and its drainage functions. We recommend that appropriate steps be taken to increase the size of the culvert and for the eastern section of Mill Race to be reinstated as an effective drainage system.
9.7 Maintenance of the Sulby River
9.7.1 The degree of maintenance of the Sulby River has varied over the years with a marked lessening in the last few decades. The river was subject to major works in the post war period when the lower reaches of the river between Sulby and Ramsey were straightened. There are numerous references in the evidence which point to the regular clearance of the channel by gravel abstraction along its length below the upper reaches. Such gravel was readily used by the local farmers for tracks, etc.
9.7.2 We cannot pinpoint exactly when, or why, such regular gravel extraction ceased. Subsequent extraction has been on an 'ad hoc' basis in response to complaints and, with increasing ecological awareness, has often been subject to criticism. Similarly, the practice of regular clearance of river-side vegetation has been criticised for both being unnecessary and for being carried out in a ruthless manner to the detriment of the natural environment. Thus river-side vegetation, which is a potential obstacle to flood waters, has been allowed to grow with minimal maintenance.
9.7.3 It has been pointed out that such maintenance measures did not prevent the river from flooding although perhaps such flooding was less frequent.
9.8 Reorganisation within Department of Transport (previously DHPP)
9.8.1 The responsibility for maintenance and other works under the Act previously resided with the Rivers and Bridges Division of the Department. This Division had its own dedicated engineer and workforce of approximately 30 staff. Besides works on the rivers themselves, this team was also responsible for the physical structures such as bridges. hi 1988 this Division was abolished with a complete reorganisation of the Department.
9.8.2 There is only one gang (circa 6 men) employed permanently on maintenance of the water courses and these are primarily centred in the North of the Island providing drainage to the Northern plain. The role of a Rivers Superintendent Engineer is now represented by approximately 10% of one individual's time and should any work be required this would be 'contracted
18 in' from the Works Division whose staff may or may not have experience of river works.
9.8.3 It is recognised by the Department (see oral evidence page 51) that there has been a noticeable decrease in the level of resources for main river works since the reorganisation. Maintenance work is now reactive rather than proactive.
9.8.4 Besides the above changes in the Department and the ever increasing demands on the Department's resources for other routine and infrastructure works, the Department's modus operandi in relation to main rivers has been affected by the Wildlife Act 1990. This is explained by the following extract from the JWGR page 8
"The Wildlife Act requires that in carrying out its functions, a statutory authority shall, in so far as is consistent with the proper discharge of those functions, have regard to the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside, the protection of wildlife habitat, and the conservation of flora and fauna and geological and physiographical features of interest. The Act also requires routine works to be carried out outside of the bird breeding season, and makes it illegal to damage nests and eggs unless this could not be reasonably avoided."
9.8.5 Without a dedicated Division for works in relation to main rivers, it is understandable that the new responsibilities under the Wildlife Act 1990 would be a difficult constraint on appropriate river maintenance regimes. The natural home for such a Division is currently with the DoT although we accept that, since October 2000, it is Tynwald Policy to transfer this responsibility to DoLGE. This latter issue is discussed later.
9.8.6 We recommend that maintenance of 'main' rivers becomes an increased priority within the DoT especially where such rivers are prone to flooding. Such maintenance should include regular trimming of vegetation and maintaining the channel capacity appropriate for the stretch of river.
9.8.7 We endorse the Recommendation of the JWGR No.2 that "the full-time post of Land Drainage Engineer be progressed as a matter of urgency by the DoT'
We further endorse the Recommendations of the JWGR (Nos. 3, 5 & 6) which, when implemented, will meet our recommendation 9.8.6 above and will ensure that the requirements of the Wildlife Act 1990 are fully taken into consideration.
19 9.8.8 We recommend that a separate Division with responsibility for rivers and land drainage be established, its precise location to be evaluated by the Joint Working Group.
9.9 Current state of the Sulby River
9.9.1 The Sulby Main River is 13.8 Km in length and this is 16% of the total length of the Island's main rivers. Over the last 6 years to date, the Sulby has received expenditure of £187,000 on various works representing 16.9% of total main river expenditure.
9.9.2 The changes within DoT allied to an increasing influence of conservation interests, and a valid expectation that the Sulby Reservoir would reduce flooding, have all combined to greatly reduce maintenance levels. The aerial photograph of the Mill Race (Appendix 6), showing clear banks and a clear channel, contrasts sharply with the current state of the river in 2001. The committee have also had an opportunity to view a video of the complete length of the river which clearly demonstrates the build up of gravel and encroachment of undergrowth along the entire length creating many obstacles to the easy passage of river waters.
9.9.3 These comments are particularly pertinent for the stretch of river upstream of and adjoining Mill Race and Carrick Park. The weir adjacent to Kella Mill was destroyed in the 1979 flood and has continued to deteriorate and create a channel obstruction without being subject to any remedial works. This obstruction is now pronounced. The DoT's 1999 Flooding Report shows that there are many sections of the river without the capacity to carry flood waters contrary to the reasonable expectations of the Department's labours under Section 13 of the Act.
9.9.4 The 1999 Report correctly identifies the footbridge to the rear of Kella Mills as an obstacle to flood waters and eye witnesses testify to the diversion of water into the rear of Kella Mills and onwards into Mill Race in particular. We accept that the computer modelling of the Bullens Report identifies the footbridge as being less significant than the level of the adjacent banks in adding to flooding problems.
9.9.5 The eye witness evidence is strong and confirms that the bridge was shaking under the force of the water hitting it. The bridge had also trapped fallen branches swept down by the floods. If a more sizeable tree were to be caught in the bridge, the resultant obstacle to the passage of flood waters could cause further over-topping of the river to the potential detriment of both Mill Race and Carrick Park.
20 9.9.6 We recommend that, besides works to improve overall channel capacity, the obstruction of the Kella Mills weir remnants and gravel accumulation be removed and that consideration be given to the replacement of the existing Kella Mills footbridge.
9.10 The 1999 Flooding Report
9.10.1 This Report, in relation to Sulby, has been heavily criticised by the local residents. The criticism centres on Appendix 13 (set out in Appendix 11 to this Report) of the Report, which shows the properties flooded and the direction of the flood waters.
9.10.2 The greatest insensitivity which caused local anger was the limited number of properties shown to be flooded in Carrick Park. The Appendix shows 5 such properties, whilst the number testified by the residents was 17. However, the text of the Report (53 : 3.0) states that flooding took place "in two areas. The first area was in the vicinity of Nos. 31 and 32, and the second, around Nos. 40 and 42." This description does not limit the flooding to those 5 properties. The Report does omit the flooding which took place to properties on the North of the estate and closer to the river.
9.10.3 The Report, in both text and Appendix 13, describes the source of flooding in the area of Nos. 40 and 42 as run off from Narradale. This we believe to be a mistake as we cannot find any evidence to substantiate any significant run off and it is contrary to local eye witnesses. The Report also states that this area flooded around an hour later than the first area. Given that it had already stopped raining around 11 am and that flooding arising from the Sulby River was .coming from a more distant catchment area with a delaying mechanism in the Reservoir, it is unlikely that a more localised source such as from Narradale would be impacting at this time.
9.10.4 The residents of Carrick Park also dispute the flow of flood waters shown in Appendix 13 which would appear to limit the flow to over-topping in the vicinity of the Kella Mill weir and footbridge. The residents are convinced that flood waters came from the river adjacent to the Park. We believe that both parties are right. The limited capacity of the channel at the weir and the footbridge would have forced water southwards into the fields to the rear of Carrick Park. The limited capacity of the channel (as evidenced in the DoT Report) in many areas between the footbridge and Sulby Bridge would also have caused the river to overflow into Carrick Park
21 9.10.5 Whilst there are areas of weakness in the Report, we believe that it represents a fair assessment of the current position. The Report —
a. acknowledges the weaknesses of the Department in respect of maintenance;
b. identifies the likely major sources of flooding;
c. correctly identifies the blocked mill race as a major weakness in flood prevention; d. questions the Planning procedures that allowed Mill Race to be developed; and
e. identifies a number of useful flood mitigation measures
9.11 2001 Joint Working Group Report
9.11.1 This Report follows on from the 1999 Report but included officers from both DoLGE and DAFF. The Report identifies a number of areas where procedures and policies need improving in respect of rivers management, planning procedures, controls on development, etc. and the Committee welcomes its deliberations. The Report's recommendations have already been referred to and are enclosed in Appendix 12.
9.11.2 We consider that the major value of the Report is in the many recommendations (Nos. 1- 10) to improve inter departmental procedures, establish codes of practice and increase the focus on land drainage, river maintenance and flooding issues. The Report is less focused on the practical measures to alleviate the particular problems in Sulby. We understand that these recommendations have been accepted by DAFF, DoT and DoLGE.
9.11.3 The JWGR proposals on the practical measures to alleviate flooding in Sulby have now been enhanced by the publication of the independent report by Bullens - a copy of which has been given to the three Departments in mid- June 2001, in advance of the October Tynwald, for necessary practical reasons.
9.12 Flood Alleviation Measures
9.12.1 We welcome the positive response of the Department to the recommendations in the Bullens Report for summer 2001. This Report details measures that can be undertaken in 2001 and subsequent years. We recognise that the 'Capital' measures require further evaluation and feasibility studies before final options are chosen. Such evaluation is beyond the remit of this
22 Select Committee and we acknowledge and appreciate that the appropriate executive body, currently the DoT, is progressing these matters.
9.12.2 It is important to recognise that none of the Capital measures are ideal and they all have disadvantages, considerable cost implications and environmental impacts. As the two estates already exist on the natural flood plain, there are no painless solutions to protect these poorly situated developments.
9.12.3 We recommend that the independent report from Bullens be received and that the appropriate bodies act upon its recommendations.
W. PLANNING
10.1 Planning approvals for all the properties in Mill Race and Carrick Park were submitted to the Committee a few days prior to the hearing of oral evidence. A brief analysis of this evidence, in relation to flooding matters, was made and is included in Appendix 8 along with other documentation relevant to Planning.
10.2 There were no references to flooding in relation to any of the Carrick Park approvals shown. There were constant references to the likelihood of flooding in the Mill Race applications.
10.3 As explained in 8.1.1, this land in Sulby was either developed, or had planning approval for development, prior to the existence of the 1982 Development Plan. Thus it was not subject to a formal 'zoning' process. The issues regarding development would have been considered by the 'in principle' applications from 1968 onwards.
10.4 The full microfiche records of the early 'in principle' planning applications for both estates have been studied. This study confirmed the evidence already supplied.
10.5 Only one letter from a local resident raised the issue of flooding in relation to Carrick Park. It is hearsay that the first builder abandoned his right to further development after 4 houses (of the 5 built) were flooded in 1979. However, there was no body of evidence for either the original or subsequent Planning Authority to refuse development on flooding grounds. The Committee has received a few letters from long standing residents which refer to the propensity of this land to flood and the submission from LPC (enclosed in
23 Appendix 8) also makes this reference. Such latter day evidence was not available to the Planning Authority in the late 1960s and 1970s.
10.6 By contrast, the submitted evidence in relation to Mill Race is categorical that flooding was a major concern. LPC opposed development on flooding (& other) grounds from the early applications in the early 1970s through to the late 1980s after which they appear to have made no further comment. No development took place in the 1980s and it could have been the remarks of the developer's consultants (PA 88/1443 - Holmes Grace, on advice from the then DHPP - see Appendix 8) of the need for a hydrological study that deterred such development.
10.7 The roads and sewers were approved under a 1976 Bye law application (BL 93/2157). The site already had 'in principle' planning approval. The Committee is not aware of the extent to which earlier planning approvals are considered for such a Bye law application. The approved PA 96/2696 .shows that - a. LPC recommended approval but made reference to the mill race blockage and the need to pipe DoT road water away. b. One immediate neighbour asked for the full schedule of conditions from PA 88/1443 &1443 to be applied c. Another neighbour expressed concern on the access and claimed use of his land. d. One neighbour's objection was that the houses would be too high if they were built to be safe from flooding. e. DoT (Drainage Division) objected to the application solely on the grounds that the existing foul drainage system serving the site was incomplete and not to the satisfaction of the Department. f. Dot (Highways and Traffic Division) raised no objection. g. The notes of the Planning Officer's report to the Committee refers to PAs 84/0375, 84/1155, 87/1481, 88/1443 and 88/1444 but not to the conditions re:- flooding and floor heights which were enclosed in the file and nor to the comments by Holmes Grace which were not in the file.
10.8 It appears that the Planning Committee did not consider the issue of flooding although there was categorical evidence of a major concern contained within their own files. Nor did the DoT, who are the body with expertise in flooding matters, object or exercise any caution on flooding grounds. We consider that PA 96/2696 was the critical application. If the earlier flooding concerns had been highlighted, and the comments by Holmes Grace had been brought
24 to the attention of the Planning Committee, then it is likely that either appropriate flood defences would have been instigated or the development would not have proceeded.
10.9 We recommend that DoLGE audit the full planning process, from the initial development approval of the Sulby land to the recent developments in order to establish and rectify any weaknesses in its policies, procedures and planning controls
10.10 The weaknesses in. past procedures have effectively been recognised and the JWGR (Page 16) sets out the later Recommendations more fully:- * DoLGE in consultation with the DoT and DAFF should produce guidelines for flooding and land drainage and conservation issues which need to be addressed at planning application stage. • Developers should be required to submit land drainage information and a flooding risk appraisal with the planning application, and to certify that they have consulted with the DoT where required under the Land Drainage Act 1934. • The quality and dissemination of information between DoLGE, DoT and DAFF, and the subsequent feedback, needs to be substantially improved. • The remit of the building control inspectors should include the reporting of non-compliance of land drainage issues to the relevant authority, in order to be enable enforcement.
10.11 We are happy to endorse these proposals. The issue of flooding is also fully recognised in the Draft Strategic Plan (Section 6.1.16) and we strongly welcome the comprehensive "Guidance on Requirements for the Undertaking of a Flood Risk Assessment" in Appendix 2. We are hopeful that these new procedures and guidelines will be effective.
11. THE MILL RACE DEVELOPMENT
11.1 A planning application to build greenhouses on this land was refused in the 1950s on flooding grounds.
11.2 The land is identified as marshy land on the Parish Map and contains two springs. There is a gully from Kella Mills which becomes the ditch on the boundary between Fields 1534, 1538 and 1535 (Appendix 5). This can be seen in the photograph, taken in the 1960s, in Appendix 6.
25 11.3 Sulby residents have reported that, after development permission was approved again in the 1980s, the land was stripped of its surface vegetation and top soil layer. As it was not developed until quite a few years afterwards, the land was stripped again causing the ground level to drop between 18" and 24" in total. We are led to believe that no special provision was made to cater for the two springs.
11.4 The developer should have known of the planning conditions contained in the 1980s planning applications and the need for a hydrological assessment. These included a cautionary note that the land was prone to flooding. Yet the ground level was reduced further, the culvert over the Mill Race was inadequate, the gully from Kella Mills was blocked off. The developer was a party to the filling in of Mill Race.
12. PROPERTY SEARCHES
12.1 The Committee does not feel adequately qualified to address this issue in detail. We refer to the very useful exploration of the subject by the Attorney General in his oral evidence.
12.2 We have seen the full set of advocates' searches (summer 1997) in relation to one of the properties in Mill Race. The standard search from DoLGE should reveal all the previous planning applications (and note of "irregular" conditions) from the previous 10 years. The DoLGE search omitted the 1988 planning applications, which, if the pertinent conditions (as specified on their standard form) had been included on the search, would have indicated the flooding risk. No other party, the developer, DoT or LPC, chose to mention the propensity of the land to flood.
12.3 We have seen the full set of property searches from a property that had been flooded in 1998. Only a surveyor for the bank mentioned that the area had been subject to flooding but it was believed that the said property was unaffected and the purchaser was advised to see the 1999 DoT Report. The Committee does not know whether the purchasers, or their agents, did refer to the Report. If they had studied the Report and referred to Appendix 13 (entitled "Layout and Area Flooded" — see Appendix 11), their proposed house was not shown as having been flooded." The vendor, LPC and DoT all knew that this property had been flooded but did not say so. The purchase was completed and the property was subsequently flooded again in December 2000.
26 12.4 We believe that it is of critical importance that all parties involved in a property search should understand what is reasonably expected of them. We feel that the concept of 'duty of care' seems to have been neglected or totally forgotten. Had such a duty been properly exercised, it is possible that the land would have remained agricultural and/or houses never built or sold.
12.5 We recommend that the Law Society and others vigorously address the issue of "duty of care" in relation to conveyancing property searches in order to produce clear guidelines for all the parties involved.
13. KELLA MILLS
13.1 Both flooding events have caused damage and loss to the distillery at Kella Mills. The development of the Mill Race also appears to have had an adverse effect on Kella Mills.
13.2 Flood and surface water has historically been able to leave the site by way of the Mill Race and also the gully/ditch along the old Field 1535 boundary. As a direct result of the new development, the gully has been blocked off and there is little drainage capacity in the Mill Race. Two inches of standing water in the distillery boiler house is now a regular occurrence even after only moderate rainfall. The traditional right to discharge significant volumes of waste water from the distillery process has been compromised by the filling in of the Mill Race.
13.3 We recommend that the Kella Mills should have its traditional site drainage capacity restored.
14. THE SULBY RIVER AND CONSERVATION
14.1 We have taken oral evidence from officers of DAFF and we recognise the importance of the river as a freshwater fisheries resource and its role as a habitat resource. We also recognise that the river, especially in its lower reaches, has been greatly shaped by man's activities over the decades.
14.2 It is important to find the right balance between the conservation interests and the interests of adjoining residents, be they farmers or householders. It appears that this balance has been lost by lack of regular and sympathetic maintenance.
27 14.3 Any significant works to redress this lack of maintenance may cause adverse environmental and water quality impacts. We hope that it may be possible to mitigate against these adverse impacts by undertaking the necessary works in a sensitive and timely manner with the acknowledged experience and guidance from DAFF.
14.4 We are confident that the new procedures initiated by the Joint Working Group will result in a higher sensitivity to conservation issues in future maintenance regimes of our main rivers whilst providing adequate protection from flooding under the current Land Drainage Act 1934.
15. RIVERS AUTHORITY
15.1 The need for a separate Rivers Authority has been promoted in some quarters and dismissed in others. We believe that this matter should not be so readily dismissed and that further and more detailed consideration be given to the best means of managing our main watercourses for the purposes of conservation, prevention of flooding and nuisance, leisure, water abstraction, etc.
15.2 Current Tynwald Policy (October 2000) is to transfer responsibility for coasts and riverine lands to DoLGE. Whereas there is no existing legislative framework for coastal protection, the current Land Drainage Act 1934 gives a robust legislative framework for main rivers. It is not readily apparent from the recently adopted Report on Coastal Erosion why responsibility for either of these functions should reside with DoLGE rather than DoT or some other body. There is a similarity of function for both coasts and rivers which lends weight for the two functions to be controlled by the one body.
15.3 DoLGE is not a department with experience in these practical matters whilst DoT has wide experience and resources to manage such functions. We believe that it is pertinent for the issue to be reconsidered at this early stage. If DoT wishes to divest its responsibility for rivers and watercourses, it may be more relevant for these functions to be managed by a separate statutory body with the added responsibility of coastal management, inland fisheries and a strong conservation interest.
15.4 We recommend that the Council of Ministers give further consideration to the concept of a statutory Rivers Authority or a statutory Rivers and Coastal Authority.
28 16. THE WIDER EFFECT OF FLOOD ALLEVIATION WORKS
16.1 The land at Carrick Park and Mill Race is a natural flood plain. If works are initiated to safeguard the residents of the above by channelling the flood waters past them, then it must be recognised that this may cause problems further downstream with other households being placed at increased risk.
16.2 We have already indicated that Riverside Cottage, just upstream of Sulby Bridge, would be at risk if the full force of the flood waters was channelled past, rather than being dissipated through, Mill Race and Carrick Park. Besides placing other properties at risk, diverted flood waters may then find new areas of agricultural land to flood with a potential for further damage to either crops or livestock.
16.3 We believe that it would be a beneficial measure to identify land upstream of Carrick Park and Mill Race which could act as an artificial flood plain, as recommended as one of the 'Capital' options in the Bullens Report. Besides giving protection to the Sulby estates, such an option has the possibility of giving protection to properties downstream of Sulby all the way to, and including, Ramsey.
16.4 The greater the improvements that are made to channel capacity, the greater the volume of flood waters that will reach the outfall to the sea at Ramsey. Ramsey is already prone to some flooding from the combined effects of a high tide, low pressure and wind surge. If these three latter conditions coincide with heavy rainfall and a flash flood, the potential for localised flooding in Ramsey could be of major significance.
16.5 We recommend that the DoT extend the hydraulic model constructed for the Sulby area to cover the remaining river system downstream to, and including, the outfall at Ramsey.
16.6 We recommend that the DoT investigate the land areas upstream of Mill Race and Carrick Park as possible flood storage areas.
17. EARLY WARNING SYSTEMS
17.1 Without addressing the practical details, we believe that the residents of Sulby should have the benefit of an 'early warning system'. Such a system might rely on water level readings from the Reservoir and the Sulby River plus a correlation with meteorological advice.
29 17.2 If flooding is to occur then losses can be significantly reduced by advance notice and personal trauma minimised. The opportunity to move furniture and valuable possessions, instigate localised measures (sandbags, door sealing, etc.), call on the services of the local Civil Defence and other agencies are all important. On behalf of the local residents we wish to thank the Civil Defence for promptly attending the scene of flooding at Sulby.
17.3 We recommend that the installation of an early warning system be urgently considered.
Such an early warning system will initially be based on rather crude data. There is a need to develop a more sophisticated body of knowledge of the impact of severe rainfall on the Sulby catchment area and other parts of the Island which are prone to flooding.
17.4 We recommend that consideration be given to creating a network of rain gauges and river flow gauging station to enable collection of data in catchments where current or future properties are likely to be affected by flooding (or for all main river systems).
17.5 This work could be integrated with the programme of gauging stations which is currently being developed by the Water Authority.
18. 1934 LAND DRAINAGE ACT
18.1 The Committee has not been able to undertake a full evaluation of the 1934 Land Drainage Act as required by the Petition of Grievance owing to a shortage of time and the importance of addressing other matters.
18.2 The Act is now 7'7 years old and, unsurprisingly, is not fully attuned to the needs of the 21st Century and would benefit from either amendment or reconstruction. However, the Act is robust in many ways and provides a sufficient framework for the DoT to undertake the majority of its functions in relation to Main Rivers and other watercourses.
18.3 In its own 1999 Flooding Report, the DoT recommends that it reviews its powers under the Act pertaining to
- Access to river banks - Control of development within the influence of rivers
- Control of structure on the river banks
30 - Control of abstraction
- Enforcement powers on non main rivers
18.4 The 2001 Joint Working Group also addresses the Act in (3.3):-
"It is proposed that a code of practice, for the maintenance of watercourses, should be jointly produced, by the Dot and DAFF. This code should outline the riparian owner's responsibilities under the Land Drainage Act 1934, the Inland Fisheries Act 1976 and the Wildlife Act 1990. It should aim to identify and encourage good practice.
Consideration should be given to the introduction of a penalty system within the land drainage Act 1934. This could impose a fine where it can be shown that a lack of maintenance or work carried out in contravention to the Land Drainage Act 1934 has caused damage or resulted in expenditure on highways or to a third person's property."
18.5 It further recognises that some flooding problems arise from damage to culverts and pipes as a result of works by the service utilities and/or their contractors. Pipe bridges and river crossings are also a problem. Therefore it proposes that the DoT produce guidelines explaining the requirements under the Land Drainage Act and bring them to the attention of the statutory undertakers and the general public.
18.6 The Joint Working Group do not believe that the flooding events of October 1998 warrant major changes to the Land Drainage Act 1934.
18.7 The Attorney General reviews the Act, in part, in his oral evidence and also in the 1999 Flooding Report. Amongst other issues, it is pertinent to note that the concluding sentence of Section 13 of the Act (giving 'indemnity' to the Department) will need to be reviewed with the introduction of the Human Rights Act 2001. The Committee formally enquired whether the Act was known to be deficient and the Attorney General's response is enclosed in Appendix 10.
18.8 Brief comments on the Act were made by our consultant, Mr Mason, in light of his knowledge of current UK legislation and standards. "In general, the Act does not: -
• place a Duty on the DoT to determine flood plains of main rivers, (as per Section 105 Survey requirements in the UK).
31 • require developers to undertake a Flood Risk Assessment of potential development sites, (as per PPG25 in the UK, i.e. Planning Policy Guidance for Local Authority's). • require contribution, (or full costs), from developers when improvements are necessary to Flood Defence as a result of development. • require the DoT to determine Target Standards for Flood Defence i.e. for various land uses, (residential, agricultural, commercial etc.). • require DoT to liaise with DAFF regarding environmental impact of Land Drainage Works. • require DoT to determine minimum residual flows required in main rivers, (may be relevant to future abstractions)
18.9 Whilst the Act does provide for the DoT to have duties and powers sufficient for it to reasonably undertake the works required in the Sulby area, it does not include requirements relating to Flood Plains, Risk Assessments and Cost Apportionments where developments may be at risk of flooding. it could be further improved by reviewing and extending the definitions, and by reference to Environmental Liaison/Impact Assessments."
18.10 We recommend that the Land Drainage Act 1934 be reviewed in detail and either amended to ensure that existing departments are given appropriate additional powers and duties to enable them to deal adequately with the flood defence function, or be rewritten to cover all activities, including flood defence, which might be carried out by a newly formed statutory rivers Authority.
32 19. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
19.1 Para 5.13
We recommend that the Water Authority endeavour to develop and operate a regime of controlled release of water to maintain the Reservoir at a target level of 4 metres below overflow during the critical winter months. It must be accepted that such a measure may not be sufficient to prevent flooding. We recommend that such a regime be implemented on an interim basis for the winter of 2001/2002 and the appropriateness of a statutory responsibility be considered in the light of that experience and the potential impact of other planned measures.
19.2 Para 7.4
We recommend that the DoT give early consideration to clearing the quarry wastes from the Block Eary tributary.
19.3 Para 9.4
We recommend that the DoT review its input into the planning process to ensure that its expertise on drainage and potential flooding are given full weight.
19.4 Para 9.6
We recommend that the DoT review the adequacy of its input into the planning applications as they affect the Mill Race and its drainage functions. We recommend that appropriate steps be taken to increase the size of the culvert and for the eastern section of Mill Race to be reinstated as an effective drainage system.
19.5 Para 9.8.6
We recommend that maintenance of 'main' rivers becomes an increased priority within the DoT especially where such rivers are prone to flooding. Such maintenance should include regular trimming of vegetation and maintaining the channel capacity appropriate for the stretch of river.
19.6 Para 9.8.8
We recommend that a separate Division with responsibility for rivers and land drainage be established, its precise location to be evaluated by the Joint Working Group.
33 19.7 Para 9.9.6
We recommend that, besides works to improve overall channel capacity, the obstruction of the Kella Mills weir remnants and gravel accumulation be removed and that consideration be given to the replacement of the existing Kella Mills footbridge.
19.8 Para 9.12.3
We recommend that the independent report from Bullens be received and that the appropriate bodies act upon its recommendations.
19.9 Para 10.9
We recommend that DoLGE audit the full planning process, from the initial development approval of the Sulby land to the recent developments in order to establish and rectify any weaknesses in its policies, procedures and planning controls
19.10 Para 12.5
We recommend that the Law Society and others vigorously address the issue of "duty of care" in relation to conveyancing property searches in order to produce clear guidelines for all the parties involved.
19.11 Para 13.3
We recommend that the Kella Mills should have its traditional site drainage capacity restored.
19.12 Para 15.4
We recommend that the Council of Ministers give further consideration to the concept of a statutory Rivers Authority or a statutory Rivers and Coastal Authority.
19.13 Para 16.5
We recommend that the DoT extend the hydraulic model constructed for the Sulby area to cover the remaining river system downstream to, and including, the outfall at Ramsey.
34 19.14 Para 16.6
We recommend that the DoT investigate the land areas upstream of Mill Race and Carrick Park as possible flood storage areas.
19.15 Para 17.3
We recommend that the installation of an early warning system be urgently considered.
19.16 Para 17.4
We recommend that consideration be given to creating a network of rain gauges and river flow gauging station to enable collection of data in catchments where current or future properties are likely to be affected by flooding (or for all main river systems).
19.17 Para 18.10
We recommend that the Land Drainage Act 1934 be reviewed in detail and either amended to ensure that existing departments are given appropriate additional powers and duties to enable them to deal adequately with the flood defence function, or be rewritten to cover all activities, including flood defence, which might be carried out by a newly formed statutory rivers Authority.
J Rimington (Chairman) J P Shimmin G H Waft
Mrs M Cullen Clerk to the Committee
September 2001
35
Part 2 consultants
Committee ofTyrrivald 0Bullen Consultant5 Select • Sulby River Studv Lincoln Office
CONTENTS
PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 BACKGROUND 1 2.0 THE RIVER SULBY CATCHMENT 2
3.0 HYDROLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 6 METHOD 6 CATCHMENT CHARACTERISTICS 6 RAINFALL DATA 8 FLOWS 9 ANALYSIS 9 PROPORTION OF FLOWS WITHIN THE CATCHMENT 10 COMPARISON OF THE RETURN FREQUENCIES OF THE TWO FLOODING EVENTS 10 4.0 HYDRAULIC MODEL 11 MODEL BUILD 11 CALIBRATION AND VERIFICATION 11 DEVELOPMENT, ANALYSIS AND RUNS 12 SENSITIVITY 14 5.0 RESULTS OF HYDRAULIC MODEL RUNS 15 EXISTING STANDARD OF SERVICE 15 DEFICIENCIES AND OBSTRUCTIONS 19 FLOOD PATTERNS 19 IMPROVEMENT WORKS 19 6.0 STANDARDS OF FLOOD DEFENCE - TARGETS 21
7.0 IMPROVEMENTS WORKS 22
8.0 OUTLINE BUDGET COSTS 26
9.0 CONCLUSIONS 27
10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 29
10IL018/001/A
©Bullen Consultants Select Committee of Tynwald Lincoln Office Sulbv River Study
APPENDIX A: PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX B: FIGURES
APPENDIX C: TABLES
BIBLIOGRAPHY
DISCLAIMER
This document has been prepared solely as a survey and analysis of the Sulby River system in the Sulby Area. Bullen Consultants Limited accept no responsibility or liability for any use which is made of this document other than by the Client for the purposes for which it was originally commissioned and prepared
The Appendices to this Report do not copy satisfactorily in black and white. They are therefore available for inspection in the Tynwald Library.
101L018/001/A
OBullen Consultants Select Committee of Tynwald Lincoln Office Sulby River Study
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Background
The Sulby River overflowed on the 24th October 1998 and on the 8th December 2000. On each occasion, serious flooding of residential and commercial properties occurred in Sulby at the Carrick Park Estate and at Mill Race. A Select Committee was appointed to consider and report on grievances expressed by residents who had suffered as a result of the flooding. The Committee were required to report on the circumstances surrounding the events, on relevant legislation, on responsibilities and procedures, and on measures to alleviate the probability of future flooding.
1.2 To assist in the task of determining measures that could be undertaken, it was decided that an independent engineers study of the Sulby River should be carried out, including a hydrological study.
1.3 Bullen Consultants Ltd (BCL) were appointed by the Committee with the following terms of reference:
• to undertake a hydrological assessment of the catchment using the latest and most appropriate estimation techniques. • to carry out a hydraulic analysis of the Sulby Area by constructing and running a HEC- RAS hydraulic model. (Using survey data from the previous DoT report). The analysis would define current thresholds for flooding and identify restrictions and limitations to flow. • to produce a report scheduling the results of the assessments and analysis and indicating outline options which could be considered for raising the current standards of flood defence, with preliminary budget costs.
1.4 This report contains the catchment analysis, the hydrological study, the hydraulic analysis and the costed, outline options. Recommendations are made for the consideration of a phased Action Plan, and for further study work dom;nstream of the Sulby Area.
1011,018/001/A
©Bullen Consultants Select Committee of 7;vnwold Lincoln Office Sulby River Study
2.0 THE RIVER SULBY CATCHMENT
2.1 The Sulby River flows from the area of the Tholt-e-Will Plantation, at its head, through Sulby Glen to the north, past Ballakerka and the Claddaghs before turning eastwards in the area of Sulby to flow to the sea at Ramsey, (see Figure 1). The length of the river designated as Main River is 13.8km.
2.2 At the head of the main river, and still within the overall catchment, is the Sulby Reservoir, which is fed by several main streams and tributaries. This Reservoir and the Block Eary Reservoir receive flows from approximately 50% of the total catchment. Reservoir water is used for Public Water Supply and Hydro-electric power generation.
2.3 The longitudinal profile of the River is characterised by a steep fall in bed level from the head of the river to the area of Ballakerka. This is followed by a gentler slope to the Sulby Area, and then by a relatively flat section where the natural river course has been straightened towards Ballakillingan. River bed levels are not available along the length of the River, but Table 2.1 below gives an indication of the relative falls throughout the area by reference to land, reservoir and road levels.
Table 2.1
m.AoD Level upstream end of tributary of Sulby Reservoir approx 400 Overflow level in Sulby Reservoir 185.0 Road level at Ballakerka 47.0 Road level at Sulby Bridge 17.0 Road level at Ballakilligan 14.0 Road level at Ramsey 7.0
2.4 Historically, flows have been "controlled" in the main river by a series of weirs and sluices. Some of these have become disused over the years, and some have become derelict or severely damaged by storm flows, e.g. weir adjacent to Kella Mill. The net result is that the main controls on the river system are now for the purpose of water supply, (and power generation), at the Reservoirs. There are very few, (if any), effective, hydraulic controls used for the purpose of Flood Defence.
2.5 The drainage pattern of the main tributaries has formed as a result of natural erosion of overlying strata where planes of weakness or softer material existed. These drainage networks have also been affected by human activities, e.g. creation of local land drainage systems, erection of boundary walls, mining activities etc. The result of the natural development and human impact has been the creation of deep gullies and streams, which have no hydraulic control devices at their junctions with the main river. Some tributaries also carry significant amounts of sediment created by land slides and mine waste. (Note The Block Eary sub-catchment is particularly prone to this, where mine waste has significantly affected the hydrology and morphology.' &2
2 i01L018/001/A aspnydiccd Dm Es Chem= Son". opp wiel 0. ppplsio• al the 031.4". /04340 0 Cam. Conn!, LieeeA Pia AL Le001119
PROJECT CLIENT ISLE OF MAN SELECT COMMITTEE OF TYNWALD SULBY FLOOD MODEL CLinen consultants PRAYYM er PATE TITLE PECKED BY APPFL EY Wpm. RimmLIVEn SaCele.P1MerbouvroPe7 OXU SPAN NJP CM JUNE 2001 FE, 01777 241135 CATCHMENT LOCATION PLAN Mil 0= MH456. SCALE PROACT PIO. DRAWINO ND. Fev Ems, pePPirmuglebubruami PIPS 101L018 FIG t 00 ©Bullen Consultants Select Committee of Tynwald Lincoln Office Sulby River Study
2.6 The main river is affected by deposition of slate, grit, stone and gravel in many areas along its length. Significant shoals have formed on bends and in some central areas of the main channel. They illustrate the large mobile bed load that is being carried in the river system. Movement of this material is pronounced during times of storm flows and its presence is detrimental to the "water" carrying capacity of the channel. Vegetation growth along the margins of the river is excessive in some areas and this also obstructs the free flow of river water, leading to possibilities of localised flooding, (see Appendix A: Photographs).
2.7 There are areas along the side of the main river system which become flooded when high flows are experienced. Some of these could still be regarded as "natural flood plains" even though alterations have been carried out to the natural river system. Historically, there is evidence of flooding in the Sulby Area, the Claddaghs, along Sulby Glen, in Ballakerka area and downstream of Sulby Bridge. No flood plain area has been defined for the overall river system.
2.S The geological structure within the overall catchment area consists of sedimentary strata of Cambrian age arranged in acute syncline which has subsequently been subjected to 3 phases of tectonic movement. The resulting topographical features include mountains and afforested hills in the south of the catchment, a flat river plain to the north and a tide- controlled river discharge point at Ramsey.
2.9 At times when parts of the catchment are saturated, or when rapid snow melt occurs, run-off from the mountains and hills will be high rate and high volume. Some attenuation may occur through the Reservoir systems. Inevitably, flows from the "highland" areas will have to pass through the flat river plain area to the north. This could be made more difficult in the lower reaches if peak flow rates coincided with high tide levels at Ramsey, or even more so if tide levels were increased by surge conditions.
2.10 The catchment area upstream of Sulby Bridge can be conveniently divided into 4 sub- catchments: -
Sulby Reservoir Catchment 2 Block Eary Catchment 3 Remaining area to the east of the main river. 4 Remaining area to the west of the main river
In this study no attempt has been made to sub-divide the catchment downstream of Sulby Bridge, or to the north of the river.
2.11 It is understood that a feature of the weather patterns over the Isle of Man is that storms can be very localised. In the Sulby catchment, depending on catchment conditions, localised storms can lead to the creation of new discharge points to the main river. In the upper parts of the catchment where slopes are steep, land slips occur and new gullies and channels can appear during one storm event.
2.12 There are no flow or level measuring devices in the Sulby River or any of its tributaries. Relevant rainfall data is limited to daily records at Sulby Reservoir and Sulby Filters.
2.13 Developments within the Sulby catchment include: -
101L018/001/A 4
(Mullen Consultants Select Committee of Tynwald Lincoln Office SuMy River Study
• Isolated, single properties in the upper reaches e.g. Irish Cottage. • Properties in the Claddagh Area • Residential estates in the Sulby Area • Farms and cottages in the Narradale Area • Properties in Kerrowmoar, Glenduff, Glentramman, Church Town and Ballakillingan Area • Urbanised Areas in and around Ramsey
2.14 The following factors make hydrological and hydraulic assessment of the catchment difficult:
• lack of flow measurement • lack of depth measurement • very limited rainfall data • very variable bed movements
The first three items in the list above make it impossible to correlate actual rainfall intensities with river flows produced, and item 4 makes it difficult to estimate accurate friction coefficients and reliable cross sectional areas.
2.15 Currently there are no flood warning arrangements for the Sulby River system. The only advance notice that residents have is heavy rainfall predictions issued by the Meteorological Office. These are relatively generalised, not specific to the river system and take no account of prevailing catchment conditions.
101L018/001/A 5 ©Bulien Consultants Select Committee ofTynwald Lincoln Office Sulky River Study
3.0 HYDROLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Method
3.1 An analysis of the whole catchment upstream of Sulby was undertaken. Three methodologies were considered for estimating peak flows:
• The use of the Flood Estimation Handbook (FEH). • The use of the Flood Studies Report (FSR) — unit hydrograph methodology (UH). • The use of the Flood Studies Report (FSR) — statistical method.
3.2 Unfortunately the FEH method does not contain any information or equations relating to the Isle of Man, hence this method could not be used.
3.3 The unit hydrograph methodology tends to predict higher peak flows than the statistical method for storms of similar return frequency. When flows were calculated using the UH method for the two flood events, they did not correlate well with the actual conditions experienced. Hence, this method was discounted.
3.4 The FSR statistical method is commonly used, and predicted flows appeared to correlate reasonably well with conditions experienced during the two events. Hence, this was the adopted methodology. It was also selected by the Department of Transport when they undertook their post event analysis.
3.5 All the available data was assembled and assessed prior to undertaking the hydrological assessment. Little gauged data is available for the catchment, other than some rainfall data at Sulby Reservoir. Details of flow assessments carried out by other parties are also available.3
3.6 Analysis of the catchment was carried out using the software package Micro-FSR Version 1.1.
Catchment Characteristics
3.7 In order to carry out a hydrological assessment, a conceptual model is required that represents the response of the catchment to rainfall. A set of characteristics is defined in the FSR and presented on a number of maps that cover the British Isles.
3.8 A schematic of the Sulby catchment and the contributing drainage areas is shown in Figure 2. The total area of catchment that is drained by the river through Sulby village is 41.8 km'. The catchment characteristics were determined using the appropriate FSR maps and are summarised in Table 3.1.
6 10 ILO I 8/001/A Ramsey
( 4
I \ I UpperiSulby We ).------..., 725 hectares? ----''"--
pper Sulby East 1450 hectares \
ary Reservoir arcs
/Sulby Reservoir 1,620 hectares Settlement 1' Watercourse Sulby Reservoir
Sub-catchments
j Catchment Boundary
PROJECT ISLE OF MAN SELECT COMMITTEE OF TYNWALD SULBY FLOOD MODEL
consultants PCO,M11, On*
Road.Ortort Sol019991e9e1erborough.PE2 9X1J SMW N..113 JUNE 2001 Fax. 01733 391139 SULBY RNER CATCHMENT SCHEMATIC Tel. 01733 39145e ruu imieuECt CR.ForG. Ernaii peterberoughabu9en.muk 1:70 000 101101$ FIG 2
©Bullen Consultants Select Committee of Tynwald Lincoln Office Sulby River Study
Table 3.1: Catchment Characteristics
Characteristics Units Value used Catchment Area AREA (km2) 41.80 Slope 51085 (m/km) 29.73 Main Stream Length MSL (km) 9.06 Proportion Lake Area LAKE 0.38 1, Annual Average Rainfall SAAR (mm) 1700 Effective Soil Moisture Deficit SMDBAR (mm) 8.0 1 Day, 5 Year Rainfall less RSMD (mm) 56.86 effective soil moisture deficit 2 Day, 5 Year Rainfall M5-2D (mm) 95.0 25 Day, 5 Year Rainfall M5-25D (%SAAR) 19.5 Jenkinson's r r (%) 0.2 Urban area URBAN 0.005 Stream frequency STMFRQ junctions/km2 1.07 Estimated maximum 2 hour rainfall EMP2hour (mm) 130 Estimated maximum 24 hour EMP24hour (mm) 300 rainfall Soil classification SOIL (fraction of catchment) Soil 1=0 Soil 2=0 Soil 3=0 Soil 4=0.15 Soil 5=0.85 Hydrometric Region 81
3.9 The FSR map for Effective Soil Moisture Deficit (SMDBAR) does not include the Isle of Man. Therefore a value of 8 was used based on extending the SMDBAR contour from the mainland.
3.10 Micro-FSR VI.] does not recognise the Isle of Man's Hydrometric Region of 103. A sensitivity test was carried out using adjacent Regions 22, 74 and 81. Region 81 Scotland was adopted in the final analysis, as it was felt that this most closely resembled the study region.
Rainfall Data
3.11 The only available data for the Sulby area comes from two climatological gauges, which are read only once a day. Therefore, the precise distribution of rainfall across the catchment is not known and this has an effect on the accuracy of the hydrological assessment.
3.12 The Meteorological Office provided recorded rainfall data at Sulby Dam for the periods 20th to 25th October 1998 and3r_d to 8th December 2000. Based on data from around the island, it was estimated that during the 24th/25th October 1998 event, 70mm of rain fell in a 21-hour period in the region of Sulby Reservoir, compared to 66mm in a 9-hour period during 7t h/8 th December 2000. 4
8 WILMS/001/A
4:Sullen Consultants Select Committee of Tynwald Lincoln Office Sulby River Study
Flows
3.13 The Department of Transport (DoT) provided an assessment of the flows experienced during the October 1998 event.] Using the FSR statistical method the DoT determined a peak flow of 59m'is for a 1 in 50 year return period, and a mean annual flood of 27m7s.
3.14 The Isle of Man Water Authority advised that during the 1998 event, the overflow from Sulby Reservoir was approximately 35e/s. If this estimate is reasonably accurate, it illustrates the potential benefits that could be gained if a greater amount of balancing capacity were to be available in the reservoir at times when 'storm flows' are relatively high.
Analysis
3.15 The statistical analysis of the catchment was carried out based on catchment characteristics defined in Table 3.1. The resulting peak flows are shown in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2: Hydrological Assessment Results ... - Design Event Estimated Peak Flow (m4/s) i Syr 29.7 . • 10yr 35.74 20yr 43.16 30yr 47.93 50yr 54.61 100yr 66.19 250yr 77.94
3.16 The recorded rainfall depth and duration at Sulby Reservoir was applied to the Micro-FSR model. This provided an estimated peak flow for the two events:
• October 1998 — 48.16e/s • December 2000 — 73.49m3/s
3.17 Comparing these with the design peak flows in Table 3.2, the October 1998 event was seen to be in the order of a I in 30 year return period and the 2000 event in excess of a 1 in 100 year return period.
3.18 The resulting 50-year peak flow (statistical) of 54.61e/s compares well to that of 59m3/s determined by the DoT. The slight variance in this figure is likely to be due to differences in interpolation from the FSR maps and possibly the use of a different hydrometric area. For example, a flood routing exercise undertaken on the Block Eary Reservoir5 adopted Region 74, Coastal Cumbria.
1011,018/001/A 9
0Bulien Consultants Select Committee of Tynwald Lincoln Office Sulby River Study
Proportion of Flows within the Catchment
3.19 An assessment of the proportion of flows contributed by the sub-catchments was made using a simple percentage approach based on the sub-catchment areas. For the 50-year design event, the peak flow is distributed across the catchment as follows:
• Sulby Reservoir Catchment 22tifis • Block Eary Reservoir Catchment 5.6m'/s • Upper Sulby Catchment West 9m'is • Upper Sulby Catchment East 18m3/s
3.20 The reservoirs provide a certain amount of control to flows from their catchments upstream. However, no control is available for flows from the downstream catchments. In assessing proposals, options for providing some control of this flow may be considered.
3.21 Absolute figures for quantities of flow and their relationship to rainfall return frequencies cannot be calculated accurately. There are too many unmeasured parameters, and too many highly variable parameters. However, the hydrological studies have provided 'best estimates' and these appear to correlate reasonably well with known conditions that occurred during the two events.
Comparison of the Return Frequencies of the Two Flooding Events
3.22 Two factors are relevant when trying to establish a 'return frequency' for a flooding event. Firstly, the degree of saturation of the catchment, and secondly, the intensity of rainfall which occurs at the time of the event. The flow in the main river and its tributaries will be related to the catchment conditions.
3.23 Examining the available data for the two flood events established that the return frequency for the December 2000 event was likely to be considerably higher than the October 1998 event. In the period leading up to the December 2000 event, the catchment had been subjected to extremely heavy rainfall for a period of 3 months. In fact, the total rainfall for the 3 calendar months was the highest recorded for the same period over 20 years. The pre- event conditions for the 1998 event were not as severe although heavy rainfall occurred in the two weeks immediately prior to the event. The intensity of the rainfall in December 2000 appears to have been higher than in October 1998.4
3.24 Consideration of the joint probabilities for the catchment conditions and the intensities of rainfall led us to conclude that the probability of the year 2000 event was appreciably less than the 1998 event.
I01L018/001/A to
CBullen Consultants Select Committee of Tynwald Lincoln Office Sulby River Study
4.0 HYDRAULIC MODEL
Model Build
4.1 To assess the performance of the river channel through Sulby, a computer hydraulic model was constructed using HEC-RAS Version 2.2. HEC-RAS is designed to perform a one- dimensional hydraulic calculation for a full network of natural and constructed channels. Steady flow water surface profiles are based on the solution of a one-dimensional energy equation. Energy losses are evaluated by friction and contraction/expansion. A momentum equation is utilised where the water surface profile is rapidly varied. These situations include mixed flow regime calculations, hydraulics of bridges, and evaluating profiles at river confluences.
4.2 The data required to carry out an analysis using HEC-RAS includes river channel geometry and flow and/or water level data. Cross section survey data produced for the DoT Report on the Island Flooding Event of 24th/25th October 1998 was used to define the channel geometry in the Sulby model. Peak flow data generated by FSR was used, as described in Section 3.
4.3 Additional cross section data was required in order to assess flood levels in the floodplain, particularly upstream of Carrick Park. A survey was undertaken by Holmes Grace Consulting Engineers to provide additional floodplain levels and structure details, cross- sections through the millrace and flood and threshold levels.
4.4 Figure 3 (in Appendix B) shows the extent of the hydraulic model and section locations. Threshold levels are shown on Figure 6: Predicted Flow Paths (also in Appendix B.)
Calibration and Verification
4.5 It is well documented that the river channel, during the flood event of 1998, was overgrown and suffered in part from build-up of debris (gravel) in the bed. Therefore, a Manning's roughness coefficient n of 0.06 and 0.07 was used for the channel and banks respectively. This was based on Chow's6 descriptions for n values for streams and floodplains. Manning's n was set slightly higher to account for anecdotal vegetation growth at Sections 24,25,26 adjacent to 14, 13 & 12 Carrick Park.
4.6 There is plenty of anecdotal evidence for both the October 1998 and December 2000 flood events, mainly regarding flood flow paths and identification of properties that flooded. Further details can be found in Part I of the Committee report which itemises the written evidence. However, in order to have confidence in the hydraulic assessment results, verification of the modelled water levels was required before proposals could be considered. In order to assess performance of the model, known flood levels were required and a level survey was commissioned to provide these. Property threshold levels were also surveyed in order to assess the difference between them and possible river water levels that may occur after alleviation measures have been introduced.
4.7 Accurate calibration of the model could not be undertaken due to the lack of river flow data and recorded water levels within the channel. Therefore, performance of the model was
101L018/001/A 11
©Bullen Consultant!. Select Committee of Tynwald Lincoln Office Sulby River Study
verified using 'target' levels based on surveyed flood levels, anecdotal flood depth and other evidence.
4.8 The calculated peak flow of 48.16m'is for the 1998 event was run through the model. Adjustments were made to the flow split at Kella Mill Footbridge, in order to simulate the overland flow reaching the Mill Race. Evidence suggested that the water level was just above the soffit of the footbridge. This was replicated in the model and the flows in the millrace were adjusted accordingly. By running the design events through the model it was determined that flows of 1 in 20 year and higher would be forced out of bank at the footbridge. However, it is known that the millrace takes road drainage flows in additional to any overflow from the river. Lower flows in the millrace could not be accurately quantified and therefore the modelled water levels may be higher than predicted.
4.9 Based on evidence provided by local residents, and on the hydrological analysis, it was determined that the December 2000 event was of a higher magnitude than that in October 1998, which was identified as a 1 in 30 year event. The peak flow of 73.49m3/s for the 2000 event was run through the model and analysis of the resulting flood levels compared against the anecdotal evidence.
4.10 The results of these two runs are shown in Table 4.1. It can be seen that the modelled 1998 water levels closely relate to the surveyed levels and predicted flood depths at properties are similar to the anecdotal evidence. Modelled water levels for the 2000 event are slightly higher than the available evidence would suggest. The higher flows of the 2000 event may have transported more debris, leading to higher roughness coefficients in the channel than during the 1998 event. This was not tested in the model as accurate verification data was not available, however, a sensitivity analysis was carried out on changing Manning's n and is described later in this report. The results of the modelled 1998 event were considered acceptable in terms of verifying the suitability of the model.
Development, Analysis and Runs
4.11 In order to determine flood levels, each property was assigned a section label in the model at which the water level could be read. Evidence suggested that some of the properties along Mill Race were flooded due to overland flow and some directly from the river itself. Modelled water levels in the main river and millrace were assessed against surveyed flood levels at properties in the Mill Race and cross sections assigned accordingly. This suggested that property numbers 12 to 6 would be affected by flooding from overland flow and property numbers 5 to 1 by flooding directly from Sulby River. The modelled water levels were compared to the flooding evidence for both events and to surveyed levels. Modelled and surveyed water levels correlated reasonably well along both the main Sulby River channel and along the Mill Race for the 1998 event. The predicted flood levels for the 2000 event are approximately 500mm higher than predicted for the 1998 event at locations along the main channel. Flood paths were assessed and were found to correspond to the anecdotal flooding pattern. Table 4.1 presents the results of the model compared to anecdotal evidence and surveyed levels at each property.
12 101L018/001/A Select Committee of Tynwald CBullen Consultants Limoln Office Stay River Study
Table 4.1: Model Calibration and Verification Results
Scity Read Model Remits of Model Calibration and Verification
Evert Known to knawn to Difference Threshald Arrecciaal Arnica:Rai Waffled Rood Section Read Nave Haw Mccielled Rood DelawenReccrdedi (Roar) LEtel Road Depth Rood Depth DepthrAtaire Fa Property Ref. Lead Sodded Raided level On4.013) end Mcdelled irrA0D) (n01996 (n2000 )thell Daa. prift0D) 1566 MOO Road Levels fig
Rood Brat Rood Ebert Riad Event
1998 2200 isse I acto rzie 17206 _ - Kalb Mil Garage M11 18.026 - 17.733 17.826 -0273 4.189 . -... 12 -Mil Rare NB 17.2137 - 16.940 17.940 -0967 WOW' 11 - hall Race M5 17.105 - • 16.930 17.020 -0.176 •0.1306 MA 16.821 16.944 - - _ 16920 17.020 -6.91019 .7.1293261-±,l 006 -045 10 - Mil Race :4*. g, MR Ra:e 597 16321 17186 • - 16.910 17.033 •i'Altillits-- -i93929; 1.60 1.219 6- MR Race 097 16.664 17.054 • ' 16.910 17020 mumerl maw 0.64 032 7-Mb 122013 M6 16.674 - • ' 15.850 16980;Anis: mas251. M5 - 165E2 - ' ' 16.690 16S6 ."13.921r..- RitiotP 6- MR Race d 5. PAD Race 21 16352 - • 16320 16.810 -0/342 '411846 ,1 ' 16320 16510 -0224 '!"31:1916 ,- 1.65 -107 4 - PAN Race 21 16354 16.1332 ..rr -ti 3- MD Race 21 16218 - • - 16-320 16910 '1 Ys; '121562-1 f2 - MR Race 22 16.028 16.646 ' 16293 16.802 ,..' 34394.- ••., 2.14 - 093 i. PAH Race 22 16.096 16.441 - 16.290 16332 "i•• 411.62IP, 0112 -2.18 kdka Milis 611 16.810 17.710 09 ' 17332 17.820 i.39:1 16cciadie 693 _,,, 18 • 660 _,. - , 16932 17.0M -1.763 -1973 - 16333 17920 -1219 -1.729 liknok1f6e WA 18.749 - ....- . AV Rare Cottage M7 lacen - - 16910 17.000 4.701 -1211 - 16.870 16950 -0.044-‘-'1636e' Bumble M3 16214 1- sayeer WI 162% - 15232 , 16.420 -0366 ,k16.1361, 1 0 15932 16.43D 4363 4.173 ;7:1•1. .•Wfitin f32.1 6.550 .16.593 , ,A 14.1 153M 15932 1640 -9602 addle 60.1 15.924 - 15933 • 16.42D ,AM:195.41- 4Mariaddi M3.1 16332 - 15230 16.420 4332 •-aitaillatl reli4cwin 1143.1 16.265 15.930 16.420 41.336 ‘07,16V 26 15355 .15355 0 45.310 15.763 .5.545 .02% Fderade .. 2 -Cat Park 25 15391 - 15.790 16220 :/), 3 -Caviar Park 25 15.433 - • - 15392 16220". 4- Calok Park 25 16257 .. 15.792 16220 4.467 .0237 5 -Ovid Perk 25 16.689 - 15.793 16220 4399 4.469 • • • 15.793 12 Carrick Park (Varaters Edge) 25 16.106 - ...- 16220 4.318 6.16161 13 Carrick Park Akineharia 24 1E069 - • 16 360 19550 4.029 19.12.460 14 Carrick Park 24 15.708 16.158 0.45 • 16.0601 16.6304163167 *bat 021 -2.43 • 15116 Cara* Pak (V1 es 23 16.153 - • 16.160 18,693 trazx F. • 16.650 -:: • 17 Candi Pak Oatlistratra 23 „ 15932 - - 19160 la • David Park 22 16.204 - ' 16.260 18903 -0.034 19 -Derrick Pad 72 '' 17.1326 - 16230 ukam -artell 4.205 20.Carria Perk 23 16.455 - ,_16.160 162 -0242 *324e 21- Curia Pak 24 16.034 - • 16.093 16.55D 1.50102C: -AMC; 1 z2- Cards Pak - 24 16.707 - 162% 19693 .9647 -0.157 23- Carick Park 24 16.5E3 - - .- 16090 16.550 4.433 -0.93 24 16002- 16360 16.550 -1•91 .,,, -ABMs. 24 -Card Park -. . 25- Card PIA 24 15.486 • • 16092 16650' VatiVia'Vr.nie 26-Carait Park 24 15.687 15657 • 16.093 16.542 tillat1,V -139 -437 24 15.736 - • ' ,. 16.060 16/560 „ftitz ..:.13619-5 27 -Candi Park ...- . . .- e 28 - Cali* Park 24 15.973 - • 16.06) 16593 - ..„dlsrr.„, 29-Catch Pat 24 15.948 16919 ' 0.1 ' 16.630 .._ 16550 ,iA,,••-••• ia112102.k -0127 -3.13 16063 19593 -0.742 -OM 30-Carrick Perk 24 16.808 - • 31-Cards Perk 22 16393 - ' 16260 16.820 43963 -02% , . 32 • Caridt Pak 22 16.114 - 162E0 isato cam` -Carrick Pali 72 15545 162% ' 16250 16903 .:13241VA.-,43.72)54, -0.36 352 34 . 36 -Carrick Pak 22 15.810 1631 0.5 " 16290 16.633 A01.1%,;= 5A1.1117%7m 0.12 400 1630 - 16293 16320 4105 ..k.90:416k 36-Catch Park V ....„ 37-Quid Park V 16049 - 16293 16.803 :5-3-14917-, 111:151,.. 39 -Carrick Perk 24 15.845 - 16.060 16950 "1122•16 RI ';•.41,705; 39-Carrick Pak 24 15.566 - 16.060 16.560 -f1,04100 r.11.1166,.., 40-Carrick Pak 25 15.163 15.447 • • 15.720 16220 Y0.9374 '7a.1:1617.,, -2-22 4.133 41 -Cada Pat 25 15217 15.327 " ' 15.793 16220 ft D IMr'....----•.--3/133';! . -3M -5M 42 -Carrick Park 25 15.311 ,15.793 16220 -416A4114 .;.1110i.,. pas} Park Estee _ 24 _ 15.800 16.3 0.5 __ 16.060 16.550 '.S- 7(3219--_-:;511.79;"-i
Legend
16279 Surveyed Baal We (Survey or May 2071) 15.95 Are cdala Aced Iona based Pr aaatince padded • Anecdotal era:knee d nodding cccurrirg based en iidarmalicn plaided Plodding prodded LY rrrAel
shadd be naiad thal pcsaiefloxiing occumd al scrre properbas rd indicated hare
13 101L01 8/001/A
(Mullen Consultants Select Committee of Tynwald Lincoln Office Sulbv River Study
4.12 The threshold level at Kella Mill Distillery is 16.81m AOD. The model predicts a flood depth of 0.92m for the 1998 event compared to an anecdotal depth of 0.9m.
4.13 The assessment of flood levels through Carrick Park Estate is limited by the complexities of floodplain flow, which cannot be dealt with using HEC-RAS. Therefore, levels should be taken as indicative only.
4.14 Peak flows for the I in 5, 10, 20, 30, 50 and 100-year return periods were run through the model. It should be noted that any such analysis has limited accuracy, as variations in water levels will be caused by local structures and obstructions to the flow. However, the model is sufficiently accurate, to within ±100mm, to confirm flood flow paths and identify deficiencies within the system (i.e. potential locations for overtopping and restrictions in channel capacity.)
4.15 A number of potential improvement options were then modelled using the 50 and 100-year design flows.
Sensitivity
4.16 Two sensitivity tests were carried out to assess the performance of the model using the 1998 event peak flow:
• Adjusting Manning's n value by ±20%. • Adjusting peak flow by ±20%.
4.17 Manning's n coefficients were increased for both the channel and banks along the whole of the main Sulby River. This had the effect of increasing predicted water levels by an average 100mm throughout the model.
4.18 Reducing Manning's n coefficient reduced predicted water levels by an average of 300mm. This would seem to suggest that the model is fairly sensitive to the choice of roughness coefficient, and suggests that the values used for n are reasonable in achieving a model that reflects the conditions of the system. The use of relatively high coefficients produced water levels that were nearer to the actual recorded levels than those produced when relatively low coefficients were used.
4.19 The adjustment of 1998 peak flow in the model caused a change in predicted water levels of ±200mm. This event was assessed as having a return period of approximately 1 in 50 years. The increased flow would equate to approximately a 1 in 60 year return period. This indicated an increase in the number of properties predicted to flood.
4.20 Similarly with reduced flows, a reduced number of properties were predicted to flood. When compared with anecdotal flooding data, this would imply that the flows used in the model are a reasonable representation of actual flow.
14 101L018/001/A
(Mullen Consultants Select Committee of Tynwald Lincoln Office Sulby River Study
5.0 RESULTS OF HYDRAULIC MODEL RUNS
Existing Standard of Service
5.1 Figures 4.1 to 4.3 show the modelled water surface profiles. It can be seen that the water level is out of bank at a number of locations. Estimated peak levels for the modelled design events are presented in Table Cl (in Appendix C.) Analysis of these results was canied out to assess the existing standard of service provided by the system. This was based on an assessment of the properties likely to flood for each return period. This showed that some bank overtopping is predicted for the 1 in 5 year event, which is likely to lead to localised ponding to a depth of approximately 200mm, most notably at the following locations:
• Section 22 — Numbers 1 and 2 Mill Race • Section 23 —'Westwinds' and 'Millstream' on Carrick Park • Section M10/9 — Kella Mill
5.2 Flooding damage to properties begins once the flood level enters the foundations. This level is defined as 300mm below threshold level. Analysis of the cross-sections indicates that property damage may begin to occur for an event with a return period of between 1 in 5 and in 10 years at Section 22, Mill Race and at Section 24, Carrick Park. However, these are isolated locations and it is possible that localised ponding will occur in gardens rather than cause flood damage to buildings. Overtopping becomes more frequent with higher events, with all banks between Kella Mill Footbridge and Sulby Bridge overtopped above a 1 in 50 year event. Refer to Figures 5.11 to 5.11 (in Appendix C) for cross sections.
5.3 Analysis of the model results showed that the capacity of the channel varies considerably along the whole study reach. Channel capacities at each section are shown in Table C2 (in Appendix C.) Downstream of the remains of Glen Kella Weir, the capacity of the channel is less than 29e/s between Sections 20 and 25 adjacent to Mill Race and Carrick Park estates. This is less than a 1 in 5 year flow.
5.4 The average standard of service provided by the system appears to lie between 1 in 10 and 1 in 20 years, based on properties adjacent to the watercourse, which may flood (i.e. the probability of flooding occurring in any one year is between 5% and 10%.) The channel between Glen Kella Weir and Sulby Bridge has an average capacity of approximately 37m'/s.
5.5 Flow in the millrace channel is severely restricted and this was shown to have a capacity of less than 0.5m'/s.
101L018/001/A 15 Elevation (m)
.••• ••• IV N 1%.,1 •••• ••• Cf
11' I `. -...Section .016 . isL\ \ \
•„. - Section 014 ■ Fi
Section.013 gure 0
Section 012 4 .1 : W
Section at e
_ . r
Section 010 _ . S --• - • urf ct Section 009 , ac o - e P rofil Section 008 es f Section 007 or D
Section.008 e si uunto gn P
p .. Section 008Seclion 005. a 0 st Section 004. . eak nuut a Fl
w) Section 003 ( .COpy of Section 003 ow
Claddaghs Weir s U %Copy. ofSection 002. pst
Copy Of SeatiOn 001: Elevations adjusted by -0.11 ream co Section 001 8 - COpy of SeatiOn A. of Section 5:• K
Section C el l a Mi Section .D ll
Section E
Section G 0 8 — Section H Section
m co a IN CD f- co • eo et • " !1‘,) D• •0 r z • 0 Q 1 4 I Figure 4.2: Water Surface Profiles for Design Peak Flows at Sulby Legend
WS 100yr
18 WS Oyr WS 30yr
WS 20yr 16.10 8.00 5.90 WS lOyr 15.70 WS 5yr .,- Bed Level \\ \\\ .....„-- Left Bank , \ \ .._., .."- ...' Right Rank • // ,. 16.22 E 'Zi•-• / / \ N, /- \\ ', / // Indicative Threshold Level
e idg br
7 - 12 4 01 02 019
On i ion tion t t Sec Sec
00 7Sec 19 1 0
025 0
0 024 C
5 ion ion t t tion tion Sec Sec
Sec Sec co 10 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Main Channel Distance (m)
Figure 4.3: Water Surface Profiles for Design Peak Flows Along Millrace 20 Legend
WS 100yr
WS 50yr
19 - WS 30yr WS 20yr WS 10yr WS 5yr 18 - Bed Level r Left Bank --- -- 6.91 6.82 Right Bank 6.55 6.67 17 18.22
• • • Indicative Threshold Level 16
• • •
15
14 N el• 'tn, tet I-- 0:1 C11 2 2 2 2. c c c 0 a 0 ''S i : ci • ic i. 1. v 1 WE 0 Cl) 0 • • (4 • a • • . •
13 500 -100 CIP 100 200 300 400 Main Channel Distance (m)
Select Committee of Tynwald ©Bullen Consultants Lincoln Office Selby River Study
Deficiencies and Obstructions
5.6 Local residents have suggested that channel capacity is severely restricted by vegetation growth and the accumulation of debris, particularly at Glen Kella Weir. Heavy vegetation growth in the channel adjacent to 14 Carrick Park is said to have attributed to the high water levels during the 1998 event Overgrown banks are also thought to have exacerbated flooding in 2000. Evidence suggests that little maintenance has been carried out to maintain an adequate channel size.
5.7 Anecdotal evidence has been replicated in the model of the flow paths at Kella Mill. As the water levels increase in the main channel at Kella Mill Footbridge, water eventually overflows the bank and finds its way along the footpath towards to Kella Mill, where it spills into the millrace channel. It continues along the channel before flowing into the pipe below the Mill Race estate access road. The flow of-water through the millrace has been impeded by the construction of a small pipe under the access road and by the filling in of the reach downstream. This results in an inability of the system to drain water from what was once the natural floodplain. It is understood that the millrace channel also accepts surface water from the adjacent road drainage system. Although this has not been modelled specifically, this can only exacerbate the flooding problem.
5.8 Further changes to the millrace system include the loss of storage in the millpond and of flow control structures. This lack of control of out of bank flow increases the probability of inundation of Mill Race properties and Kella Distillers Ltd. Floodplain storage has effectively been removed by construction of houses on Mill Race and Carrick Park Estate.
Flood Patterns
5.9 From Figure 6 (in Appendix B) it can be seen that the water level is out of bank at a number of locations. Predicted flow paths were assessed at these locations and compared to anecdotal evidence. This assessment showed that the model predicted flow paths compared favourably with the anecdotal evidence. Floodwater comes out of bank at and upstream of Kella Mill footbridge on the left bank and flows across the floodplain to the millrace, and along the floodplain, affecting adjacent properties. From upstream of Kella Mill footbridge, overtopping of the banks leads to flow in the floodplain, which would follow the line of lowest ground levels, flowing into Carrick Park and affecting properties within the estate. Over bank flow is likely to directly affect adjacent properties in Carrick Park.
5.10 In analysing the 1998 event model results, the flow patterns were assessed and are illustrated on Figure 6. (A topographic survey of the floodplain would enable a more detailed assessment of flow paths to be undertaken.)
Improvement Works
5.11 Removal of the Kella Mill footbridge was tested using the 50 and 100-year design flows but appeared to have little effect on predicted water levels. Levels immediately upstream were reduced by approximately 150mm and water levels downstream increased by 20mm for the 50 year return period For the 100 year return period there was a reduction of 100mm in water levels immediately upstream of the bridge location, but very little change was observed downstream. Out of bank flow was still seen to occur within the vicinity of Kella Mill for both return periods. This suggests that the effect of the footbridge is small and that bank levels play a more significant role in the flooding mechanism on the left bank.
1011,018/001/A 19
©Bonen Consultants Select Committee of Tynwald Lincoln Office Sulby River Study
5.12 The model was used to identify locations where water levels were shown to overtop the banks. Bank raising would need to be carried out along the Sulby River from upstream of the Kella Mill footbridge to Su Eby Bridge and along the millrace in order to provide up to a I in 100 year level of protection. The model was run to assess the effect of raising bank levels above the predicted 100-year water level. The impact on water levels upstream of the Kella Mill footbridge was assessed and found to be insignificant. However, effects further downstream of Sulby could not be assessed as the model terminates just downstream of Sulby Bridge. The length of bank raising required is presented in Figure 7 (in Appendix B.)
5.13 Flood storage was considered, based on data from the hydrological and hydraulic models. The minimum channel capacity was taken as 20m3/s. This magnitude of flow would continue downstream of the Kella Mill footbridge. The remaining flow could be diverted into a flood storage area. The volume of flow required to be stored was calculated as approximately 5,000m3 for the I in 50 year return period. By constructing embankments in the right bank floodplain, the approximate volume that could be made available for storage was estimated to be 12,000m3, thus indicating that the achievable standard of service with storage could be 1 as high as 1 in 100 year. The volume of flood flow during the 1998 event was assessed as approximately 4,500m3/s. Refer to Figure 8 (in Appendix B) for indicative plan of storage area.
5.14 The possibility of a flow diversion was assessed. A diversion route was identified which could possibly reduce the 50-year peak flow through Sulby by 6rif/s and is shown on Figure 9 (in Appendix B.) This would have the effect of reducing the peak from a 1 in 50 year return period to a 1 in 30 year. This resulted in a reduction of water levels but some bank overtopping was still observed between the Kella Mill footbridge and Sulby Bridge, i.e. if the flow diversion were physically possible, it may not be sufficient without other measures to produce a level of service of 1 in 50 or 1 in 100 years.
10IL018/001/A 20
C.Oullen Consultants Select Committee of Tynwalc Lincoln Office Sultry River Study
6.0 STANDARDS OF FLOOD DEFENCE - TARGETS
6.1 Currently, no department is responsible for setting "target standards" of land drainage or flood defence.
6.2 In the U.K. historically, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (MAFF), set target standards for both functions. The target standards are related to land usage, and they represent desirable "levels of service". Hence, for areas of residential development, target standards ranging from 1 in 50 to 1 in 100 are regarded as appropriate for defence against fluvial flooding. I in 200 is regarded as appropriate for defence against tidal flooding.
6.3 Sometimes the target standards cannot be met economically, and lower standards have to be accepted. The Ministry will not generally grant aid improvement works for flood defence unless the Benefit / Cost Ratio is greater than unity.
6.4 Recently a Planning Policy Guidance Note, (PPG No 25), has been drafted which advises Local Planning Authorities, inter alia, to : -
• undertake risk based sequential tests to identify, inter alia, development sites with lower risk. • avoid building in flood plains, if possible. • make developers responsible for assessing flood risks. • make developers responsible for funding Flood Defence improvements that may be necessary for their sites.
6.5 In undertaking their Flood Risk Assessments, developers will have to determine achievable standards of flood defence and the residual risk which remains from extreme events after defences are constructed.
6.6 Whatever standards of Flood Defence are provided for the Sulby Area, some residual risk will remain from extreme events in the upper catchment.
IDIL018/001/A 21
®Sullen Consultants Select Committee of Tynwald Lincoln Office Sulby River Study
7.0 IMPROVEMENTS WORKS
7.1 Flood Defence Standards can be increased in the Sulby Area by undertaking more maintenance work, (out of revenue budgets), or by carrying out specific improvement works, (requiring capital investment). Depending on the selected standard of defence, both revenue and capital expenditure may be required.
7.2 Recent flooding events have graphically illustrated that it would be unacceptable to maintain the status quo, with current standards of defence. Neither would it be acceptable to demolish the properties in Carrick Park and Mill Race and re-locate the residents elsewhere.
7.3 Revenue options that could improve the situation are: -
1 Change the operating regime at Sulby Reservoir to draw off more water via the scour valves when overflow levels are being approached, and catchment conditions are nearing saturation. This would help to reduce the water levels in the Reservoir and provide a greater "attenuation" or "balancing" faCility. It is understood that water could be drawn off at 4 cumecs, and that this would have the effect of lowering the water level by 1 metre in 24 hours if no further rainfall occurred, (information provided by Water Authority). This, of course could not be guaranteed and overflow may still occur. However, in principle, increased usage of part of the top 4 metres of the Reservoir capacity for balancing, potential storm flows would assist in Flood Attenuation. There would be some loss of available capacity for hydro-electric power generation, but the adverse impact on this activity would be more than out weighed by the benefits to Flood Defence Standards. The exact operating arrangements would need to be determined by and acceptable to the Water Authority. (Software packages are held at BCL which could facilitate the calculations of rates of water level rise in the Reservoir and overflow rates for storms of varying frequency. These calculations would allow for the routing of hydrograph predicted flows through the reservoir). Advantages of this option are: - • if could be implemented quickly and • there are minimal costs involved.
2 Clear the river channel of debris just upstream of the footbridge near Kella Mill. This debris is the remains of the old weir and sluice structures and currently it forms a major obstruction in the river channel, (urgent action required by the DoT).
3 Implement a planned programme of channel dredging along the whole length of the Sulby River, to be undertaken in phases, on an annual basis. This programme should be developed by and implemented by the DoT. Note : As part of the "dredging" programme consideration should be given to the creation of "gravel traps" upstream of the Sulby Area. Sediment carried by high velocities at times of storm flows could be settled out in specifically prepared areas of the river where it would not be detrimental to the required cross sectional area of
22 101L018/001/A
©Sullen Consultants Select Committee of Tynwald Lincoln Office Sulby River Study
the channel. If sediment is not controlled it will tend to settle out when the velocities of flow decrease. This is likely to be in the flatter areas, such as the Sulby Area, where adequate cross sectional area of the channel is needed to reduce the probability of flooding.
4 Remove and cut back vegetation which is impeding flows in the river channel. This work should be undertaken by the DoT, after consultation with DAFF. However, the prime objective should be "flood alleviation".
5 Replace the footbridge at Kella Mill with a suitably designed bridge fixed at a higher level so that it does not obstruct and divert flows from the river channel, (action by DoT).
6 Reinstate the Mill Race drainage system as an effective operational land drainage I surface water system which is capable of taking some overflow from the main river channel when water levels are high.
7.4 Capital Investment options which could improve standards of flood defence are: -
Construct a series of raised embankments, and walls where space is restricted, along various lengths of the main river channel. These would help to contain higher water levels in the channel and reduce the probability of overflow. The locations of the required embankments are shown in Figure 7 (in Appendix B.)
2 Create a flood storage area upstream and to the west of Carrick Park as shown in Figure 8 (in Appendix B.) When river levels reach 17.60m, approximately 1 in 25 year, overflow into the flood storage area would take place via a weir or sluice arrangement. Water would be drained back into the river when the peak flood flows had receded. This option would be subject to arriving at an agreement with the landowners / occupiers and subject to detailed site investigations.
3 Enlarge the river channel to contain estimated peak flows for the selected standard of defence. This option, in principle, is as proposed by the Department of Transport. It involves land purchase, and substantial civil engineering works and it would have considerable environmental impact.
4 Create a new diversion, or "cut off' channel to divert some tributary flows from within the catchment to discharge downstream of Sulby Bridge. This would have the effect of reducing peak flows passing through the area of Mill Race and Carrick Park and hence, reduce the probability of flooding. The proposal is illustrated, in outline on Figure 9 (in Appendix B.) The viability and practicality of this option would require further detailed investigation. The reduction in main river flow would depend on the extent of the tributary flow which could be diverted. Initial desktop studies indicated that this could be in the order of 10 to 15% of the total peak flows.
7.5 The options and impacts on defence standards are tabulated below, (Table 7A), with comments on possible timing and constraints. In general, the Revenue options are achievable more quickly than the Capital Investment options but they do not achieve as much of an increase in the defence standard. Some Revenue Options could be combined usefully with some Capital Options. However, high costs may preclude the combination of some of the Capital Options.
101L018/001/A 23 Select Committee of Tynwald ®Sullen Consultants Lincoln Office Sulby River Study
Table 7.1
Probable Level OPTION of Flood Possible date of Comments Defence implementation Standards YNAVV-agiW. a*Mfgarniff4P4,- iltaZAWORMri&--;iat42 RI Reservoir Not 1. Increases balancing facility Operation determinable 2001 2. Effectiveness depends on weather without patterns Reservoir 3. Water Authority should determine modelling, but details could improve 4. Could be "temporary" measure. upto 1 in 30 / 50 R2 Debris . Nominal 2001 1. Urgent action required by DoT Clearance improvement R3 Dredging Gradual 1. Pro-active system to be introduced (annual) increase in 2001/2/3 2. Some marketable materials may be plus standard — produced creation of depends on 3. Increase rate of annual spend "Gravel extent required (DoT) Traps) R4 Remove Gradual 1. Initial action plan required to deal Vegetation increase in 2001/2/3 with worst locations, (DoT / standard — DAFF) depends on 2. Annual programme to be more extent effective R5 Remove Marginal 2002 1. Re-design required — with Footbridge improvement clearance above top water level R6 Reinstate Improve Mill I. Essential if localised flooding Mill Race Race standard — 2002 problems are to be avoided probably to 1 in 2. Involves DoT and Private Owners 30 ig,V,Lr' 14:1W5-04raintaiEfeATEWittrAt4tii -4'.. ' :4741" 1 .•,.4 Cl Build 1 in 50 or 1. Access arrangements to be Banks I in 100 2002 determined and source of materials 2. Raising banks along main channel and Mill Race 3. Some walls would be required C2 Enlarge 1 in 50 or 1. Involves major civil engineering Channel I in 100 2003 works 2. Considerable environmental impact C3 Flood 1 in 50 or 1. Agreement with land owners Storage I in 100 2003 required Area 2. Site investigation required C4 Diversion 1 in 50 or I. Involve major civil engineering Channel 1 in 100 2003 work 2. Further investigations required on practicality / viability
7.6 If defence standards can be raised sufficiently by some of the capital options, (i.e. C2, C3 and or C4), then it may be possible, when they are implemented, to dispense with Option RI — Reservoir Operation.
1011,018/001/A 24
©Bulien Consultants Select Committee of Tynwald Lincoln Office Sulby River Study
7.7 An offer has been made by Kella Distillers Ltd. To allow the old 'mill pond' to be reinstated and used for flood storage purposes (provided that the millrace system is made effective.) This may be an alternative, or a useful addition to, the Flood Storage Option C3.
7.8 Even when defence standards are raised, there will be "residual risk" of flooding from extreme events. This cannot be totally eliminated. However, a system of Flood Warning and Emergency Response can help to reduce the impact of flooding and avoid the most extreme consequences.
7.9 The introduction of a Flood Warning / Emergency Response system for the Sulby River Catchments would present a challenge as currently: -
• There is no flow or depth measurement on the main river. • Storms can be very localised, short duration / high intensity, giving rise to significant run-off. • At times catchment run-off is very fast, and river flows / depths vary very quickly. • Reservoir levels increase very quickly under certain conditions. • No organisations is responsible for issuing "flood warnings".
7.10 Notwithstanding the challenge, the option of introducing some form of Flood Warning System appears essential. The key elements to be addressed are: -
1 What form will the warnings take? (alert state, flooding likely, severe flooding likely, all clear). 2 Who will issue the warnings? (Met Office, DoT, Water Authority, Police). 3 How will the warnings be disseminated? (Media (TV / Local Radio), Flood Wardens, Telephone, Alarms).
7.11 The option of introducing a Flood Warning System has been included in the table of budget costs in Section 8.0. Allowances have been included for installing rain gauges, depth and flow recorders. The possibility of increased hydrometric measurement should be correlated with work currently being undertaken by the Water Authority.
10ILMS/001/A 25
©Bullen Consultants Select Committee of Tynwald Lincoln Office Sulbv River Study
8.0 OUTLINE BUDGET COSTS
8.1 Where possible budget costs have been estimated for the various improvement options outlined in section 7.0. Estimates have been based on figures taken from BCL's own cost database.
8.2 The budget costs are indicative only. Further estimates will be required when more detailed survey and design data is available.
8.3 The following table, (Table 8.1), contains the preliminary budget costs: -
Table 8.1
Option Cost Comment
RI Reservoir < £7k 1. Increased monitoring required Operation 2. Increased operation of scour value required R2 Debris £7k 1. One — off clearance operation Clearance R3 Dredging £25 — 40K / 1. Depends on budget availability (annual) annum 2. Percentage of total should be increased R4 Remove £15 / 20k / annum 1. Depends on budget availability Vegetation R5 Remove £15k 1. One-off replacement operation Footbridge R6 Reinstate £5 Ok 1. Combination of DoT budget and Private Mill Race C1 Build £650k Banks C2 Enlarge £975k 1. Selection and extent of Capital Options Channel will depend on Standard of Defence C3 Flood £600k selected, further surveys and economic Storage evaluation. Area 2. Budget Costs could vary between £650k C4 Diversion £800k and £980k Channel FW Flood £50 — 65k 1. Some Capital and some Revenue Costs 1 Warning involved System 2. Provision of rain gauges, level recorder etc should be correlated with work being done by the Water Authority
101L018/001/A 26
DBullen Consultants Select Committee of Tynwald Lincoln Office Sulby River Study
9.0 CONCLUSIONS
9.1 From our general study of the Sulby River and its catchment we conclude: -
• Mans activity and inactivity have decreased the water carrying capacity of the main river channel. (Mobile bed loads have been increased, inter alia, by mining / quarrying activities; reduced maintenance dredging has left much of the increased material in the river channel).
• There are no effective flood defence controls on the Sulby River system. (Although some attenuation of flows occurs through the Reservoirs).
• At times, high river flows are inevitable through the Sulby Area. (Carrick Park and Mill Race housing developments have been constructed in the flood plain of the river, without a risk assessment being carried out).
• The Mill Race drainage system is no longer effective. (This was an integral part of the Sulby River system, but sections have been disconnected and filled in, or inadequately piped).
• Rates of run-off from all parts of the upper catchment will be variable and high at times. (They will vary considerably depending on the degree of saturation of the catchment., the intensity of the rainfall, and the "localised" nature of the storm).
• There are no historic records available. (Verbal and written evidence is available on extent of previous floods, but no accurate measured records exist of main river flows or depths).
• The rate of discharge from the Sulby River to the sea at Ramsey is controlled by tide and surge tide levels. (The river system can be "sectionalised" for local hydraulic evaluations. However, decisions made relating to the upper or middle reaches could impact on the lower reaches. Similarly, restrictions at the outfall could impact on the lower reaches).
9.2 From our hydrological study of the catchment area upstream of Sulby Bridge, and our hydraulic modelling of the Sulby Area we conclude: -
• Accurate correlation of rainfall intensities and river flows is not possible. (This is because only daily cumulative rainfall totals are available, and there are no depth or flow records).
• Estimates for peak flows reaching the Sulby Area, generated by storms of various return frequencies are: -
Storm Frequency (years) Peak Flow Rates (Q - m_/secs)
1 in 10 35.74 1 in 20 43.16 1 in 50 54.61 1 in 100 66.19
• The average capacity of the river channel in the Sulby Area is 37m3/sec. (This flow equates to a storm with a return period of 1 in 10 to 20. Higher flows will lead to
101L018/001/A 27 ©Sullen Consultants Select Committee of Tynwald Lincoln Office Sulby River Study
overflow from the channel system and hence the 1 in 10 to 20 figure can be taken as an indicator of the current Flood Defence Standard. It is a measure of the probability of flooding occurring in any one year, e.g. 1 in 10 = 10%, 1 in 50 = 2%, 1 in 100-1% etc.).
• Improvements to the exiting Flood Defence Standards in the Sulby Area can be achieved by various means, as outlined in detail in Section 7.0 of the report. (No detailed Benefit I Cost assessment has been carried out, but with property valuations high, investment is likely to be worthwhile).
• Some options for improvement can be achieved more quickly than others. (Flood Defence Standards can be raised to the order of 1 in 30 relatively quickly. To achieve a standard of 1 in 50 or 1 in 100 would take longer, and would involve more major capital investment). Indicative budget costs for Capital Options range from £213 million to £4/5 million.
9.3 From our overall study, we conclude that the following items are of particular importance in addition to any improvement projects that may be undertaken: -
• Development of a Flood Warning System is essential. (Without this there will be an unacceptable "residual risk" even if defence standards are raised).
• Hydrological and hydraulic studies downstream of Sulby Bridge to Ramsey are highly desirable, particularly if developments are planned for the Ramsey area.
• It should be noted that the improvement option of reinstatement of the Mill Race drainage system is also essential. (Without this there will be highway flooding, property flooding in Mill Race, and at Kella Mill).
28 101L018/001/A
Select Committee of Tynwald ©13ullen Consultants Lincoln Office Sulby River Study
10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
10.1 We recommend that the Select Committee of Tynwald consider the following 3 year phased Action Plan as a basis for improving Flood Defence Standards in the Sulby Area: -
Table 10.1 : Action Plan - Works
PHASE 1— Summer / Autumn 2001 RI Alter Operating Regime at Sulby Reservoir R2 Remove debris upstream of Kella Mill R3 Commence annual dredging programme and gravel traps R4 Commence removal of vegetation
PHASE 2 — Year 2002 R5 Construction of Bridge at Kella Mill R6 Reinstatement of Mill Race Cl Construction of Banks and Walli, - and / or
PHASE 3 — Year 2003 C2 Construction of Flood Storage Area and / or C3 Commence works on enlargement of river channel and / or C4 Construction of new diversion channel
10.2 For the action plan to be effectively implemented a series of investigations, surveys, designs and procurement initiatives need to be undertaken in advance of the "physical works". These requirements could be met by using a combination of staff from various Government Departments, (e.g. DoT / Water Authority etc.), Consultants, and specialist Contractors as necessary. For budgetary purposes, an allowance of 25 to 30% of the cost of the physical works should be allowed to cover these items.
10.3 A Detailed Feasibility study would establish which of the Capital Options would provide the most economic and acceptable level of service. If feasibility studies are commissioned to consider alternative Capital Options, consultation with the local residents and organisations should be included in the process. This should help to ensure that selected options are fully understood and accepted as being the most appropriate.
101L018/001/A 29
Appendix 1
IN TYNWALD
To the Honourable Members of Tynwald Court
The Humble Petition of Albert Edward Ansfield residing at 21 Carrick Park, Sulby, Lezayre and Geoffrey Sheard Sanders residing at 35 Carrick Park, Sulby, Lezayre representing the Carrick Park Residents Association.
Sheweth
That the Petitioners are respectively the Deputy Chairman and Secretary of the Carrick Park Residents Association, and owners and occupiers of property in Carrick Park, Sulby, in the Parish of Lezayre. Carrick Park consists of 30 dwellings built between 1975 and 1996 having been subject to the due planning development procedures.
On the 24th October 1998, following a period of heavy rainfall, the Sulby River rose to a point where it overflowed in several places resulting in severe flooding taking place in Carrick Park and other areas. Some 15 houses in Carrick Park and other houses in neighbouring areas, were flooded and suffered heavy damage.
The rainfall giving rise to the said flooding had been forecast for several days. Notwithstanding this the Water Authority took no action to lower the level of water in the Sulby Reservoir and Block Eary Reservoir to mitigate the heavy outpouring of water from these reservoirs.
It has subsequently transpired that lack of maintenance of the Sulby River over a number of years by the Department of Transport and Riparian owners resulted not only in a narrowing of the river in places but the abandonment of debris which significantly contributed to the overflowing of the Sulby River.
Immediately following the events of the 246 October 1998, the Carrick Park Residents Association and others called for an independent inquiry into the causes of the said flooding, a determination of responsibility and the identification of measures to ensure that there is no re-occurrence.
The Council of Ministers declined to direct that an independent inquiry be conducted into the aforementioned events and commissioned an investigation by the Department of Transport, the de facto rivers authority, which authority had clearly failed to discharge its own duties and responsibilities. In September 1999, the Department of Transport published its report which, is both inaccurate and incomplete. Nonetheless, there are Government shortcomings which have a direct bearing on the flooding of Carrick Park properties revealed in this report.
Wherefore your petitioners seek that
1. Tynwald Court establish a Select Committee to examine and report on the aforementioned flooding which took place on the 24th October 1998 with particular regard to events and circumstances impacting on the overflowing of the Sulby River and the flooding of dwellings in Carrick Park; and
2. the examination at 1. above seek to:
(a) determine responsibility for the flooding in question and make recommendations to enhance Government policy, structures and procedures to prevent a re-occurrence of such flooding, and
(b) evaluate the Drainage Act, 1934, and other relevant legislation to determine its adequacy in relation to present day requirements.
Signature of Petitioners :
.6 • A.E. Ansfield Deputy Chairman, Carrick Park Residents Association
G.S. Sanders Secretary, Carrick Park Residents Association Appendix 2
Written Evidence
SUBMITTED BY: ORGANISATION: ADDRESS: Bennett, Jackie Association of British 51 Gresham Street Insurers London EC2V 7HQ Butler, Trevor 29 Carrick Park Sulby IM7 2EY Casement, W H, CP Westlands Jurby Road Ramsey EMS 3TA Cassidy, Edward Badgers House Carrick Park Sulby 1M7 2EY Cooil, N R Department of Transport Chief Executive's Office Sea Terminal Building Douglas IM1 2RF Curphey, J E Ballahowin Main Road Sulby Bridge 1M7 2HF Davies, Sue (Mrs) Lheartey Veg The Garey Lezayre 1M7 2EG Dixon, Andrew Kella Distillers Limited Kella Mills Sulby IM7 2BB Ellwood, J 3 The Millrace Sulby, Lezayre Ellwood, James Cains Gordon Bell, 3-5 Auckland Terrace Advocates Ramsey 1M8 1AF Fozard, David Manx Electricity Douglas Authority Hamilton, Antony Dept of Local Government Murray House and the Environment Mount Havelock Douglas IM1 2SF Heaton-Armstrong, Isle of Man Water Tromode Road Patrick Authority Douglas 1M2 5PA Hill, Mrs G E 25 Carrick Park Sulby 1M7 2EY Hisscott, Dr L A, Meteorological Office Ronaldsway Airport C.Phys., C.Met. Ballasalla IM9 2AS Jessop, Andrew BSc Project Management & Sea Cliff (Hons) Consultancy Services Old Castletown Road Port Soderick IM4 1BB Kelly, J M Department of Transport Chief Executive's Office, Sea Terminal Building, Douglas Landon-Thomas, R E 27 Carrick Park Sulby EM7 2EY SUBMITTED BY: ORGANISATION: ADDRESS: McDonald, Philip 26 Carrick Park Robert Sulby McGiveron, A W 14 Carrick Park Sulby IM7 2EX Muir, T R C, C.Eng 35 St Runius Way Ballagarey Road Glen Vine IM4 4FH Peel, Robert Lezayre Parish 1 Cooilbane Cottages Commissioners Sulby IM7 2HR Quaggin, Colvyn Department of Transport Highways & Traffic Division, Operations Section Sea Terminal Building Douglas IMI 2RF Quane, Jill Clover Cottage Sulby IM7 2I-IF Quine, R E MHK Legislative Buildings Isle of Man IM1 3PW Radcliffe, Arthur Kella Farm Sulby IM7 2ET Sanders, Geoffrey Sulby Park Residents 35 Carrick Park Sheard Association Sulby IM7 2EY Scullin, Paul 4 The Millrace Sulby, Lezayre Sinden, B J Department of Local Murray House Government and the Mount Havelock Environment Douglas IM1 2SF Stacey, David Tower Insurance Co Ltd Jubilee Buildings 1 Victoria Street Douglas IM99 1BF Taylor, Bob Kella Distillers Limited Kella Mills Sulby 1M7 2BB Wain, I R & Mrs L E Water's Edge Carrick Park Sulby IM7 2EX Walker, C R & Strooan-y-Wyllin Mrs J M Main Road Sulby Bridge Wood, P R Touchwood Bayr-ny-Hayrey Andreas Young, Richard Isle of Man Water Tromode, Douglas Authority Summary of Evidence
Document Document Type Sender Content Number 1 House of Keys Tynwald Chief Minister questioned by Mr Ouine on causes and responsibilities of Flood October 1998. Report 2 Newspaper Report Isle of Man Examiner Title • Mystery Flood : Five Theories suggested for flooding. Newspaper Report Isle of Man Examiner Title • Lessons to be learned Onehan MHK to ask Water Authirity Chairman, what was the cause? _ 3 4 Newspaper Report Isle of Man Examiner Title - MHK calls far independent probe into Sutby Flooding, Mr Quine not satisfied ii was just run-off. 5 Newspaper Report Manx independent Title - Why Didn't They Listen, planners were told 20 yrs ago that Sutby flooded. (Big Flood 1937). 6 Newspaper Report Manx Independent Title - Many forced to quit their homes for several months, event happened quickly. ''a wall of water came up the gully from the Sulby River no cause suggested. 7 Newspaper Report Manx Independent Title - AfterMath of Horrific Flood, description of some of the damage casued to residents. 8 Newspaper Report Isle of Man Examiner Title - Island Flood Misery, description of some of the damage and disruption the flooding caused. 9 Newspaper Report isle of Man Examiner Title - Flood Misery - North of the Island takes a battering, description of clear-up by DoT. 10 Newspaper Report Isle of Man Examiner Title - Flood victims demand probe, Patrick Heaton-Arrnstong, Chief Exec. Of WA said the amount of water was not influenced by the WA and that the overflow worked as designed. 11 Memo Tynwald List of press articles and Hansard. 12 House of Commons Tynwald Some members of Parliament want "responsible body - with duty not power to act" 8 more investment. Hansard Debate 13 Letter Water Authority Water Authority has no legal obligation to opertate Reservoir as "flood retaining reservoir - no technology or systems in t place to,perform this role. 14 Letter R.E. Landon-Thomas River not maintained. "Sluice gates opened at Reservoir, overflow alarm sounding". " 15 Letter Lezayre Parish Full hydrological study required - Ramsey 8 Lezayre. Commissioners 16 Letter Carrick Park No warnings given. Where did water come from. Why not flooded again. Can river be dredged. Residents Association
17a Report Mr Geoffrey Sanders Mr Sanders - Flow pattern wrong in DOT report. 17b Letter Mr Mulr CEng MICE I Suggest Sulby Bridge should be altered, maintenance regime stabilised. clarify responsibilities for Reservoir operation. 17c Report Mr P R McDonald Flooding areas in DoT report incorrect. Detailed questions regarding water flows from retaining structuress (7 Estimates _ half of flow may be from these), ? WA have a common law responsibility (pursuant to Rylands 8 Fletcher). 18 Letter Mr Muir C.Eng MICE I See 17B. 19 Letters Tynwald, Water Refers to contact with Zurich Mtmiciple - Government insurers (? Extent of consultation). Rivers 8 Bridges section of Authority, DoT, DoT disbanded several years ago. DoT didn't object to planning applications. residents. 20 Lend Drainage Act Tynwald ,Copy of Land Draiaate Act 1934. 21 Press Release Department of Summarises Departments Report and concludes that the flooding was attributed to 5 causes. Transport 22 Statement on Mr C R Walker Suggests hydrological study and identifies difficutties with Mill Race. Responsibilities 23 Letter Mr P R Wood Tells of further flood at Mill Race 8th December 2000. 24 Letter! Report J E Curphey No blockages at Sutby Bridge at peak time of flow. Good general description of catchment. Good historical data. Mentions Ramsey Marina & need to define floodplains. Bibliography.. 25 Letter Meteroloqical Office I Wind and Rainfall information. 26 Newspaper Report Isle of Man Examiner Title - Floods wreak havoc island wide,pholos of damage caused by flooding. 27 Newspaper Report . Isle of Man Examiner Title -Anger as homes are flooded again, aftermath of second floods on 8th December. 28 Newspaper Report Isle of Man Examiner !.Trile - 'Scandalous to flood me out, damage used by flooding, 29 Photographs Mr Ed ar Quine Photographs of flooding. 30 Letter Mr J E Cu Refers to UK listing - Development in floodplains and climate change. 31 Letter R.E. Landon-Thomas Identifying causes of the two consecutive flood events. SaCk the Ministers! & Chief Exec of WA. 32 Letter Meterological Mae I Gives wind and rainfall for December flooding and gives comparisons for both events (1 in 21 3 & 1 in 10). 33 Letter Department of Defines who produced th DoT report arid also refers to report by the Joint Working Group. Transport 34 Letter Mr James Ellwood - Refers to report on the Inquiry to the draft Sulby Res Order 1983 21/3/85- press question re. the report. Copy required. Cains Gordon Bell _ Solicitors 35 Letter Mr P R Wood Poses question regarding Reservoir usage and capacities. 36 Report DoT Report on the Island Flooding Event of 24th 125th October 1998 Volume 2 of 2 Appendices 37 Report DoT Report on the Island Flooding Event of 24th /25th October 1998 Volume 1 of 2 Sections 1 • 6 38 Letter Mr Geoffrey Sanders 'Detailing additional flooding on 8th December 2000 39 Letter Mr O W McGiveron Was advised by DoT that house didn't flood in 1998 (purchased house in July 2000). "Tidal wave." 40a Report Mr P R McDonald Did DoT prioritise works defined in DoT Report Pattern of flooding the same. 31/12/00 rainfall 8 snow melt but Reservoir levels down - no flooding in Sulby. 40b Letter Mr Edward Cassidy Comments on the flooding events. _ 40c Letter Mr J Ellwood and Mr P !Refers to DTI (.91 Water Act) & Miiverlon Report • Mr Ellwood. Videos available R Wood 40d Letter Mr & Mrs Wain Suggest phasing flows from Reservoir & refer to Ramse Marina 41a Statement on Mr C R Walker Notes are available if required for 2030 flood Responsibilities ' 4-lb Letter Andrew Jessopp Andrew Jessopp - comments on the flooding inresponse to Notice in newspaper. 41c Letter F M Ouane Comments on past dredging activity of the Sulby River, 41d Letter Department of Acicnotwdgement to Mr Andrew Jessopp that an Interim Report had been prepared by the Joint Working Group. Transport 41e Letter Mr Trevor Butler What impact has the Mill Rac,e development had on drainage 42 Letter W H Casement Refers to straighening of Sulby River. and sill deposits in the river and lack of maintenance work. 43 Email Information on Sutby Info on Reservoir rainfall - exceptional prolonged wet period followed 5 months of average rainfall (of 10 yr average). Hydro Scheme
44 Email Water Authority Info from WA re Res: ? Flood water temporarily held in storage is then dischrged? Explain? Reliable yield - amount which can be drawn off each day - throughout drought • 50yr return period. Generally need to be filled. Sulby - can pump water to West Baldwin Res - in time of drought. 20% of volume at Sulby not available for water supply - it is required for hydro-electric power generation. Increased demand has reduced surplus yield & there are environmental pressures to increase flow of compensation water (from both W. Baldwin & Sulby} - this would further reduce surplus yield - increased demand may require reduced volume for hydro-electric power in next 15yrs. 45 Tynwald Resolution Tynwald Copy of Tynwald resolution requiring hydrological study. 46 Statement of DoLGE Relates to DoLGE evidence on Planning regarging Mill Race and Carrick Park. Evidence 47 Comment of Holmes Grace Comments on Planning Application - refers to flooding. Flooding_ 48 Map, Tynwald Ran of Sulby River - Kella Min Area 1923. 49 Leaflet Water Authority Information Leaflet for Sulby Reservoir 50 Report Bullen Consultants Ltd Baltaskella Afforestation EIA : Potential Impact of Afforestation and Harvesting on Aspects of Catchment Hydrology
51 Report Bullen Consultants Ltd Environmental Assessment: Afforestation Proposal Ballaskella, Isle of Man - Soil, Geology and Hydrology.
52a Letters Lezayre Parish Regarding Hydrological Study - to look at the "whole river', some work done at Ramsey. Cgmmissioners 52b Letter Department of Job and cost breakdown of the work carried out on the Sulby River in the last four years, main river index, guidelines for Transport timigg of workslans of the main rivers in the northemplaln and budget and exoenditure costs from 1994 to present. 53 Booklet Tynwald Code of Good Agricutheal Practice for the Protection of Water - Water Catchment Areas. 54 Letter Mrs Sue Davies Refers to flooding in Carey Road - blocked drains. 55 Letter Mr Peter Wood Includes an old plan of the river and comments on straAntening of the river, lack of maintenance, Reservoir operation 56 Newspaper Report Financial Times Title - Flood cover at risk insurers tell ministers, refers to insurance risk and PPG25. 57 'Letter Lezayre Parish Regarding searches. Commissioners 58 Letter Kella Distillers Ltd Comments of the blocking of the mill race and suggested re-introducing the mill pond. 59 Letter Bob Taylor, Keller Suggestes reinstating mill race and comments on the lack of maintenance and the obstruction caused by the Distillers Ltd footbridge. 60a Letter C R Walker Acknowledging visit and enclosing letters and notes. 60bLetter Mr Keith Ouane Draft letter against the use of the Reservoir, taking out weirs and building a wall around the properties. Suggests "wateivroolino" Cd" "demolition". 60c Letter Mrs J Dowser & Mr V Commenting that the backing up of water would flood the house. Kneale 60d Statement following C R Walker Evidence regarding the history of Carrick Park and Mill Race areas, plant out drainage problems in the area, foul oral evidence „sewers affected by storm water, Refers to DoLGE and DoT responsibilities. Suggests possible courses of action. 61 Letter DoLGE Relating to building controls and planning approvals. 62 Letter I Photograph Kella Distillers Ltd Photograph showing routing of water along the mill race in 1966 63a Letters C R Walker Giving contact details of other properties in Sulby which have experienced flooding. Information on the prposed infilling of the mill race from 1998 from the surveyor Mr F Cowin F.RI,C.S. 63b Letter Mrs Sue Davies See 54. 63c Letter Mr Paul Scullin Regarding insurance company notify them that they will no longer provide flood cover for the property. 63d Letter Resident Supplied correspondence {CONFiDENTIAL) relating to the purcahse of their property. 64 Minutes of Meeting Tynwald Minutes of Meeting_ of the Select Committee. 65 Letters Various Relating to the filling in of Mill Race 66 Petition Mr A E Ansfleld & Mr Copy cf the original petition. G S Sanders
An analysis of the written evidence indicated that 57% of the contributors referred to operational control of the reservoir, 50% referred to reduced maintenance standards, 35% expressed concerns regarding the planning process and 25% commented on the Department of Transport Report. Some correspondents provided very useful historical and event data, for which the Committee are very grateful.
Printed (by Authority) by The Copy Shop Ltd., 48 Bucks Road, Douglas, Isle of Man.
REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF
THE SELECT COMMITTEE OF TYNWALD ON THE PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE OF ALBERT EDWARD ANSFIELD AND GEOFFREY SHEARD SANDERS
Held in the Millennium Conference Room Legislative Buildings, Douglas on Thursday, 1st March 2001 at 10.00 a.m.
Members Present: Mr J Rimington MHK (Chairman) Mr J Shimmin MHK Mr G Waft MLC with Mr C Mason (Specialist Adviser) and Mrs M Cullen (Secretary)
Oral evidence was taken from: Mr R Phillips, Carrick Park Residents Association Mr P Wood and Mr P Scullin, Millrace Residents Association Mr R Peel, Clerk of Lezayre Parish Commissioners Mr R A Hamilton and Mr B Sinden, Department of Local Government and the Environment Mr J A Crombie, Manx Electricity Authority Mr P Heaton-Armstrong, Isle of Man Water Authority
Evidence of Mr R Phillips Mr Phillips: The first time in 1998, because it was during the day, I was in Ramsey at the time and I got a call Mr Rimington: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. from my house that water was rising around the property. May I just formally open the oral evidence of the Select It was not raining at the time actually locally, therefore it Committee of Tynwald on the Petition for Redress of was some mystery where this water was coming from or Grievance of Albert Edward Ansfield and Geoffrey Sheard why. But it was only a matter of 15 to 20 minutes after I Sanders. I do not think it is necessary for me to read the received the first warning that water had arrived that I tried actual prayer out. I think all know the issues which we are to drive into the estate and actually could not get to the discussing today. house at all because the water was above the level of the Can I introduce everybody on the table? On my right is car door and I had to wade in and just got to the doors in Mr John Shimmin MHK, followed by Mr George Waft time to be able to get inside to see what was going on and MLC and myself, John Rimington. We are the three then it rose well above the doors. So, it was very fast rising members of the Select Committee appointed by Tynwald water. to investigate the matter. I have Mr Clive Mason who is Now, the second time, of course, it was the early hours specialist adviser and who has been appointed by the of the morning - quarter past three in the morning on 8th committee to us to assist us in our enquiries, obviously December 2000 when I got a telephone call from Mr some of which are of a technical nature. Mr Mason Sanders to say that water was entering his house; we had obviously has a lot of experience in these matters in both been fast asleep and we just got up and saw that the water the technical and the broad matters relating to flooding was already well established above the patio windows to and flood control et cetera. Lastly, can I! make a special the property. point of welcoming our secretary to the committee, Mrs Marilyn Cullen. Today marks Marilyn's first day in her Mr Rimington: Right. In.your opinion, where did the official duties as the Clerk Assistant of Tynwald as well as floodwater come from? being secretary of this committee, and it is very nice to have the opportunity to steal a lead on possibly the Speaker Mr. Phillips: It came from the general direction of the of the House or the President and probably welcome her rear of the distillery, which is on the Sulby Straight, and to her official duties on this first day of March. there was a considerable flow. I mean, there were objects The first person to give evidence, I believe, is Mr going past the doors and windows at some considerable Richard Phillips. Would you like to come and take a seat? speed and. they were definitely coming from the general Thank you. Would you like to make a opening statement area of the riverbank, probably a sort of a delta from the and then have questions or would you just like it to just be back of the millrace upwards probably a little bit beyond treated on a more question and answer basis? the distillery. But there is a natural low level channel at the fields at the back of Carrick Park where numbers 34 Mr Phillips: Well, if you would like to start with a and 35 are, which tends to route it in that direction. question and answer and then maybe 1 can make a closing statement for us from our association. Mr Rimington: Just for the record, do you live in number 34? Mr Rimington: Right. We have three-quarters of an hour for your evidence. If we actually reach the end of Mr Phillips: Number 34. your evidence before 10.45, then there is actually a break because, as we have published the times when evidence is Mr Rimington: Which is next door to - to be taken, then we have to stick with that. Can I remind you that the evidence is being recorded, obviously, on Mr Phillips: Number 35, yes. (Laughter) Hansard. And I first of all welcome and thank all those members of the public from the area and beyond who have Mr Rimington: I have visited your house, so I have it given evidence to the committee. clearly in my mind where that is. You say there was quite If we start off with the questions, first of all if I could a flow of water? just start off: Did you receive any warning about the flooding? Mr Phillips: Yes, I mean, it was sufficient to take a dishwasher, which I had previously not too long ago Mr Phillips: Right, first of all are we talking about this removed outside the property to dispose of, some 70, 80 time, 24th October 1998, flooding on this occasion? metres away; it just floated off and disappeared around the estate and was retrieved later. So, yes, there was a Mr Rimington: Both occasions? considerable speed of flow there.
Mr Phillips: Both occasions. on neither occasion did Mr Rimington: Did you receive any help at all from we receive any advance warning of the flood waters rising the emergency services? round our properties - none at all. Mr Phillips: Well, only after some considerable time. Mr Rimington: When did you in fact start to receive There was not really a lot that they could do. It was far too any sign of official activity? late for sand bags. On the first occasion in 1998 they did
1 try to distribute sand bags but quickly ran out., but even cut the amount of water in the river by 50 per cent then then it was too late for anything of this nature, and the first undoubtedly we would not have a problem. time they were very helpful in finally getting us off the So those two things alone, active containment of the property with landrovers and the like, but basically water by the reservoir, active management of the reservoir regarding preventing the flood doing any more damage to and the removal of the debris in the river, would the property there was little they could do. Because again undoubtedly leave us in a much better position. in the 34 Carrick Park area, there is a small section there which is in a low lying basin, after the flood waters had Mr Rimington: Can I return to the debris in the river receded from the rest of the area, particularly the millrace and the gravel? You say 'in and around Sulby Bridge'. and the other leg of Carrick Park, ours remains and the Can you be more specific? fire brigade pumped out there, so it was well into the afternoon of this last flood before the water was actually Mr Phillips: Yes, the only part that really bothers us is removed from there. from the bridge; i. e. under the bridge or under and slightly beyond the bridge going downstream and then working Mr Rimington: Right. Did you see any difference up to possibly as far as the Claddaghs, but certainly as far between the two events in terms of the flooding that took as the upper extent of the distillery. There is a broken-up place? weir, or what is left of a weir, which is broken behind the distillery and which is a mess and has been there for some Mr Phillips: There was. There was a difference in the considerable time, and from there down to the bridge, there rate at which the water rose and'the final level, but basically is a considerable build-up of silt and gravel to such an it seemed to be down to the same story. It was only a matter extent now that the ducks unfortunately now are getting of degree as to how the events had uccurred, I would think. their feet cut to pieces as they are walking up the river, The direction of the water came from the same location because they cannot swim up it any more. You, know it is and the actual peak rate, I think the first time it probably there for everybody to see. It is nice sharp gravel sitting rose more quickly and rose to a slightly higher level where out in the sunshine and this does not do any good when I and disappeared more quickly, whereas with this second this river is supposed to take water. one it rose slightly more gradually and. took a little bit longer to recede, but it was basically the same. Mr Rimington: The gravel that was close to the Sulby Bridge bank - that was down stream of that which is I Mr Rimington: Is there a consensus of opinion amongst understand has now been removed. the residents as to the causes of the flooding? Mr Phillips: Yes, a very small amount of gravel has Mr Phillips: Yes, there seems to be little doubt in our been removed from directly under the bridge and a very minds that the Sulby River in the vicinity of the Sulby small reach each side of it, but because it was removed Bridge is full of gravel and silt and therefore cannot contain very locally it has already started to fill in because there is water. It is a simple choice: you can either have it full of such a bank, a gradient where the gravel was originally, gravel or you can have it full of water. If water does come and where it has been removed now it is flowing back to down the river at any significant rate it simply cannot take the place of that which was removed, which looked, escape under the Sulby Bridge and get away so it floods to our minds, to be more a token gesture than a serious into our houses instead, and this was noted quite distinctly attempt to improve the amount of capacity of the river. on the first occasion, because a certain amount of debris had blocked the bridge and clear photographic evidence Mr Rimington: The gravel bank that was there - did shows the massive radiant of water there which was slowed you notice, or have you any opinion on, how long that down by the debris. But this was wooden debris; this was gravel bank was there for? trees, part of bridges and so on. Now, on this second occasion, it was probably just Mr Phillips: It has been steadily building up because simply the build-up of gravel - again which has been well we photograph and visit regularly to have a look to see documented. It made it so that the water could not escape and it has steadily building up over the last two years, under the bridge. obviously. We have been noting it very carefully. It is a Now, the reason why we have such an amount of water regular talking point around Carrick Park, as you can corning down is undoubtedly because of the fact that there imagine, as is the level of the reservoir. So, yes, it has is a flash run-off on already very sodden ground, because been building up and has not been attended to by way of the similarity between the two occasions was that there any clearance. was continuous fairly heavy rain for three or four days followed by what you might call a flash storm. Our Mr Rimington: I-lave you had any problems with contention has always been that if the Water Board, who insurance? acknowledge that 50 per cent of the catchment area is above the area of the dams, were to do a control release of water, Mr Phillips: Yes, I was probably one of the most when it was forecast that bad weather was around, then unlucky, having a renewal date on 18th January and my they could contain 50 per cent of the flow on a temporary insurance initially was cancelled completely, so that means basis and release it at a more sensible time, and that if you the next time it is total loss for myself. I did query this
2 with Lloyd's TSB, who look after the Island's needs, it of the houses in that they are floating floor type houses - seems, and they then said they would reinstate fire and aptly named - if even a gallon of water gets in anywhere theft insurance - in other words, everything apart from flood through the exterior brickwork of the house it means that - which they have now done, but flood cover is cancelled all the floors have to be removed. I already fined waterproof and it is obviously impossible to get any new insurance doors and took lots of other measures, but unfortunately which would relate to flood or any new insurance at all, just general seeping through pores in the bricks is enough possibly, because it seems to be difficult to isolate the to dampen the floor and then that damp sits there for ever matter of flooding when making a new proposal. I may be until the floors are completely stripped out and replaced. the first of many, I do not know; there may be more kindly Regarding some of the other people, they are obviously insurers or brokers on the Island who will probably see now taking measures to try and protect themselves, but it that this is a second occurrence in 50 or so years and, is not going to give a guaranteed protection unless some therefore they might ride it out I do not know. flood banking or other measures are taken up by government Mr Rimington: How long have you lived in Carrick Park? Mr Rimington: Do you see flood banking as the prime measure and whatever measures - ? Mr Phillips: Since late 1993. Mr Phillips: The problem is we are divided into around Mr Rimington: When you bought the property were three areas, I would think In the vicinity where I am an you aware of any flooding issues related to it? 18-metre banking would undoubtedly protect the six houses in my local area. There is no question about it: that Mr Phillips: Absolutely none whatsoever. There had would protect myself and the local people. Butif the water never been any flooding as far as I knew. I had a search does not escape through our properties and onto the road done by solicitors who did not reveal anything to do with and into the river, then itmight rise even higher and affect flooding, and there had never been a history of any house some of the other people more adversely, and this could there that was built on Carrick Park being flooded. In fact, be a problem for the millrace or the other half of. Carrick it seemed that because we have a drainage ditch between Park, which is right on the river bank. It would be difficult the farmer's fields and ourselves, this in fact might help to to know how to protect them. So yes, it would be very take any water away which did end up standing and get it nice to have some banking for our particular local houses into the river and down towards Ramsey as rivers are - there are six affected on the original part of Carrick Park supposed to behave. So there was never any hint of - but it would not do much for the remainder. flooding, never a temporary rise in the level of the water around, and this is something which gave us all reason for Mr Rimington: Right. What about measures beyond concern, in that you think this was a regular possibility Carrick Park itself, i.e. the river and the reservoir? How that we get flooded and that there may be a couple of inches do you view that? of water or three or four inches water or whatever. But it seems that we either have no build-up of water at all, Mr Phillips: Well, it is simply a matter that some remit nothing, or else we have it two to three feet deep - nothing must be given to the Water Authority that to change their in between. standing orders of operation so that they do consider the people downstream they way that they are affected by Mr Rimington: Right. Is there a consensus of opinion massive releases of water, whether it is down the bell amongst the residents as to the future and what should be mouth, whether it is through the scour valve if they do done in terms of mitigating the situation? have to open that, and generally guard against having high levels of water retained in that reservoir at such times when Mr Phillips: I do not think there is any doubt about it it is clearly not needed - a thousand million gallons in that now that if something is not done regarding the capacity reservoir when the population of the Island is not so big. It of the rive around the bridge, the containment of water in seems out of proportion, considering that is only one of the reservoir and possibly the third option, which may the eight reservoirs on the Island, that so much water needs protect some houses, by taking some of the debris from to be retained, and therefore they must start to release it. I the river and piling it up in the appropriate place around mean, they could have a totally separate incident. If there the property in order to create flood banking, then we will is any problem with the amount of the water going into undoubtedly be flooded again and eventually many people that reservoir when it is already half a metre above the top will be uninsured and have to suffer total loss. So you can of the bell mouth overflow and if any water actually got imagine how people feel at the thought of that. over that wall then you probably would be looking at talking to people in Andreas, what are left, if that wall Mr Rimington: So you do not think it would be possible gave way because it would certainly be eroded by a sudden to take measures which would seriously mitigate that? deluge of water down the grass bank. Therefore, for everybody's sake they need to start to look after that Mr Phillips: Well, yes, I had already taken private reservoir in a responsible way. measures to try and make the house itself flood-proof and It would not take a great deal of doing. They claim in got fairly well towards it, but because of the construction the newspapers that it would absorb considerable resources.
3 It just is incredible that they are trying to attach much has been taken out is difficult to see from the outside. considerable resources to managing releasing the water How deep the channels should be in the first place is into the river. When you look at the river, in between flash something that none of us have been able to establish, floods and high rain even at this time of year, it is just a because we would need evidence back to many years ago trickle; it is nothing but a stream. So it would accept when this work was regularly done before it was officially considerable controlled releases of water without doing abandoned, shall we say? In fact, at one time it used to be any harm and in fact may contribute to removing some of a nice little sideline by some people to go and fish the the gravel, since undoubtedly the gravel and silt has built debris out of the river, particularly the gravel and the silt up in the rivers since the reservoir was put there, because and have a nice little sideline to sell it, in order to raise the river no longer has regular high pulses of water sent some local revenue. We do not know how much it has down it which would normally tend to wash it clear But filled up since those days, but what little bit was removed actual instatement of the reservoir has now attenuated peak after the 1998 flood did not appear to make too much flows and that is typically the sort of thing that causes gravel difference, but in the two years since then it has certainly and silt to build up. increased considerably, as at no time in 1998 or for six months after that could you ever see gravel in large areas Mr Shimmin: If I may, Mr Chairman, could I just ask sitting out in the sunshine, even in periods of medium Mr Phillips: you are here as Chairman of Carrick Park rainfall. That you certainly could do after this recent flood. Residents' Association? Mr Shimmin: Do you or the residents have any belief Mr Phillips: I am. as to which section of the river this gravel mainly emanates from? Mr Shimmin: Is that a body which has been set up following the 1998 flood? Mr Phillips: No, it is fairly general, I would think. The type of gravel there is typical of releases from the ground, Mr Phillips: It is. more or less all the way up to the river including the Block Eary overflow. Mr Shimmin: You talked about the bridge and in the first 1998 flood there was a blockage witnessed for Mr Shimmin: Do your members accept the Water photographic evidence. Do you know if that was the same Authority's denial that there was any deliberate release of in the year 2000? Obviously, in the early hours of the water on either occasion? morning it is difficult to detect. Mr Phillips: Well, we are suspicious of it, but we do Mr Phillips: No, it was not. There were two bridges in not have any positive proof to the contrary. It would have the 1998 flood and a considerable amount of dead tree and been nice to have heard official statements from, general timber debris. Some of it was quite suspicious. It particularly in the 1998 flood, the attendant who, according was properly sawn and planed timber, but nevertheless to the Water Authority, should have attended 8.30 to 9.00 there were two bridges - parts of the Department of a.m. on the Saturday morning of the first flood to see what Transport footbridge which goes up the river further up he is saying. Of course, this was never done. There was a and also a part of Andrew Millichap's bridge, which he general conspiracy of silence which surrounded any placed higher up the river for some reason best known to possible release. As you know from evidence that we himself. Both of those broke up and eventually ended up gathered at the time, the Manx Electricity Authority, even creating what could best be described as a beaver dam: the the postman, a number of people came around saying that bigger pieces stopped the smaller ones behind and so on, the alarms were going off at the reservoir - whether or not until finally there was a massive visible gradient at the top they have alarms it would be nice to know - and therefore of this barricade where there was little water in the river they had had to release the water as a safety measure, but down below this dam and a colossal gradiant as the water whether or not this came from other residents who were cascaded over the top and escaped into the river, whereas guessing we do not know. But it would be nice to know in the last one, as you said, this recent flood, apart from for sure. the build-up of gravel and silt there was no significant single blockage on either of the arches. Mr Shimmin: We will be talking, as I am sure you are aware, evidence form the chief executive of the Water Mr Shimmin: Following the 1998 flood when we Authority this afternoon, and therefore we may get some visited the site, there had obviously been some river works clarification on those issues. carried out by the Department of Transport. Can you, for Can I talk to you about the build up of gravel since the record, outline the sort of work that you had seen that 1998. With the amount of local interest, what level of had taken place to try and prevent the occurrence again? communications and response did yourself or others receive when you raised the issue of the build-up of gravel Mr Phillips: Well, initially after the flood the wooden to any of the authorities? debris was removed over the side of the bridge and then there was some activity in the river which looked as if Mr Phillips: From time to time a number of people do there would be some dredging work done, but exactly how contact the Department of Transport and ask if there is
4 going to be any gravel being removed. Certainly the little loss of property out of the inside and, therefore, this gentleman who operates the distillery is consistently onto current one will probably come to around £30,000 in total. the DoT to try and get some of the debris removed from the back of the distillery and, generally speaking, we were Mr Shimmin: Would you consider that your property under the impression that there would be a general was one of the most severely damaged in each of the floods. maintenance plan. It was even promised directly in writing The first time it was about equal with the rest. This time, after the 1998 flood, but the actual timing of it and the mine was probably less whereas other people have suffered depth to which it would be done and whether or not there considerably more this time, I would think, because some would be a specification for the river which would be people have reported this time levels higher than the maintained were never actually released by any of the previous, and this is just simply to do with exactly where authorities. So apart from saying, 'Yes, we need this work the flow came from, because there has been this problem doing,' and apart from hearing that 'Yes, okay, we will get of what really amounts to a crest in a wave which has around to something as and when,' we cannot tie it down passed some people's houses and flooded them more any further. There should be some kind of an overall seriously this time than previously. channel size which is specified for the river under the circumstances and it should be the responsibility of some Mr Shimmin: Thank you. I would like to come back a department to maintain that so that whether it is three years little bit later but I will give Mr Waft a chance. from now or five years from now, we know that channel will be preserved. Mr Waft: Thank you. Mr Phillips, you mentioned a flash run-off coming down the river. Other than what you Mr Shimmin: Inevitably I need to get things down for think is the possibility of a reservoir run-off coming from the record so it might not follow automatically to you, but there, in the normal course of events, what makes you think it is necessary for the record. Regarding the DoT report it is not just normal flooding that could happen but without which came out after the 1998 flood, I think you referred the input from the reservoir? to the fact that you were telephoned in Ramsey and therefore would chive from Ramsey towards Sulby. Within Mr Phillips: Well, we do not think that it is not normal that first report there was comment regarding water coming run-off in many senses. We do appreciate that after the down from the public house down - I think it is Narradale ground is completely sodden and therefore cannot absorb Road, is it? - from that direction. Could you comment? any more water, if there is a flash storm in the area there We have heard people say that was not the case, yet it was will be a sudden run-off but the fact that numbers of people in the report. reported what they class as a 'wall of water' corning down the river at some particular stage which made it rise almost Mr Phillips: It certainly was not the case. Whenever it instantly from a fairly high level to a disastrously high rains, some surface water runs down the road but it is level indicates that there has been some sudden release. extremely light, and when I actually drove there was no We are aware that there are many possibilities as to how significant water coming down there. The water was this could arise; for instance, if one of the bridges, as the pouring out of the end of Carrick Park into the main DoT bridge did in the recent flood, manages to block some Ramsey Road there and hitting the wall and more or less part of the river and then gives way under the force of splitting in two directions. There was a visible wave of water, then this would also give rise to a pulse of water, so water and you could see the flow as it came out of Carrick we do acknowledge the possibility that this is purely a Park. It was not being contributed to significantly by the natural event but we still maintain that if the reservoir surface run-off down the Narradale Road. attenuated 50 per cent of the catchment and the river had a deep enough channel then we would not be affected in Mr Shimmin: Would you be in a position to comment any event. whether there is any prospect with water from that direction could have entered Carrick Park other than down the main Mr Waft: Could I ask you about the work done since road? the 1998 flood? That was basically done, was it, by the DoT? Mr Phillips: No, there is not other way through for water to get from that point into Carrick Park. Mr Phillips: As far as we could see, or their contractors, yes. Mr Shimmin: Thank you. The last one for now from myself would be, could you quantify in your case the cost Mr Waft: Was it done on just a one-off scale, or - of damage caused on the two occasions? Mr Phillips: More or less, an ad hoc by the look of it, Mr Phillips: Yes, on the first occasion, although I never yes. It was not just a single one-off but nevertheless there finally got a figure from the insurers as to what the claim did not seem to be any systematic or regular nature to it. was since it was made up of work done from a number of contractors, it would have been somewhere around about Mr Waft: When you say that in the past there have £80,000 in total. This more recent one, because of the flood been people going down and clearing the river, how long prevention measures that I put in, meant there was very ago are you talking about?
5 Mr Phillips: Well, as far as local memories go back, Mr Phillips: The Civil Defence were probably the there always seemed to be somebody involved in keeping fastest off the mark. Initially on the 1998 flood there was the river clear. There used to be a chap who had a machine no significant response from the police, although I know a which regularly travelled up and down removing debris number of people had called them at one stage and said ano he was known to the local people, going back 30, 40, they thought there was a problem in the vicinity of the 50 years, probably even more. It would be nice, obvisously, bridge and they said, 'Oh no, it is just rainfall, you know, to speak to some of the older members of the local do not worry about it' but the first people on the scene to population who know about this very, very well. But there actually try and help appear to be the Civil Defence who is no question about one thing: that around about 15 years did a good job, followed fairly smartly by the fire brigade ago it distinctly stopped. who did everything they could; they did everything anybody could have asked of them but, with limited Mr Waft: You thought he was performing some civil resources and limited possibilities, they did not exactly of duty, perhaps an altruistic - save anybody's life or save anybody's property, but they were there on hand, yes. Mr Phillips: It looks as if it may have been - Mr Waft: With regard to the Narradale road there seems Mr Waft: Rather than a departmental - ? to be a conflict of opinion as to whether there was anything coming down the Narradale road. Why do you think that Mr Phillips: Well, it may have been part of the winter is? work scheme initially and it might have been a combination of that and a little bit of private enterprise at some stage, Mr Phillips: Well, basically the water that was coming but since everything seems- to become more organised it from certainly the area of Carrick Park that. I am in and has not happened. also the other leg of Carrick Park, the newer one, was travelling towards the dip in the main road where Carrick Mr Waft: Could I just ask you about the insurance? Park meets the Ramsey road, the A3, and therefore it is You mentioned problems of perhaps getting insurance in unlikely to suggest that even if there was some surface the future. What has happened as a consequence from the run-off from Nan-adale road was running back the other flooding in the area on the insurance premiums and the way; it cannot run in two directions at once. Therefore, ability to get insurance in the future?' Are we talking about although there is some small surface run-off, by the time everyone, or is it just particular areas? the wall was knocked down at the end of Carrick Park, which was something which was always a problem for us Mr Phillips: I think we will not know until everybody and was partly a problem this second time, any water passes their renewal dates as to whether or not they will coming down Narradale road would naturally run into the be hit by their insurers with additional premiums or fields there and into the river below the bridge and therefore restricted cover, but one thing certain is that generally have no effect on our site. If you look at the terrain around regarding either selling, which would involve changing Carrick Park, the back and particularly Kenny Quayle's the insured, there is obviously in the proposal forms now farm there, water does run across that area regularly but the business of stating 'Does the area have a history of flood photographs - detailed photographs taken from the flooding? Do you live within a quarter of a mile of a river top of Croak Sumark show that there was no standing water or water course?' and so on, so therefore it would be almost of any description and therefore there really is not a way impossible for anybody to get new flood cover and through. therefore anybody wishing to buy a property on the Carrick Park Estate using a building society would probably be Mr Waft: You mentioned earlier on, Mr Phillips, that prohibited from obtaining a mortgage on the basis that the when you applied for planning permission et cetera, there property is uninsurable, certainly for flood. was not anything brought to your notice with regard to -
Mr Waft: Have there been problems in insurance Mr Phillips: I bought the house ready-built. It was companies paying out., or have they paid out? actually the one that was going to be occupied by the builder himself, so it was virtually the last one, I think, to Mr Phillips: They have been quite good. I mean, there be completed. is always a battle with loss adjusters because it is their business to be damned awkward with you but I think we Mr Waft: But there was nothing on the original deed? do appreciate that (Laughter) nevertheless they have their job and we have ours and, generally speaking they have Mr Phillips: There was nothing that showed up in any settled most people's claims quite responsibly the last time, searches, nothing in any of the history on the deeds that yes. showed that there was a likelihood of flooding.
Mr Waft: Who actually responded when it was Mr Waft: Have any of the other houses had this brought obviously a significant flood taking place? Which to their attention when they applied for permission department actually responded? originally?
6 Mr Phillips: No. responsibility to control the level of the reservoir or take flood attenuation measures? Mr Shimmin: Mr Chairman, could I just follow up on that point just for a moment? Mr Phillips: Yes, we accept they do not have a statutory authority there but we are particularly concerned that they Mr Rimington: Yes. do not seem to have a great sensitivity to either property, life, limb - 1 mean, sooner or later if they do not do Mr Shimmin: How do the residents feel regarding the something about this they may have on their conscience legal search, which we all embark upon when purchasing the fact that a child or an old person sleeping downstairs property? Do they feel that there has been a weakness in in the Millrace actually dies because of this, and if they that area? want that on their conscience, then so be it. They know what is likely to happen. The first flood was definitely a Mr Phillips: Well, I would think not, because if you one-off for us all, I think, but the second time I think it look at the past history of the area as far as houses being was well expected that this would happen again if nothing either built there or roadways or any kind of development., changed. If it happens a third time, then all I can say is there was apparently no flooding. I mean, there is always they are very hardy people to be able to go and sleep at a little bit of standing water occasionally in heavy rain all night knowing that they could have done something about over the Island, but regarding actual flooding per se, there it and failed. does not seem to have been a history in and around the time when houses were being developed there. Obviously, Mr Rimington: How many houses were flooded in the the situation changed completely in terms of anecdotal 1998 event? evidence after the reservoir was constructed, because it was said; `Ah, the reservoir will now attenuate some of Mr Phillips: 26. the flow that would normally have caused high levels of water to come down into that plain and therefore the Mr Rimington: In Carrick Park? situation has now changed' and since that time there had been no recorded flood, certainly nothing on the lines of Mr Phillips: Well, Carrick Park and the Millrace. the incidents we have seen in the last two years. Mr Rimington: Just Carrick Park. Mr Shimmin: Two other questions, if I may. Firstly, do the local residents now feel that they have an Mr Phillips: Carrick Park - I think most likely 16 understanding of the sort of weather conditions which are seriously - I mean there are degrees of further flooding likely to give a propensity for a further flood in future? and damage.
Mr Phillips: Absolutely, no question about it Mr Rimington: And the second event?
Mr Shimmin: Finally, the field at the rear of your Mr Phillips: Basically the same lot got it the second property - could you tell me in whose ownership that field time around. is? Mr Rimington: Are you aware of any impact by tides? Mr Phillips: Yes, it is Kenny Quayle. Mr Phillips: Yes, I have done many measurements and Mr Shimmin: And has he properties other than that looked at ordinance survey maps to see the height of field around that area? Obviously that was flooded Carrick Park where we are above mean sea level and considerably, but were you to build up or propose to build maximum sea level and I have also consulted Friends of up at the rear of Carrick Park, that would actually have an the Earth who take note of how the fish end up going up impact, throwing more water potentially onto his land. and down the river and they say that there is no tidal effect beyond around three-quarters of a mile, at absolute Mr Phillips: I do not think it would throw any more maximum, of the tide on the Sulby River and that if the onto his land but it may change the situation regarding salt water regularly got up any higher than there, then they other people's property somewhere around. That is know by the types of fish that they catch whether or not something that only a good hydrological survey would this would have any effect on the ability for the water to reveal. The only thing I know is that it would certainly flow down the river and away. Now my measurements - protect us; it is probably up to somebody else to have a the best I can do with some fairly good equipment - put closer look to see how it would adversely affect others. the actual height of Carrick Park at about the second storey of the Grand Island, so unless they get wet then water would Mr Shimmin: Thank you very much. not actually flow to us. Of course, there is always the business that water would attenuate a flow by creating a Mr Rimington: Just a couple of questions to round up back pressure situation, but that would mean that all the - possibly three! (Laughter) Do the residents accept that weirs involved all the way down the river would also have the Water Authority at present do not have a statutory to be full to the top in order to impede the flow and this, in
7 Factice, does not happen, so we totally discount the effect Mr Wood: Good morning, sir. I am Mr Peter Wood of tide on the effect of the water coming down the river and I jointly own 7 The Millrace, Sulby and I have here and calling to get under the Sulby Bridge. with me today Mr Paul Scullin, who is also joint owner of 4 The Millrace, Sulby. I have asked Mr Scullin to come Mr Rimington: Just to round-off, are there any extra along in case you would want, so far as the Millrace is points that you would like to mention by way of closing? concerned, formal proof of flooding in that particular location or whether you are prepared to accept this as it Mr Phillips: Yes, it is the three basic points of our has become general knowledge that there has been argument that need to be hammered home most often, and flooding, but should you require specific proof of flooding that is that the water situation is generally, we think, in a I can provide it this morning. little bit of chaos now. The pipe that feeds the MEA station at the hydro-generating station from Block Eary is now Mr Rimington: I think we are fairly well convinced severed and therefore something will need to be done about that there has been flooding there! But obviously if you that, we do not know how flow now can be transferred want to add anything as we go along - between point to point, particularly Block F.ary and the Sulby reservoir and Block Eary and Baldwin, and we do Mr Wood: Mr Scullin has been able to produce some not know now what the MEA station will be fed from - we photographs which may assist you in our deliberations. presume only limitedly from the Sulby reservoir. But all Whether you would like those photographs producing...? of this lot should be made quite clear to us. I think it would be good to have proper statements as to how things will be Mr Rimington: Yes. managed in the future, and. we would like statute to be changed in order to bring some responsibility on the Water Mr Scullin: These are photographs taken from the 1998 Authority to manage that general situation in a better way. flood, basically views from the back of my property to the The second thing is obviously the Sulby Bridge and the river from the upper storey; that was taken on Saturday area around there. If it were possible to remove the centre morning. It will give you some idea of the extent of the span in the Sulby Bridge or to keep the channel clear in river water rising towards the back of the Millrace any way to increase the capacity around there, then it would properties. The view is looking from number 4 up towards obviously reduce the possibility of flooding by a vast the glen, up towards number 12 on the right. amount. Now; regarding flood alleviation measures, which in Mr Rimington: Right, and are you happy to leave those other countries they seem to be able to manage to do quite with us? well, there are probably a number of possibilities not only locally nearer houses but also further upstream where there Mr Scullin: For the time being, certainly yes. is a level plain each side of the river. It may be possible to construct a flood barrier of some description which only Mr Rimington: For the time being? has to attenuate a flow of water for two or three hours, because it is the nature of the river that although the water Mr Scullin: Well, until you have finished your arrives quickly it disappears quickly, so anything which investigation. can be temporarily erected there which would slow down the flow but just attenuate the peaks would undoubtedly Mr Rimington: Would you like to make a. . .? protect a lot of people downstream but exactly how and where this is done would be up to experts to decide. If Mr Wood: Ill may open by simply saying that I wrote, there is no proposal to do sufficient work to convince an along.with Mr Ellwood, who unfortunately is not able to insurer that we are now the same risk as everybody else - be present here today, on 18th January to Mr Bawden, your i.e. no more likelihood of being flooded than anybody else then clerk, setting out in effect a letter with a large number - then those of us who have our insurance cancelled would of questions; that is really what it boils down to. Whether look to the government departments to provide some you, for the benefit of all those present, would want me to indemnity in the event that we suffer damage again, and read that letter - I am very happy to do so if you would therefore at least make it possible to live in the houses wish, so you know what I am talking about. knowing that we have some protection if things go wrong in the future. That is about it. Mr Rimington: It is not necessary in that respect as we do have, obviously, all the evidence and all the Mr Rimington: Okay, well, thank you very much. contributions. It may be that some of the questions that we address you may be repetitive from Mr Phillips' Mr Phillips: Thank you. contribution. Mr Wood: In that case, could I make some general remarks pertinent to the questions that have been asked Evidence of Mr P Wood and Mr P Scullin previously or following on from those questions which may, in the light of the passage of time and further research Mr Rimington: Right, Mr Wood and Mr Scullin next. and thinking about the job since 18th January, be pertinent
8 now? There will be about five separate headings, if I split river is at all times wanting to revert to its former state, its it up. old meandering state, and so once you do that work you are stuck with it, you have got to keep it up. So it would be Mr Rimington: Yes, certainly. simplistic if others following us were simply to say, 'Oh, it is silly of these people to build their houses on a flood Mr Wood: But firstly, without any desire to fly in the plain,' because that is no longer the case; it never has been face of the authority of Tynwald, should there be any since 1946 or just after the war. members of the Manx Electricity Authority sitting and the The whole of the upper course of the Sulby River, i.e. Department of Trade & Industry.. . from Sulby dam and down to old Sulby village - was historically established within fortified banks and no doubt Mr Rim ington: Trade and Industry? as a result of the use of water power for mills. These banks can still be seen and indeed, as Mr Phillips has said before Mr Wood: Trade and Industry, yes, I would say with me, even the residue of some of the mill dams can be seen the greatest of respect - and no offence is intended - that and still even to this day are causing obstructions. questions could arise in this inquiry concerning the conduct There is little, if any, evidence of active erosion taking of the Department of Trade and Industry, who are ultimately place in the main Sulby River. Now the main Sulby River responsible for the safety of dams under the Water Act is the statutory main Sulby River from its mouth up to just and also the provision of compensation water and also the below Sulby dam, the Tholt y Will bridge, not its tributaries. MEA itself, there may be allegations made but in the way And on examination it indeed reveals there is no active they conduct their hydro-electric plant it is in fact erosion taking place in that river up to the dam; there cannot contributing to the severity of the flooding. I only say this obviously be any further erosion taking place above the because I am perhaps. obliged to say it but for no other dam because that accumulates within the dam itself any reason. There is nothing else intended by it. debris. Because of that lack of visible erosiontaking place, one is left with having to account for the debris that is Mr Shimmin: Mr Chairman, for the record, can I make obviously accumulating in the Sulby River and. to which Mr Phillips has referred. Banks need indeed to have gravels it clear that since April of last year, 2000, I have been a removed; the word - he used it and it is a good word, 'sharp member of the Department of Trade and Industry. At no gravels' indicating that water-borne stone has not in fact stage have I responsibility for any of the areas you have travelled terribly far. Obviously, in water edges are rounded talked about, but that needs to be borne in mind at this off in stone that travels down a river bed and the pebbles stage. become rounded, as we all know. Now, if it is sharp gravel it is indicating that gravel has not travelled very far. Mr Rimington: I am obliged to you. Thank you. I would like to produce to you a plan which rather fortifies my first submission that the whole of the course Mr Wood: Therefore, if I may start my first heading of the lower Sulby River is no longer a natural course, and entitled The Sulby River', and this is based on a short this is a plan taken from a deed - in fact, it was to the late note that I wrote to Mr Mason when he had private Arthur Radcliffe when he bought the corn mills at Sulby - meetings with individual residents at Carrick Park and. at that would be the father of the late Percy Radcliffe. This the Millrace, the whole of the lower part of the course of plan was registered in the Isle of Man Deeds Registry as a the Sulby River was the subject of extensive works to public document in 1923 and clearly sets out the course of mitigate flooding just after the war - and that is the Second the Sulby River and its characteristics in that year. It was World War, and I believe the years were 1946 to 1948 actually drawn in 1921 between, for want of a better although I am not going to be precise on those years; it is expression, the lower Claddaghs through to Sulby Bridge, a time clearly when men became available and machinery so if you would be interested in that I would be happy to became available to carry out works. Long sections of the produce it. It is not the full deed, it is merely the plan lower Sulby River bed were excavated to remove meanders attached to the deed which is available. and the course straightened between new reinforced banks. That plan shows the course of the Sulby River, as I say. These banks are still in existence, and if you work in effect It bears little relationship to the present course of the Sulby up from the very mouth of the Sulby River in Ramsey - River. It shows the weir that originally fed the Kella mills, even that is not the original mouth, of course, it has been the weir with its sluice, it shows a bridge marked over the changed - and you work up all the way in what was the river, and I am guessing that is the original bridge over the former flood plain of the SuIby River, the whole lot has Sulby River, the footbridge that no longer exists. It has been straightened out and the river put between reinforced been replaced by the new metal structure but you can still banks until, in effect, you are getting into the main Tholt y see the abutments nearby. A few yards lower down there Will valley. appears to be a large island in the middle of the river, all of It is a contention therefore, subject obviously to expert which have now disappeared - no sign of that existing and evidence, that the original flood plain ceased to exist at indeed the banks have been straightened out and indeed this time. The meanders have disappeared; the old type of there is evidence that the banks have been armoured in river flow through meanders indicative of an old stage of places. When I say 'armoured' there has been stonework, river development disappeared; the river had become perhaps metal abutments put in to protect from erosion. dependent on artificial maintenance and dredging. When That, therefore, clearly illustrates the straightening of you straighten out and carry out works of that nature the the banks in the vicinity of the Millrace and Carrick Park
9
estates that have potentially taken place since the years I Obstructions. As mentioned above, the Block Eary have mentioned, 1946 to 1948. Local knowledge appears reservoir intercepts most of the river's flow. After collection to suggest that there has been little dredging or maintenance in the reservoir the water is supplied to the hydroelectric of the banks of the Sulby River within the last 20 years_ station located a few hundred metres downstream of the Trimming of the trees established on the artificial banks confluence of the Block Fary stream and the River Sulby. has in recent years only been intermittent. I speak from This is except during storm periods, when it is possible local knowledge when I say that I recall - my knowledge for the concrete dam of the Block Eary reservoir to be goes back to 1974, when I used to live at a house called overtopped and for the water to flow down the remaining `Riverside', The Garey in Lezayre - that house originally stretch of the Block Ferry river to the Sulby. This only was on the river. It was at that time 100 yards away from occurs during infrequent extreme rainfall events. Therefore the river so it was clear that the straightening has taken the combined effects of the infilling of the river with quarry place, and I can recall gangs of Highway Board workmen waste and the interception of almost all flows mean that clearing the river banks, cutting back the willows and Block Eary stream is probably in existence as a surface carrying out general maintenance work. I do not know flowing river only for about five or ten dines each year. whether my memory serves me as to whether heavy Even after such extreme storm flows, the river disappears machinery was used for excavation, but I have no reason very soon afterwards. This was noted on the first visit to to doubt that it was up to about 20 years ago. the site on the 30th October 1998' - Coincidentally, just a I would ask and indeed you have already raised the point week after the first flood - 'which was only a few days about whether the construction of a marina in Ramsey and after the severe flood event of the 24th October 1998. its effect on any tidal flow out of the Sulby River would Despite the fact that the rivers in the area, including the have any effect on flooding further upstream, and I am Block Fary stream, had contained very high flows of the content not to comment.about it not being an expert, but I order of a one-in-ten year event, for long stretches between. would ask if you would consider whether it is pertinent. Block Eary dam and the River Sulby, the Block Eary stream Certainly a portion of the lower Sulby river is tidaland- I contains more visible water. During the visit to the Block believe up to about the Garey up to where Mr Casement Eary catchment on the 24th August 1999, Dr Henderson farms there is a crossing and I believe it was tidal up to of Bullen Consultants, Dr Bolt and Matt Johns both of about there; I may be wrong in that. Intelsys met Mr Richard Young of the Manx Water Now those are my remarks generally about the Sulby Authority. Mr Young was conducting an inspection of the River. I would like to move on to refer to official Block Eary dam. Mr Young was able to confirm that the documents, namely the TallaskeIla Environmental water collected by the dam was piped down the valley to Report'. This was a report produced in 1999 under the the hydroelectric HEP station adjacent to the Sulby River. auspices of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and At the rear of the station the pipe carrying water from the Forestry concerning the potential afforestation of the Block Eary reservoir joins a pipe carrying water from the valleys up above Block Fary, and indeed is somewhat much larger Sulby reservoir. Mr Young also stated that the telling in what it says in its environmental report about the hydro plant ceases operation when the Sulby reservoir current state of the Sulby River and the Block Eary river water is lowered to four metres below the 'normal level'. and mismanagement of the Block Eary dam. May I quote As the Sulby and Block Eary reservoirs are at - and I will have to apologise because this environmental approximately the same elevations and are connected at report consists of seven volumes. Surprisingly none of the the rear of the HEP station, this also leads to lowering of volumes are available in the government library. They are the Block Eary reservoir. Also, when the HEP station stops, available at the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. I then water is able to back up to the Sulby and Block Eary was able to get one volume alone, but others are merely reservoirs. As a result, the latter reservoir is so much smaller copies of the earlier volumes and unfortunately I did not than the former; then the Block Eary reservoir can fill very note the volume number, these came from, but I can give quickly. This is likely to promote severe overtopping during you the paragraph numbers. But I assure you that they are storms. This is in marked contrast to the normal operating straight quotes from the report. procedures for reservoirs, whereby a certain amount of I would like to refer you to the submission of Dr T S freeborn storage is maintained, so that the effects of severe Morley at paragraph 5.2.5. He said in the second paragraph storm events can be ameliorated' - indeed as Mr Phillips of the submission, 'On the one hand Manx Ecological has referred to prior to me. 'The above information Concern' - that is a body - 'contend that the forestry illustrates how the Block Fary reservoir's function has a increases the risk of floods and erosion, whereas the Isle severe impact on the Block Eary stream. Therefore its of Man Water Board are concerned about the loss of water removal would be highly beneficial.' flowing in their reservoirs once trees are planted. The flash Mr Young also stated that the Block Eary reservoir was floods in Sulby Glen in October 1998 were not the result built in 1949 as a supply for the HEP station, but since the of catchment reforestation, but more to do with the misuse construction of the Sulby Dam was now largely superseded. of the flood control capabilities of the dams. Trees planted This suggests that its removal from the catchment may within a catchment area can assist in regulating the run- not be too onerous for the Water Authority. However, while off and minimising erosive effects. Reafforestation in the this would allow the water draining from the catchment valley can reduce erosion.' That was the relevant portion area to flow down the river in a natural way, full of his submission. There is another reference - and this is remediation of the river may also require the removal of perhaps the most telling - at 11. 3.3.3: 'Reservoir some of the quarry waste from the river channel.
10
Now, I would then like to refer to volume 7 and a few gradual reservoir infilling.' That is infilling of the Block more quotes, I am afraid, just to put these quotes on the Eary reservoir. record. I realise, of course, that this report is already a public document, but a document that has become Mr Rimington: Can I just caution you in terms of time? remarkably difficult to find. Volume 7, paragraph 20.1.7: Site Setting. The site at Ballaskella' - which is what they Mr Wood: I am looking at the time! What time were were talking about with afforestation - 'is a valley and you planning to finish? catchment of a tributary of the River Sulby to the east of the Sulby valley. Land was acquired by the department' - Mr Rimington: Well, technically 11.30. I am sure we that is the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and have a little bit of leeway, but.. . Forestry - `to add to their nature land-holding of the Manx hill lands. Within the valley is a small reservoir built circa Mr Wood: I then, therefore, quickly move on to the 1930, which now provides water piped to the hydroelectric third point I make: the connection between the Sulby generating plant near the confluence in the tributary with reservoir and the Block Eary reservoir. The environmental the River Sulby. This is known as Block Eary reservoir' It report that I have mentioned makes mention of an goes on to say There is evidence of seasonal farming in interconnecting pipe between the Sulby reservoir and Block the form of stock husbandry' - I will skip over this a little Eary reservoir. I can see no evidence of such a pipe existing bit, and grazing use of the land. 'The site is currently let on the ground or beneath the surface, a direct connection. on short-term, seasonally based tenancy. Two derelict However, it is clear that the authors of the report that I farmsteads, known as Ballaskella and Block Ferry, have have just read had in mind that there is some sort of remains. Adjacent to the stream course, two derelict slate connection and I would therefore like to examine what quarries have caused.quarry waste to be strewn into the that connection-is. stream bed. Below the Ballaskella farmstead; there is also There seem to be two pipes running out of the Sulby evidence of small-scale mining operations and associated reservoir: one, a 700-millimetre pipe provides water for tailings. Below the Block Fary reservoir, the installation human consumption; and there appears to be a large pipe, of a pipeline and pipe bridge, is an area of some erosion, 900 millimetres, that provides hydroelectric water for the largely in response to occasional overtopping of the dam Block Ferry hydroelectric plant. It appears that that pipe, at times of flood. There has been considerable erosion of which is massive when you look at it - it is nearly &metre the valley sides with detritus in the form of rock being and capable of carrying very substantial amounts of water strewn along the valley bottom and causing the stream to - feeds the hydroelectric generators at Block Eary. I do not mainly flow underneath these materials.' know whether one or two generators there can be run There was a section on hydrological assessment; together or independently or indeed, although I suspect it paragraphs 24.13 and 24.14 refer, and they say, 'An is, that that pipe is connected directly to the inflow pipe examination and photographic survey of the Block Eary from Block Eary reservoir itself. The suggestion hai been stream bed was made on the 24th August 1999. During raised by the experts that there is a possibility of siphoning earlier visits to the catchment, it was noted that the stream - in other words, a quite simply siphon. If there is a bed did not contain water between the small reservoir connection by pipe between the two reservoirs and they located part way up the Block Eary catchment. It was found have a different head, i.e. they are different heights, then it that while water does move through the rocky debris, it is potentially possible for water to flow from one to the appears at the surface only intermittently. This is because other, and I would ask the experts to consider whether that the reservoir intercepts and diverts most, if not all, of the is a possibility, even though the hydroelectric generators water from the upper catchment and also because the are running and even whether they are running or not. It stream bed is choked with rock debris from the former may happen when they are not running; it may also happen slate quarries. Therefore there is effectively no river below when one generator is running; it may happens when both the small reservoir dam, except infrequently during generators are running, depending on the consumption of, storms.' And I emphasise that, 'infrequently during storms.' the water by those generators. With respect to sediment within the catchment, an earlier I turn to another report that may have some bearing on visit on the 30th March 1999 identified the results of a the deliberations that may be referred to by others. That large land slip within the Block Eary catchment on the was the Milverton report, which was commissioned by, of slopes of Snaefell. It is believed that this land slip occurred all people, the Water Authority in 1985 in connection with during the storm of October 1998, when other land slips the draft Sulby valley/Sulby darn water compensation blocked the road over Snaefell and flooding caused damage scheme, which they then wished to publish. The inspector to the Sulby valley. It is also believed that this event was a - and I will not go into details of the Milverton report one-in-ten, to a one-in-twenty year event' - i.e. statistically because I have quoted it in my letter, but I will just say a likely to occur between once every 10 and once every 20 little bit - obviously an expert, made the following years. It is not unusual for hill land environments to suffer comments about the present situation concerning the Sulby from these periodic erosion events. Examination of the darn, and that was in 1985. I will read it because it is so stream channel downstream of the land slip showed no concise and so good a description that it bears repeating: long-term effects on the stream, with most of the mobilised `The Sulby reservoir was completed in 1983 to provide debris probably being washed down the valley and adequate water supplies for the future demands. It was deposited within the reservoir. These events contribute to originally proposed to build a lower darn, capable of being
11 raised in the future when necessary, but it was then decided Authority and I would ask you to consider how that will to build the dam to its present full height in order to differ from what they now say to you in this inquiry. incorporate a hydroelectric scheme in view of the I notice from the list of proposed persons giving continuing rise in oil prices. The dam itself is of rock fill evidence that the Attorney-General is to give evidence. construction, some 200 feet high. From it two buried Initially one was always of the view the Attorney-General pipelines run downstream, one to the hydroelectric station is the Crown's representative and strictly is impartial, but at Block Eary, point d and point c,' - that is referring to a I do not think, in practical terms, government departments plan which I have never seen attached to this particular tend to look to the Attorney-General for advice and report - `the other to the water treatment plant near Sulby_ assistance when they have got problems, as indeed the The dam incorporates a bell mouth overflow for the Department of Transport did when they asked for his report, discharge of flood water immediately below the dam. This which was produced in the report on the flooding event of would normally not be used' - Yet the residents of Sulby 24th October 1998 by the Department of Transport. They (no relation to Carrick Park) know that to be quite a were quite prompt to go to the Attorney-General to ask different situation; it has been constantly in use - 'as excess him and to state, as will be seen, as to the statutory water is passed through the hydroelectric plant, which thus exemption from prosecution for tort i.e. wrongs done either runs whenever excess water is available. There is also a negligently or otherwise by them. They will have a scour valve discharging immediately below the dam. This statutory exemption and the Attorney-General drew that is only used if for some reason it is necessary to draw down to our attention in the report under the Land Drainage Act the reservoir level, normally a very infrequent occurrence. of 1934. I therefore ask whether, in the light of current The only normal discharge from the darn is therefore the developments with human rights law, the Attorney- compensation flow, controlled by an orifice plate. This has General, who has the benefit of appearing after me later been. set since the dam_ was.completed. at the provisional on in these proceedings - and .I cannot ask here what is flow of 500,000 gallons a day, which the present order said - should be asked; what impact does the new human seeks to establish.' Well, with hindsight we know that never rights legislation have on his then opinion, and particularly happened. It was never ordered. as to Article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights, which With hindsight the Water Authority reluctantly, no doubt, says quite simply that everyone has a right to respect for had to admit that the dam was not capable of producing his private and family life, his home and his the compensation water that the inspector, Mr Milverton, correspondence; it of course being the contention of subsequently recommended, having regard to all the Millrace residents that they have very much been deprived requirements of hydroelectric generation, water supply and of that right to enjoy their homes, initially in the first the future needs of the Island's growing population. He flooding event for about three months, and it looks as it it did a calculation up to about the year 2010_ If the water is going to be three or four months, potentially, for the authority were to say that the compensation flow were now second flooding event. 11/2 million gallons a day, in no case does that come up to An initial inquiry that I have made concerning the the minimum suggested level of compensation water various rights and easements affecting the pipelines, the proposed by Mr Milverton, and indeed in the month on pipework, the ownership of lands and the ownership of November, which is a critical month as far as flooding is the hydroelectric scheme is somewhat ambiguous, and concerned, it is less than half of what the inspector was perhaps the Attorney-General could be asked, if he is able suggesting. I make this observation for the reason that if to satisfy you, who owns all the pipelines that serve the adequate flow was being maintained by way of water to the hydroelectric plant and who has the rights to compensation water, then the ultimate level of the waters use them. in the Sulby reservoir could well be lower than they are The Attorney-General may raise the question - and I and there could well be less of a difficulty keeping the put this quite simply and it is reflected in questions this water down from entering the bell mouth without taking morning as well, if there has been flooding, surely this is emergency measures. not the problem of government, it is the responsibility of However, most important is not what the Milverton the individual owners who should have made adequate report says but what it does not say. This was a report enquiries covering the potential for flooding, and there has commissioned by the Water Authority. The evidence to been mention of advocates enquiries or solicitors enquiries Mr Milverton in Chief, the opening evidence, must have in relation to the individual purchasers. Now, of course been provided by the Water Authority itself. So when Mr that will only refer to a certain number of owners. I know Milverton says certain things about how the dam is to be of some who have lived for dozens of years; Mrs Thelma conducted, I ask you to consider, it is not something he Cain - I saw her being carried out of her house at Sulby has invented at the time; it is something he has been told Bridge on a chair. She was flooded, she had inherited it at the time about the Water Authority. There was nobody from her husband in about the year 1953, so no question else there present other than the fishing fraternity and two of formal modern searches being done in relation to her. other organisations to tell him about the technical conduct So if it were to be raised by the Attorney-General, it would of the dam. So the information, when he says that the Sulby not apply to her, for example. dam should seldom if ever be allowed to flow down the I can and would like to produce copies of the search bell mouth, should reduce the total amount of flooding, enquiries that were made by a number of advocates relating should decrease the amount of water flowing down the to the purchases of the properties at the Millrace, one of river, must have been told to him at the time by the Water which is particularly telling. Mr Phillips has always said
12 that he was not aware of anything adverse being reported has realised where they have been coming from. They have as a result of any of these enquiries and I would agree with been coming from potentially land belonging to the him. The official search enquiries did not reveal any department of forestries, from the old quarry waste that is trouble. That was prior to the first flooding event, but the falling in. You yourselves have seen, or I think may have most telling of all is an enquiry that was made of the seen, the build-up to Block Eary. I do not know whether Department of Transport by Mr Ellwood, Mr Ellwood's you have shown the ground below Block Eary into those firm of Coins, Gordon Bell on 17th June 1999, which was quarries, but if you have you will have seen something after the first flooding event. They directly failed to give that closely representing pictures of the Klondike. You will any warning at all, and I produce that letter, and I would have formed the view that Block Eary was isolated, was also produce the letter to the Lezayre Parish in a state of dereliction; there was active erosion taking Commissioners, because again they have been silent on place immediately below the Block Fary dam, and how the question of whether there is any problems. I do not that can be regarded as a safe conduct of water management wish to pre-empt what they might say, but it may be I fail to see. There was a broken water pipe. Whether that Lezayre Commissioners say, 'Well, this was known to us is a broken water pipe from the hydro scheme or whether all along. They should not have built the houses there.' that is the original supply for human consumption I know not, but there is a broken water pipe there. I think that is it! Mr Rimington: But you are going to leave that -
Mr Wood: I am going to leave that, yes. And finally, it Mr Rimington: Thank you, sir. You have done very may be pertinent to ask the Water Authority: we are here - well - you should become a member of Tynwald for your and I. speak for Carrick Park as well, but Millrace and. capacity to speak at length! Right, now we do not actually Carrick_ Park - suffering loss; you .have heard from, Mr have a great deal of time. We are quite happy to go over Phillips what that loss is; we have all potentially got houses the official three-quarters of an hour; I am sure Lezayre that cannot be resold or cannot be resold easily and, if Parish Commissioners would be happy to give a. little bit sold, at a great financial loss. It may be of interest for you of leeway on that. Obviously there are questions that need to learn whether the Water Authority has in fact already to be asked. Can I just start off on a couple of questions made any financial settlements to any persons adversely relating to your properties in Millrace? What is, in both affected by either of these two flooding events, because - I your houses, the floor level related to the ground level? stand to be corrected in the light of evidence that may come along - it is my belief this morning that the water has in Mr Wood: I would say about 18 inches, approximately fact already compensated a Mr Playle-Mitchell, whose 18 inches - the internal floor level. address is at Corrody, Sulby Glen, as a result of flood damage, which suggests to me that the Water Authority is Mr Scullin: It is a suspended floor. The Millrace houses .not entirely resting easy with the current situation. I say all have suspended floors. that all the more because - I am going to stop in a minute - finally from a personal point of view, I was present during Mr Wood: With air bricks below them. the first flooding event; I was trapped in number 12 Millrace for about an hour with nothing to do after we had Mr Rimington: Is that throughout the estate? done our best to save somebody's possessions. On the second flooding event, I was not at the Millrace because it Mr Wood: All the houses in the middle are the same was in the early hours of the morning, but immediately construction. prior to the second flooding event on 8th December - i.e. on 7th December last year - I myself telephoned the Water Mr Rimington: Eighteen inches above ground level. Authority and there I spoke at about 9.10 in the morning of the 7th, the previous day, to, I believe, a Mr Wilson at Mr Wood: Approximately. the Water Authority - he described himself as an information officer - and I pointed out to him on the telephone that there was a gross and obvious danger of Mr Rirnington: Secondly, at the rear of your properties severe flooding from the Sulby dams - and I used the word where your gardens go towards the river, is there any strip `dams', being the Sulby reservoir and the Block Eary of land between the top of the river bank and your boundary reservoir. which would presumably be fenced? I can also add with hindsight now and with the further information that I was making enquiries with the highway Mr Wood: Subject to statutory requirements the rear authority, the Department of Transport, concerning boundary is unfenced and there is of course a statutory responsibility for the maintenance of drainage ditches and right of access, I believe, to the top of the bank, in any I happened to mention to them, were they aware of the event, but on the face of it, the garden does run to the top source of the debris that was accumulating in the Sulby of the river bank, yes. River and this was about four weeks ago, and at that time, I generalise the reply as 'Oh, we wondered where that had Mr Rimington: When you bought the property, were come from.' So there we are. For 20 years sediments have you made aware of any requirements whatsoever for a clear been accumulating in the Sulby River and nobody, perhaps, strip of land?
13 Mr Wood: Other than what I knew previously. I think Mr Wood: Not a public area. There is no public area. it is either 10 or 20 feet clearway - a statutory easement of There is an area of undeveloped ground by the entrance to right of access on to the banks. That is my understanding. the estate which is derelict, but it is not being used for any purpose. There is no formal play area, other than people's Mr Rimington: That is part of your abstract of title, is gardens. it? Mr Shimmin: If I may just again for the record, could Mr Wood: Part of my knowledge. It is not part of the you describe where the water came from on the two abstract of title, no. flooding occasions?
Mr Rimington: Okay. I have not had time to look at Mr Wood: Can I pass you onto Mr Scullin for that the photographs - are there any impediments along that because I was not present for the second? part of. . .? Mr Scullin: The first flooding occasion the water level Mr Wood: To gain access to the river? If you leave the was observed rising in the river predominantly. It was a back door of the house and walk across the garden to the very rapid rise and again, complimenting what Mr Phillips river and you come to the edge and you fall in. There are has already stated, it was clearly observing whole trees no impediments. There are some owners who have put and large amounts of debris running down there. At the childproof fencing on the back, obviously to prevent time the site was still under construction so the actual children getting into the river. ground level adjacent to.. the river was variable as the contractor was clearing the site. So IEfeel at that particular Mr Rimington: And is there access if work is needed time, the majority of the water did spill- over from the to take place? riverbank into the properties. Having said that, the subsequent flooding event, the houses were now fully Mr Wood: If work was to take- place, the only access developed with their gardens developed and the contractor, would be along the river course itself. You could not get after the first flood has taken the precaution of raising the between the houses to get immediate access to the banks bank wherever he could, so the water in my particular case at the back of each house. You could not do it. came more from the front, from the roadside, rather than the back, although you can appreciate it was difficult to Mr Scullin: Individuals could but you would not get tell at 3. o'clock in the morning, but anecdotal evidence any machinery in. from other residents seemed to feel that in some cases it came from the back gardens and others felt it was coming Mr Rimington: But there is a clear strip between the down from the road. This is borne out by observations private properties and the river bank where work could that were made at the footbridge near the old mill. There take place. is a footbridge there which has a central pier, as I understand it, which has a tendency to split the water flow when it is Mr Wood: Indeed, the gardens slope up to the actual at a peak height, effectively causing it to channel in two precipice of the river bank. Well, most of the gardens do. directions: one into the Millrace around the number 12 position and the other one, looking towards Ramsey to the Mr Rimington: The Millrace itself opposite the front right, which jettisons the water out over towards the fields, of your properties - do you regard that as any particular towards the backs of Mr Phillips' and Mr Sanders' problem? properties. So it is difficult to say, but I think you can probably appreciate that in the last flood it was coming Mr Scullin: Apart from it being a stagnant cesspool, from both the road side and the river side. no. Mr Shimmin: And the water going from the road side, Mr Wood: No, each individual frontage of the Millrace the culvert or the millrace where water might theoretically belongs to each individual owner with the exception, I be drawn off and taken away from the road it was being believe of number 12 The Millrace, which I do not believe channelled down - does that ever get used other than in owns the stagnant bit. I believe it is actually owned by the extreme flood conditions? estate developers still. Why, I cannot be certain of that. Mr Scullin: There is always some stagnant water there. There is no perceivable flow from it. Mr Rimington: Now, this is nothing to do with the issue in hand, but having looked through various planning Mr Shimmin: Would it be our thoughts that during the applications is there by any chance a children's play area floods any water would be channelled through there, or - on the.. . Mr Scullin: No, what in fact happens in the millrace Mr Wood: On the estate? itself is that the gully there fills up rapidly and just sits there. In fact, if water was allowed to flow freely through Mr Rimington: Yes. the millrace it would end up back in the river, just
14 downstream slightly of the last house, which is number he was already up to his knees in it and that was the level one at the time. So really, it would not make a great deal of of warning that we got that particular night. From 03.20 to difference to the flood. It just absorbs a little bit of water. 04.30 the water rose, came into my property and went out again. So we are talking of a very, very short space of Mr Shimmin: But if that were to be a channel which time, were freely moving. . .? Mr Shimmin: Thank you. Mr Scullin: In my opinion it would make no difference whatsoever because it is upstream of the Sulby Bridge and Mr Waft: I am just wondering about the lack of when the river is in full flow, it is the Sulby Bridge itself knowledge of the previous flooding which has been that provides the barrier or restriction to the main river mentioned previously and the fact that it was not brought flow. to the attention of any of the purchasers. Have you both purchased your house and built the house -? Mr Shimniin: Thank you very much. Mr Wood: We are both the first owners of the house. I Mr Wood: Could I just add on that; I• did observe the should also say my wife owns a house at Carrick Park as water on the first flooding event hammering against the well, number 24 Carrick Park, and that was owned by her footbridge at the top of the millrace site. The footbridge late mother before her and we go back about, I suppose, there was causing the water - I use the word because that 15 years - no trace of a flood, no trouble at all. is what it appeared. like - to bounce. Literally the water was being thrown into the air. If anybody had been on that Mr Scullin: For my part we have been residents in Sulby path they would have been carried away and on the public for coming up on 10 years. I previously lived'at number 4 footpath it was exceptionally dangerous. When it was Carrick Park. We bought the plot, we bad the house built bouncing into the air, there then came the stage when it on it, we lived there until the properties became available then parted and started flowing, on one side to the millrace in the Millrace because we like living in Sulby, and we and - I am guessing - the other side towards Carrick Park_ purchased the property on the corner and we moved in But it was a sight to behold - a huge amount of water hitting May 1998. In the ten years we have lived there prior to the stanchions of the arch of the bridge, the reinforced steel 1998, there was no mention of flooding, no previous joist, and bouncing into the air. It was an awe-inspiring anecdotal evidence from any of the local residents and sight. when it came to purchasing the Millrace property that we now occupy - well, we will when it is reconstructed - when Mr Scullin: I would also like to put on record, again to we talked to the advocate concerning the searches and give you some illustration of the strength of the water flow appropriate deeds of title, et cetera, the only things that when it does actually run down the Millrace itself - and I were mentioned were the upkeep of the river bank and am not talking about the millrace proper but the Millrace what my responsibilities were to that particular area. There road and residential area - in the first flood, I. had a 300- was no mention of any flood. gallon domestic heating oil tank at the back of the house. It actually picked that up and tore it off its pipe and debris Mr Waft: Did you contact the local commissioners at from my own garage - because it is debris after it has been all at any stage? flooded - was a chest freezer that was taken out through the garage and off down towards Ramsey. It was eventually Mr Scullin: Over -? rescued by some firemen at the end of the road. But for an individual to actually stand up in it was extremely difficult. Mr Waft: Over the flood plain area you have built on. The first flooding event, I was outside my property with the fire crew trying to effect some form of flood barrier to Mr Scullin: No. I had no reason to. the doors of my property. As it turned out it was quite a useless enterprise, but it was extremely difficult to stand Mr Waft: And you were not made aware by the up in it and in the end it becomes too difficult and you Planning Committee or. . .? have to take shelter. Mr Scullin: No. Mr Shimmin: What length of time would you say that actually continued? Mr Waft: Or DoT, or anybody else?
Mr Scullin: Very, very short. The time measurements Mr Scullin: Again, the search that you have got in front for both flooding events - the first one, the river started of you there which Peter has provided was carried about rising around 11 o'clock, it came into the property and by CaMs, Gordon Bell and, although I have not got it and was out of the property by 13.30. The second flooding I have not read it in detail, I suspect it will be no different event, I am not quite sure who the chap worked for, but at from what you have got there. approximately 03.20, a chap in a yellow jacket and torch knocked on and hammered on the door to say, and I quote, Mr Waft: Regarding the wall of water that people keep `The river's up, yessir, you'd better move your car.' But referring to, it would indicate that perhaps, as the previous
15 contributor said, something had given way somewhere to Mr Scullin: Yes. The first flood was a bit of a shambles allow for this to take place. Would you be of the opinion in that the fire crews turned up with sandbags, but they perhaps that there was something along the path down there were empty, and they ended up using mud from my garden that has given way or maybe the reservoir had contributed to try and fill them up. Of course, while we were doing in some way? What is your opinion? this - this was the first event, and nobody had experienced this before - we thought we were in for the long term, Mr Wood: I saw the first flooding event I saw the water much as you across in places like York where the river rise very quickly and it remained up at its highest point, rises, you have properties under water for a week and so overtopping the banks, for a relatively short period of time, all we were thinking, `We're in for the long haul here,' so about an hour. The whole event was over perhaps in an we were filling sandbags and trying to do what we could. hour and a quarter or an hour and a half. By that time the Had we known that it was only going to take approximately water was starting to drain out of the houses. It had passed an hour or so, then we perhaps would have, with hindsight, its peak Sorry, what was your question? taken more account of shifting property and trying to mitigate our losses rather than trying to prevent any further Mr Waft: What was your opinion as to how that wall water ingress. The second flood - again, once bitten twice of water was generated? Some had the opinion that it was shy. I had taken, like Mr Phillips, some prevention just not normal flooding of rainwater, something has given measures myself in sealing up air bricks and things like way somewhere. this and this actually, on this occasion, bought me enough time to be able to rescue a lot of my personal possessions. Mr Wood: I know not, because it had. the impression, it rose so quickly, as if somebody had turned on a tap and The water still got into the house, but it bought us sufficient. it.fell. so quickly as if somebody had turned off the tap. time to substantially mitigate our losses. Now that could either have been, them turning on the tap or turning off the tap, or it could be a, blockage lower Mr Waft: Thank you, Mr Chairman. downstream becoming released: It could be either cause; I know not. I did not actually see any blockage as such, other Mr Rimington: h will just ask a couple of quick than the water bouncing off the footbridge. questions. Did any of the flood water come out of the millrace? Mr Scullin: In 1998 my first thoughts on seeing the river rising - I was actually downstairs and you cannot Mr Scullin: No, I firmly believe that the millrace was actually see the river bank or the river downstairs, you can filled up, rather than the other way round. only see it from the upper floor. My wife had observed the water rising and she brought my attention to it. My first Mr Wood: I believe it was completely overwhelmed. thoughts were, 'We've had a severe rainstorm and we need to get in touch with the Water Authority to at least prevent Mr Rimington: And is the millrace used for highway the flow from the darn.' That was my first thought: to drainage? contact them to tell them that river was rising rapidly and, not knowing anything as I do now, just to ask them if they Mr Wood: It is my belief that there is a highway drain can prevent the water being added to the river, to let the from the Sulby road, from Sulby village leading into it. rainwater run down first, thinking that they had some means of control. At the time, several phone calls were made, Mr Rimington: Have you got anything finally that you there was no way we could get through. I think I got an would quickly like to say, because we are running well answerphone at one point. It then became so severe that it over time now? was time to call 999. Again the response was, `There is a lot of flooding around the Island, we will get to you when Mr Scullin: Only that we are looking at a substantial we can.' I do not think at the time the authorities, whether part of Sulby. The village itself, I assume. Maybe a third it be fire brigade, police or whoever, actually realised the of the village has been washed out here. It seems to be the severity of that first flood, and once it became apparent whole village, not just the people that are now blighted that a substantial amount of property was under water by with this, and we look to this select committee to take on then, unfortunately it was a bit too late. The Kirk Michael the evidence and make some good recommendations to fire brigade actually attended the scene eventually, and I try and prevent this happening again and see that these am not criticising them in any way, they obviously were recommendations are implemented before the weather dealing with other emergencies that they had been called turns next November. to prior to us, but I think it came as a shock to anybody who attended that scene just how severe that first flood Mr Rimington: Thank you very much. was. That is one of the concerns that myself and a lot of the residents do have, that these things happen and there is very, very little advance warning. Evidence of Mr R Peel Mr Waft: Were you happy with the help you received after the last one? Mr Rimington: Now Lezayre. Thank you.
16 Mr Peel: Mr Peel, Clerk of the Lezayre Commissioners. respect of the proposed development to the satisfaction of the committee. Note the site is known to be prone to Mr Rimington: Right, thank you. Do you have a flooding.' So that was raised in 1983 by the Planning statement you would like to make or. . .? Committee. After that, there was a subsequent application in 1984 and that particular clause was repeated and at the Mr Peel: I have no statement at all. I am relying on time the commissioners also had raised a point about questions from the committee. flooding in 1983 at the millrace. Would you like me to read that? Mr Rimington: I think we may well have a few! Thank you very much for coming. We are in receipt of two letters Mr Rimington: I think I have it here: 'The proposed from yourself: one on 17th November, which was a general filling in of the millrace would cause heavy flooding in letter, and also one of last week in relation to a direct the area, marked red on the site plans. Mr Quane, to my question we asked of you regarding property searches. First knowledge has had two feet of water through his garden taking some of the general issues relating to planning, you when the sequence of tide and river - are consulted, I presume, at every stage of the planning process? Mr Peel: That is right
Mr Peel: The commissioners are consulted by the Mr Rimington: - coincided to push the water back up planning department, yes. in the millrace.
Mr Rimington: And you were consulted; obviously, Mr Peel: So that was in the '80s. The commissioners about Carrick Park and Millrace. Can you say broadly what also were not happy with the the latest application for 1.2 comments you-made? houses. They did raise the millrace and drainage, but they did not specifically mention flooding. They objected at Mr Peel: Well, as far as lean judge, with Carrick Park, the initial stage, but when it was passed again at review it has been going over a long time and, as far as I can see, stage, they let it go through. every single planning application was approved by the local authority at the initial stage and, as such, there will be no Mr Shimmin: Could I 17 Mr Rimington: Have you known it to flood? Mr Peel: Yes, they relate to planning application issues, other planning applications that might affect the property, Mr Peel: Well, I have seen it the last two times, yes. rates, arrears of rates, et cetera. Mr Rimington: Prior to that? Mr Rimington: You do not receive searches which say, `Are there any other matters?' that are rather broad, open Mr Peel: Prior to that I was not living in Sulby, I lived questions? in Peel and Douglas before that. But my parents have been in Sulby for 25 years and I have heard that it has flooded, Mr Peel: There was only one reference to flooding and yes. that was in a property in Glen Auldyn. I was able to answer that to a certain extent. I could not guarantee that no Mr Rimington: Just in relation to the issue of property property would flood because one does not know. But one searches - would have to say that there is no record of it up to the '30. We were not sure then whether that property had been Mr Peel: Yes. flooded in the great flood in the early '30s in Glen Auldyn. Mr Rimington: - are you aware of any responsibilities, Mr Shimmin: Can I ask a point on these searches? statutory or otherwise, that you may have in answering When the letter comes in from an advocate, is it normally questions? on a standard pro forma that that legal firm would.use for a search for any property. Mr Peel: All questions that have been asked have been answered from the advocates. I was actually approached Mr Peel: Normally, or they would.ask us to fill in the by one person, a prospective buyer at Millrace, after the standard pro forma, yes. They sometimes send you a first flood, and he asked me on the telephone about the standard one and some of them vary a little bit, but the flooding and I said, 'Well, I think the best thing is you variation is very minor normally. look at the DoT flooding report,' and I told him where he could get a copy of that, et cetera. I did not hear from him Mr Shimmin: But it would be fair to assume - and we after that. But on any written thing from advocates on will check later- that most law firms would have a standard conveyancing I have answered every question that was pro forma which does not include reference to flooding? asked. As far as talking about flooding, I do not know where one stands on that. I mean, there are other houses that have Mr Peel: No. been flooded in the Sulby area: at Ballacaley Road two properties were flooded in the last instance. They were Mr Shimmin: That pro forma may include a general quite all right the first time, in 1998, but the two properties observation question at the end, or it may not? there were flooded. Now, I am not sure where you stand legally. Do you volunteer information or do you give the Mr Peel: Normally not. information that is asked? Mr Shimmin: Thank you. Mr Rimington: I am afraid I cannot answer that question, for you certainly not at this moment in time! I Mr Waft: You are not a building authority as such? was hoping that you might be able to provide me with what you thought might be the answer to that, as clerk. Mr Peel: No. Mr Peel: I think the answer to that would be the Mr Waft: So you do not have any bye-law officer - commissioners and myself - we have always answered questions that have been asked. If the people that are doing Mr Peel: No, we do not. the conveyancing ask if there is anything else that you can add, then it is mentioned. Mr Waft: - who would be able to give any guidance whatsoever? You totally rely upon the Department of Local Mr Rimington: Is that question ever asked? Government and the Environment? Mr Peel: It has been, but not in relation to these Mr Peel: That is right. particular properties. Mr Waft: And they supply the officers, as and when Mr Rimington: Right. necessary? Mr Peel: It has been asked a couple of times, yes. I Mr Peel: If necessary, yes. cannot remember who, now, offhand. Mr Waft: And they would visit the district? Mr Rimington: So the majority of searches that you receive relate directly to specific issues? Mr Peel: Yes. 18 Mr Waft: And the properties concerned? Mr Peel: It was actually DoLGE who said that. Mr Peel: Yes. Mr Shimmin: So the commissioners at that time - Mr Waft: So you would expect any searches to be Mr Peel: No, sorry it was both, because the pointed by the Department of Local Government and the commissioners in 1983 also wrote and said that it was prone Environment? to flooding. Sony, that was in 1984 on the second one. Mr Peel: Well, yes, that would be - Mr Shimmin: So in 1984 the Lezayre Commissioners identified this area of land as being prone to flooding in Mr Waft: You think the onus was more down to them opposition to a planning application? rather than the generalisation of the view that you would give. Mr Peel: Yes. Mr Peel: Yes, because, as you say, we do not have any Mr Shimmin: In 1997 the same site, with, other bye-law officers or building officers. planning application being put in, they didobject, but had. no mention of flooding at that stage? Mr Waft: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Mr Peel: They only mentioned the Millrace and Mr Shimmin: Could you take me through the process drainage, yes. We have to realise, of course, that at that from - if we use Millrace as the example - what time there will have been different commissioners and a communication is made to the commissioners? And then different clerk. can you take me through all the stages from when you receive as clerk an application for planning permission and Mr Shimmin: Understood However, the Lezayre the process throughout what you do and also at what stage Commissioners as local representatives with local the commissioners become involved? knowledge, and includedin your letter on 17th November you state 'Carrick Park and latterly Millrace private estates Mr Peel: Right, the commissioners become involved have been built (as has always been known and observed right from the beginning. After the initial application is by local people) as areas which periodically flooded:' Now, sent through to DoLGE, a copy of that is sent to the can you account for the process where the commissioners commissioners. The commissioners at their meeting. Will would look at planning applications before determining make a decision on whether they approve of the planning whether to object, that on the first occasion they did not application or do not approve of it, and they send their identify flooding and on the second occasion where it went decision back to DoLGE. After that the Planning to review they did not make any further objections? Committee then make .a decision on whether the planning application should be passed or not That decision is then Mr Peel: No, I cannot really answer that. relayed back to the commissioners. The commissioners then have an option: if the Planning Committee have passed Mr Shimmin: But would you say that that is true that the application and the commissioners are not happy about they, with local knowledge, are aware of the potential for it they have an entitlement to ask for a review, and this flooding, but did not raise objections on those grounds on process will carry on again. The Planning Committee then the Millrace planning application? make a decision at review stage. That decision is relayed back to the commissioners. If the commissioners are not Mr Peel: YeS, basically that is true. happy about that, then they can automatically ask for an appeal. Normally the review stage is of written evidence Mr Shimmin: Thank you. only and the appeal can be either on written evidence or it is normally representation in front of the independent Mr Peel: I would like to add, if I may, that subsequently inspector. So the commissioners are involved right the way there was another application for the derelict piece of through, yes. ground in the Millrace where the same developers wanted to build a further house at the back of `Sabra' - this was in Mr Shimmin: And that is normally held by a full 1998. It was turned down at the appeal stage despite the meeting of the commissioners? Planning Committee granting approval all the way through for this further house, and that had a lot of resistance from Always by a full meeting of the Mr Peel: the commissioners and local residents. There was a commissioners. subsequent application to build a house there after 1998, Mr Shimmin: Can I check back so I am clear? In the after the first flood, and by that time the Planning 1983-84 period of time for Millrace, the previous planning Committee did recognise that it was a flood area. I think applications, at that stage was it your commissioners or on the whole the commissioners were very aware of flood the Planning Committee of DoLGE who said that it was et cetera, but I would not like to comment on why they did prone to flooding? not press that so seriously in - when was it 1997? - 19 Mr Shimmin: Can I just have one final question it was prone to flooding. The commissioners had been regarding your letter on 17th November 2000? You draw hammering the Department of Transport on drainage in to oar attention that 'the commissioners wish to bring to that area. They had been hammering people on the Millrace the select committee's attention their absolute conviction at that. time. They had also said that the millrace had that a government finance hydrological study should be actually effectively been partially blocked off behind started immediately' and it then goes on for the areas `Sabra' which is downside of the millrace and there was, I involved. Could you comment on whether the think it was, a 9-inch pipe or something put there instead commissioners have ever raised the issue of a hydrological of the millrace. They had thought that this was not a very study prior to the 1998 flood and whether they have actually clever idea. They bad resisted that and it had all. been identified to any government department that that should passed, so I think sometimes, yes, commissioners also be necessarily carried out? can. . . It is not pressure from the Planning Committee as such, it is just a general combination of decisions made by Mr Peel: To my knowledge, no. My problem is do various bodies, yes. not know. what happened before I joined the commissioners; I have no idea. Mr Rimington: Do you mean they might feel their views are not highly valued? Mr Shimmin: But following 1998, when you were in office, there was no firm recommendation to government Mr Peel: Well, yes, that can also be there I am sure, to actually carry out this study? yes. Commissioners do change and it is a very fluid thing, and I wouldlike to say that the present commissioners are Mr Peel: I cannot give you the exact dates, but there very, very conscientious when it does come to planning was correspondence between the commissioners and the applications. I wouldlike to put, that on recordl Chief Minister regarding asking for a hydrological study of the area and also there was correspondence between Mr Rimington: Couldiask on that: without mentioning the commissioners and, as far as I can remember, the DoT, names or anything; what.is the rate of change in the lbcal; where the commissioners were expressing their concerns commissioners?' about the Sulby flood plain. Mr Peel: Well, since I joined - I cannot remember how Mr Shinunin: And that is likely to be between the two long ago it was not, it seems ages - the last four or five floods? years, there are only four now; there should' be five. One bad resigned, one had. joined the commissioners about a Mr Peel: Yes, I have not got it on me; if you need it I month before I became clerk and there is only one other could send it through to you if you wish - details of that. who has been long standing, and that is Mr Quane. The other two are new. Mr Shimmin: Thank would be useful. Thank you. Mr Rimington: Right. Are you aware, just for the Mr Rimington: George? record, of any flooding and any sort of major ingress of water coming from the Narradale Road? Mr Waft: All things being equal, Mr Peel, if the Lezayre Commissioners did make comment that an application for Mr Peel: I saw signs of it afterwards. At the first flood a building was prone to flooding, would they not feel it I was along the main road when it was at its height and so was their responsibility to object to that application or I could see what was happening at the Millrace area, but I merely to make observation that the building was being saw signs of the water having come down Narradale. I built on a flood plain? What I would like to say is, has the would like to also, if I may, expand on something: I think local authority been overridden by the Planning Committee the commissioners wrote about what they considered were in the past in this area because of that particular item ? the causes of flooding. Mr Peel: I am not sure whether they were overridden Mr Rimington: To the select committee? by the Planning Committee. I have a feeling sometimes - I mean, I do not make the decisions; I just write and report Mr Peel: I cannot remember what date it was. them. I do sit in on the meetings and one sometimes gets an impression that a tiredness creeps in and it is not with Mr Rimington: We only have one letter of 17th smaller applications, it is always with bigger applications, November, actually. and I must say that I was a little bit surprised at that time when they did not go to appeal on the Millrace site. I will Mr Peel: This was quite some time before. They did admit that. I personally was quite disappointed perhaps, want to stress that in their opinion it has to be remembered shall we say, and I was surprised that they did not go to the that Sulby River is not likely to be a flood river one appeal stage. I have a feeling that they felt, 'What is the encounters in places like England. Because it is such a point?' They had resisted it initially. They had resisted the short river with such a huge catchment area, that any other applications in the '80s on this particular thing. You flooding is going to be always a flash flood, and I think had seen that the Planning Committee in the '80s had said they did say that their views were that a lot of the problem 20 was from the east side of the river where the catchment bring forward at the beginning, or would you like to just area is. It had been saturated and a lot of the water had have questions fired at you? come down from the hillsides and, in their opinion, it was not just the dams. It has been borne out actually with the Mr Hamilton: Well, chairman, we understand that there second flood in that the rainfall was much more distributed, are specific issues relating to the planning history which actually. As a result areas west of the river, as in Ballacaley the committee would like to explore this morning - or this Road, were flooded, whereas the first time Ballacaley Road afternoon - and Brian Sinden will deal with those issues. was completely dry, and they did want to stress that, In relation to other matters of a policy nature or as to the future, then I will do my best to assist the committee with Mr Rimington: Right. anything in those areas. Mr Peel: I think that was mentioned in a letter that Mr Rimington: Right, thank you. Well, can 1 first of they sent to the select committee. all thank you for the planning histories that you sent to us at the beginning of the week. What happened' was, Mr Rimington: Yes, to the east of the Sulby River. obviously because it was quite a large folder and.time was short, I spent some time going through that without coming Mr Peel: Yes. on anything that was related to flooding in that history, and I gave a copy of that to the rest of the committee. I Mr Rimington: Is there anything else that you would obviously have the folder here as evidence on that, and' like to bring to our attention before completion? therefore the letter that was sent to youyesterday was done on the basis of what Thad. drawn together, andnot actually Mr Peel: I think I have got into hot water already! on the committee as a whole having had time to discuss the evidence. Mr Rimington: Okay. Well, thank you very much. Mr Hamilton: I, am sorry that the information. was• Mr Peel: May I just ask, I said I would send you copies rather late being sent to you, but I am sure you. will' - would you like any copies relating to the hydrological appreciate, having read it, that quite a lot of research was study between the commissioners and the Chief Minister? involved going back quite a number of years to put that Would you like copies of that? pack together for you. It took a while. Mr Waft: Please, yes. Mr Rimington: Yes, we do appreciate that and' we do appreciate that there are things in there which might be Mr Shimmin: And possibly a copy of that letter that less embarrassing if they were not in there! We do you have just referred to, because I have not got it myself. appreciate that you have comprehensively dredged through That does not mean I have lost it, but a duplicate of that the files and have given us everything that is there. I think would be very helpful. we want to first of all note that, in relation to, the Carrick Park submissions, in the planning applications there are no references to any flooding or flooding issues. Would you agree with that, Mr Sinden? Evidence of Mr R A Hamilton and Mr B Sinden Mr Sinden: That concurs with my reading of the files, Mr Chairman. You referred in your introduction there to Mr Rimington: Good morning. We are ready for you; the completeness of the copying. What we have supplied one of our members had to take a couple of breaks. Right, is, of course, the decisions of the Planning Committee or gentlemen, if you would like to come forward! the appeals body, the conditions of approval and the comments of the Lezayre Parish Commissioners. There Mr Hamilton: Would you like us both to come forward? are other papers on record and, if the committee wishes to have yet more paper, we can copy that also. I leave that to Mr Rimington: Yes, please. Thank you very much. I your discretion. am sure the table here does not need any introduction! Could you introduce yourselves for the purpose of the Mr Rimington: Well, I am presuming that you have recording? sent us the pertinent evidence. I know that for any planning application, having dealt with a few in the past, an Mr Hamilton: I am Anthony Hamilton and I am the individual application can often take quite a folder and we chief executive of the Department of Local Government would be deluged! and the Environment Mr Sinden: Well, we have tried to distil what would Mr Sinden: And I am Brian Sinden, the development prove useful, but I would not wish us to be seen to be control officer in the same department. hiding anything. It is all available if needs be. Mr Rimington: Right, have you got a full statement Mr Rimington: Right. Can I first turn the attention to that you would like to make or anything you would like to Millrace and the applications in the '80s. In the folder there 21 was one application which was referred to by the previous complete cross-check could be made. That is how, in an gentleman, Mr Peel, the clerk for Lezayre Commissioners, ideal world, it ought to work, but there is not evidence that which was an 1983 application, but as to the substance of all that happened, I am afraid. It does not prove that it did what be said it was actually no different than the not, but it does not confirm that it did. information that we have down for the 1984 and subsequent applications, though obviously it might be of interest in Mr Rimington: Would it be possible, obviously not at due course if that one could be pushed our way. In the 84/ this moment in time, to confirm that the appropriate 375 application, as a condition of approval as mentioned discussions with the environmental health officer of that by the clerk for Lezayre, 'The finished floor level of the time took place? proposed dwellings must be agreed in consultation with the board's chief environmental health inspector prior to Mr Sind en: We could certainly try. Many of the the detailed submission of any detailed application in personnel involved in the early history of this site are no respect of the proposed development to the satisfaction of longer with us either as civil servants or, in one or two the committee, and note the site is known to be prone to instances, at all. The duty to comply with the condition flooding.' Was that condition to your knowledge complied lies with the designer, of course, rather than anyone else, with? and to an extent the responsibility for checking the compliance is arguably ours, but at least in part is also the Mr Sinden: That application was seeking approval for developers or the land purchasers or the property the layout of the land and for the construction of roads and purchasers. All should- play a role in checking that these sewers, but there were not any buildings proposed nor were things happen. But we will see if we can discover -Anthony there any approved, so in effect the condition guides the has noted that and we will ask. designer of the dwellings when preparing a detailed application for the buildings. So in, order to see whether Mr Rimington: So who-would actually check the site the condition was complied-with, we would have to look when the property is being built? at the first- applications for dwellings which followed that approval. Those applications were not until 1988. You will Mr Sinden: When a• property is being built that has see items A5 and A6 on our list when applications were valid approval under the planning statutes there is, by made for two sets of six houses by an architect from practice no further involvement- on, the part of planning Sweden, I think. These were approved but not built. I have officers unless there is an alleged breach of control when looked at those files and I suppose I should say that there an enforcement officer would attend: There is inspection, is no evidence on those files that the condition had not of the site on several instances by a building inspector, been complied with and there were no adverse comments who is checking for compliance with the building from the environmental health inspectorate, but equally regulations. That is also a function of our department, but one might point to the fact that there is no specific that is acting other than under the planning statutes. confirmation of compliance with the condition. The same is true of the applications which were eventually submitted Mr Rimington: The building inspector would be in 1996 and 1997 for the houses that have been built. Again presumably ensuring that the detailed application had been the file is essentially silent on the issue as to whether that complied with. early condition had or had not been complied with. Mr Sinden: His primary duty is to check compliance Mr Rimington: Should it be silent or . . .? with building regulations, and in the past his narrow brief may simply have been discharged in that fashion. We now Mr Sinden: It would be a lot happier if it contained have the building regulation inspectorate within the positive confirmation that there had been the consultation planning division and there is more cross-reference than and that the proposal complied with the recommendations perhaps used to happen, so I would hope that the building arising out of that consultation. inspector might pick up any conflict with a planning approval, but I cannot guarantee that that would have Mr Rimington: I am not, obviously, a master of the happened 5 or 10 or 15 years ago when some of these process dealing with planning applications and taking it events were taking place. through, so what would that process be if a condition is set, like in the principle? How would that flow through to Mr Rimington: One of the bits of information that was the final stage, the actual building itself? contained in the file, one of the rather difficult to read bits of microfiche, was relating to planning application 88/ Mr Sinden: Well, I would hope that the designer or 1443, and this was at the back of that application, which prospective applicant would read the condition, arrange was the comments on flooding of the site. to meet with, in this case, the chief environmental health inspector, consult him on the subject of the levels and Mr Sinden: Were those the comments of Holmes instruct his architect to proceed on the basis of the Grace? inspector's advice. Meanwhile I would hope that the environmental health inspector would make a note of his Mr Rimington: Yes, it does have Holmes Grace written advice and copy it to ourselves so that when this was in longhand on the top and it was not clear that it was complete and then upon receiving the application a Holmes Grace that were making the comments or.. . 22 Mr Sinden: Well, I firstly agree that it is not clear. I years. That gives a record of applications and the decisions have had the same trouble, but it appears to me by on those applications. We can go back a further period inspecting the complete record of the file that that advice beyond 10 years if we are so requested, and I think there was produced by Holmes Grace, who had been may be an additional fee if that is the case. commissioned by the applicant, and was submitted to the Planning Committee, not with the application as originally Mr Rimington: I have a copy of one of your planning submitted but some two or three weeks later, possibly in searches here, which is for plots 1 to 12 Millrace Estate, response to a request from the planning officer reporting Sulby, and the planning search only gives 496296197, 195 on the application. Certainly the letter is booked in on the to 205; it does not go back over that 10-year period: file as if it has come from the applicant, so it suggests that the applicant was aware of the flooding risk and indeed Mr Sinden: It should include the 10-year record To that he bad taken professional advice as to how to cope the best of my knowledge it includes only the references with it. That is my reading of the paper. That requires a and some advocates or their clerks then come in and read little bit of interpretation, but that is how I have interpreted the application and the full records themselves• to see it. whether they need to advise their clients of any particular matters raised in those. Mr Rimington: Right. Well, in the conclusions and recommendations - obviously he was looking at ground Mr Rimington: Right If it hatincluded, say, 88/1443, bearing issues as well as planning issues - it did say there which is the one which contained the comments on the `With regard to the possible flooding of the site it is flooding on the site and the suggestion of the need' for a= recommended at this stage that allowance be made for the hydrological study, do you think that might have influenced: raising of floor levels to 300 millimetres above existing the outcome of the development? ground level. During the design stage of the proposed development a hydrological study should be considered Mr Sinden: Indeed: A prospective purchaser aware of and early reference made to the rivers and bridges section the content of that application may proceed'differently than• of the Department of Highways, Ports and Properties. Now, one who was unaware. That must be so, yes. that seems to be quite a clear expression of a desire for a study and reference to the rivers and bridges section of the Mr Rimington: Sorry, 1 misphrasedmy question there DHPP. Do we have anything on file to indicate whether because obviously this is accepting that search' comes to that issue progressed? you when the property is actually Up and built, isn' tit, and it is going to be . . Mr Sinden: We do not, chairman. I think it is a little worrying in that it appears to be advice from an engineer Mr Sinden: Well, we receive most searches are to his client indicating actions which ought to be considered inquiries about built property, but there are searches about probably before the planning application was submitted land as well as buildings. rather than after. Now, if the engineer assumes that the design process is incomplete, whereas clearly the Mr Shimrnin: Yes, if I may please, when an application application had been submitted and that advice tendered goes on a site which has not yet been developed, would it after submission rather than being acted on before, there be normal practice to trawl through the documentation for is no evidence on our file that there was subsequent action any previous applications on that site? on the part of the applicant to heed his own advice, in effect. Mr Sinden: Yes. We have a set of visual records on which the reference numbers of previous applications for Mr Rimington: The planning applications for these all land on the Island are noted and a note of those is added houses - these houses were not in fact built, were they? to the front of the file before it even arrives for the planning officer, and all could be looked at. Not all necessarily will Mr Sinden: That is correct and, in fairness to the then be looked at. The first one may do the trick. It may have applicant, it could be that he lost interest in the proposal the history on it itself, but it is normal practice to treat as a before completing that detailed design process, but I think material consideration the planning history of the site. we shall have difficulty establishing the actions or intents of that applicant; he is not on the Island now and we have Mr Shimmin: So in the applications in 1996/97 for the no contact. site at Millrace it would have been expected that previous applications, including those in 1988 and 1984 where issues Mr Rimington: When you have a standard procedure of flooding were identified, would have actually been for property searches, could you outline what that looked at before going to the committee? procedure is? Mr Sinden: I would certainly hope so. As an example, Mr Sinden: Searches requested by advocates acting that is the application for plot 2 in 1996, 961296; the for purchasers of property are sent to a number of previous applications are all listed on the outside with their authorities including ourselves, and we indicate in our references. That will have happened very early on in the response the planning history of the site for a period of 10 office after receipt of the application. It is then at the 23 discretion of the planning officer or possibly the Planning Mr Sinden: Most Planning Committees would be likely Committee to examine some or all of those applications. to seek further advice, I suspect, from a department of government: probably the Department of Transport but Mr Shimmin: Can you, from your records, evidence possibly also the Water Authority. the original decision on Millrace? Was that taken by a committee decision or was that taken by an officer of the Mr Shimmin: But if nobody complains on conditions department? It went to review, but for the record can you of flooding, then the committee would not directly take indicate - that into account? Mr Sinden: All decisions on review are by the Planning Mr Sinden: The Planning Committee will almost Committee. always have regard only to those issues which are brought before it or those which are standard practice. Occasionally Mr Shimmin: And after the first one, though, the a committee will have knowledge of the site itself from original decision? personal knowledge, but that is rare. The committee is reliant on advice or officers bringing their attention to Mr Sinden: It is most unlikely to have been other than matters which have arisen previously. A. Planning the Planning Committee, but I would have to check Committee is not expected, to have an encyclopedic minutes. Is this the 841375? knowledge of everything that has ever happened. on the Island or on a particular site. Mr Shimmin: No, it is the one that has actually been developed I am concerned about. I have not got a reference Mr Shimmin: So unless there has been a previous number for that, but the planning application for the history which could be referred to or referred to the buildings which have subsequently been developed on that committee, or there are objections or issues raised; flooding site. would not be directly taken into account? And' should it be, is the next question? Mr Hamilton: Maybe I can help with that, because in the past there has been no provision for anyone other than Mr Sinden: I think awareness of flooding risk is the Planning Committee to take decisions on planning increasing and that the answer to your second question is applications. yes, it should be. Any site close to a river should now automatically prompts such questions not only from Mr Shimmin: And that decision was changed when? planning officers but Planning Committees. Whether it should or did 5 or 10 years ago I can only conjecture, but Mr Hamilton: Fairly recently; it is in the last four years. it is possible that since the land had been zoned for development and roads and surfaces laid on it, that the Mr Shimmin: Which takes us to 1997, so I would be - matter was left at that and not pursued. Mr Hamilton: So the date we are talking about is Mr Shimmin: Can I ask whether there have been any 1997 - formal changes to that policy regarding flooding since the events of 1998 and 2000 within the planning process? Mr Shimmin: - interested to find out whether that was one of the earlier decisions originally taken under new Mr Sinden: I think lean illustrate that best by reference powers or whether that was under the previous system of to a very recent appeal decision last December, in fact on the committee. the Millrace site. The committee may be aware that our minister refused permission for the erection of an additional Mr Sinden: Well, meanwhile I have checked and the dwelling on the grounds which were 'The site is within an initial decision was by the Planning Committee as well as area which has recently been subject to flooding. the review decision. Development as proposed would be premature until such time as flood prevention or mitigation measures have been Mr Shimmin: Thank you. So a full committee have designed and implemented.' Now, whilst we have not looked at an application and it would therefore be up to published any new policy stance or attitude in respect of that committee to determine how much notice they take of flooding, that decision alone establishes that flood risk is the previous history of that site? a material consideration and that it is something to which Planning Committees and planning officers must have Mr Sinden: Yes. regard. Mr Shimmin: When looking at the development on a Mr Shimmin: May I refer you to a report which we site, the views of local bodies are taken into account, such have, which I assume your department has had, which is as the Lezayre Commissioners, such as local residents who from the Department of Transport, a report on the 1998 may have a position to put forward. If a body of Island flooding by a joint working group dated January commissioners raised an issue of flooding, how would the 2001. It is not my intention to go fully through it, but to committee deal with such a concern being raised? question you on your department's representation on that 24 working party which has been established. It refers to Mr Mr Shimmin: The reason for asking is that if it was Vannan and a Mr D Humphrey. I am aware that Mr Vannan that person who had identified building in the wrong is on sick leave at present. Could you tell me how long he location he would need to have access to the actual planning has been on leave or on sickness? permissions and the plans for those premises. Mr Hamilton: He has been indisposed for about a Mr Sinden: The building inspector will have his own month now. That month will be up on Monday, I think. set of plans submitted under the building regulations and that will include a site plan, in most instances the same Mr Shimmin: Therefore it is safe to assume that he site plan as forms the subject of the planning application. was able to be a contributory factor within this report. Our enforcement process is very largely a reactive one and our enforcement officer will attend the site only when Mr Hamilton: Yes, he was. requested, usually by someone making a complaint that things are not well, but he would react also to a memo Mr Shimmin: Thank you very much. Mr D Humphrey from his building inspector colleague. is what position within the department? Mr Shimmin: So if there was no condition put upon Mr Hamilton: He is another planning officer within the planning application for the height of a property above the department. ground; the planning regulations inspector would .see the plans, no reference to the necessary height being a Mr Shimmin: And the report itself - have you got condition of development and' therefore he might find-no anything you would wish to add or are you in agreement fault with that building being erected. with all aspects of this report as being departmental policy? Mr Sinden: He might. Current practice is to seek a Mr Hamilton: The work of the committee as I fixed floor levetrelating to a datum outside of the site with understand it is continuing. I actually have not seen the all planning applications. It is really much better practice final report. I have received a copy of an interim report to establish these things firmly at the time of approval than but I have not received a copy of a final report, and-when to try to condition them for subsequent approval by last I asked for a copy I. was informed that the final report amended plan or letter or whatever. That may not- have had not been produced, but I cannot be precise about dates. been the practice 5 or 10 years ago.. . am unaware whether this is the final Mr Shimmin: I Mr Shimmin: Okay, Twill stop there. Thank you. report, but it does not have any confidential cover upon it, therefore I assume that it is. There are issues within there Mr Rimington: George? that your department, I will assume, because it is in this final report, will then be bound upon into the future as this ask committee continues. Mr Waft: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Could I just with regard to the searches that take place? It has been Mr Hamilton: The findings of the joint working party suggested that one person did not really know exactly what will certainly be acted upon by our department, but that the situation was with regard to the flooding in the area. has not taken place yet for the reasons I have just explained. You do charge for searches, I take it, when legal I. do not know whether Brian has got a copy of the final representatives come to your office and request a search report, but I certainly have not received a final report. Well, on a particular site? it looks as though a final report was received on 12th February, but I have not seen the final report, but clearly Mr Sinden: We do. I am afraid I do not know what the when the final report with its recommendations is submitted current charge is. to the department, the department will be considering the findings of that working party and taking appropriate Mr Waft: No, I am just getting to the principle. So you action. have a certain responsibility to make sure that the search is correct. Mr Shimmin: One final question from me at the moment, if I may. Mr Sinden, you referred to to the building Mr Sinden: We do, yes. regulations inspection and the officer who would go on site. Whose responsibility would it be if a building was Mr Waft: If there was a knowledge that somebody was built in the wrong place, say three metres to where the going to build on a flood plain you would perhaps think actual plan was? Would that be the building regulations that might be made clear to the search officer when he officer who would identify that? came along? Mr Sinden: He would probably identify a change as Mr Sinden: The search process is a fairly regimented substantial as three metres, and even if that change did not one, and I have to say, for better or for worse, does not involve a breach of the building regulations I would hope include the search officer volunteering information that he would then draw that amendment or breach to the he may have been advised about or may know about. He attention of the appropriate planning officer to act. simply completes the formal record of the planning history. 25 We do get quite a number of prospective purchasers and Mr Waft: Going back to the planning applications and one or two advocates who come and undertake a more the subsequent sale of the property, are you saying that if detailed search by asking to talk to the local reporting there is a possibility of somebody coming along to purchase officer or having a look at the file or so on, but the simple a property in a flood plain which is already built, their search is as I have described. legal representative goes to the Department of Local Government and the Environment and they ask for the Mr Waft: So the probity of the search would depend search and the search is carried out? There is no definite somewhat on the legal officer rather than your officer, apart obligation on anyone to say that their house is suffering to from what you feel statutorily obliged to provide. a flood risk? Mr Sinden: Yes, it depends entirely on the thoroughness Mr Sinden: There is not. In. fact I doubt that we would of the clerical officer completing the search form and on feel qualified in most cases, perhaps all; to advise and the accuracy of our records, of course, in that that officer estimate that risk. The most we could properly db is advise is dependent on our records; he will not add anything else of whatever concerns had been expressed- at the time of in. the application and of any hard evidence we had of previous floods. Clearly' we do not haVe the competence or expertise Mr Waft: If there was, for instance,.a known problem to analyse that risk or that darn In most cases we would with flooding in an area, would the Planning Committee not have the data, but this one is exceptional-. refuse a planning application because of that knowledge or would it be an onus on the Planning Committee to decide Mr Waft: So if the legal officer did not ask he would on the frequency of that flooding, whether it would have not necessarily get a reply because it is not down to the any relevance on. the building for the future? Have there normal' questioning?' been any applications turned. down because of this and have they ever been overturned by inspectors? Mr Sinden: That is. correct, yes. Mr Sinden: The only application can recall being Mr Rimington: Wouldit be desirable in. the opinion of refused on flood risk grounds is that which I read out just the planning authority to have the flood.plains definedfor now, just before Christmas. I say the only one; there was all maiarivers? another on the same site earlier on in the same year, but essentially the same decision made twice. To answer the Mr Sinden: The short answer is yes. A flood plain first part of your question, the Planning Committee or a means an area subject to flood- risk of some sort. planning inspector or the minister would need, I think, to Quantifying it is the difficult bit. There may be other quantify the flood risk. It would not be simply a matter of planning reasons for protecting areas close to rivers from does it flood or doesn't it? Once a year is clearly far too development. There is usually some ecological and often, but perhaps once every 50 years might be judged landscape interest, rights of access and river maintenance. acceptable. Then there arises the matter of whether the I think, in judging whether land should be zoned for development would cause a flooding risk rather than be development on local plans, we should certainly have subject to a flooding risk. That needs quantifying also. Then regard to the flood risk and identify the areas within which we need to consider whether flood prevention or mitigation there is such a risk, but we would have to define what we measures might make the site developable after all. In fact, meant by flood risk I think, in the recommendations of the terms of the ministers decision on that recent application the joint working group that Mr Shimmin referred to, refers specifically to 'Would be premature until such time number 7 is that DoLGE could undertake a review of the as flood prevention or mitigation measures have been planning process for development in flood plains and other designed and implemented.' So the matter is one which areas susceptible to flooding, the resulting paper to be needs more careful investigation than simply identification further considered by the joint working group. of possible flood risk. Recommendation 8 was a DoLGE undertaking in conjunction with DoT and DAFF the preparation of Mr Waft: Would the run-off from a large number of guidelines for developers who seek to develop an area houses add to a flood risk in an area? susceptible to flooding. Clearly, if we can identify those areas, we can then give that advice. Mr Sinden: The run-off from roofs and paved areas Mr Rimington: Right. That leads me on to the next runs off the land very much more quickly than if it were question, which is obviously potential development areas merely to land on developed ground, and so if it rains either obviously defined in the various sector plans, or local plans very hard for a short time or hard for a prolonged time, according to what state they are currently up to, but in any there is an enhanced risk of flood resulting from that run- of these is the issue of whether potential development land off depending on the method of disposing of that run-off, is a flood plain, either next to a main river or any other of course. There is use of soakaways in rural areas, but water course. there is usually a surface water mains drainage system on new housing estates, but that has to discharge somewhere. Mr Sinden: It is certainly our intention in production It is probably going to go to the river. of any future local plans to have regard to that issue and, 26 in so far as we can quantify it, to include it on those plans. Mr Hamilton: At the moment the working group has That would include, I hope, not only river flooding but been set up and has been driven by the Department of also coastal flooding, but we are conscious that we would Transport, and my feeling would be that they would need actual data to support such designation. Whenever continue to do that until such time as the responsibility applications for substantial areas of development are made rests with our department. these days local residents often contend that there are drawbacks to that development and they will nearly always Mr Shimmin: We will, of course, be talking to the suggest that the land is likely to flood. I think we need Department of Transport, but you may be aware that of evidence other than conjecture from local residents. the two representatives of the Department of Transport, Information from local authorities is useful, from other one is travelling the world on a year's secondment on the arms of government and perhaps expertise that we do not Global Challenge and the other one is now retired from yet have. I understand our department has to take on some the department. such role in the future, but Mr Hamilton will be better able to answer that, I' think. Mr Hamilton: Quite. Mr Hamilton: So far as the future is concerned, Mr Shimmin: That means that out of the six people on Tynwald has agreed that responsibility for inland flooding that working group, two are no longer either available at and coast erosion should be in one case transferred to our present, the one in your department is indisposed, which department and another case placed with our department. requires a greater level of input from the senior levels of The department has responsibility for neither at present the three joint departments. This is going to be driven and there will be a need for primary legislation to be drafted forward. Could I ask whether it would be your intention to through the branches for that responsibility to rest with actually replace Mr Vannan or to drive that from the centre? our department. My guess is that is going to take at least 12 months but, acknowledging the decision of Tynwald; Mr Hamilton: Without wishing to get into discussions the department has already started to do some preliminary about particular individuals, may I just say that we are in work in that area and hopes to arrange meetings quite soon the process at this moment of recruiting a new director of with agencies in the UK who have responsibility for these planning and building control; because Mr Vannan is due issues and it is certainly the department's intention to take to retire in May; in fact, the interviews are scheduled in best advice to decide how best to fulfil those obligations the next fortnight. So we will have a new director of in the future once the responsibity is properly with the planning and building control in post by 1st July if not department. They sound in both cases fairly straightforward earlier. Certainly I= hope that we will. So clearly that and simple things to deal with, but in actual fact I am sure individual, when he or she comes into the department, will the committee will appreciate they are far from easy and pick up the reigns to a certain extent, but that does not they are actually quite complex issues and the department mean to say that in the interim period the department will has no expertise at all to deal with any of them at the not support the work of this working group, but we have moment. These are clearly issues that will have to be attended and participated in the working group by invitation addressed and will be addressed by the department. of the Department of Transport, and I would look to the Department of Transport to continue to drive that matter Mr Rimington: Can you envisage from that that you forward in the interim period. are going to be, besides obviously looking at responsibilities and policies, in charge of actual personnel Mr Shimmin: At least as far as the joint party is or would that be contracted out to another works personnel concerned. service? Mr Hamilton: Yes. Mr Hamilton: Certain suggestions have been made as to how that might work in the future. All I can say for the Mr Shimmin: However, the recommendation is here moment is that that has not been properly considered and that does ask that DoLGE will undertake or lead certain no decision has been taken. My own view would be that issues; that would be one which is without the working we should, if we are responsible for something, have the group's requirements - that is your department. resources to be able to fulfil that responsibility properly. Mr Hamilton: And we will clearly do our very best to Mr Shimmin: This is one of the concerns that I have, service that requirement because, as I said a few minutes Mr Hamilton. Regarding this joint working group, it needs ago, the final report of that working group to the best of a lead. Now, there are issues in here which DoLGE are to my knowledge has not been sent through to the department. undertake and there are a number of others which DoLGE I am not quite sure if Mr Sinden has got a copy which has are to undertake in conjunction with other departments. arrived in the last month. I am not quite sure whether that Now, having every understanding of how busy your came through because it was requested or what happened, department is and the range of responsibilities, but I certainly have not seen the report and have not notwithstanding the ones that you are to adopt in the future, therefore studied its recommendations, although I did get how do you see this working group actually moving an interim report which came through to me last August. forward? Under whose direction? But when I enquired fairly recently I was told that the report 27 had not been finalised, because I was trying to get a copy Evidence of Mr J A Crombie of the final report, so I cannot help you very much with that one at the moment. Mr Rimington: Welcome. We reconvene the afternoon session of the committee. Mr Jim Crombie, director of Mr Shimmin: Thank you. generation and procurement, Manx Electricity Authority. Mr Rimington: Thank you very much. Is there anything Mr Crombie: I am. at all that you would like to add at the end? Mr Rimington: Have you got any statement that you Mr Hamilton: Perhaps just one thing which flows from are wishing to make in particular or do you want to just some of the questioning earlier and which maybe helpful respond to questions? to know - Mr Sinden bas touched on it - and that is that some of the earlier conditions on these planning approvals Mr. Crombie: No, 1 think I will just respond to the refer to the chief environmental health inspector; the reason questions, if that is okay? for that is because the chief inspector and his staff were responsible for managing and operating the building Mr Rimington: Right. Thank you. very ranch, and' regulations, building control service. Since my David Pozzard; for sending us details of how the hydro- appointment as chief executive 1 have reorganised the electrics works and the quite comprehensive information department and we now have the building control function - it is certainly enough, I think, for the purposes of our within the planning areaso that the two sets of specialists investigation. First of all could.' just ask, how do you decide are working much more closely together, and- I believe when to generate hydro-electric power and how do .you, that some of the difficulties that may have arisen in the decide when to stop power? How does that work? past hopefully will not arise in the future because of the Mr Crombie: new working arrangements within the department where We will always use a hydro in preference the one director is responsible for both• planning and to a. uniform generation on the basis that there is no fuel' cost and there is environmental gain, if we do so; so building control. I can already see that this has led to a providing there is plenty of water in the reservoirs we will much closer working arrangement. use the hydro. In practice that. means that we in effect use Certainly the second point I wanted to make, again in the hydro when the reservoir is within four metres of its relation to a question asked earlier, is that in relation to maximum height If we get below the four metres from building control, when they visit the site they do not always the maximum head in the reservoir then we will stop have access to all the planning conditions because the generating. building control function is under separate legislation. They certainly now have much closer to hand the planning details Mr Rimington: How does that effectively happen? if they wish to refer to them, but I know of two occasions How does that cut in? fairly recently where the building control officer has gone to a site and has discovered that the footings have been set Mr Crombie: We can start and stop the plant actually out incorrectly and in both cases the developer has been from our power stations in Douglas, but in reality we have required to remove them and reset them, and I know of engineers who go and monitor it, and of course we liaise another case fairly recently - well, it is a very recent case with the Water Authority on what the depth of water is in because the particular building is not constructed yet - the reservoir. This is information on a day-to-day basis, where there has been some dispute from residents in the basically, as to how much we would generate. area about the floor level of the new dwelling as to whether it is too high or too low or in accordance with the approved Mr Rimington: My second question - and I think you plans, and I know for a fact that in that particular case the have already touched on it - is, how significant is the planning enforcement officer - and there was not a planning amount of power that is generated? enforcement officer for some of these earlier years - and the building control people have been working very closely Mr Crombie: It is not strategically important to our together to make sure the dwelling has been erected in power plant availability and capacity. The actual amount accordance with the approved planning consent: height of energy that we get out of the hydro amounts to between above datum and everything else, and we have checked one and two per cent of the total energy that we generate, that recently so this is happening now. I do not know for a so one or two gigawatt hours. fact whether it was in the past; it certainly is now. Mr Rimington: Is there by any chance a sort of net Mr Rimington: Right. Thank you very much. The cost associated with it? committee will reconvene at 2.30 p.m. Mr Crombie: Well, this is merely why it is run as first The committee adjourned. on and last off, really, because there is virtually a nil 28 marginal cost to it. In effect the rain is the fuel, so we do Mr Crombie: No, we were not generating between the not actually have a fuel marginal cost to it. In economic 8th and 16th. We started generating again on the 16th once terms the capital investment required for such a scheme if the reservoir level had risen above the 181-metre above we had had to build a dam to just run the hydro - I mean, datum, and we actually had one turbine undergoing some that would not have worked, but once it was there and the maintenance anyway at that time, so we were generating dam was there for another purpose then the hydro is of with one turbine up to the 21st, and on the 21st there was benefit to us and one that we value. very heavy rainfall, will not try to remember the exact numbers but there was significant rainfall on the 21st, that Mr Rimington: The dam, I believe, was built with the immediately raised the reservoir levels to full and hydro in mind, wasn't it? overflowing and at that point we had both turbines available and we wound them all up to 80-90 per cent of full output Mr Crombie: I understand so, but it was long before and they stayed that way for the next few days. my time on the Island. But yes, that is my understanding of the position. Mr Shimmin: Just to finish that bit off, the fact that you were only generating on one was because of Mr Rimington: Is there any sort of capitalisation of maintenance works being carried out? that cost that you are aware of? Mr Crombie: We had. one undergoing maintenance,. Mr Crombie: Not that I am aware of, no, not now. yes. As there was not any water to generate we had taken There would have been in the early part of the scheme, one out to do some work °nit, and' that overran. The rain and the hydro was capitalised but not the dam - construction came before we were finished; in fact. costs for us. Mr Rimington: Just picking up on something you said, Mr Rimington: As you have been running on a there, if the water level'is, say, three metres below the top reasonably full basis for 15 or 16 years, any capital costs as opposed to zero, does that make any difference to your that the actual hydra plant itself and the infrastructure electricity generation? beyond the dam - is that now presumably extinct or close to extinction? Mr Crombie: Yes, we would reduce the electricity output before we got to that point: We would' still keep Mr Crombie: Yes, it is working at nil charge now. Any producing but we would-actually reduce the output once capitalisation costs have long since been put into the the water was starting to get down. Once you are three accounts. metres below the top we have only got one more metre to go, right? And we would actually prefer to keep the plant Mr Rimington: Right. On the days of the flooding on and generating on a steady state at a lower level than events do you have any knowledge of what water was maintain generation at maximum output and have to switch drawn off from the reservoir for hydro purposes? it off and then go back and switch it on again and then switch it off, so we modulate the output rather than do an Mr Crombie: We do not actually measure the water on/off. flow; we know by the design of the hydros how much water it takes to generate a given amount of electricity and it is Mr Rimington: For basic engineering reasons. the electricity generated that we measure. Prior to the flooding there was a period from about the 8th to the 16th Mr Crombie: Yes. when we did not generate anything; the reservoir was down to below 181, and in fact it was about 180 metres above Mr Rimington: At what point would you introduce that ordnance datum mark. From about the 16th we started programme? Obviously, as you say, at one metre above generating about 40 per cent of the output of the plant. your draw-off you are on a reduced level; when the Then we got some very heavy rain on the 21st and that, reservoir is completely full then you are at full level. Does within 24 hours, lifted the water level in the reservoir by it graduate in between or is there a point where you cut nearly three metres and it started to spill at that point. It off? was at that point we increased our output from the turbines Mr Crombie: It is an engineering decision, it is a human and the reservoir, as I understand it, was filling from about decision; it is not an automatic control feature. It depends the 21st to about the 25th/26th and we were generating at on the forecast that we have heard, it depends on the about 80 per cent of our capacity of the hydro plant for weather that has been, how much you think it is actually those days. going to go and maintain the levels. Yes, there are a number of factors which come into the decision but it is made, as I Mr Shimmin: Can I ask a question before I forget that say, on a daily basis. issue? Could you just go over those again, that you were not generating, the height went up but it was not until it Mr Rimington: So following on from that then, do you, spilt over after the heavy rain before you actually possibly down here in Douglas, keep a close eye on what started -? is happening weather-wise in the catchment area? 29 Mr Crombie: Well, in the catchment area as well as exactly the same but they are very close and there is a pipe we can but a lot of the weather monitoring data that is from both reservoirs down to the hydro station, and it is available to us, of course, is not from the catchment area. linked; in effect it is like a 'Y' piece of piping, and we can draw, and do draw, water from both Block Eary and the Mr Rimington: No. Sulby reservoir. But in effect the fact that there is this pipe that is linked between the two reservoirs always maintains Mr Crombie: So the biggest single factor in the the head of water in each at about a very close decision-making is what the information that we get from approximation to each other, and it would act as a syphon; the Water Authority on the level in the dam is. if one became along way below the other then water would actually flow back into the lower reservoir. Mr Rimington: Yes. Mr Rimington: Can I just confirm then that that would Mr Crombie: And the man on the spot, when be is be without electricity being generated? Or with? ringing us with that information, will either say, 'It is raining cats and dogs up here' or 'It is a lovely day' and Mr Crombie: Oh no, you would still get. some we can use that as a guide to what we should do next. electricity being generated, yes, but in effect it would be a flow from the highest reservoir that would be generating Mr Rimington: Right. If you are at two metres and let the power, and some of that water from the highest reservoir us say the halfway point and there was no particular would be feeding the lower one as well. forecast of rain, would you then go into a steady state operation? Mr Rimington: At the same time? Mr Crombie: If we were about two metres we would Mr Crombie: At the same time. be generating about 600 kilowatt out of the one megawatt on- 1000 kilowatt that the plant can generate. Mr Rimington: Would that effect be different when you say were not generating electricity? Mr Rimington: But if you were at three or four, by and large you would be - Mr Crombie: Oh no, once we are not generating electricity, in effect it would level the reservoirs out if the Mr Crombie: If it is three metres or above it would be valves are always left open without generating electricity. 800 kilowatts and 900. If it is only one metre above, our cut-off point would be 300 or 400 kilowatt. That is bow Mr Rimington: But normally at that point when you we would operate it. were not generating electricity the levels would - Mr Rimington: Am I right in thinking that if there were Mr Crombie: The same anyway. any changes in the future you are interested in, besides obviously getting as much for the authority - electricity at Mr Rimington: - be lower anyhow rather than high? a marginal cost - more or less a steady state environment rather than one that is up and down? Mr Crombie: Yes, that is right. Mr Crombie: One of the things that we are looking at: Mr Riminngton: Right. Again, this has been mooted I mean, the output of the machine depends on the or discussed - if Block Eary was not available, as indeed I operational head, which takes the static head but applies know that temporarily it is not available now, what effect the flow rate of water going through it as well and takes a does that have on your generation? resistance of the points into account, and part of the maintenance programme we will be looking to monitor Mr Crombie: It reduces the output that we can generate. that more continuously, so that as the reservoir goes down At the moment we cannot generate more than about 600 the thing will actually modulate of its own accord more kilowatts. Because of the heavy rains that we are talking about closely. at the back end of this year, not the exact incident we are • talking about today there was a land slip which carried away Mr Rimington: There has been quite a bit of discussion a 700-millimetre pipe from Block Eary to the hydro station regarding Block Eary which, as you know, is linked too. and the ground is waterlogged. We will get up there once the Firstly, can I confirm - and this was talked about in discussion when we visited the area with David Fozzard - better weather comes and reinstate it. was the syphoning principle and the U-tube principle; can you explain that more fully? Mr Rimington: It has, in the documentation you given to us, that the water from Sulby will contribute to about 60 Mr Crombie: Well, there are two reservoirs up there: per cent of the output. That confirms, really, what you have Sulby, which has something like a thousand million gallons, just said, that the maximum output has been now about and Block Eary, which has about one per cent of that, about 600 kilowatts rather than a megawatt, although your 11 million gallons of water. Their surface levels are not nominal output is 1.2, 1 think, isn't it? 30 Mr Crombie: Each turbine is rated at 600 kilowatts another six days it ran at that output. That was why there but when they are both running together the pipe sizes are was plenty of water involved. As soon as the reservoir such that you can only get enough water to generate one levels started to go up along the lines that we have just megawatt or 1000 kilowatts. been talking about with Mr Rimington you get down to three metres instead of four metres bead available, you Mr Rimington: Do you know what time lag there is would close in from 800 to 600 and it might stay at that between the water being extracted from the reservoir and for a couple of days or you might get some rain and you it returning to the Sulby River? would increase it; you would get a dry spell and you would reduce it even further. It is purely a manual operation. An Mr Crombie: I do not know exactly, but we are talking engineer will go to the hydro station and adjust the controls minutes - I mean, it is not very much. It is not a calculation for the turbines. I have done. Mr Shimniin: And so there is a= direct relationship Mr Rimington: My final question is just to really set between the volume of water going through the plant and on record, because I think I know the answer myself in the amount of electricity generated? terms of the future alternative sources of power, whether they be wind; gas and so forth, what is the long-term Mr Crombie: Indeed-there is. security of power generation on the Island? Mr Shimmin: So when you are at low capacity there is Mr Crombie: The Isle of Man is enjoying a great deal a lower level of water going through the system; there is of prosperity and that is reflected M a very high increase not a syphon which takes some of the water off which in demandfor electricity. his in the public domain that we does not go for generation? are building a,75-megawatt gas-fired power station to be Mr Crombie: No. situated at Pulrose. We are also looking at a 10-megawatt wind energy farm. That has not exactly got a site but we Mr Shimmin: The generators you have there now that have been doing some wind analysis around the Island have been there for some years - whatlife expectancy have and there are one or two preferred sites, but that would they got? need to go for a planning application. There is the perennial incinerator scheme, and if that goes ahead there will be Mr Crombie: Certainly another 15 to 20 years. They some electricity generated from that plant. And of course have a fairly benign life. They are operated-under closely we have the interconnector with the UK, which gives us a controlled conditions. They are each serviced in a major 40-megawatt capacity, but that is a-single interconnector way each summer and they are in a very good condition, and we have to maintain sufficient generating capacity on and there is no reason to. . . Another 20 years or more the Island to meet the Island's needs in the event of that would be perfectly reasonable. cable going down. Mr Shimmin: The loss of Block Eary for this extended Mr Shimmin: Thank you, Mr Crombie. Could you period of time before you are able to reconnect it - is that explain to me how you actually go about regulating the something which is a concern to the MEA or is that just amount of electricity being generated? You have talked something one lives with? about - Mr Crombie: Well, it is a concern. It is not of strategic Mr Crombie: From the hydro or. . .? importance either in the availability-of plant, for instance, because we never actually count the hydro in our strategic Mr Shimmin: From the hydro. You have talked about reserve of plant_ But obviously the fact that we are losing how you can alter it from Douglas, but what is the physical - we have got a capital investment there that we cannot arrangement? Is that valves narrowing the dimensions of make use of at the moment - is of concern, as it would be the pipe? for any of our other plant. Mr Crombie: There is the controlling inlet valve, which Mr Shimmin: So the decision will have to be the cost is called a spear valve, and we can adjust that opening of actually reinstating that as against the increased capacity from nothing, from a closed valve position, to 100 per cent. that you would be able to generate? At the moment, because of the relative draw-off against the total volumes of water, there is a significant time lag. Mr Crombie: Just so. What we do is manually adjust that on the basis of the information that I was talking about on a day or, if Mr Shimmin: You talked earlier about the fairly necessary, we will go back and change a setting within the informal system of data that is available regarding the depth same day, but quite often the setting remains unaltered for of the reservoir; you indicated that there is going to be a many days on end and the plant will then nut I talked change to that? about putting the plant on on 16th October and that ran to 21st at 400 kilowatts for those four or five days, it was not Mr Crombie: Not to the data that is available for the altered in that. We then put it up to 800 kilowatts and for depth of the reservoir but what we would be looking at is 31 more closely monitoring what we call the operational head; just spill what we were not taking and so the same volume which is different to the depth of the reservoir. It is related of water would be going down the river. to it but it is different to it because it depends on how much power we are taking out of the turbine and bow fast the Mr Waft: In a situation where it is not spilling, and water is going through the pipes. The faster it flows the you are using it - more friction there is, and that in effect reduces the operational head that is available to us for a given static Mr Crombie: Yes. head in the reservoir. And we are looking to increase telemetry from this plant in a number of areas - things like Mr Waft: - in, would' not say, flooding conditions, the voltage and the amps and everything else and the but at a state where the dam is full there was a lot of general well-being of the plant. We are looking at putting rainwater about, you are putting water into the Sulby River in some monitoring systems and this would be one area which might not have reachedthere had you not-required' that we would monitor. it unless it was spilling. Mr Shimmin: Who actually owns the pipe work? You Mr Crombie: If the dam was not spilling then we are are replacing the one from Block Rary, so is that in your not talking about flood-conditions. Certainly, if the darn is. ownership? not spilling and we are taking water out of the dam and putting it into the river there is a difference between the Mr Crombie: Yes. amount of water between the dam and our hydro and between the hydro and rest of the river course, but the Mr Shimmin: And does the same apply to the one from actual. total volume of water that we can use and take Sulby reservoir? compared:to a heavy rainfall! and: what can spill is &very small proportion. Mr Crombie: From Sulby, yes. Mr Waft: If the water is not spilling over the dam• Mr Shimmin: So all pipe work leading from both the because of conditions - and I take it you own the four metres dams is the responsibility of the MEA? or so of water at the top end of the dam - Mr Crombie: Not all pipe work; the pipe work feeding Mr Crombie: We do not the hydro. own. it; we have access to it: Mr Shimmin: That is it for now. Thank you, chairman. Mr Waft: Yes. So if you were to use that water you. would be putting that water, irrespective of what you do in Mr Waft: Just a question, the water that is used for the meantime, into the river, which would not have hydro-electric power - where does that end up then? normally reached there had you not been using it. Mr Crombie: Immediately it goes straight back into Mr Crombie: No, but if we were not using it it would the Sulby River immediately outside the hydro power then eventually fill up faster and spill, so there might be a station. time lag of a few days in that but once the reservoir is spilling then there is no difference downstream. Mr Waft: So are you telling me, then, it is more beneficial, perhaps at times of year when there is a lot of Mr Waft: I appreciate that. What is the financial benefit water in the dam, for you to be using that power? for the MEA? Forgetting the environmental side of it, what is the financial loss, I am trying to get at, would there be if Mr Crombie: Yes, there tends to be more rainfall in this was not taking place? the winter and the power demands tend to be higher in the winter. The two fortuitously, from a power generation point Mr Crombie: Well, the immediate loss and benefit is of view, go hand in hand. the fuel module cost from our generation at either Peel or Pulrose, and at today's fuel prices you could put a fuel Mr Waft: Would you say it could be because of your margin cost of about £32 or £33 a megawatt hour, and that actions using that hydro-electric power that more water is the difference. We do not need to spend that on fuel for might be entering that river than would normally do at each megawatt hour of energy that the hydro generates. that time of the year? Mr Waft: On an annual basis what would that amount Mr Crombie: No. to? Mr Waft: How do you rationalise that when there is Mr Crombie: Well, let us say we do 1000 megawatt nobody using it, it is still in the dam, and the water ends hours; gigawatt hour; that amounts to £33,000 or £34,000 up in the Sulby River? on an annual basis. Mr Crombie: As we say, when the dam is spilling, if Mr Rimington: It is a marginal cost. I mean, is that we were not taking water from the dam then the dam would how you would rate it against a marginal cost? 32 Mr Crombie: Yes, primarily. The actual costs - you Mr Rimington: Which is quite significant, isn't it? Yes, have still got to maintain the hydro plant and so on, but that is one interesting point because you do obviously, for that is a relatively modest cost and the real benefit, as you operational reasons, keep a careful watch on the water say, excluding the environmental gains which we always levels and what is happening weather-wise. If, say, you like to encourage - if we have got the plant we want to use are at the one metre above draw-off level and in steady it, but the difference is the fuel: we do not have to pay for state operation - the rain. Mr Crombie: Above the minimum draw-off? Mr Waft: Is the technology in place for you to be informed in Douglas as to the height of the reservoir and Mr Rimington: Yes above the minimum draw-off, and when to. . .? there is heavy rain, say a couple of inches, you might not be able to answer this specifically but, in your experience, Mr Cromble: No, we do not have a direct access. We how quickly does - and that ram is, say, within a 24 hour can obviously maintain very good contact with our period - how quickly does the reservoir fill up? colleagues in the Water Authority if we are needing it but, by and large, it is only unless you get a cloudburst where Mr Crombie: Well, certainly on- the day that we are the reservoir will fill up overnight extremely quickly; by talking about, looking at the day's reading for the heactit and large daily information is sufficient went up from something like 181 to 183 metres with those two inches of rain, but of course aloe depends on.what has Mr Waft: Were you using the generators at the time gone on before. If you.had a long dry spell the groundis that we are talking about, the time of the flooding? very dry and very thirsty; then a significant proportion of any precipitation is just absorbed by the. ground: If the Mr Crombie: Yes. groundis very wet because it has hada:long spellof rain, then any further precipitation goes immediately as run-off into the reservoir anditrises much more quickly, so there Mr Waft: So you were putting water into the river? is not a, single answer, to. that point. It depends on, the conditions surrounding the event Mr Crombie: Yes. Mr Rimington: Right, butif we could; say, just assume Mr Waft: Do you take any cognisance of the effect of that the groundis relatively saturated; how long do you your input into the river when the river is at its peak? think it would. take to fill if you have got pretty constant rain from one metre above your operational: draw-off to Mr Crombie: Well, I come back to the point that we the four-metre level, to the spill level? Do you have any were not adding to the volume of water that went down indications yourself how that might -? the river below the hydro station. If we were taking it out from in effect the bottom of the dam, what we were taking Mr Crombie: We can see how the levels rose from the out from the bottom was not going over the top of the information we are given. I mean, this is a Water Authority dam. The impact of the hydro station on the days in issue, it is their catchment area and you know the actual question was absolutely neutral. It did not add to it it; did technical details of the reservoir. I know some of them, not ameliorate. but I think it is much more fitting that they would answer these sorts of questions. Mr Waft: You say it did not add to it - unless there was spillage over the top of the dam it must have been adding Mr Rimington: No, I was just trying to tap into the to it, would it not? fact that you obviously do keep a careful watch on what is going on. Mr Crombie: No, the dam had been spilling from about the 21st. Mr Crombie: We do, but we get the information from the Water Authority. They are very good and keep us Mr Waft: So it was in a spillage situation before you - informed, and we do, certainly within the MEA, I am certain, have the figures of what the catchment area is. It Mr Crombie: Yes, it was the heavy rain on the 21st probably in fact might have been in the information; I do that brought the dam up to its maximum level, and it was not have that at my fingertips. spilling at that point and continued to spill for a couple of days afterwards. Mr Shimmin: One question, if I can: since the breakage in the pipe from Block Eary, that means that when Block Mr Waft: Thank you, Mr Chairman. Eary dam is filled any excess has to spill over the top. Mr Riroington: Fifty-four millimetres of rain on the Mr Crombie: Yes. Sulby dam on the 20th, I think it was - Mr Shimmin: Because you are no longer drawing water Mr Crombie: Right, so a couple of inches of rain then, off and have not been doing for some months, I would yes. assume that it has spilt over more frequently than normal? 33 Mr Crombie: I think that would be a fair assumption, Evidence of Mr P Heaton-Armstrong yes. Mr Rimington: Right, Mr Patrick Heaton-Armstrong, Mr Shimmin: And the question really with regard to welcome. Again the same question as 1 asked Mr Crombie: the deposition of stone and gravel that has appeared at do you want to say something at the beginning or would various stages throughout the Sulby River - when we were you just like to be - I will not say bombarded - out at your plant it was fairly evident that, coining down from the tributary from Block Eary, there was a deposition Mr Heaton-Armstrong: Not specifically, just to say there of slate. Have you seen any increase in that amount that I have brought some graphs and photographs this of deposition? afternoon which the committee may find useful in looking at, because they do relate to the event back in '98. That Mr Crombie: No, I do not think so. Undoubtedly Block one is taken at one o'clock on the 24th which shows the Eary will be spilling - continuously might not be the right amount of water going over - word, but certainly fairly frequently at the moment, but I have not noticed any increase. Mr Rimington: May I show that to - Mr Shimmin: But it is possible with a greater level of Mr Heaton-Armstrong: Yes, certainly. Andithat shows spillage over that there may be more water entering that the amountof water going down the spillway and escaping part of the tributary which may then actually move gravel into the river. and slate further down the stream system. Mr Rimington: Right Crombie: lam sure that is a possibility, yes. Mr Heaton-Armstrong: lean lend'some figures to that Mr Shimmin: Thank you. and.1 can answer questions about that as-we go on: Mr Rimington: One last question: how often do you Mr Rimington: Yes. contact the Water Authority? Air Heaton-Armstrong: E have a• graph. relating to Mr Crombie: Daily, but in fact let us say five out of reservoir level; the blue line, rainfall• shown here day by seven days in a week we will actually speak to the Water day, reservoir level taken at nine o'clock every morning, Authority. so that information is available. Mr Rimington: Right, at what level is that? Mr Rimington: Right. Mr Crombie: Well, it is usually one of my engineers Mr Heaton-Armstrong: And here a plan of Sulby, speaking to one of their engineers. As often as not it is my Block Eary and the catchment area concerned. engineer, Mr Fozzard, who is a senior engineer within the Mr Rimington: Right. Well, thank you very much for MEA and in effect the hydro. . . In fact, maybe he should that. Do you want any comments? have been here; he might have been able to answer your questions more authoritatively. He has all these numbers Mr Heaton-Armstrong: No, I do not wish to make a at his fingertips. statement. I think it is probably _better if you ask the questions you want to ask of me. Mr Rimington: Well, we do recollect he was very informative when he took us round the plant. Mr Rimington: Right, I do have a series of questions prepared. Several obviously will be just placing what you Mr Crombie: I must admit David knows his plant inside might consider the obvious on record. Under what out; he really does. It is his baby and he keeps a very close circumstances would the scour valves be used to discharge eye on it. water form the reservoir? Mr Rimington: He is very proud of it too. Mr Heaton-Armstrong: Under normal circumstances only if there was a need to empty the reservoir quickly. Mr Crombie: Indeed, yes. That might be due to a number of reasons: it might be due to pollution of the contents, it might be to do with structural Mr Rimington: Right, I think that is it. We are very stability of the bank of the dam. Generally it is not slightly ahead of time. Thank you very much. We will have something which is undertaken, very rarely, and a small five minute period of relaxation and then Mr occasionally it is open for proving tests once a year to prove Heaton-Armstrong will be here at 3.15 p.m_ We have to that it will actually work, that the sleeve valve on the scour have this slight break because an individual may be wanting will actually function as it should do, and that is done in specifically to come to listen and we could not disappoint the presence of the supervising engineer who the Water them by letting you start five minutes early. Thank you. Authority appoint under the terms of the reservoir safety 34 aspect and, once every 10 years, the reservoir is inspected Mr Rimington: Is the reliable yield from the reservoir by the independent PAL engineer as appointed by the for supply purposes based on the reservoir being limited Institute of Civil Engineers AR Panel meaning All to approximately 80 per cent full, i.e. with the top four Reservoirs Panel, so it is the highest category of inspecting metres being reserved for the hydro-electric? engineers who actually comes from across on this occasion but has family on the Island. There are very few of them Mr Heaton-Armstrong: Yes, it is, but as we look into throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, top flight the future use of this reservoir in terms of the strategic engineers who carry out an inspection once every 10 years role it will play in the future and that we are to build a new and make recommendations about safety aspects of the works down at Sulby which we could extendif we needed reservoir. to in the future, then I think we need to be mindful of considering any limitations placed upon this reservoir by Mr Rimington: I have not prepared a question on this restrictions of one sort or another. It is there for water one, but I presume those inspections have not caused you supply, it was built for water supply, not for flood any problem or have there been any major issues or alleviation purposes, in 1982 audit is with that purpose in concern? mind in the longer term that the whole of this yielckwill be needed by this Island for the consumers of the Island' in- Mr Heaton-Armstrong: There are from time to time the years to come. things which he asks us to make improvements with if he thinks those are in the interests of the safety of the reservoir, Mr Rimington: At this moment - had not actually the same as any other reservoir that we have on the Island. mentioned flood' alleviation, but as you have mentioned it He may ask for some investigations to be carried out for - if there were suitably defined operating regimes, whatever reason and he may give us the timespan in which measuring arrangements and appropriate enabling to do that, a. year, two years, something that way. If he legislation, could the volume which is currently being used thinks it appropriate he may call for an inspection of the for power generation. be used: alternatively for flood reservoir more than once every 10 years; it might be once attenuation? every five years or some lesser period. It depends upon the nature of what he is looking at. Mr Heaton-Armstrong: 1 think the first thing to say is there is no statutory obligation in the Water Act 1991 upon Mr Rimington: Right, thank you. If the reservoir was the Water Authority to operate any reservoir for flood in danger of overtopping, would you open the scour valves? alleviation purposes. Mr Heaton-Armstrong: The reservoir has been Mr Rimington: accept that. designed in accordance with the Institute of Civil Engineers flood studies report and the floods standards guides. The Mr Heaton-Armstrong: Technically I think that when capacity of this bell mouth overflow is rated at over 200 cubic metres per second; that is what we call designed for you consider the operation of a reservoir of this sort you the probable maximum flood, PMF, a return period of need quite considerable infrastructure to be able to develop something like once in 34,000 years. We have to be safe in in that way. We do not have the wherewithal to operate this business when it comes to thinking in terms of this reservoir in the time spans that would give any degree reservoirs becoming overtopped. We need not necessarily of protection. Bear in mind that only four cubic metres open the scour valve; it might be that the downstream face can go out through the scour valve when at full head, and of the dam is able to sustain a certain amount of on the day in question, on the 24th, we ascertained that at overtopping, and there are guidelines available by the 8.30 in the morning when there was 60 millimetres going Institute of Civil Engineers for contemplating that sort of over, equivalent to about between one and two cubic metres situation. I think under those sorts of circumstances, per second, by one o'clock the depth of water going over probably unlikely, we would open the scour valve. If we the overflow spillway had risen to 550 millimetres; it may reach a stage where there are 200 cumecs, 200 metres per have gone to more, we do not know specifically, but that second, going down that bell mouth and down the channel was when somebody happened to visit, take those adding another four cubic metres, which is what the scour photographs. That equated to 37 cubic metres per second arrangement would allow, it is insignificant by comparison, going over. So in just those few hours it had risen from 2 and I think the damage that would be occurring from other to 37. So in a matter of four, going on five hours it had areas would mean it would be probably very difficult to gone up that quickly. get to to operate. Mr Rimington: Right. The hypothesis there is that if, Mr Rimington: The insinuation there would be that for instance, at a time period before, knowing that the most of the northern plain would already be under water reservoir level was full, either spilling over or close to possibly with that sort of rainfall. Can I just, for the record, spillover, and that more rain was forecast, if the scour valve ask, were the scour valves used on the dates of the flooding had then been opened would it not have formed some incidents? alleviation? Mr Heaton-Armstrong: The answer is categorically Mr Heaton-Armstrong: The speed at which a storm no. of this sort comes across - and we have no idea about the 35 intensity of rainfall in its core and I think it was probably Mr Rimington: Yes, but using the diagram you have fairly localised - suggests to us that you would need a whole there, at the point on the 20th when there were the two system of planning - we refer to that as tipping bucket rain inches or 54 millimetres of rain which caused the reservoir gauge sites, weather radar - to be able to anticipate a storm level to rapidly increase to its maximum to spill over, which of this nature to be able to take any action. Even if you was as then 3 V2 days before the actual flooding event, if at could take action it comes so quickly, as I have explained, that point, given that there was weather forecasted - now in relating to the events of 24th October that we think that whether the precise nature of that weather could be in a matter of five hours, even if you opened the scour forecasted but in general there was wet weather forecasted valve, the effect would be negligible. You are talking about - the scour valve had been opened so there was then a four cubic metres per second over five hours in relation to steady four cubic metres per second going out of the scour a peak outflow, say, of in the region of 37 cubic metres. valve, what effect would it have bad on the corresponding level of the dam over the period of the next three days on Mr Rimington: The previous witness described that the 21st and 22nd when there was not any. rain to speak of, in the preceding the flooding events in '98 obviously there though obviously there would be rain coming in running was a period where they were not using electricity because of the catchment area, Iam accepting that; tam just looking the level was low at the 16th and then there was more at the practicalities: what would it have done to the level rainfall, and then, from the 21st, the reservoir was full or of the reservoir if, say, on the morning of the 21st water close to full. Does that concur with your record that you board worker x came and opened the valve and then walked have there? away again and it remained open? Mr Heaton-Armstrong: Broadly, think, yes. I think Mr Heaton-Armstrong: At four cumecs that gives you when we look at the various charts their draw-off level is about a metre reduction in a.day, something of that order, here, one, two, three, four metres down, so they would not but you would have to know that you were going to be have been drawing right through, it seems to me, until at followed. If you were in that event there, you would:have ;east the 16th and perhaps there is a certain amount of lag to know that that was going to happen but, of course, you, when they start to take up, so it is difficult to know; they appreciate it is not our water to give away; it is the MEA's may not have been drawing off water during that period water - but from our reservoir levels it is possible that they could have done. Mr Rimington: I am accepting that it is not your water to give away and I do not want to haul you over the coals Mr Rimington: Right. On the diagram you have got in for that! We are just saying hypothetically, if the value of front of you there, could you point out to me which is the the water from the MEA was balanced against other values 28th? even if it was on either a medium, a shorter or a longer- term basis, I am looking at what the effect would be of Mr Heaton-Armstrong: The 28th October? using the scour valve in that situation. Mr Rimington: Yes. Mr Heaton-Armstrong: Provided you have got to open it far enough in advance and cut the water level down to Mr Heaton-Armstrong: That is that day there next to the specified level, as it does in a way at the moment by no rain at all. virtue of the top four metres - you know, it is the top 20 per cent of the value, it does already offer protection. If Mr Rimington: Sorry, the 24th. that had not been the case when it started on about, say, the 16th October then all of that water would have gone Mr Heaton-Armstrong: The 24th is this day here. On over the top rather than being attenuated. the 20th there had been something like 55 millimetres of rain? Mr Rimington: Right, so it would have reduced by, say, a couple of metres. Mr Rimington: Yes, it is 54. Mr Heaton-Armstrong: Yes, something like that Mr Heaton-Armstrong: Then on the 23rd there was a further 25, something of that order, and then on the 24th Mr Rimington: And there is not a scientific.. . there was a further 45. Mr Heaton-Armstrong: Something of that order, yes. Mr Rimington: Yes. Mr Rimington: Now, the compensation water which Mr Heaton-Armstrong: So the catchment area, as Mr is a constant, isn't it, of taking 1.5 million - can that volume Crombie had said, was thoroughly wetted, saturated, so be varied depending on the time of the year or does the any new rainfall coming on that catchment area was going pipe have a -? to instantaneously or very quickly. . . It would not have been absorbed in the peas and the hills around Sulby; it Mr Heaton-Armstrong: Well, the flow could be varied would have run off fairly quickly into the reservoir. but it is set at 1.5, and that goes back to the days of the 36 Millburn report prior to my time on the Island, which was this in a more technical explanation than can be given now, a report of Tynwald. The matter of compensation water, I but in the memorandum that was kindly sent to us by think, went to Tynwald for a vote. The report was not Richard Young describing the effect of the reservoir as it accepted but the Water Authority nonetheless, though there stands at the moment as a flood attenuation capacity - and is no statutory obligation on the Water Authority to pay I understand broadly the mechanics of that there is one out compensation water, actually does allow 11/2 million paragraph which I found quite interesting. This is talking gallons a day to go down the river through a valve which about the situation when the reservoir becomes full - this empties into the stilling pool at the bottom of the tail race is on page 1 out of 5 in the bottom paragraph. So we are at channel. the point where the catchment area probably soaks as the reservoir as we know is spilling over and it says, 'as flood Mr Rimington: What is the capacity of that pipe? run-off begins to increase the stream flowing in to the reservoir, the reservoir water level will rise and the Mr Heaton-Armstrong: Well, it is a 350-millimetre overflow weir discharge rate will start to increase. The diameter pipe which narrows downs and I dare say if you rising reservoir water local represents temporary flood could do some alterations to the pipework you could storage within the reservoir basin:- and I accept and note increase it quite considerably. that - 'above the weir level. As the incoming flood: flow reaches a peak and starts to decline, the reservoir water Mr Rimington: It is set at 1.5 million gallons a day at level will continue to rise until the rate of outflow over the the moment; without alteration could it increase much? weir matches the declining rate of flood inflow, and then the reservoir water level' will start to falk The floodwater Mr Heaton-Armstrong: Yes, it could do, yes. temporarily held in storage is then discharged; and, if you like, the extent of this flood', the attenuation, effect, will' Mr Rimington: To two, two-and-a-half? depend on the shape of the incoming flood! hycirograph and. . .' et cetera. It is that little technicalaspect of it that Mr Heaton-Armstrong: Something like that Tam not interested me, andl do not know whether you. win be able exactly sure of a figure, yes. It depends upon the head of to supply some informationeither now or at a later point; course. You get more water out if the head:is greater. when actually the inflow is starting to decline but the outflow is still rising, the volume going over the bellmouth If there was a flood attenuation facility Mr Rimington: is still rising. - and again I have to use 'ifs' and I accept that it is not your responsibility to initiate such matters! - could you Mr Heaton-Armstrong: Well, it is quite correct, this discuss how that might affect your long-term yields? statement, and it applies to every reservoir. Every reservoir I think, as we look into the has a flood attenuation effect It reduces the peak outflow Mr Heaton-Armstrong: and it forestalls it by perhaps a number of hours, depending future and the strategy for the development of the water treatment works on the Island, we are going to redevelop upon the nature of the reservoir and its surface area. So a new treatment works at Glencrutchery and a new one at the outgoing flood is not as peaky as the incoming flood. Sulby. The other three smaller works around. the Island, because they are a such small yield and bringing them up Mr Rimington: It modifies it? to meet modern-day water quality standards and reliability of supplies is so costly by comparison to developing two Mr Heaton-Armstrong: It modifies it, yes. In terms large sources in this way, then it makes it uneconomical to of the probable maximum flood on this reservoir, it consider revamping the old works, so we have come back probably delays it by over an hour and reduces it by 20 to developing two new works and, of course, Sulby just cumecs, but in terms of at the height you are talking about does not treat all water at Sulby; a lot of it can be pumped 200 cumees so you are talking about the very top end of over the top at Beinn y Phott into West Baldwin in times the range there. The lesser end, when you come down to of need. The big pumping station there allows that the sort of levels we are talking about on 24th October on In terms of the future, we certainly look to utilising the this occasion, the effects will not be quite as noticeable. full yield as it is at the moment, and I think for the Island's long-term prospects we have to be aware that water for Mr Rimington: The scenario - it might be extreme - this Island will come from Sulby reservoir. We have talked that I was considering was that maybe you have this at the Water Authority about the future of using this delaying effect, which I accept modifies the pulse of the reservoir and buying out the MEA's interest in it so that it rainfall and the effect from that catchment area - if you becomes a total water supply-only reservoir. So I think, had that delaying effect because of rainfall in the catchment from a strategic point of view for the Island's long-term area of the reservoir, but in the catchment area of the river water needs, we do not need to lose sight of that fact. This below the reservoir there was increased rainfall which reservoir will turn eventually to a water supply for the coincided with the delaying effect, would that have a pulse whole Island. It may be some years away, but that is the effect? way I see it going. Mr Heaton-Armstrong: I suppose all sorts of scenarios Mr Rimington: Right I still have one more question are possible, aren't they? It is difficult to contemplate them to go. Now, you may actually have to come back to me on all in terms of how they might be modelled. If you took 37 the distance between the catchment area above Block Eary detail. But in strategic terms that was the overall and Sulby together, is about 5,000 acres, and you took the philosophy: you do not put all your eggs in one basket, catchment area down to Sulby Bridge, roughly about 5000 you split it up. We have the mountain road that cuts through metres, it represents about half the catchment area. The the catchment area of Sulby reservoir. We do not know gradient of the river above the dam is different to that below that a tanker of fuel oil might not tip over and go down it.. It is different again when it gets to Sulby Bridge, it turns into the reservoir. There is sheep dipping that takes place, off down towards Ramsey. The gradients are different. all those sort of scenarios we have to consider. It is not They are something like 1 in 60, compared to 1 in 330, just the structural stability of the reservoir that one needs something that way. So modelling that situation is very to think about; it is also what might happen to the contents difficult and there all sorts of ways you might look at it in of the reservoir if that was not available to us. We must terms of storm cells passing over the catchment area and have that ability to switch sources until we can sort things the complex interaction of a storm cell that is over the out and get it back on line again. reservoir to begin with then moves down the valley. Those sorts of things are not uncommon and there are good cases Mr Shimmin: Okay. Following that theme, that would which have been studied in depth in other places - not that be an argument for the retention of Block Eary which has we have studied any here. We do not have the hydrographic been raised this morning as to whether there is any Water information. There is no system of bucket raingauges which Authority purpose for it, as it all at the moment appears to would. allow that sort of assessment to be made. So it is be for the MEA's hydro-electric power generation. So you very difficult to be able to answer your questions would see Block Eary as being a necessary part of your specifically. strategic. .. Mr Rimington: Yes, exploring the concept of whether Mr Heaton-Armstrong: It is actually our reservoir. it is a valid scenario - I am not saying it was the scenario that, as you said, the storm passing over the reservoir Mr Shimmin: I am aware it is yours, but we consider catchment area, the reservoir then delaying and modifying that Sulby is the main source of the water, but the Block the discharge from that and then the storm passing over Eary would therefore be in, your strategic plans? the catchment area lower down the river, and effectively Mr Heaton-Armstrong: It would feature very much the two combining to give that pulse. so, yes. Mr Heaton-Armstrong: It is possible. Mr Shimmin: Okay. Mr Rimington: I have said enough! Mr Heaton-Armstrong: That pipeline does, too. Mr Shimmin: Patrick, as a politician, I am delighted Mr Shimmin: Your whole infrastructure renewal to see you are looking to the future for the supply of water programme which is taking place in the years ahead - have for the Island, so you have talked about 20 years hence you built into your projections all of the savings of water and the prospect, I think you said, that the main water currently lost through pipe damage throughout the Island? supply for the Island will come from the Sulby reservoir. Can you quantify the amount of loss? Does that give you any problem with regard to contamination if that is the primary and only source of Mr Heaton-Armstrong: The answer to that is yes, we water for the Island? have. In mid 1996 I think it was something like 50 per cent of water never actually got as far as the customers' Mr Heaton-Armstrong: It does. In looking at all our taps. Ten per cent of that was due to overflowing services reservoirs strategically, if we look first of all at what I would loss, the other 40 per cent was due to loss through the call the Douglas water treatment works and the water that systems. During '93, '94, '95 we did a lot of work on comes to that, you have got West Baldwin, and Ciypse putting in new meters throughout the whole system. The and Kerrowdhoo on the other hand - about two thirds from Island is divided up into 67 little zones so that we can West Baldwin, one third from Clypse and Kerrowdhoo. monitor leakage. We let a leakage contract, that was very You have got the duality there so that if there is a pollution successful, and leakage at the moment is down just above incident or if you need to drain the reservoir for some the economic target level; it is running at about 25 per particular reason, then you have the ability to switch. Now, cent. If you try and chase every last drop of leakage, it uppermost in our considerations for Sulby is the duality becomes inordinately expensive. It is an exponential graph we have got between Block Eary and Sulby. If we have to situation. So we do not chase it to the nth degree. We chase do something at Sulby for some reason and drain it down, it according to the value of the water and the value of that then our water supply will come from Block Eary. So we water varies from each one of those 67 metered zones have a vested interest in seeing that main going back, according to how many times it is pumped, the cost of because we want to see that at the new treatment works, pumping, the cost of treatment at that particular works. It all connected together, so that we can take the water from is all modelled and there is a whole prioritisation system Block FAry if we need to or if the water quality might be which allows us to focus upon where the effort of the better for some reason during the course of the year - one leakage team needs to be put in to maximise and reduce does not know until you have actually looked at it in some that leakage. 38 So it is a very definite plank in our future strategy. It is also have said that you would require all these alternative a cornerstone. Keeping leakage down is a cornerstone of areas. From the graph that you showed us before, in the the future, as we see it. We started off - and I will have to one period of heavy rainfall, I think it was the 20th October, use the sort of terminology we use in the water industry the reservoir depth increased by in the region of two to for describing leakage - it was about 14 litres per property three metres? per day, and that has come down to just over seven at the moment; the target is actually six. That seems to be the Mr Heaton-Armstrong: Two-and-a-half. most economic level. But of course the economics will change year by year and we have to keep on reworking Mr Shimmin: Two and a half metres in a one-day the system. It becomes almost iterative. occasion. I think the consideration would be, when those circumstances must exist, most years we would have Mr Shimmin: So all of that is the long-term projections rainfall and, albeit unusual, it is becoming more frequent and targets; you must have some forecasts regarding the year on year that we will have flash storms of that level. future meteorology figures for expectations of rainfall in Do you not consider that the ability to actually identify, as the future. Are you predicting more, as most commentators you do 20 years hence, that next autumn, when the ground would do? is saturated and the reservoir is full, then there is a potential risk to everybody down river of the Sulby darn? Mr Heaton-Armstrong: Slightly more. I think it is wise to say that world climate change will cause things to alter Mr Heaton-Armstrong: You have raised a number of in the future, but I think within the variance of the way we points there. First of all can I say yes, of course the Water have to operate it will not make a significant impact. Authority recognises its responsibilities within the remit of government as a whole. It is my job to point out to you Mr Shimmin: Okay, getting tougher now ! You are that there are costs associated with each of these looking 20 years hence with water supply. The people in alternatives to take into account the long-term strategic Tynwald and our petitioners are also looking 20 years view of what should happen in each area. I am hence. You have indicated that it is a consideration to endeavouring to point out to you that this is the way I see actually buy out or make arrangements for that top four the Water Authority progressing. There may be broader metres of reservoir to be necessitated for water authority aspects at work, and if we have to play our part within purposes. In the two events where the people in the Sulby government, one recognises the onus that comes with that. area who have been affected are looking nightly to the I think that when we look at the incident of '98 and skies and seeing what the weather forecast has been and is recognise what happened, it was extremely wet. During going to be, if there is not some mechanism of flood the preceding period, it was exceptional - unusual to have alleviation, every time it rains, particularly in the autumn so much rain over such a short period of time, and even if into winter, if they consider that the Water Authority are one were to draw down this reservoir, you do not know going to be taking greater use to keep the reservoir high, that the storm cell that occurs next time may be a kilometre then they are not going to sleep at nights. Do you feel any further downstream and the reservoir might not have the obligation to the future projections for the people in Sulby impact you desire. because what has happened now is likely to happen again, or at least it is possible that it will happen again, and the Mr Shimmin: I do acknowledge that and there are no fear of that is as real as the eventuality? They are looking guarantees. However, I was looking at the most achievable towards mechanisms whereby there can be some reduction results of which the reservoir is only one part of the options when the ground is saturated from that water spilling available to the committee to look at. We were referred straight over the bell mouth into the river course. this morning to the report you may or may not be familiar with, the Milverton report of 1985. Mr Heaton-Armstrong: Well, whilst I always feel personal sympathy to those people who have suffered Mr Heaton-Armstrong: Sorry, I think I said 'Milburn' inundation on two occasions, I have to look at it from a before, I meant Milverton. business point of view and be a champion of the Water Authority, and I have to say that I do not believe that will Mr Shimmin: It was quoted to us, I think - I have got it be, in those circumstances in the years ahead, the tight down - that the bell mouth would not normally be used as solution. We are there to provide a potable supply of water, the part within that report. How often is the bell mouth and the future for us and the many years ahead lies at Sulby. actually required during the course of the year? - I do not believe it is down to the Water Authority to take the onus of flood alleviation on as a responsibility. Mr Heaton-Armstrong: Very infrequently. It is unusual for water to spill down the bell mouth. I would have to go Mr Shimmin: I believe that responsibility is back through the records to give you a specific answer. I government's. Therefore, if government were to be looking could do that. It operates generally most winters well below, at mechanisms, then obviously the largest area of but I think the events of October '98 were exceptional and catchment of water will be a consideration for government there will come a time, no matter how much protection to look at its opportunities that are available to it. You did they offer; if this were to be operated at a lower level, talk about it being the main supplier from Sulby, but you there would be a storm event which would exceed it. I 39 mean, here we are talking about a storm which gives rise forward. I wish I had taken more notice of my maths to an outflow of 37 cubic metres per second and yet we teachers when they said about the amount of water pouring look at the top end of the scale of 222. We might easily get into the bath through the tap et cetera! But taking into one in the mid-50s or something like that and that would consideration that this wall of water comes down - and still go over. It comes back to the design criteria period: people have referred to something actually giving way you know, do we design for once in 50 years or once in a perhaps - they have referred to bridges being moved and 100 years, or once in some much longer period? Those different things being moved around on the estate because choices are available to be made. of this rush of water which would be deemed to be not just flooding but an actual surge coming down the line for some Mr Shimmin: And that is what has focussed the reason whatsoever - you do not think there has been attention ever more so since 1998 - the repetition of it in anything with regard to the reservoir situation to account the year 2000, therefore we are unaware of whether those for any sort of problems of this nature and it was purely are two floods in a hundred years, or they are going to be coining down from the various catchment areas into the something which are going to be far more frequently river? occurring. None of us can guarantee that, therefore as those within the Water Authority have to make the best guess at Mr Heaton-Armstrong: I am certainly not aware of probabilities, then likewise we have to consider if this is any reason why it should have created a wall of water. I going to be something which could recur on a fairly regular tan only, as I have explained, surmise that it must be basis, and then it would be negligent if we do nothing about something to do with the intensity of rainfall and the it. The Water Authority at the time and since have been in movement of the core of this storm across the catchment the firing line of many people. You have already said that area. I do not know anything about blockages in the river the scour valves were not opened, have you a consideration further downstream. That is beyond my remit. as to how this apparent wall of water could have actually formed to come down towards the Sulby area? Mr Waft: It was sufficient to move a couple of bridges and move tanks about. It was quite severe by the sound of Mr Heaton-Armstrong: I can only surmise, like lots things, and that would intimate that there was quite a force of other people, but one supposes that the storm cell moved coming down that river. With regard to your overall in such a way across the valley, or down the valley that the responsibility to the area, how do you see us making concentration from the outmost parts of the catchment area, progress at the end of the day to try and alleviate the all arrived in the floor of the valley at broadly the same concerns that people have? time. How that created a wall of water going down I am not sure. Mr Heaton-Armstrong: Can I start that by picking up something which Mr Shimmin mentioned a moment about Mr Shimmin: And has the Water Authority, as it was looking at the future and trying to design for the future? I raised with us this morning, made any financial settlement think one of the things we seem to be very short of is an in regard to the floods of '98 to any of the people in the understanding of the hydrology of the Island. We have very area? little factual information. There is very little in the way of a database of any information. There are no flow gauge Mr Heaton-Armstrong: Most certainly not. We are measuring stations anywhere on the Island. To try and put not obligated in any way. some measure on these sorts of things that you come back at the end of the day and say 'What do we alloW for in the Mr Shimmin: That is fine. The issue was raised with design of bridges, structures, waterways? Do we, as the us this morning and you can state that you have not had UK does, set out a criterion once in 50 years or do we say any. . . that on the Island we are going to have some other different return figure and we design accordingly? We cannot Mr Heaton-Armstrong: We have not operated outside actually gauge any of that and we have not got the maths our rules, our guidelines in any way whatsoever, which and the information and the statistical information to come would make us culpable in that way. out with the figures at the end of the day. I think that is the starting point and we have recognised that, and we have Mr Shimmin: Okay, I will let the others back in and commissioned a study through consultants on the Island come back to you later. to begin to move that forward. It is important from our point of view in terms of low flows, what the yields of Mr Waft: I would just like to make it clear we are not these sources are going to be in the future, as well as on any witch-hunting situation here! We are trying to make looking at the high flows, the peak flows, the run-offs and progress and I am sure the residents would agree that we the floods. We do not have any information on that. So I are trying to look to the future and try and alleviate these think that is one thing I would say to the committee: I problems should they arise again. What we are looking think this base has got to be put in so that we understand for from the professionals that we interview is not to find the hydrology of the Island. Then we can begin to make who is to blame but actually find some way forward for some assessments of the criteria we need to use to design the future and get their expertise to give us the guidance structures which occur in rivers, because until we have which will be sent to Tynwald to perhaps find a way done that we cannot assess them accordingly, and if we 40 see a change in the climate of the Island due to warming, Mr Rimington: Have there been any other breaks of then we have some measure of that I think we can all look flow in the recent period over the bell mouth corresponding at it and say, 'Yes, we feel it is may be getting worse', but to that? we have got no measure of it anywhere and I think perhaps, not only this Island, but further afield as well. We are not Mr Heaton-Armstrong: No, it was exceptional. I am doing enough to actually measure just what is happening not aware - I think when you look at it and you look at the environmentally. amount of water that is going over there, that is 550 millimetres in depth. That is unusual. That is exceptional. Mr Waft: So you are in the process of doing that? That is a lot of water going over there. Mr Heaton-Armstrong: We have started, but it will Mr Rimington: Finally, not really a question, but I do be a costly study and we shall be looking to other interested find the diagram that you showed us there very interesting. parties to help us in those studies. Mr Heaton-Armstrong: I willingly leave these with Mr Waft: Have you ever had any previous complaints you to look at it in more detail. of water coming down from the reservoir end of the river? Mr Rimington: Would it be possible to supply one for Mr Heaton-Armstrong: No, we have not, but of course the other occasion? I would actually be delighted to see we could point to the other incidents that have occurred in them for the whole period. the years - I think there was a major incident in Silverdale in 1968, Laxey 1930, so we do have these high intensity Mr Heaton-Armstrong: Yes, I could work one up. storm cells that move across the Island and cause problems. Large parts of the Laxey Wheel were washed out in that Mr Rimington: Could we say the two weeks before event. So they are not unknown; they are not uncommon. and after December of last year. Mr Heaton-Armstrong: If you would like me to leave Mr Waft: But not particularly in the Sulby River area? these here today, I will do happily. Mr Heaton-Armstrong: Not as far as I am aware, but Mr Rimington: Certainly, thank you very much. Do my history is not as long as some people's and I am perhaps you want the photographs? not the right person to ask about that. Mr Mason: I would very much appreciate a photograph Mr Rimington: Just a couple of little ones to round of the catchment plan. I mean, you have got that one off: first of all, what then would be the maximum rate of a mounted, Patrick. controlled flow that you could take out or release from the reservoir, i.e., the combined scour and compensation? Mr Heaton-Armstrong: We actually have a booklet with all the catchment areas on. Mr Heaton-Armstrong: I think if we opened the scour valve, the pipe for the compensation is fed off it, so the Mr Mason: That is quite a nice size of plan, really. maximum would be four cubic litres per second. It is a spur off it which is a small diameter spur of the 900 pipe. Mr Heaton-Armstrong: I am quite happy to give you that if you want it, or if you want a smaller scale one, you 'Mr Rimington: Yes. I think you indicated the maximum can have it. rate of flow to the reservoir in the first flooding incident was roughly 37 cubic metres a second; what about the Mr Rimington: Well, I think that is it. Thank you. second incident? Have you got any indication of that? Mr Shirmnin: Thank you very much. Mr Heaton-Armstrong: No, I have not. But it seems that that was a slightly different incident because the storm Mr Rimington: That is the close of business for today. cell was more over Block Eary and we know that Block Eary, has the central section which has a capacity of about The committee adjourned. nine cumecs. Now, that dam, from the debris that was left on the shoulders - you will be aware that it is a concrete dam with a centre stallway section and the shoulders, I do not know, perhaps about four or five higher than the centre section - well, there was debris on the side of both elements of the darn, so it appears to us that the dam overtopped along its whole length on the occasion last year. It did not affect Sulby in quite the same way. Again, it comes back to these very localised storm cells which seemed to have an impact in one area. 41 Printed (by Authority) by The Copy Shop Ltd., 48 Bucks Road, Douglas, Isle of Man. REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE OF TYNWALD ON THE PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE OF ALBERT EDWARD ANSFIELD AND GEOFFREY SHEARD SANDERS Held in the Millennium Conference Room Legislative Buildings, Douglas on:Friday, 2nd March 2001 at 10.00 a.m. Members Present: Mr I Rimington MHK (Chairman) Mr J Shinunin MilK Mr G Waft MLC with Mr C Mason (Specialist Adviser) and Mrs M Cullen (Secretary) Oral evidence was taken from: Ms E Charter and Mr J Ballard, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Mr C Quaggin, Department of Transport HM Attorney-General, Mr W J H Corlett QC Mr N R Cooil, Department of Transport and Mr A Burroughs, Burroughs Stewart Associates Evidence of Ms E Charter and Mr J Ballard is in very early stages there appear to be a number of factors of which the reservoir does play a part but is not the only Mr Rimington: Good morning, could I reconvene this existing factor which is contributing to those problems. meeting which is taking oral evidence on the select committee for the redress of grievance of Albert Edward Mr Rimington: What about the uppermost stretch of Ansfield and Geoffrey Sheard Sanders in relation to the the river between the dam and the confluence of the Block flooding events in Sulby - the original prayer was obviously Eairy stream and the hydro-electric station, which limited to the 1998 event but I think universal common obviously has less water than it would normally have? sense would apply that both instances should be broached. What is the health of that part of the stream? For the purposes of the record could you introduce yourselves? Mr Ballard: Well, because by nature it obviously goes through a very close-cut ravine area through the Tholt y Ms Charter: Elizabeth Charter, Senior Wildlife and Will and then opens out as it comes towards Block Eairy, Conservation Officer with DAFF. generally speaking when I talk in terms of biology the nature of the stream will not be altered; it is actually the Mr Ballard: John Ballard, Freshwater Fisheries invertebrates and bugs that are in there, for want of a better Inspector for DAFF. word, that are affected by the water quality problem. In terms of the state of it, obviously yes, because of its nature Mr Rimington: Thank you very much. I do not need I do not think it has altered much certainly in a very long to introduce the committee to you. Mr Mason is our period of time because, as I say, it goes through a very specialist adviser from the UK in respect of hydrological close-cut ravine area and then opens out just before it gets issues et cetera. Before we get to any questions focusing down to the Block Eary section. on aspects of maintenance et cetera, would you like to just give me a brief overall assessment of the Sulby River and Mr Rimington: Has it been affected particularly by its importance for fisheries et cetera and possibly also in the volume of water that is through that section? Or can I the wider environmental terms as well before we look at say, hypothetically, if the water that is presently going any more detailed issues? through the hydro-electric station was instead channelled through the stream, would that alter it particularly? Mr Ballard: Sulby River is one of the larger river systems on the Island, obviously with the reservoir at the Mr Ballard: In reference to flooding, sir, I am not head of it, and it also has one of the largest catchment entirely - areas. The condition of the river in reference to fisheries is mixed currently; there are existing biological and water Mr Rimington: No, I am just getting an overall quality problems in the upper half or upper reach segment assessment of the river. from the reservoir down to about the Claddagh area which does not really have any reference to flooding issues but Mr Ballard: Right, the section from the reservoir to does in a general way to fisheries. In those areas there is a the Block Eary is obviously the only section which relies high level of grazing and obviously by nature it is very on any overflow that occurs from the reservoir or any rocky and there is a very fast run-off in the event of compensation water that is released from the reservoir. flooding. In the middle to lower reaches from the Claddagh Then there is obviously an additional input from the hydro- down, the Sulby River then starts to slow down in essence electric scheme. If that water was to be put in at the point and widen in places and there is some fairly mature existing of the reservoir as opposed to where it is currently, then marginal growth from alders et cetera. In general reference obviously there would be an increase in flow. I am not to flooding there are gravel banks in existence, but such is entirely certain exactly what flow rates come out of the the nature of the Island's rivers with gravel movement that hydro-electric scheme but I am familiar with what is this is an ongoing situation and problem. involved and that the MEA has the first three to five metres of the Sulby reservoir but, because it flows only Mr Rimington: You refer to the upper part of the river; intermittently, it would only, in effect, be artificially what are the weaknesses or biological problems there? creating a reasonable rain run-off situation. Mr Ballard: It is fairly generally known, as opposed Mr Rimington: Liz, would you like to add to that in to scientifically documented, that there are water quality terms of the river environmentally? problems in relation to an aluminium impact and there are a number of factors which are currently being looked at Ms Charter: I would categorise the river as an upland by government in order to try and sort the situation out. river, basically, and an upland valley river mainly and, from an ecological point of view, you would classify it as Mr Rimington: Right. Any indications? oligotrophic - in other words, rather poor in nutrients, and hence it would naturally be rather acid and relatively Mr Ballard: The perception has always been that the impoverished compared to a lowland river, and obviously construction of the reservoir has, in essence, been the main the impoverishment has been exacerbated by the human source of the problem. Although the sort of investigation activities. However, there are some interesting and less 43 common species occurring in the river: there are records of each year, generally from the end of October into of lamprey in the river and we know that the Sulby is quite November and sometimes as late as Christmas, so we do important for Daubenton bats which feed on the have a fairly good annual idea of fish patterns based on invertebrates over it. There is relatively little aquatic that survey, and obviously any changes to the river that vegetation as you would expect in a river like this, and a occur in that time. lot of ecological interest revolves round what is around the margins and the trees along the edge. Mr Rimington: Do you take water samples on a regular basis? Mr Rimington: Right, and that is presumably in the lower section, would you say, from the Claddaghs down? Mr Ballard: My department personally does not. That side of things is left with the freshwater biologist from Ms Charter: I think that the trees are important all the DoLGE and be, as part of his biological sampling, also way up as far as Block Eary. You get more and more natural takes water quality samples. I have also carried out a certain tree vegetation, there are probably some native origin - amount of work with him on the reservoir. rowans, birchs, possibly aspen in some of the upper reaches. Mr Rimington: Do you have any comments on those samples? Mr Rimington: I think we should start focusing more on the issues of flooding or issues related to the flooding. Mr Ballard: Yes, generally the biological sampling has But just before that what about the fish population? endorsed- what we see as an observatory response from the river, and the water quality - yes, there is some definite Mr Ballard: Obviously in reference to the existing trend there which again endorses what I have said in terms problems which I have already mentioned, the Sulby River of the condition as regards the Sulby River. still, from the middle reaches down, has one of the best runs of migratory fish still in existence on the Island. Again, Mr Rimington: Before tackling the margins of the river there is work to be done to assess why that is happening. and importance to the environment, can we just concentrate The general-feeling is that obviously there are some very on the structure of the river as it stands at the moment. I high quality tributaries that are assisting that situation. In am really probably just looking at the middle to lower terms of the upper reaches from the reservoir down to those reaches and the issue of sediment in the river, the issues of middle reach cut-off points, the fish population has been canalisation, et cetera. If the river was to be regularly dramatically affected because of the existing problem, both dredged and excess gravel et cetera removed from that, indigenous existing brown trout population and migratory creating clearer channels through, especially in particular population, although migratory fish will run right the way sections, what ecological impact does that have? up to virtually below the reservoir. It would be a reasonable professional guess to say that any recruitment from any Mr Ballard: It is quite a wide-ranging question. The spawning that was to occur in the upper reaches would be general condition of Sulby River as regards gravel fall- severely impacted, but lower down obviously there is an out et cetera - obviously, because of the nature of Manx opportunity, because of the tributaries and the recovery rivers in general and the speed of run-off and because of that occurs, for populations to have some degree of success. the upland nature and the level of gravel et cetera that is in existence around the Island, there is a massive movement Mr Rimington: By 'migratory fish' you mean salmon? if you get any serious flooding of gravel down the river system, so that does present problems in maintaining those Mr Ballard: Salmon and sea trout, yes. and keeping any stretches clear, because as soon as that occurs then there is a movement from up stream and it is Mr Rimington: So their populations are predominantly quite prolific if you get a strong flood. up as far as the Claddaghs? In terms of what that would do to fisheries, obviously there are well documented works elsewhere which fisheries Mr Ballard: In respect of migratory fish runs and can work in conjunction with controlling water flows, and patterns, they will spread themselves from just below the that does not always mean canalisation because essentially reservoir right the way through the system and in the it actually speeds the water flow up and then exacerbates tributaries thereof, and there are considerable numbers that any gravel movement which may occur. I have only been we have documented over the last few years, so I would in the freshwater fisheries post for now nearly six years so -not say that they were specifically found in the lower I do not have knowledge what has gone on before that reaches; it is just that the success of the recruitment that time, but suffice to say that the current condition of the will occur from any population within the river will be in river does need a certain amount of sympathetic those reaches. management in relation to fisheries and that generally can be tied in with assisting it and in certain cases from gravel Mr Rimington: So presumably you have an ongoing fall out et cetera, but really and truly the impact would sampling regime? only be if it was to impinge over critical periods, obviously spawning et cetera if you have machinery et cetera Mr Ballard: Yes, we have an opportunity to electro- destroying the habitat where fish may be spawning and fish most of the main systems and we do that in the autumn juvenile areas where fish may be present. 44 Mr Rimington: Logic would dictate that if there was Act. There is no particular important species that nests in work taking place in the river, obviously taking place in these marginal trees although there is a good variety of the summer months when flows are generally reduced, how normal woodland birds that would use them. There is the does that relate to your critical periods and the impact? possibility that there may be hollow trees which could be Daubenton bat roosts, and that is always in the back of my Mr Ballard: Generally speaking, we in recent years mind since although we do see quite a lot of Daubenton have worked reasonably closely with DoT in trying to work bats we do not know of any maternity roosts so we do not together in terms of tying in any maintenance regimes that know where they are breeding, and it is a constant concern they have to do with the environmental side of things, and in my mind that we should ensure that if we find a hollow the general rule of thumb is to focus on periods where tree or if there are possibly trees with suitable crevices there is going to be the minimum impact, and yes, although and cavities inside them, not to destroy those because it it is not always possible because of the nature of the could be that has historically been there for a good length problem that you may be dealing with and- some have to of time and could be quite critical to the-population of bats take priority over others in relation to environmental factors on thatpart of the river. Apart from to ensure that anything et cetera, generally speaking we try to focus on it in amid is of significant standing - that kind of vegetation that has to late summer period-if there is going to be any major been there a while, and a very mature tree might play that upheaval. What that generally does is allow any juveniles role - I have no problem with routine removal of vegetation to have grown in sufficient size to be able to withstand along the banks because it replicates natural processes very any impact from suspended solids or sedimentation that often of parts of the banks becoming overgrown at one may occur or similarly move away from an area where time and' then removed by a flood or pulled away by there is any disturbance. In addition to that, if there is any undercutting. The tunnel created by the vegetation over fall-out or settlement further down in the reaches which the water is what creates the sheltered feeding area often may, in simple terms, suffocate the river, then the closer for the bats, and the invertebrates in the water and we are to the autumn, rains very rapidly then recover the invertebrates that drop off the trees are providing food for stream or the river as a result of any works that have been the trout and salmon too, so there is a connection between done and, generally speaking, Manx rivers have a very, what is happening in the water and whatis happening along very swift recovery rate for any impact that may have the banks, and the more mature and undisturbed the occurred to them from works or pollution et cetera. sediments or gravel banks, then the more rich they are likely to be as invertebrates' breeding areas where there will be Mr Rimington: Is a gravel bed within the river in itself may flies, caddis flies, alder flies, their larvae at the aquatic of any value? stage and they are the most likely to be in the least disturbed of these gravel banks. I have had a chance to look at areas Mr Ballard: Yes, it is. Generally what you will find is which have been regularly disturbed by, for example, bike that if you were to canalise a river, again that basically tyres going through an area of stream and those areas which speeds it up, so that all you would be doing is actually are constantly disturbed have very impoverished increasing the speed of the river and any gravel movement invertebrate numbers in them compared with just shortly would be moved further down to such a point as the river upstream where it is less disturbed. then slows down, and the general idea of things is to spread So when thinking about river maintenance, the removal that out over a river system so you dissipate the strength of gravels at different points will increase the amount of of a flood et cetera and also reduce the quantities of gravel firm disturbance of the invertebrate fauna to a certain that can move at any time. In terms of fisheries, yes, gravel extent; some of it would be natural and some of it would will obviously deposit on the inside of corners away from be adding to that, but it would not necessarily be a major where the main flow is in times of serious flow, obviously issue for providing food for salmonids. in the likes of corners et cetera, and generally you will get fall-out just slightly further down as the river slows down Mr Rimington: Have you any comments, in particular and its strength is taken out. What that does is then create on the levels of maintenance either that have started to a river pool and riffle system, which then generally starts take place or are taking place on the Sulby River? to create a habitat for juvenile and larger fish, which is a natural element, particularly in an upland river system. Ms Charter: In the three years that I have been here I have only been involved in discussions over the Sulby Mr Rimington: Right. Liz, can we explore the margins, River maintenance on one occasion. There have been the banks et cetera and the maintenance issues and bow complaints about the impact of river maintenance on you view the system? ecology in other parts of the Island but there has never really been a major issue about river maintenance there, Ms Charter: One of the biggest maintenance issues in possibly because of the rather low level of river my discussions with DoT and on the one occasion that I maintenance. I do not know how it would compare with have been out with them on the Sulby River has been the other areas, but apart from dealing with one or two specific whole question about overhanging trees, how much should points on that stretch upstream from Sulby I have no be cut and when and where, and we discussed things like knowledge of any kind of routine, but that is presumably not cutting at times when there might be birds nesting there because I am not involved very much in it; it may be that because the nesting birds are protected under the Wildlife these are questions for DoT. 45 Mr Rimington: Right, we will be doing that shortly. Mr Shimmin: Can I ask how many times that John, have you had much contact in terms of maintenance committee met in order to produce the report - an of the river? approximate figure? Mr Ballard: Yes, I have been fortunate enough to work Ms Charter: At least eight to ten, would you say by very closely with DoT officers who are in control of the this time last year? river maintenance that occurs Island-wide and we have tried to improve on that in recent years from a joint angle, Mr Ballard: I should say probably more than that, really, from the point of view that the discussions have probably ten or a dozen times. proven quite beneficial on many occasions, in that my being able to have a more fish-orientated view has assisted the Mr Shimrnin: And some of the findings of that - the DoT in being more sympathetic in what they do and it has recommendations lead to further investigation and work assisted them sometimes in achieving certain things in to be done, either one directly by DAFF, which is to lead terms of bank management et cetera, and we have both in conjunction with the others the introduction of river been able to work reasonably well together. I think we corridors for maintenance and environmental protection, were generally endorsing the fact that this needs to be an but also other lead departments to consult with Agriculture ongoing thing, and because river management is quite and Fisheries. Do either of you have any budgetary clearly not just a point of floodalleviation et cetera, it has provision within your department to do any of this work? to be tied in with environmental awareness and that cannot often work hand-in-hand to achieve the same aim in respect Ms Charter: Nothing specifically for that work, no. of flooding. Mr Shimmin: Other than doing this report, has there Mr Rimington: Have the environmental requirements been any increase in consultation taking place prior to this in relation to the Sulby River• had any detrimental- effect flood in '98? You referred, John, to the six years you have on the carrying capacity of the river? been here; has there been a noticeable increase in the amount of consultation since the '98 flood. Mr Ballard: Again, I can only really comment on my Mr Ballard: I think it would be misguided if I was to time here on the Island; so historically I. can only give you say that really we have just worked together over a period really what I have been able to observe in that time. I think of possibly, since my arrival six years ago.. . and obviously it would be fair to say that there is a difference between we have worked together fairly closely anyway as much river management that went on perhaps 20 years ago as to as has been possible with time constraints et cetera what is in existence now, and that has been an evolving resources. I would not say there has been any more than situation tied in with the restraints in terms of finance, that because we were already in consultation fairly resources, et cetera the DoT have faced and there obviously regularly prior to the 1998 flood. has to be some sort of priority given to their function in terms of whether it is contributing to flooding. There are Mr Shimmin: And if1 can take you to the hydro-electric things that would benefit from a more regular maintenance power station, the amount of water being put through there regime in reference to one-off serious floods of the nature - does that have any beneficial or detrimental effect on the we are talking about I am not so certain, obviously, with river system, that you have a large quantity of water quite my knowledge of other rivers, particularly the Cornaa regularly being put through the same position on the river? which we were able to gauge parallel to Sulby particularly over the event of two years ago. Mr Ballard: From a fisheries point of view, yes, there are various points that the hydro-electric scheme could Mr Shimmin: Thank you very much. Can I take you assist and also so may some impact From an impact point on to the two reports that have been commissioned, the of view, there are periods when the compensatory flow '98 report by DoT and then the subsequent one which has that is in existence at Sulby reservoir could be increased just been released in January? Were you both involved in over low flow periods, particularly the summer, but because the '98 original report? of the existing arrangements that is not possible because the MEA is licensed for the top section of the reservoir, Ms Charter: Not the '98 report, no; the most recent and there has got to be some work done, in terms of the one. impact, as to where the hydro-electric water is actually taken from in terms of temperature, pH, et cetera and Mr Ballard: I was mainly involved in the recent one. whether that will, in the volumes that we are talking about, have any acute impact, because obviously it is over a short Mr Shimmin: So on that recent one you are two of the period of time. In essence, it can shock the system by being members of the joint working group between the three switched on rapidly. I am not saying that is the case, but it departments. Is that right? certainly does need to be looked into. Ms Charter: Yes. Mr Shimmin: Is there any consultation between yourselves and the MEA regarding the utilisation of the Mr Ballard: Yes. plant? 46 Mr Ballard: Generally speaking, the arrangement is particularly with regard to Sulby, and what the various with the Water Authority and because of recent times and stages might be from now forwards? the approach given to fisheries, there will be a certain amount of scientific work needed doing with that. So I Ms Charter: I have not would presume that we need some impetus or policy to make that happen. Mr Ballard: I think, from the point of view of the report, we saw it as a point of view, not the mechanics of it, but Mr Shimmin: With regard to the responsibility of the we were there to make the recommendation as to what the river banks, how can you delineate the responsibility? Is best way forward would be. So, no, there has not been any that something which you have a responsibility for, or just regime set out in order to achieve that. work in conjunction with the DoT? Mr Shimmin: Okay. Thank you. Ms Charter: I do not have a responsibility for any particular areas other than to conserve habitats and Mr Waft: How would you respond to the comment that conserve species of particular importance on the Island. has been made that 'It is common knowledge that dredge work has not been done for the last two decades, debris Mr Shimmin: Is there any budgetary provision within has not been cleared and the banks have been allowed to your area to carry that out? overgrow to an extent that the river flow was restricted. Minimal work has been undertaken since 1998, but we Ms Charter: The budgetary provision is for putting the understand that the Department of Agriculture and wildlife back in to operation and that includes, in section Fisheries has imposed restrictions on environmental 26, a duty on other departments to have regard to the grounds.' How do you see your role there? environment; therefore it is part of my job to work with these other bodies, other government departments to ensure Ms Charter: I would not express it in terms of imposing that everybody is aware of the ecological impact of the restrictions, but all that we have done is advise caution in things that they are doing. Normally it is-part of my routine going and making drastic changes and wish to be involved work. in order to be able to advise on minimal damage to the environment. Mr Shimmin: So it would be fair to say that your role within DAFF is to try and encourage other departments to Mr Waft: Have you found yourself making that sort of carry out good practice rather than having any financial comment very regularly? How many times have you met ability to take action as you saw may benefit? the department over the last two years? Ms Charter: Yes. Ms Charter: Well, we have been meeting, obviously, in this working group, and I have been involved in on-site Mr Ballard: I would say that would be the main theme, meeting since the flooding. although under the Inland Freshwater Fisheries Act, for example, there are various sections which deal with the Mr Waft: As a general overview from the Department impact to water courses that may arise from pollution or of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, what is your general river works or whatever. Again, I think it would be fair to view on the maintenance of the river in that area? say that from a Department of Transport angle, their priorities have always existed on a land drainage issue, as Mr Ballard: Can I just go back to the previous point, opposed to the environmental side of things, and that is sir? Generally speaking, Liz has obviously only recently why that needs to be certainly, I would think, a been over and has been setting up the wild life section, so recommendation from any report in the future to work more I have really, from the department's point of view, taken a closely together. We do have legislation by which we could lead role in consulting with DoT. It would be fair to say take action. The existing problem is that obviously there that DoT do phone up on the advent of any works and we has not historically been a level of scientific data available do consult before any works go on, so I am regularly from the point of view of red counting, population samples consulted before any works go ahead. et cetera to be able to assess what impact if anything river In terms of the current state of the river, again I can works are having. So therefore it makes it very difficult to only use the last six years since I have been here, so I do use the legislation that we have in place. In terms of not have historical evidence of what went on. There is budgetary provision for that, no, from an inland freshwater evidence of, in general, large degree of maintenance that fisheries department side, we do not have provision for it would be required on many of the river systems, which at the current time. would require an awful amount of money and time, and that has historically evolved over a period of years and Mr Shimmin: One final one to both of you, if I can. that can be from fish-pass maintenance, rear maintenance, On the recommendation where you had introduced river river bank maintenance et cetera, and as far as I am aware, corridors for maintenance and environmental protection, there is only a limited resource given to the DoT in order have you got a plan in mind as to how that will actually be to achieve this. Again, because in recent times there has advanced with the timescale and the area of work, not been the ongoing regular maintenance that would be 47 necessary, it obviously compounds itself over a period of Mr Shimmin: Just one final one: do you monitor the time to such an extent that the amount of finance that would potential for floods in your circumstances when you are be needed to essentially get it to a level where it could be looking at the weather particularly in the times of autumn on-running would be quite colossal. and winter, when there has been heavy rainfall and therefore the ground is saturated? Do you take any Mr Waft: So you would agree that perhaps there is not precautions with regard to the fisheries process? The reason enough financial resources by the Department of Transport for the question is that the residents who have experienced to provide the maintenance which you would see necessary these floods now on two occasions are constantly, in poor to alleviate any further flooding? weather, looking towards the sky; they are seeing an amount of rainfall that has fallen in a short period of time Mr Ballard: In reference to flooding, my general and they are aware that reservoir may have filled, and comment would be in reference to the condition of the therefore they are now increasingly concerned about the river Flooding is an issue that is part of that. In reference impact of any further rain. Therefore, when those to the incident itself - if that is the direction you are wanting circumstances are prevalent, do you as fisheries officer to go? - such was the nature of the incident, again from the have to take any contingency plans with regard to your Cornaa river and the way that responded, I think even if responsibilities for the fisheries? the river had been well-maintained you would have had bottlenecks and relief areas, which are obviously known Mr Ballard: Obviously the management of the two as flood plains et cetera, and that would have still occurred, hatcheries that I have as part of the department function, such was the level of the rainfall we had at that time. In then yes, we do have to take several contingency measures reference to the Comaa river, we have documented rainfall from the point of debris and• flooding that may occur. In for the last 25 years and we also have the heaviest flood terms of direct relations to the rivers, there is very little that we have ever had. in history, which was, I think, in that you, can do in a flooding situation to control it. We 1981 and the 1998 flood actually superseded- that, so it keep &very close eye and try and liaise with DoT if there was the biggest flood that we have bad to date on the is any problem that occurs as a result of fallen trees et Comas river in the last 25 years. So I think, in reference to cetera that we notice, or on the odd occasion when we see a one-off exacerbated event, even if the river had been that a weir has been affected or severely eroded et cetera, maintained in whatever form, you would have had some but in general during that period of time it is very difficult level of flooding. to actually actively do anything. But from protection of Mr Waft: So the work of the DoT, I take it, has not hatcheries, yes, there are things that we do. been restricted by the input from your department in any shape or form? Mr Shimmin: If there were to be similar weather conditions as we have experienced now on a couple of Mr Ballard: No. occasions whereby the Island was saturated, is there any policy that Agriculture and Fisheries would actually go Mr Waft: Thank you, Mr Chairman. along susceptible river courses such as Sulby to actually see if there were any blockages anywhere within that Mr Rimington: Just one last question - a bit of a system? hypothesis: would you say that if there was a greater steady state operation from the MEA, although largely it is Mr Ballard: There is no formal set-up for us to do that reasonably a steady state operation - they do not switch on as obviously our responsibility does not lie in that area, and off as far as we can understand, but in terms of the but we try and assist as best we can. volumes of water, if there was a more steady state operation from there in terms of the volume of water coming through Mr Shimmin: The reason for asking is that obviously the hydro-electric power station, do you think that would one of the contributory factors, it has been alleged, to the be beneficial? '98 flood was the amount of debris which was blocking the Sulby Bridge, and therefore, if it was anticipated in Mr Ballard: Purely from a fisheries angle, sir? There advance that there were fallen trees or anything which are certain things that could be done which would might contribute to a blockage, there were two days of obviously assist fisheries, and that contains a whole raft reasonable weather beforehand whilst the ground was of things really so it would be very difficult to cover them saturated, but then, because no action was taken, all of the -all, but, yes, you can do certain things with, for instance, debris was washed down and apparently blocked the Sulby any additional water. That can be from the point of view River, that there is no mechanism is what I am trying to of flushing a river system out, it can be from the point of ensure, and that at the moment there is no mechanism to view of assisting compensation flow during the summer actually monitor the amount of debris which might exist periods, it can from the point of view of managing the within a river course. hydro, or any additional water that goes into the river to, in effect, stimulate an artificial run of fish in the event of a Mr Ballard: From a DAFF point of view, no, we do lack of rainfall at critical times. So there are things that not have a responsibility for that. can be done, but they need a certain amount of thought and management so that they can be tied in together. Mr Shimmen: Thank you. 48 Mr Rimington: Thank you very much. You are Mr Quaggin: Up to 1988, when we had a review of released! Thank you for your time. the department, there were operating divisions. One of those divisions was called the rivers and bridges division' and they operated out of Close Leece. They were allocated Evidence of Mr C Quaggin a budget which they had control of how they spend it within department guidelines. We also had two separate highways Mr Rimington: Mr Quaggin, good morning and division who were allocated budgets as well. But inside welcome. Could I just ask, for the record, if you could the rivers and bridges division, some of the work was rivers, describe your title and also your position within the purely rivers maintenance, and other parts of the rivers department, the responsibilities that you have and the was structures which could be bridge structures, retaining resources, manpower et cetera that are available to you - walls, or any other structure that needed designing or in the whole and also in relation to river maintenance? building inside the department's requirements. It could be highways or any other areas. Prior to that - that was set-up Mr Quaggin: My title is network operations manager in 1981, I think- the land drainage was within the highways for the highways and traffic division of the department. division; prior to somewhere about 1968, there was a Inside that I also act as the effectively the land drainage separate land drainage division operating out of Close engineer for the drainage division, as an agent, an internal Leece, and that had been there for quite a considerable agency agreement, direct resources, manpower. I have eight time. staff whose primary role is on highway maintenance, one of which acts as the rivers superintendent engineer as and Mr Rimington: So the the separate organisation for when he has the time. It is part of his role; it probably rivers and bridges ceased, was it, in 1991? takes about 10 per cent of his time. Direct manual workers - I do not employ anybody, or have control over anybody; Mr Quaggin: In 1988. they come under the works division, and any work that is required for ordering will be ordered through works, and Mr Rimington: So they had their own dedicated their works division staff will carry that work out. budget, superintendent and workforce. Mr Rimington: Is there an internal budgetary Mr Quaggin: Yes. mechanism in that? Mr Rimington: Do you know what sort of workforce Mr Quaggin: Highways client and the drainage client they had? have the whole budget; works have no budget and then works charge us for the work that they carry out. Mr Quaggin: Approximately 30 manual labourers. That included machine operators, wagon drivers, labourers, steel Mr Rimington: Do you have a specific budget for river fixers, things like that. maintenance? Mr Rimington: In the new set-up, then, if I am right, Mr Quaggin: Yes, it was about £180,000 this year, the superintendent role is roughly 10 per cent of another maybe more. person's responsibilities. Mr Rimington: Do you know how that compares Mr Quaggin: Yes. historically? Mr Rimington: And any workforce is there amongst Mr Quaggin: I think it has kept up with the inflation the general works division. rate over the last few years. Mr Quaggin: Yes. Mr Rimington: You do not know of any time, say 10 Mr Rimington: So are there any teams or workforce years back or 15 years back, where it was, relatively which are specialists or if, not even specialists, at least speaking, higher or lower? reasonably skilled and used to working in and with rivers? Mr Quaggin: Not in the recent past with the structure Mr Quaggin: There is one gang which is based in the we have got. In previous set-ups and systems, if you look north of the Island and which has, for work efficiency at their finances you could probably say they had more reasons, historically reasons, been largely kept on river money but the total structure of the organisation then was maintenance all their time, except maybe when the different and the money would be going into different conditions on the ground are too onerous. Then they will directions, so it is difficult to ascertain how much money be transferred back on to the highway maintenance. But we had had in previous years and previous set-ups. historically the gang has developed an expertise in land drainage maintenance. Mr Rimington: Can you explain briefly what those previous structures were? Mr Rbnington: One gang would be how many people? 49 Mr Quaggin: There are about six men in a gang. Mr Rimington: What would be the force to require such action? Would it be something that you would Mr Rimington: And machinery that they would have determine yourself or would it be something that would available to them? be a requirement from elsewhere? Mr Quaggin: They would have the basic machinery Mr Quaggin: If complaints came in that the gravel bank but large equipment like diggers, excavators, wagons. They was causing an obstruction, we would look at it and would have one wagon with them, obviously, but anything determine whether that needed taking out or not in our else would be brought in from other areas of the works view. If during the routine inspections from our works division or hired in as needed. division that was highlighted again, we would look at it and see whether it needed taking out or not. Mr Rimington: Right_ Referring back specifically to the Sulby River, could you outline what concrete measures Mr Rimington: Can you tell me what level of routine - I am not talking about reports but actually work on the inspections take place on the rivers, and obviously the ground - have actually taken place since 1998? Sulby River in particular? Mr Quaggin: Since '98 we have carried some river Mr Quaggin: We have a working arrangement with bank maintenance on the south side of Sulby Bridge our works division where, after they have every storm they Upstream of Sulby Bridge, which was basically retaining will employ the gangs they have to do inspections of works: stobs and wire mesh behind. We have carried out bridges, weirs and other problem areas, and they provide trimming work, cutting back trees and some gravel removal us with a monthly report to the client on what they have work, I think, both upstream and downstream. found and any work they have had to carry out to remove any obstructions or problems. Mr Rimington: I think everybody is aware of the gravel removal work that has taken place recently, but we will return to that in a second. Has there been other gravel Mr Rimington: Do you have any knowledge in relation removal work over the last couple of years? to the Sulby River of such inspections? Mr Quaggin: Yes, we have had. . . as and when we Mr Quaggin: Not off the top of my head, but I will find or locate or identify or receive complaints about major have the sheets in the office if anybody wants to have a gravel banks we will remove or endeavour to remove them. look at them. About five years ago we removed a major gravel bank from the Whitebridge area just west of Ramsey which was Mr Rimington: Okay. The gravel that was removed causing a reasonable constriction of the flow in that area. recently from the bank just downstream of the bridge and About three years ago we took a gravel bank out of an obviously had got in underneath one of the spans of the area just above the Claddagh bridge. On the first one at bridge - what sort of quantity was taken out? Whitebridge we did actually receive complaints afterwards from conservationists about what we had carried out Mr Quaggin: It was estimated to be about 500 tons. because we had supposedly destroyed a well-known feeding ground for swallows, but in our view the Mr Rimington: Do you have any comment on actually constriction on the river was sufficient to warrant doing the nature of the material that was taken out - i.e., was it that. You have to make a judgement. all well worn, river-worn material, fully rounded or was it angular? Mr Rimington: Have you done any work in terms of gravel banks et cetera in the Sulby River upstream of the Mr Quaggin: None first-hand. Reports back were that bridge in the last two years? there was a layer of very coarse gravel on the bank and below that there was a fair amount of very fine silt. As to Mr Quaggin: Where we did the bank repair works or whether it was well rounded or angular, I would not like renewal works, we took out some gravel from there as to say. well. Mr Rimington: But how do you determine the Mr Rimington: Was that just upstream of the. . .? maintenance priorities between the main rivers and. . .? Do you have sufficient resources or cash to undertake that Mr Quaggin: Just upstream of the bridge. maintenance? Mr Rimington: Have you done anything, say, further Mr Quaggin: We have a sum of money which we use up beyond the Kella footbridge? taking our experience and judgement into account. You can always use more money, you can always use more Mr Quaggin: We did some bank repairs and took a staff. It depends on the levels of maintenance you are tree out on the Sulby Claddagh just after the flooding expecting. Inside the budget we have got at the moment incident, but more than that we have not done, as far as I we tend to be re-active on the larger rivers because know, much gravel bank removing there. generally they can cope with the flows that we get. In the 50 northern plains where we do have a large length of main Mr Quaggin: It is about what we can afford at the rivers which are very small, at times down to about three moment. to four foot wide, we have had an on-going programme of being proactive there to keep those ditches clean largely Mr Rimington: What do you mean by 'we'? as a response from complaints from the farming community that if we do not keep them clean a large expanse of farming Mr Quaggin: The department has requirements on it land in the northern plain tends to be too waterlogged for to do numerous things and river works is one of them. We use. We have - not exactly worked with the NFU on that, could probably spend more time and more money on river but the NFU do know what we have been doing. We have works, but equally we could spend more time and money spoken to them and written to them a couple of times. a highway works and the individual bits have to fit into the whole block If we went on to moorland drainage works, Mr Rimington: But if you have budgets of £180,000 more money, then other sections of the department will what does that actually give you in terms of manpower suffer because money would be taken off them unless and is that just for manpower or does that include additonal funds were made available. machinery as well? Mr Rimington: Right. Would you agree with the Mr Quaggin: That includes everything: manpower, hypothesis that the river maintenance/flood defence - machinery, plant, equipment, materials. rolling the two together as they seem to be related - is less now than it was prior to 1988? Mr Rimington: So, broadly speaking, how many people would that employ on a yearly basis? Mr Quaggin: Yes. Mr Quaggin: It is very difficult to say. It varies from Mr Rimington: Considerably? year to year. About four years ago we did a major weir repair down on the Silverburn. That would be very Mr Quaggin: Noticeably. material-intensive, so for the rest of the year the amount of money available for routine maintenance in other places Mr Rimington: Noticeably? Right, thank you. I shall would have been reduced. So it depends on what we have allow the others in in a second! We know - I think that on at the time. If we are doing routine bank repair work, everyone is well aware - that the Sulby River has quite a then the labour would be a fair proportion of the amount large amount of silts and debris in it and slate et cetera in of money we had, so we would probably keep the six men the bed of the channel. Do you have any ideas of where going for most of the year. this has come from and how it has accumulated and why it Mr Rimington: Right So if there were a particular has been allowed to accumulate? works needing to be undertaken, the Sulby River or any other river, something quite intensive, how will you be Mr Quaggin: Any river like we have here is a mountain able to tackle that financially? stream with steep falls. Any river like that will be bringing gravel and silt down as it comes down as it wears its channel Mr Quaggin: If it is a major item like that we would in any of the hills. We know there are large deposits of normally be given advance notice anyway because of its quarry tailings up on the Block Eary, but I think if you go condition and we could hopefully set aside an amount for further upstream, up on Sulby as well, I think you will that; I think that is what we did with the Silverburn wier. find the river bed there is boulders and gravel. It is a natural We knew we had that in the programme a year or two process. River banks, or the bed, have probably seen a years in advance. Occasionally you will get an emergency, build-up of gravel over the Iast twenty years where I think something collapses or something like that. If it is when I took over it was generally accepted the amount of considered important enough we will carry out the repairs gravel getting washed down had been significantly reduced and if our budget allocation for that maintenance goes over by the building of the Sulby Dam. what is exceeded, then we would be probably putting in at the end of the year for additional funds from Tynwald under Mr Rimington: Right. The 10 per cent of one of your emergency measures. superintendants - is that gentleman qualified in any respect or trained or experienced? Mr Rimington: So if you have a notifiable or planned need, then you can apply over and above your budget of Mr Quaggin: He is well experienced in land drainage £180,000? works, having worked both over here and in England on maintenance works. Mr Quaggin: We can try. Whether we get the money or not is another matter. That is down to Treasury and Mr Rimington: Right, there is land drainage and also Tynwald. river maintenance as well - is he experienced in river systems? Mr Rimington: I mean, do you think that the current organisational arrangements give enough emphasis or Mr Quaggin: Yes, but he is not technically qualified priority to maintenance and flood defence? for carrying out calculations on hydrology and things like 51 that, but he is well experienced on the ground and Mr Shimmin: And has that been replaced again? maintenance practices. Mr Quaggin: Not at the moment, but it is in for Mr Rimington: Is there is anybody in the DoT who is replacement at the moment. qualified in that respect? Mr Shimmin: And what arrangements would the Mr Quaggin: Some of us in drainage do have some depat talent do, having lost it twice in a couple of years, to experience but we are not working on it full time, so I ensure that it is not third time lucky? would say we are probably a bit rusty. Mr Quaggin: We are raising the level of the bridge by Mr Rimington: Right. John? about two feet to increase the clearway underneath. Mr Shimmin: Thank you. On the gravel extraction and Mr Shimmin: And the reason for two feet. - has that the works that were done after the 1998 flood south of the been professionally evaluated as being appropriate? Sulby Bridge, would they have been planned anyway or is that just a direct response to the incident? Mr Quaggin: It has been evaluated compared to the waterpipe crossing which is upstream of that bridge and Mr Quaggin: They were being planned anyway. It which seems to have survived the two floods that we have depends on whether the gravel we were taking out had had. come down with the flood or had been there before, but it was just part of the routine process. Mr Shimmin: There is also another bridge across there belonging to a private landowner. Mr Shimmin: So with the plans, have you anything planned for the next 12 months on this section of the river? Mr Quaggin: Yes. Mr Quaggin: Yes. Mr Shimmin: Do you have any involvement in that bridge? Mr Shimmin: And when you are budgeting for that, have you put in for an extra bid for works in this area or has any extra bid been put in this year for river Mr Quaggin: We do not maintain it or look after it, but maintenance? we have authorised that bridge in the past because any structure over a river has to have the land drainage Mr Quaggin: As far as I was concerned, a bid was put authority's approval. in for extra money for river works, not necessarily in the Sulby area. Mr Shimmin: And was that lost on both occasions? Mr Shimmin: But to accommodate for extra work in Mr Quaggin: Yes. one area to allow possibly continuation of other work. So can you outline what the plans are between now and next Mr Shimmin: Were there to be a request for a winter, what the department would do this stretch of river? replacement of that, would the department approve it? Mr Quaggin: Not off the top of my head. We know we Mr Quaggin: We would approve it subject to its level have a works orders in place at the moment for trimming being increased and certain works being carried out on downside of Sulby Bridge but that was about to start when one of the abutments. the last flood happened and we have some gravel extraction but at the moment I cannot exactly tell you which spot. Mr Shimmin: The concern raised regarding the debris that flooded down, which would include the two bridges Mr Shimmin: Do you have a bridge over the Sulby we have referred to - is there any responsibility on the River which was taken down in the 1998 flood? DoT to actually check in periods of poor weather for debris which may have fallen into the river and become a blockage Mr Quaggin: Yes. further down? Mr Shimmin: That was then rebuilt and was that Mr Quaggin: Currently the Act has no responsibility; affected in the 2000 flood? it would be treated as just a matter of ongoing maintenance requirements and good practice. Mr Quaggin: Yes. Mr Shimmin: And I think the concern is that we have Mr Shimmin: What is the purpose of that bridge? now evidence of two circumstances where weather conditions have indicated a potential for flood and we have Mr Quaggin: It is a bridge on a public right of way now experience of the debris and the two bridges involved which goes from the Sulby Glen through to Sulby which may have contributed to that. Have you in place Claddagh. any mechanism which will actually deal with things 52 differently this autumn should there be a similar sort of you aware as to who has been put in to replace the two conditions? members who are mentioned as DoT representatives on this committee? Mr Quaggin: It is difficult to say what you can put in place. We have men who are always on standby. If the Mr Quaggin: No. works division receive storm warnings, flood warnings, they will normally activate those standby procedures, but Mr Shimmin: On the information gathering for the '99 it is highly difficult to know exactly where your problems report - are going to arise. As far as I know on the storm warnings we had for the 1998 flooding incident, they really did not Mr Quaggin: Shall I correct that? I presume that Mr indicate the sort of rainfall and the location where it was Garton was the drainage director. So Mr Garton's going to happen. replacement would probably be back on the committee, whoever that is. Mr Shimmin: In your time, have there been floods of an equivalent severity affecting private properties in the Mr Shimmin: Is that position in post yet? time you have been with the department similar to Sulby? Mr Quaggin: Yes. Mr Quaggin: Yes, 1981 or 1982, where we had major incidents, which were all-Island wide again, but the major Mr Shimmin: And then Mr Bell - problems then are always down in the Silverburn area and B allasalla. Mr Quaggin: Mr Bell's replacement will again be in place. I think his replacement did actually in the end issue Mr Sbimmin: Hence the work on the weir which was the report, or correct it. carried out -? Mr Shimmin: In the '99 report concerning the '98 issue Mr Quaggin: No, the weir work was required because there was reference that some of the flood water was the inspection of the weir indicated that the weir had been coming down the Narradale Road. undermined and was in danger of collapsing. That work was done about 1993/1994. After the '82 flood a lot of Mr Quaggin: Yes. work was carried out in the area of the Silverburn, by Silverbum estate, which is downside of Rushen Abbey. Mr Shimmin: Have you any comments on that? Mr Shimmin: Would you agree that with limited Mr Quaggin: From the information gathered, that is finances you have to prioritise where those finances are correct. I would have probably said it is not only the put and the DoT would look somewhat culpable if there Narradale Road but the adjacent field next to it, because was a repetition of the same sort of incident within the you are starting to climb up the escarpment there of the next year or two? Are you taking any direct steps to protect northern hills. Any waters landing on the ground there have the river system from going through this sort of event only one way to go and that is downhill, down to Sulby. again? Mr Shimmin: But the report implies that that was a Mr Quaggin: We have nothing in place at the moment. significant contribution to the flood, whereas all the We have produced the latest report, which indicates certain information we have received from the residents in that actions that are advised to be taken. Once those have been area dispute that fact. Can I ask where you got your agreed then we will presumably put them in place. information from? Mr Shimmin: Have you had any contribution yourself Mr Quaggin: Talking to people in the area. I cannot to either of the two reports - the formal one for '98 and remember offhand which person particularly would say then the second one you have just commented about that, but that is information we had, that while a lot of published in September '99 concerning the '98 flood and water, particularly the flooding at the entrance to Carrick then the updated report in January this year - have you had Park and the two houses at the entrance to Carrick Park - any contribution to those reports? the indications we had that they were flooded by the water coming from Narradale rather than from off the Sulby Mr Quaggin: I acted as information gathering source River. for the '98 flood report. I spent a lot of time on the ground talking to people, getting information back as to precisely Mr Shimmin: Would you consider that there has been what had happened. On the later report, other than attending a substantial see change within the Department of one meeting to discuss the meaning of the river corridor, Transport's concern about river corridors and river have had no input into that. maintenance since the '98 flood? Mr Shimmin: Can you tell me how the department.. . Mr Quaggin: It depends what you mean by sea change. We have got the Chief Executive in this afternoon, but are The two reports of the working parties have looked at what 53 was meant by corridors, how we can maintain them, Mr Waft: Could I just take you back to the actual events improve them, obtain them. Sorry, yes, there is surrounding the Sulby Bridge and the knocking down of consideration ongoing now in the reports of the working the wall? What part did you play in the whole situation at parties on those points. the time? Mr Shimmin: But until this final report has been now Mr Quaggin: None. put forward and is accepted, no provisions have actually yet been made available to the department to carry out Mr Waft: None? these things for this next year. Budgetary and staff, and I refer to 'the fulltime post of land drainage engineer be Mr Quaggin: No. If you are talking about me progressed as a matter of urgency by the DoT' - there will individually, I had no part to play in that. be no action taken on that until this report is accepted? Mr Waft: Right. Mr Quaggin: I would prefer the chief executive to answer that, I think. In that regard I gather there is a staff Mr Quaggin: But the department did. recruitment embargo in place by government. Mr Waft: Could you explain what the department did? Mr Shimmin: Okay. That is it for now. Thank you. Mr Quaggin: As far as I can gather from the evidence Mr Waft: Can I just go back to that Narradale Road? produced by the workmen, they saw that the area by the There seems to be a conflict of opinion, because the entrance to Carrick Park was flooded. There was no outfall opinions that we have heard up to now from residents of particularly, other than going through Carrick Park and the area said that there was coming down the Narradale down the lane to Sulby Farm other than knocking the wall Road. Have you had evidence before that that has happened down, so the foreman on site, or the wagon driver on site, previously? obtained permission from his works control to knock part of the wall down to relieve the pressure on the roadway. Mr Quaggin: It has been known over years that when From what I gather then some of the residents in Carrick it rains, you can get run-off from the Narradale Road and Park saw him doing that and thought that they would assist the field adjacent There are bridges on the Narradale Road, him in knocking the wall down, so he carried on knocking and if they ever get blocked by debris, then the water will further bits of wall down. just go onto the road and come down and straight across past the Ginger Hall. Mr Waft: And that would have had an effect further on down, I presume? Mr Waft: Were there any ditches blocked at that time? Mr Quaggin: That, as far as we know, then flooded Mr Qnaggin: That I do not know. I would presume so. the field downside of Sulby Bridge and flooded out straw One of the difficulties we had in going round obtaining bales being stored in the field for which we received an evidence was that you would talk to somebody, they would insurance claim later on, so it had an effect on agricultural give one you one view of what happened; we would talk property downside. to somebody else and their views would be slightly different, so obviously in the panic that was going on at Mr Waft: That area was rebuilt prior to the first flood, the time, people were forming different views of what wasn't it, and then it was still found there was not enough happened. freeway for the water to get through? Mr Waft: Does the department have any views on the Mr Quaggin: It was rebuilt after the first flood and we metrology for notifying residents when there is going to deliberatley left fairly large holes in the bottom of the wall be a flood in any particular place, or is it just that you to take any water pressure off and, by the sound of it, on receive phone calls and you attend as and when needs be? the second flood they did not work, so obviously we got them wrong, but where we had the problem there is we were forcing water onto somebody's private property. Mr Quaggin: It is very difficult to respond to a meteorological forecast other than the likes of snow and Mr Waft: Some have referred to a surge of water frost, but when you are talking about rain, you are talking coming down the river at one particular time. Would you about 'is it going to happen in the north of the Island, south have any comment on that as to how that could arise at of the Island?' so you cannot really respond to that other one particular time? than putting gangs on standby waiting for calls to happen, because quite often you will get a warning and, because of Mr Quaggin: Again, from the evidence we had some the nature of events, nothing will happen on the ground. people talked about a wall of water coming down, others a Other times you can have a situation where the warning is surge, others said it rose fairly quickly over half an hour not that bad, but with a peculiar event, something will or so, so it is difficult to know exactly what happened. If it happen. was a wall of water, then you are relating to something 54 probably upstream blocking and then being released for Mr Quaggin: No, with John Ballard at DAFF. some reason, but exactly what that would be really is only conjecture. Mr Waft: Sorry, DAFF. Mr Waft: You referred earlier to the Rivers and Bridges Mr Quaggin: Yes. Committee. You were probably in the department at that time. Do you think that the resulting absorbing into the Mr Waft: Right, thank you, Mr Chairman. situation they have now has depleted the work that was done at that time as opposed to now, or is it improved? Mr Shimmin: I just have two questions for Mr Quaggin: were your teams on standby, do you know, in Mr Quaggin: I would not like to say it has depleted the '98 or 2000? It has been put to us that the first people who work, but it has totally altered the way things happen. I were actually on the scene to assist were the Civil Defence, think, as a consequence, the staff levels available were a group of volunteers, rather than paid employees who reduced so there is probably a reduction in standards, I might have been on standby. would say. Mr Quaggin: I would not know. Mr Waft: It is just the availability of 30 men in the past and now you are down to eight, I think it was. Mr Shimmin: Okay, with regard to the wall that was rebuilt after the '98 flood and then, I believe, was knocked Mr Quaggin: It is eight specifically, but they can call down again at the 2000 flood, have you or do you intend on any of the other workforce of 250 men for any of the to rebuild that? works that are needed. Mr Quaggin: We do intend to replace it, not necessarily Mr Waft: Can I just ask about your budget off 180,000? rebuild it, it may be going back in as a set of railings rather Does that include purchase of vehicles, maintenance and than as a wall. write-offs? Mr Shimmin: That was going to be my next point, Mr Quaggin: No. It includes the vehicle maintenance because your obligation would be to ensure car road safety, charges; or basically what we do is an hourly hire rate for I assume. a vehicle which includes all the maintenance and the driver's time. The way that government works, we do not Mr Quaggin: Yes. do write-offs on vehicles. So it is not purchase of plant; it is only purchase of materials. Mr Shimmin: The fact that it was an open fence and water went down would then have no liability for any Mr Waft: Materials? flooding of a farmer's property? Mr Quaggin: Yes. Mr Quaggin: I think the farmer may have a different view on that. Mr Waft: Salaries? Mr Shimmin: Did the department have any Mr Quaggin: And salaries. involvement with any other insurance claims from the various other people who are affected? Mr Waft: The maintenance has often been referred to of particularly the Sulby River. Would you say that recently Mr Quaggin: I do not deal with insurance claims. I it has been more firefighting than actual maintenance or know insurance claims have been received but I have not were you happy previously that the maintenance was dealt with them. sufficient? Mr Shimmin: Thank you. Mr Quaggin: It probably tended to be more firefighting, reactive rather than proactive, but we have been working Mr Waft: Do you keep a regular book or a log book of with DAFF, as John Ballard said before, in reviewing the the maintenance of the rivers? style of work we do there as well. I think in the past we used to go to total removal of major trees on the river banks Mr Quaggin: Not as such, not an identifiable book of for a strip back. Lately, with environmental considerations the men who worked here this week, next week or last in place, fish and whatever else, we have tended to go for week We do have work sheets which come through from a vertical trim rather than total removal and we have tried works division and which indicate where all the men in to do the vertical trims one side one year, the other side the works division have been working for highways, and the next year, so you do not decimate an area at one go. any works on rivers will be included on that. Mr Waft: So you would get in contact with DoLGE Mr Rfinington: Right, just one last question. The Sulby prior to any work being done? Bridge - there was mention, actually, in the newspaper - 55 that is my only source of information on it! - that there Transport, I deliberately framed the memorandum in was a crack; is that a small or a large one or do we have general terms. It was my hope that it would give some sort any knowledge of that crack that was inspected? of guide, to the department and others reading the memorandum, of the general principles which are Mr Quaggin: It was reported to us about two months applicable when persons allege that they suffer loss or ago that there was a crack on the bridge, the bridge was damage as a result of flooding, and therefore without in suspect and was in danger. The same day we had the bridge any way wishing to dodge questions or to be evasive I inspected by our structural section and their report was think I have got to make that position clear and I do not that there was no crack as such; there may have been a want to depart from it. So I am more than happy, if I may, crack on the wall but the bridge itself was sound and safe to address the questions in a general way without referring and there was no danger to the bridge. to the law. Mr Rimington: Right. Would it be possible for you to Mr Rimington: it is not your position to comment on supply to the committee some sort of documentary the detail - evidence relating to the works that have taken place in the Sulby River over the last two years? The Attorney-General: No. Mr Quaggin: Yes. Mr Rimington: - of the events at Sulby or any area of responsibility could be the events or whatever anywhere Mr Rimington: That would obviously be useful for in the Island. our deliberations in the future and I think that is the end of your contribution. Thank you very much. The Attorney-General: Yes, so with that caveat in mind would it be helpful if I just were to go through and review the memorandum again and explain the sort of remedies Evidence of HM Attorney-General which are available to someone who alleges that they have suffered loss and damage as a result of flooding? Mr Rimington: Right, welcome, Mr John Corlett, QC, our learned Attorney-General. [think we all appreciate your Mr Rimington: Yes. value in the workings of government and your knowledge of law, and I appreciate your giving your time to the The Attorney-General: If that would be helpful I am committee. Obviously in the next three-quarters of an hour more than happy to do that. In fact, there has been quite an we will be discussing the aspects of law. I do appreciate interesting development in the courts in England in the that sometimes, especially when questions come when you fairly recent past, and a case came before the Court of are not fully prepared for them, you may have to respond Appeal in England; I can certainly let you have details of with an opinion which you might later then want to qualify. • it and hopefully a copy when it comes to light. But it is a case called Bybrook Barn Garden Centre Limited against The Attorney-General: One of the trials and the Kent County Council, and in essence what happened tribulations of a lawyer, I am afraid, Mr Chairman! in that case was that the owner of a garden centre suffered flooding as a result of a culvert silting up, and this had Mr Rimington: Yes, I think we obviously understand quite a catastrophic effect in so far as the water backed up that situation. You cannot necessarily give definitive rulings from the culvert and flooded the garden centre and indeed off the top of your head! The first issue that I would like to part of the nearby motorway. The case is interesting because it shows the sort of claim that can be used, and look at - obviously you have had advance notice of the the claim was for damages for nuisance and negligence general area - is the legal position of residents who, as a and also for an injunction to prevent any future flooding. result of the flooding, as the property owners are unable to So this is an indicator of the current armoury which is insure their property and also those properties are available to litigants in England - and of course we all unsaleable. Do the residents have any legal redress against know that there have been dreadful problems in England any part of government, any authority or department or and elsewhere related to flooding - and obviously the indeed government as a whole? Is government as a whole lawyers acting for the plaintiffs in this case advised the a corporate body that anybody could have legal redress claim should be for damages, for nuisance and negligence against? and an injunction to prevent future flooding. The claim was against the Kent County Council, which was The Attorney-General: Well, thank you, Mr Chairman. effectively the owner of the culvert who had responsibility Perhaps I should just make my position clear in relation to for the culvert. It is quite interesting again that there was the committee. I am more than happy to give such not a claim against the National Rivers Authority, which assistance as I can and I will certainly try to answer legal was and is the body in England established in 1989 and questions in the way you have indicated, but the position which has a very wide range of responsibilities for the is that of course, I am the principal legal adviser to management of water resources. So that might have some government, and when I produced my memorandum, interest for the committee and indeed for persons who which is included within the report of the Department of allege that they suffer flooding damage here in the Isle of 56 Man, that the first port of call is to claim damages against again in general terms, to see how the claims are lodged the person whom it is believed is the proprietor of the water for nuisance and negligence and for an injunction; those course, or the culvert in this particular case, and there was would be the three ways you would claim a remedy, and not any claim as such against the governmental body that you do not, it would appear, claim against the statutory was responsible for managing water resources and indeed body although the judge gave a pretty big hint that he would advising on planning matters in relation to flood plains. wish the statutory body to get involved. It was an interesting case. As I say, it went first of all to So that is the way I see the current state of play in relation the judge at first instance and there were some quite to claims where people are affected by flooding. interesting comments about the probability of flooding in the area It seems that the main problem was that the culvert Mr Shimmin: Can I jump in before I forget? Thank was too narrow to deal with flood water and the judge you very much, Mr Attorney. We have no statutory body held that the present risk of flooding is between one in in the same way as the National Rivers Authority. five and one in ten years in winter conditions and one in ten and one in thirty in summer conditions. The judge The Attorney-General: No. reviewed all the relevant case law and at first instance held that there was no claim; the plaintiff, although he had Mr Shimmin: Therefore would it be fair to consider suffered very extensive flooding, had no claim either in the Department of Transport for our purposes would act negligence or nuisance - it was primarily in nuisance. as that statutory body? Interestingly, though, at the tail end of the judgment, if can just briefly refer to it, it said that the dismissal of the The Attorney-General: Thank you, Mr Chairman, that claim does not leave the claimants entirely unprotected; is a very interesting point, and in my memo I do refer to and then he refers to the Water Resources Act and so on the Land Drainage Act, and although it is an Act of 1.934 it and the National Rivers Authority, and he says this: 'The actually contains a lot of the general principles which are Land Drainage Act 1991' which of course is a modern, within the modem UK legislation and, interestingly again, updated version of our legislation of 1934, 'made provision it has been updated from 1934. It was updated by for internal drainage boards which were given statutory government circulars and so on in 1986 and there are powers to maintain and improve existing drainage works powers and duties imposed on the Department of Transport. and to create new drainage works.' And then he refers to a I do not know if you wish me to go through the Land particular section, section 25 of the Land Drainage Act. Drainage Act; I have highlighted. what I regard are the He says this: 'Where any ordinary water course is in such principal provisions in my memo and paragraph 5 - am a condition that the proper flow of water is impeded, then more than happy to review that if you wish, but I agree the drainage board or local authority concerned may, by that the Department of Transport would be the appropriate notice served on a person, require that person to remedy department with statutory powers and duties to look at the that condition.' And the judge said this: 'The dike in main rivers and flooding from main rivers, and of course question is a water course under the jurisdiction of the the Sulby is a main river for this purpose. River Stour, Kent Internal Drainage Board, although it has variously delegated its statutory power to Southern Water, Mr Shimmin: Could I just follow, Mr Chairman? The the National Rivers Authority and the Environment original judge's decision stated there was not a case against Agency. The defendant authority' - so that is the Kent the local authority but gave a good steer using the Land County Council - 'would appear to be a body falling within Drainage Act to say they 'may', I think is the word you the Act. It is to be hoped' - and this is the relevant bit - used, which tends to be a legalistic word, enforce the 'that the claimant's point of view that the appropriate improvements necessary to avoid repetition of it. authority will consider whether to exercise its statutory powers in relation to the culvert which continues to present The Attorney-General: Yes, that is right. a serious risk of flooding.' So in essence the judge held that there was not a claim in common law either in nuisance Mr Shimmin: Could you equate that to our or negligence, nor was the plaintiff entitled to an injunction, circumstances where the DoT would be in a position where but he was expressing a wish at the end of his judgment it has now happened twice; were it to happen a third time that the National Rivers Authority would actually call upon and nobody had done anything different, would they not the local authority to remedy the danger in so far as flooding be negligent in having failed to take appropriate action? was concerned. The case actually went to appeal, it went to the Court of Appeal and the Court of Appeal reversed The Attorney-General: Mr Chairman, thank you again. the judge's finding and actually found that the plaintiff That is an interesting question. The position as I see it under was entitled to a remedy in nuisance. Manx law is the same as in English law, and if I could just So I am afraid all one can say in relation to these cases refer to a text book, it is Halsbury's Laws of England, - and it is of absolutely no help to any plaintiff, I suppose volume 49 - - is that it all depends on the facts of the particular circumstances of each case. We bad a very full and well- Mr Rimington: Yes, I know it well! (Laughter) reasoned judgment by the judge at first instance, and the Court of Appeal, three judges there, disagreed and the The Attorney-General: You know it well? It is close judgment was reversed. But I thought it was interesting, to your heart! It basically states that 'under English law 57 the primary obligation to drain and protect land is that of relation to the main rivers of catchment areas as they may the individual landowner and the common law has consider necessary or desirable for maintaining, repairing established a regime of rights and duties of and upon and improving such main rivers' and so on 'and rendering landowners in this respect The scheme of the various Acts' the same adequate to carry the water from time to time - so this is the scheme of the extensive body of legislation flowing therein and for preventing the overflow or in the UK - 'is generally not to remove such rights and discharge of water from the main rivers on to the adjoining duties but to confer additional powers on the various property.' So that is very important I will come to the relevant statutory bodies and in certain cases the exclusion clause in a moment landowners themselves, and to require the consent of the appropriate statutory body before a landowner may Mr Shimmin: Can I just stop you on that, Mr Attorney? undertake certain activities!And this is the important point 'It is important to bear in mind that the legislative The Attorney-General: Yes. framework generally, confers powers and does not impose duties on statutory bodies exercising flood defence or land Mr Shimmin: How legally do they interpret 'necessary drainage functions.' In fact, if we go through our Land or desirable,' because what one person in the department Drainage Act we will see that whereas there are duties may consider to be necessary or desirable may not actually imposed on the Department of Transport, more often you adequately fulfil the rest of that section. see that the statute is actually conferring powers, and I am sure members of the committee will be very familiar with The Attorney-General: Yes, I quite understand; it is a the difference. Clearly, if there is a statutory duty and the very goodpoint, if I may say so, Mr Chairman. Again, it is department fails to comply with a statutory duty it can be something for the department to determine in good faith, held liable for breach of that duty, whereas if there is a 'acting reasonably' weighing up all the relevant power and the department reasonably exercises the power considerations. It is for the department and if the after due consideration or declines to exercise the power, department were to reach a decision which was the department cannot be held liable. unreasonable and which offended the rules of natural So if we just very briefly go through our Land Drainage justice and soon, then that sort of decision could in theory Act, which I think is what you want me to do, there is and indeed in practice be challenged by a judicial review. under section 4 of our Land Drainage Act an important So the department under section 13 must exercise or section. It says, 'Subject to the provisions of this Act the execute such works in relation to the main rivers as they Department shall' - so a duty - 'exercise a general may consider necessary or desirable. So there is a duty supervision of all matters relating to drainage within this and a power all wrapped up into that section, isn't there? Isle and shall have such powers and perform such duties as are conferred or imposed upon the Department by this Mr Waft: Yet there is always the rider at the end of it to Act.' So, just pausing there, it is clear, is it not, that there say that the department shall not be liable or responsible is a statutory duty to supervise all matters relating to for anything done or omitted to be done by the department drainage, and that is something which the department under this Act. cannot avoid; it must, I would suggest, have a general policy to supervise all matters relating to drainage. Equally, The Attorney-General: Yes, I was just going to come under section 9 it is the duty of the department - again a to that. Yes, that is the sting in the tail, if you like; it is the statutory duty - to prepare maps in relation to various protection for the department, and 1 think probably it was catchment areas and drainage districts, and I think you will designed to protect the department from claims in tort, so have seen from the correspondence that some long time that is negligence and nuisance and so on, because, to take ago the department, or its predecessor, did actually prepare up the point from Mr Shimmin, the department would have maps, including a map of Sulby. Those maps were duly to weigh up whether it was necessary or desirable to carry laid before Tynwald and therefore became proper, official out works, and if in good faith it made an error in that maps defining catchment areas. respect the policy of this section is to say that the Then if we look at section 10, after a map has been department will not be liable. That is the way the section approved and so on, 'The main river and the banks thereof is drafted. Interestingly, from a brief review of the modem as shown on the map shall be vested in the department for UK Act there does not appear to be an indemnity on the purposes of this Act, but this enactment shall not be immunity for the National Rivers Authority and so on as deemed to vest in the department otherwise than for such there is for the department in the 1934 Act. purposes, the soil of such rivers and banks except as in this Act provided.' That is an important point because it Mr Shimmin: Mr Attorney, on that point, although it means that once the Sulby River, for example, and its area is in there, in the Land Drainage Act, if somebody did take has been deemed to be a catchment area and it has been it to judicial review could it be determined that that defined as a main river, then the department has the indemnity was not appropriate? ownership of the channel and the main banks for the purpose of exercising its functions but for no other purpose. The Attorney-General: Well, I doubt it myself, Mr Can I refer to section 13: 'The Department shall, out of Chairman. I think that the indemnity would probably moneys provided by Tynwald and in such manner as the protect the department provided that it had acted in good Department may determine, execute such works in and in faith and reasonably. I know that opens up all sorts of 58 questions. I think when the Human Rights Act starts to Mr Rimington: Yes, please. become effective we will probably see a challenge to this sort of immunity, because clearly if someone considered The Attorney-General: Forgive me if I appear to go that the department had acted unreasonably and should be back to basics. I may be preaching to the converted, as it liable in tort, it is wrong in principle, it would be argued, were, but there are two very distinct stages when somebody and would deprive someone of his remedy under article 6 buys property, and the Isle of Man is in exactly the same of the convention for the department to say, 'Oh, well, we position as the UK for all intents and purposes here. The may have been negligent or we may have been guilty of two stages are, first of all, getting into a binding contract, nuisance but that is tough luck, we've got an immunity ' and then the second stage is to actually sign your deed of So I would imagine that when one comes to look at the conveyance. Land Drainage Act, as we have to with all the legislation In Manx law, as in English law, a contract or an in the wake of the Human Rights Act, that is one of the agreement to buy land has to be in writing, but once the clauses which is likely to come under review. contract is signed and the deposit paid and the counterpart contracts are exchanged it is then a binding commitment, Mr Rimington: That is very interesting, Mr Attorney- and so it is very important that before someone commits General. I am sure at least one member of the Court will himself or herself to a contract for the purchase of land, he appreciate this impact of the Human Rights Act. or she knows that what he or she is getting is what he or she expects to get So that is the general principle. Now, The Attorney-General: Yes, it is a very wide-ranging there is a general principle of law again that someone who Act, Mr Chairman. owns land has a duty to disclose things which are not readily apparent. So if, for example, there was a dispute Mr Waft: Would it not be fair to say, Mr Attorney- between neighbours going on about a boundary fence, shall General, that the Human Rights Act according to the Isle we say, the vendor knows all about that, he knows about it of Man - although it is not in the Isle of Man, we are still only too well, perhaps. The purchaser coming along might under the situation with the European Court in Strasbourg not know about it and might believe that the boundary anyway? fence runs from A to B whereas in fact it runs from A to C according to the neighbour. So there is a duty on the vendor The Attorney-General: Certainly, sir, yes. Through to disclose latent things like that Equally, however, there you, Mr Chairman, the position would be that if someone is no duty for the vendor to disclose things which are felt that that section deprived him of a convention right - that is, a right to have a fair trial - he could bring an action blatantly obvious. So again, getting back to the context here, if there were to be a stream running at the bottom of in the Manx courts. The Manx courts might say, 'Well, I be an am sorry, the immunity under section 13 applies.' You a garden which in summertime might appear to exhaust your local remedy, therefore, you might have to innocuous babbling brook, the purchaser might very take it to appeal, but having exhausted all your local reasonably be expected to ask, 'Well, that is all very well, remedies you could then go to the European Court and but what happens in winter time? Is there any flooding?' have that adjudicated. Of course, the problem with that is Now, it is with a view to protecting the purchasers that it is very expensive and it is very time-consuming. advocates who act for purchasers raise what are known as pre-contract inquiries. So before their clients are committed Mr Rimington: Conscious of the time that was to the contract stage the advocates raise these pre-contract allocated, I am sure there are quite a few more questions inquiries and you are quite right, sir, that there is generally on this Land Drainage Act and related matters. Could I a standard form of inquiry which is not only delivered to just divert you for a few moments onto the issue of property the Planning Committee and the local authorities but also searches - to the advocates acting for the vendor. So there is a great wadge of documentation which is sent off by the The Attorney-General: Yes. purchaser's advocates to the vendor's advocates and all the local authorities and utility services, and I have to say Mr Rimington: - and just explore that? How do these that, having looked at the body of documentation that has searches actually sit in law? My understanding says that been provided to me by the Chairman of the Conveyancing unless it is an administrative arrangement between Committee of the Law Society, there is no standard practice advocates and the appropriate bodies, whether it be a local for raising an inquiry about flooding. I think of all the authority, the planning department, DoLGE, MEA et advocates' firms that I have been able to ask through the cetera, it is an arrangement which comes by agreement chairman, only one firm specifically raises flooding in the with the Law Society? general pre-contract inquiries. Now, when you look at the situation in England, the The Attorney-General: Certainly the Law Society has modern form of pre-contract inquiry does raise the question a very significant role to play, sir, yes. of flooding. There is, Mr Chairman, a textbook known as the Forms and Precedents, which I think is a very well Mr Rimington: Right. regarded volume and which sets out various standard forms of pre-contract inquiries and interestingly, under the The Attorney-General: I will try to explain that, if I heading 'The Structure of the Property', there is a question: may. `Is the seller aware of any of the following having affected 59 the property or, where appropriate, any road or path giving what I have been told very recently, is that inquiries which access to the property?' And then various things and at the are raised by purchasers' advocates of local authorities do head of this group is `Flooding.' If the reply to any of the not specifically refer to flooding. Inquiries are often above is yes, please give details and, if applicable, give concerned with roadways and road widening and public details of any guarantees and the outcome of any claims sewers, this sort of thing, 'Have completion certificates made in respect of such matters.' Now, again it is most been issued?' and so on; 'Is there a closing order?' - these significant, Mr Chairman, that the comment on this is that sorts of thing_ Of course, another point is that often the many of these inquiries will be appropriate in the majority commissioners and indeed the Planning Committee and of cases, but consideration should be given to each in the other aspects of government sometimes do not have the context of any particular transaction. However, these records or the facilities or the manpower to answer every inquiries do not constitute a specimen form and only on question that could be asked, so it is really for the benefit very rare occasions will it be appropriate for this form to of the local authorities and the Planning Committee that be sent out with none of the inquiries deleted or further the questions are restricted, otherwise you would have an inquiries added to. So in other words, what it is saying, Mr army of people answering questions by advocates acting Chairman, is this: that if you know or ought to know that for buyers. your clients are buying property which is susceptible to To get back to your point, I think if a local authority of flooding, you really should raise an inquiry of this kind. I an area was aware that a district was liable to flooding and think that is what the commentary is saying. On the other the people were buying property in that area, I would hand, however, if you are buying property which is on the suggest, although I could be very wrong, that there was a summit of a mountain you might say it is a bit unlikely to duty of care imposed on the local authority to warn a be flooding. It all depends on the particular circumstances. prospective purchaser that this was the case and to suggest, Certainly, if a property had been susceptible to flooding perhaps, that further inquiries might be required. That is once there are one or two things one can conclude. First of just a tentative suggestion - all, the vendor of the property must disclose to the purchaser if the chance of flooding is latent, but I suppose Mr Rimington: As to measures taken et cetera? most of these things will be patent, won't they? I mean, if there is a river nearby or running through your garden it is The Attorney-General: Yes, so that if you are the clerk a patent thing, so the purchaser should raise the inquiry by to the X,Y,Z Commissioners you might say 'Well, I know that sort of inquiry I have just indicated. you have not raised it, but you should know that last year So to summarise, the Law Society have developed a there was a problem' with this, that and the other. system of pre-contract inquiries. The practice is not to specifically raise flooding unless there is something special Mr Waft: May I add that I think the intimation given to the property which triggers off the inquiry. Can I also by the department was that they are not there to volunteer say, Mr Chairman, that of course nowadays it is not just information, they are there to answer queries - the piirchaser who is interested in buying property; often it is a mortgagee, a building society or a bank that wants The Attorney-General: True. to know that when the borrower buys the property he is going to get a marketable title. There is no point them Mr Waft: - for which they are paid a fee, I understand, lending £50,000 by way of mortgage if at the end of the for search inquiries in the Department of Local day the property cannot be sold because it is susceptible to Government and the Environment - flooding and the title is unmarketable. So you are going to have inquiries raised not only by the purchaser's applicants The Attorney-General: Yes. but also by the lender's surveyor, and I would suggest that invariably surveyors will be retained by building societies Mr Waft: - and there is a standard set of questions and and banks to determine questions such as this: 'is it liable answers. 'Caveat emptor' - if you buy something that a to flooding or dampness, or have there been any insurance certain question had not been asked, then whose claims?' and so on. responsibility is it if subsequently there has been a problem? Is it on the inquirer or the person who has not Mr Rimington: How do these issues relate to, say, local volunteered the information? authorities or a statutory authority, so if the standard formula as exists, which I have seen, which obviously is The Attorney-General: Well, through you, Mr not the standard formula but a representative standard Chairman, sir, I think the position is that if we look at it formula, does not have any specific questions relating to from the purchaser's point of view, what else could he do? the flooding matters, if a local authority, say, which has I mean, he asked all the queries which he thinks are knowledge that there is flooding or an area known to appropriate. There may be a latent defect with the site; let flooding, is it under any obligation to disclose if they are us say that for example it was built or the site was on the not the vendors? remains of an old tip, or let us say there were underground mine shafts or there was a culvert running underground. If The Attorney-General: Yes, that again is a very good all that information was available to a local authority and question, Mr Chairman. I am not quite certain what the was not available to a purchaser reasonably making answer would be, but certainly my experience, and from enquiries, I would tentatively suggest that there is a duty 60 of care and it is not enough to say 'We are only answering The Attorney-General: Well, again I think you are enquiries'. I think that local authorities do hold themselves referring to a specific point, Mr Chairman, and I do not out as having particular knowledge of a district - you know, want to answer that. drainage, sewerage and so on. It may well be that that is information known to them, and I would suggest that if Mr Rimington: Right, we do not have to keep 100 per that information is known they ought to disclose it. I could cent strictly to our timetable! be wrong. The Attorney-General: Sorry. Mr Rimington: John? Mr Rimington: No, it is not your fault; it is all our Mr Shimmin: I think you might find out some time in questions - the future! Could I say, from your discussions with the Mr Shimmin: It is mine. Law Society do you think that they are likely to now change the form including an aspect of flooding? Mr Rimington: There is just one other little area we could just look at, which is the legal obligations which sit The Attorney-General: I doubt it, Mr Chairman, and I with the reservoir operator or the Water Authority. I will would not like to suggest for one minute that the Law try and roll both questions into one if I can. What are the Society's practice is wrong in any way. obligations if flooding occurs partially as a result of water discharged from the reservoir, and how might those Mr Shimmin: Would you be surprised that a. property obligations be changed if indeed they exist if the reservoir on one of the two estates went through the whole legal was used as an actual functional facility, i.e. not just as a search for a normal property sale in between these two reservoir, but given, probably in legislation, a responsibility floods and there was nothing picked up by the local to act as a flood defence asset? authority or by the legal search, which indicated to that purchaser, yet now you said that there ought to be a duty The Attorney-General: Well, again I am not going to of care, so the next time it comes along, when that person refer to the reservoir, a reservoir, a mythical reservoir who has now purchased a property which had flooded roosting in the hills somewhere! before they bought it has subsequently flooded, if they put it up on the market now the duty of care for the local Mr Remington: In another country! authority is to tell any prospective purchaser, which renders many of these properties almost unsaleable? The Attorney-General: In many ways, Mr Chairman, I am quite cautious about commenting on this because I The Attorney-General: Well, Mr Chairman, I am sorry think that there are some quite technical points involved I cannot comment on that for the reasons I indicated earlier. about the management of reservoirs and so on which really I am not competent to advise on, but perhaps just by way Mr Shimmin: Okay. Would you say that if a of an initial comment, in my memorandum I did refer under government department had within a file previous section 4 at page 3, to flooding from artificial water courses correspondence which stated that an area was prone to and the so-called rule in Rylands and Fletcher, which is flooding and then granted planning permission with no that 'someone who, for his own purposes, brings on his land and collects and keeps there anything likely to do a reference to flooding, that department would have any mischief if it escapes must keep it in at his peril and if he liability? does not do so is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape.' Of course The Attorney-General: I would have thought so, yes. in the Rylands and Fletcher case itself we were concerned I would have thought that it would be incumbent on the there with escape of water from a private reservoir on department to make the factors known to potential private land. Now, I am afraid to say, Mr Chairman, I have developers. Equally, of course, the potential developers, not researched the Water Act and so on which could very having been put on notice, should not proceed to develop. well provide some answers to your questions. I am It is a joint ... There are all sorts of common duties of care particularly anxious as to whether or not there may, again, which are triggered off, aren't there? be some indemnity for the Water Authority if it compounds water or impounds water and the water escapes. If for Mr Shimmin: Likewise the issue was that the local example, God forbid, there were to be a rupture of the authority raised in the '80s the issue of flooding which wall, the dam wall or something like that, to what extent was on file for the Department of Local Government and should the Water Authority be responsible? Equally, if the the Environment, and then, when a subsequent planning manager of the reservoir elects to let water out at a application went in, neither the local commissioners nor particular time and that causes flooding downstream, if the local government department actually raised the issue one were to apply the rule of Rylands and Fletcher strictly, of flooding as being a condition of the purchase. the owner or operator of the reservoir would be liable. You Therefore would that be negligent on the part of the do not have to prove negligence; you do not have to prove commissioners -? nuisance. The rule in Rylands and Fletcher is very severe 61 because it imposes strict liability on the operator or owner of the flooding arising from Narradale Road and the Ginger of the reservoir. Hall, i.e. coming down the road there or the land there and There is a qualification also, Mr Chairman, in 4.4 of being part of the flooding on the estate; secondly, the my memorandum. The owner or occupier is not liable flooding as marked in appendix 13 in the report which under the rule for damage caused by the escape of water came hula the Sulby River is shown coming from further which he has accumulated on or brought to his land where back upstream of the river rather than, as they see it, as the the escape or damage resulting from it is due to an act of overflowing or overtopping of the banks close to the estate God or the act of a stranger or the act or default of the and travelling round the back of the estate and from there person who suffered the damage. So of course that again causing the flooding to the houses which are attributed to raises all sorts of very interesting and difficult questions the Narradale flooding, and also the numbers of houses as to what is an act of God, and again I refer in my note that were actually flooded in the report. I cannot remember there to a case where it was held that if there are whether it was four or whatever, but they were a lot lower circumstances which no human foresight can provide than the residents themselves were absolutely sure about, against and of which human prudence is not bound to having experienced it. So can we kick off with that? recognise the possibility, then the defence of act of God applies. So if you could not possibly have foreseen the Mr Cooil: I think, chairman, the precise cause of the fact that a tornado or earthquake or whatever was about to flooding would be impossible to establish, because the affect your darn wall, then, even though you have evidence which was contained within here was based upon accumulated a dangerous thing on your land, i.e. a huge statements which were obtained from various individuals volume of water and water escapes, you are not going to and also workmen who were in the vicinity just after the be liable under Rylands and Fletcher. The cases sometimes event, and one thing which came through was that there talk about 'extraordinary rainfall greater and more violent was a. lot of conflicting opinions and statements made than within the memory of witnesses' and so on. Again, I• within there, and it was based on those that then the am afraid each case depends on its particular circumstances assessment was made as to what, in the officers' opinion, and its particular facts and I am very cautious about was the cause of the flooding. We did. identify two areas commenting on this area because it is really a technical and certainly, from the statements made from the workmen, area. they were of the opinion that water was coming down the Narradale Road. With the reference the report with regard Mr Rhnington: Right, I can understand that. Obviously to the properties, what that was indicating was the point of I am sure that if we were to have further questions the best where they believed that the sources occurred. There were thing would be if we could frame them as tightly as possible two properties in one area and two in the other. What I am and then forward them to you and give you the opportunity saying was those were the only four properties that were to give a considered reply. Can I thank you very much for flooded. That was, in the opinion of those who carried out all your assistance today. the investigations, the point of where the flooding occurred, the initial points. The Attorney-General: Thank you. Mr Rimington: Right. In both reports there is quite a lot of reference to maintenance issues which have or have Evidence of Mr N R Cooil not taken place in preceding years, and we did have Mr Quaggin in and discussed in specific terms the changes and Mr A Burroughs that have taken place in the department and changes that took place in 1988. Could you give your opinion in terms Mr Rimington: You are welcome, Mr Cooil, chief of the change of organisation in the department and the executive of the Department of Transport and Mr Alistair allocation of resources for maintenance of rivers in general? Burroughs of Burroughs Stewart Associates. Obviously this is in relation to the Department of Transport report on Mr Cooil: The department went through major changes the Island flooding of the October '98 event. Common because, if I recollect, just prior to 1988 you then had the sense dictates that we also, in general, embrace the more bringing about of the departmental form of government, recent flooding to the extent that that can be discussed and which brought together in those days the Department of really probably the whole area of policy which, as the chief Highways, Ports and and Properties, which brought executive, you will be ultimately responsible for. together the highways from the former Highway Board, First of all, we have two reports with us: the original from the airports, the harbours, the drainage from the Local 1999 report and the January 2001 update which has come Government and the Environment and the Government about and I do accept, Mr Cooil, that you are missing two Property Trustees. So that was all brought together and of your key participants in the whole process; one is in the had to be harnessed as one department. Then, just after southern hemisphere and one is retired, so we do `88, having been all brought together, it went to a review understand that that might cause some difficulties as we of the structure so that you had one cohesive department get through the procedures. and then that brought about the introduction of the client Can I just first of all ask you: the residents have felt contractor structure which has applied since that date. rather concerned about some of the findings in the original Clearly the role I had with bringing it was to get people '99 report in relation to a number of issues, one being some from all different disciplines and to harness it into one unit 62 to allocate resources into the areas which were most always the most important thing is getting the balance right appropriate to operate for that new department, and at the because people could, on every kind of maintenance, time, prior to maybe going into the section within the always make a case for more money, but whether that highways section, there was a rivers and bridges section money is "going to be properly utilised is the important and when we looked at the resources that were required facet. Could I also make the point, please, that obviously throughout the department - because we had major this report is the department's report; that report is a joint restructuring - we reallocated the resources to the areas report involving three departments. we felt, certainly the minister and myself, most needed them. Mr Riruington: Yes, right Taking that on board, in this report in the areas - I am not going to find it when I want Mr Rimington: Was there a lessening of resources in to find it - there is quite a long list of potential mitigation relation to the work that the rivers and bridges people measures that could be taken: looking at possible widening previously undertook? of the channel in the area of Millrace and Carrick Park. This is headed 'A schedule of possible flood mitigation Mr Cooil: What I would say is that those within the measures', and then obviously there are things further up rivers and bridges took on far greater responsibilities than as well in terms of general maintenance et cetera and a they had to previously because, for instance, Mr Bell, who certain amount of clearing channels and so forth. These was the rivers and bridges engineer, went on and probably are listed as potentials, and obviously in the joint report had a small workforce and he probably had about two or there is the recommendation there that a land drainage three staff and he had probably somewhere between six engineer should be appointed as soon as possible and then, and ten workmen employed with him went on to take over obviously in the general recommendations, there are and head up the engineering works section, then he went suggestions that certain works should be undertaken - you on to head up the whole of our works and design involving know, DoT working in conjunction with DAFF and hundreds of men, and that is what I mean when said we DoLGE to carry out 'limited channel improvements on had to put people into the areas to suit their capabilities. the Sulby River and to produce and implement a revised maintenance regime for the river,' and then 'adequate Mr Rimington: It has been pointed out since that the personnel and funding to be made available to relevant budget as it stands at the moment for river maintenance or departments to enable further progress to be made.' So in river works is £180,000. both reports are indications of works to be done; have they filtered through into the budgetary process? Mr Cooil: It would be in that region, somewhere roundabout £200,000, yes. Mr Cooil: Well, arising from this one, as I have said, there have have been increases within the next three years Mr Rinaington: Right. Do you know what are the on overall land drainage. With regard to this report here lengths overall of the main rivers on the Island? and for the extra resources and the significant works, that has only been received by the respective ministers; that Mr Cooil: Well, the main rivers are defined in there, was only issued in January, only last month, and as you the precise length. Off the top of my head I could not advise. will be aware, chairman, and the other members, if you are looking for additional resources there are procedures Mr Rimington: We are just trying to determine, on an which are in place within government as how those have equitable basis, what proportion of the total length the to be achieved, which takes time. Sulby River might be? Mr Rimington: Right. Mr Burroughs: When I spoke to Mr Quaggin prior to coming up here today he did have a schedule of the river Mr Cool!: And what will have to be done will have to lengths. I think the Sulby is 16 per cent of the total and the be agreed as well by all three departments as to what would spend on the Sulby is about 15 per cent of the total amount be required for each respective one. spent. And I could obviously arrange for those figures for you if you would like them sent up. Mr Burroughs: All I was going to say is, I think this schedule of works you refer to actually refers to improving Mr Rimington: I think that is adequate for the moment. the capacity of the River Sulby. I think it is fair to say that Given obviously the recent events, has there been any that section of works has not taken place although discussion in budgetary terms of allocating more resources maintenance has - just to be clear to the committee. to (a) rivers in general and (b) the Sulby River? Mr Rimington: I do have a few other questions but I Mr Coon: The bids have been put in for the next three think I have been hogging the floor all morning, so I will years, which is standard practice for all government leave it to the other members if I can. departments, and it shows an increase but not a major level of increase, because I think the thing to identify is that Mr Waft: Could I ask: the Rivers and Bridges until you determine precisely what you are going to do Committee that used to be within the Department of there is no point in putting in those sums of money, because Transport had a considerable number of men, according 63 to Mr Quaggin this morning; when this was changed and is, one needs to assess the balance because one probably, it was absorbed into the larger division, would you think from an engineering point of view, can do almost anything. that the same situation was existing then? Did it diminish It might cost a lot of money, the investment might not be because of this change in their role of the Rivers and worth what it saves, but you have got a beautiful Bridges being absorbed into a larger organisation? In other environment out there at the moment, there are good fishing words, was it as highlighted as it had been? grounds, I understand, there is bird nesting and you have to get the balance of what it is like to live in the community Mr Cooil: What I would say is that with the staff they and enjoy the environment and, with the problem of living went, as I explained earlier, to take on a far wider remit. next to a river, one of the concerns is that Mr Bell With regard to the workforce itself, that was absorbed determined that probably the improvement would give a within the engineering works but you still got, for instance, flood return period of one in fifty. That is not particularly a gang which does specialise in doing river works, and it exceptional, a one in fifty storm; it means that that area is is the same people that were there virtually going back to still susceptible to flooding. If you take it beyond that stage, the Rivers and Bridges, but they can be complemented by then what you are actually taking on, ignoring the cost workforce from other gangs and likewise that you then element, is actually a fairly significant change to the have the flexibility that they in turn can be transferred to environment. You are making a change to the river bank, do other works as well. how the river bank sits with the properties, and there are lots of other questions that evolve through that mute, Mr Mr Waft: So you say the maintenance of rivers at the Shimmin, and there is a balance to determine where and time, particularly now, has not been lessened by that move how to go. by the department? Mr Shimmin: So are those questions being answered? Mr Cooll: Not with the workforce. What I would advise There are lots of questions but I would ask you, is anybody is probably the top level of engineering expertise that was trying to find the answers to the implications of those? available with the likes of Alan Bell does not exist at the same level today. Mr Burroughs: Well, I think the answers from the department perspective came from Mr Bell's Mr Waft: So you do not have anybody particularly in recommendation on the working party. charge of the rivers and bridges per se? It is part of a larger - Mr Shimmin: Who has represented your departinent on that second working party with Mr Garfield was on it Mr Cooil: No, there is no element associated with rivers uritillis absence - and bridges at all; it is just part and parcel of the engineering. Mr Cooil: And Mr Bell; Mr Bell was the chairman. Mr Shimmhi: Mr Cooil, could you outline how you Mr Shimmin: And Mr Bell left the Island in September, see your responsibility for the DoT to prevent a similar and so with Mr Garton's retirement and Mr Bell's absence occurrence happening again? now who replaces those two to progress the working party? Mr Cooil: On there what we can do is to use your best Mr Cooil: From the department's perspective Mr Bell's endeavours, but I think it has to be recognised that the role has been taken over by Mr Halsall, who is the acting department and government cannot prevent every director of works, and Mr Winstanley is the newly eventuality happening. For instance, I myself have been appointed director of drainage. flooded twice; Mr Burroughs, where he lives, has been flooded twice. It is a very unpleasant thing, but at the end Mr Shimmin: Thank you. Within our discussions over of the day the department and government cannot be the last couple of days in correspondence there has been responsible for everything, they can only do what it discussion on the bridges. Your bridge across was taken considers to be appropriate measures under the out twice, as was the private landowner's. What is your circumstances. position with regard to the policy of allowing the private landowner to bridge over the Sulby River in the future Mr Shimmin: Would that include within your after the last two events? responsibility not just increasing the mitigation factors you were talking about to possibly allow the water to move Mr Cooil: There would have to be approvals obtained more freely down the Sulby River but does that also involve from the department and that would have to be very your department in any measures which would alleviate carefully considered as to the proposals which would be damage to property such as building banks or finding submitted. values and mechanisms for preventing the water flooding into peoples properties? Mr Shimmin: And did that happen after the first flood and prior to the second flood when the bridge was replaced? Mr Burroughs: I wonder if from an engineering perspective I could perhaps comment. I think the problem Mr Cooil: I honestly could not state. 64 Mr Shimmin: The bridge down at Sulby on which there Mr Rimington: That would be '88? has been comment regarding the blockages which may in part have been caused by the bridges but also the Mr Cooil: Yes, and it should be carried out. Now, there overgrowth, which may have been taken down - there has is no record that in actual fact anything was ever submitted been a lot of discussion locally in the area regarding the either to the department or to DoLGE that the removal of the central span of that bridge in order to allow recommendations which it was said should take place greater access for the water to move more freely through actually did. it. Has the department investigated that aspect? Mr Waft: Is it fair to say, through you, Mr Chairman, Mr Cooil: That has not been considered by the that although that did not take place, the department did department. not feel strongly enough to object to the planning permission? Mr Shimmin: Has Mr Burroughs got any comments regarding the practicalities of such a venture? Mr Cooil: At that time there were discussions which were taking place with the developer and with the Rivers Mr Burroughs: I think you would probably be and Bridges and I think what has to be remembered- as completely rebuilding the bridge, Mr Shimmin. It is not well is that at that time in '88 we had a situation where on an alteration, I have not looked in detail at the bridge, but one floor on here we bad half the floor taken up by local to remove the mid span of a bridge strikes me as a complete government, the other half was the highways and you rebuild. virtually were side by side, so that with it there was close contact between the officers, so in there you would not Mr Shimmin: Is the department concerned about the have it where there would even necessarily be a formal possible recurrence? Once was potentially an act of God, written submission; the people were working side by side. a report, a lot of time went into it and then within 12 months of that report it has happened' again. The department must Mr Waft: Could I say, as a consequence of that then, if now be concerned about any potential future occurrence. somebody was to apply now for a house to be built in that What proposals does the department have to do between area on the flood plain what would be your department's now and next autumn/winter to try and give any confidence view and observation? to the locals that it will not happen this year? Mr Cool!: There and in other areas where it is known Mr Cool!: I think it is true to say that when we carried that there is a susceptibility for flooding the requirement out those investigations in October one thing which was would be for the developer to come forward and submit apparent was that the area would flood again. The full details of how he proposed to address it, and those development that has taken place has taken place within a would be submitted, not for the department's approval but flood plain and with the return periods you are in a situation obviously for the department to satisfy itself that adequate whereby you can never turn round and say, 'Right, it will precautions, or realistic precautions, were being taken. not flood again.' Mr Shimmin: Are you aware whether any of that Mr Rimington: Could I just intervene at one point happened in '96-97 when the applications went in for relating to that? In 1988, when there was a planning Millrace? application for the detail of various buildings on there, the principle having been established in 1984 earlier, Mr Cooil: I am not. presumably the developer at that point had assessment by Holmes Grace, consulting engineers, and they made this Mr Shimmin: We have discussed with the recommendation - this was in the Planning Committee file commissioners we have discussed with DoLGE and it which came to us - that during the design stage of the appears that nobody has raised the issue of flooding in an proposed development a hydrological study should be area that everybody knew was susceptible to flooding. considered and early reference made to the rivers and bridges section of the DHPP. Now, we know that that Mr Burroughs: I thought there was evidence that proposal never took place - whether because it was of that Lezayre Commissioners had - issue or whatever we have no idea - and that no building Mr Shimmin: In 1988 but not repeated in 1997, and it took place until obviously the mid to late '90s. Does the goes back to Mr Cooil's point that when people maybe department have any knowledge of any hydrological study informally in the old days were closer together, it does undertaken by any engineers of that area? appear that there was a breakdown of communications from some of these bodies, everybody expecting everybody else Mr Cooil: Well, from the discussions I had with Mr to know what was going on. Bell during the time of the investigations he clearly recollects advising the developers, engineers Holmes Mr Cooil: Of course it could also be effected with Grace, that this work should be carried out because it was planning approval having been given and development an area where there was a history of flooding - already taking place in the area and it is just an extension. 65 Mr Shimmin: I do not think that was the issue but it is Mr Rimington: Could I just slip in before Mr Waft not relevant at the moment. The next issue I would like to fires off again? Are you aware of any agricultural land in ask you about is that within the main report discussion on the area in Sulby that could be used for flood attenuation? a National Rivers Authority type body has been. rejected. Could either of you expand on the reasons behind that? Mr Burroughs: I think you would have to look at the whole of the river to determine where the best place for Mr Cooil: If I deal with it first, the main reason this the attenuation was, and the river has not been looked at in was promoted by the chief executive of the Water Authority that way, to be honest with you. But it is certainly who of course has recently come to the Island from the something that is an option that perhaps should be UK, where you have a National Rivers Authority. It was considered. felt, certainly by myself and other colleagues, that what we have in the Isle of Man are basically steams and that Mr Shimmin: By who would that be? really a National Rivers Authority for the Isle of Man is difficult to justify. Mr Burroughs: Well; the river authority, which is the department in terms of putting in a protection for the river. Mr Burroughs: I concur with what you are saying, Mr Mr Rimington: I do not think we are considering that Cooil. as one of the many things as well. I do not know whether either or both of you would like to comment on the range Mr Shimmin: If we called it an Island Stream Body, I of possibilities if I go through them, or some of the do not care, it is one where we have spoken to a number of possibilities: obviously we do have the widening and different government departments; all of them have some deepening of the river channel itself in the appropriate responsibility in this area. Would there not be merit in areas; we have the proactive maintenance regime, which bringing it all under the one umbrella-so the departments would-be the vegetation, gravel removal- et cetera; then actually have a central point rather than allowing this there is the raising of banks and buns around properties in communication to possibly break down? I have had'your Carrick Park and Millrace as something that could feature; answer so. . . With regard to the possibility that, yes, this and then lastly the one that in fact has been.dismissed in area is always going to be susceptible to flooding, in any the report, which is the use of the reservoir as a flood- flood area it is a matter of risk reduction so what plans attenuation measure? does the department have to attempt to reduce the likelihood of such an impact of flooding? Mr Cooil: Can I just deal with them just generally? Mr Burroughs: If I could take that, Mr Chairman, the Mr Burroughs: Yes. proposals that Mr Bell evolved to increase the capacity of the river to a one in 50-year river flood involved third party Mr Cooil: And then obviously you can deal with them lands as well, and obviously the concept and the agreement specifically in engineering term. It is clear if you are going to go ahead will involve, in certain instances, compulsory to carry out widening and deepening, then that will have purchase of sections of land. Some people have actually impacts certainly with regard to the environment under objected to the development which is now under question. the wildlife and also with the fisheries because it has been The problem as I see it, however, is that if one follows reported the Sulby River is recognised as being a good those routes through you are only going to get the one in fi }ling river, and to carry out the kind of works which you 50-year protection, my house has been flooded two years could be contemplating is virtually putting in a canal. That running by storms in excess of that. would have major implications and there would be objections anticipated in that area. With regard to the proactive maintenance regime there is a maintenance Mr Shimmin: Where is that house? programme which is in place, and that is discussed between the department and with its colleagues in DAFF to carry it Mr Burroughs: It is not on the Island, it is across, Mr out at the appropriate times in the year. With regard to Shimmin, and the problem you have got is that one in fifty gravel extraction, that has been carried out in the past and years is not a safe level of flood protection. It would not it has attracted considerable severe criticism and objections be a number that I would be advocating to give the residents from various bodies when we have done it. The raising of peace of mind, but the one in 50 years which involves the banks and bunds - again I would say that you are looking purchase of third party land is what can be achieved without at acquiring land to undertake that, and then finally with destroying the apparent environment of the Sulby in that the reservoir it was considered by all three departments in area. I am not saying it is not possible to improve that; the making up the joint report and they were not supportive of consequences of doing it would involve damage to the it, but I do know that you may have a different opinion in environment, and that is the problem_ The next question that area. is, what level do you choose, what level do you select in terms of the return period? But the department's concern Mr Burroughs: Let me start with the reservoir first, relative to the one in fifty is that it is not a particularly then, if I may, Mr Chairman. I can understand the reticence high level. to take on the liability; it means you have to have someone 66 responsible for checking the weather forecast, not overreacting, not underreacting and adjusting the water Mr Waft: Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but will you level in the reservoir. It is an ongoing problem. If they fail be allocating any more budget towards maintenance of this to do it, if they forget one day, if they have not had the particular river in the future? problem for three months and miss it and it causes damage, where is the liability? Where is the problem? But it is an Mr Cooil: The budget, as I said, has been increased attenuation facility. It is available to the people of Sulby and what has been identified on here is there would have and it could be used to take out the peak of a storm, but it to be even more moneys allocated to implement certain of would need management and I think the problem is that the works, and that is physical resource and then also the because of the late nature of the storm - we have had two finance. events recently, but before that when did we have the last event? - the question is whether the people would actually Mr Waft: Would you think it would be necessary to go be doing their job at the time it was necessary, and I can back for an extra resource because of this incident? understand from that perspective the very reticence of the Mr Cool]: If it is on general maintenance, no, but if Water Authority to take on a responsibility. But there is, I you are promoting a major scheme then, yes, as well believe, an opportunity that there is there. because, from what has been said, you would not just be Going backwards up the list; if may, with regard. to looking at Sulby village, you would have to be looking for the raising of banks and putting in bunds there are two the whole length because what we are aware is the flooding things here: one is you have to drain the land that falls to did not just take place as well at Sulby; further upstream the river, and if you put up a bund then you are not draining and downstream also the lands flooded: So you would have the land that runs to the river. Also, the drainage system to look at the total length of the river and also its catchment_ links into the river anyway so one would have to be fairly certain that it was not going to come up the pipes and, Mr Waft: Some have complained about a surge of water despite the fact that technically we believe there are coming down the river at a particular time. Is there anything systems, they do not always work and it does not take much there that you might think could give rise to that? of a twig or something to actually prevent it from working. So raising bunds and banks I am reticent about the true Mr. Burroughs: I would. like to comment, but not success of. I am aware of instances where they have relative to Sulby. When I was sweeping the water out of actually caused a bigger problem than an advantage. I am my house the first time I thought 'Thank God it is going also aware of where they have been used successfully, so down' and the sun was shining, but the water level rose it is a bit either/or, but my gut feeling for Sulby is it is the two inches. I am an engineer and I cannot tell you why it wrong place for bunds and banks. There might be a specific happened, but I can actually tell you it started to come element there that perhaps needs to be considered, but one back in.our house many hours after if stopped raining and would have to look at the water level of the river and how I just do not know where the water came from. That is the links with the drainage system to the properties. If the water problem with trying to determine the cause and sources of were coming up the gullies, then there is no advantage in some of these problems, but that actually happened to me, putting the bunds in place. Maintenance is very critical to Mr Waft. So it may have been there; what you could have the success of the water flow. It will reduce the capacity of bad was a log jam that moved. It is going to be impossible the river if it is not properly maintained. One again has to, almost to tell, I would say. working with DAFF, get a fairly even policy, (1) to protect the environment again, but (2) to ensure that proper Mr Waft: Thank you, Mr Chairman. maintenance takes place that allows maximum flow along Mr Rimington: I think we have come to a conclusion the river. So it can have quite a substantial impact by not then - lunchtime. Can I thank you both very much. That properly maintaining the river. closes the oral evidence of the committee. Widening and deepening - there could be merit in widening, but of course, if you actually look at it you are Mr Cooil: Thank you. fairly constrained where you actually go through Sulby in any event. The problem with deepening is it is going to Mr Burroughs: Thank you. have an impact over quite a long length of the river and then one would have to monitor how one controlled that. The committee adjourned. Nature having evolved, it presumably it is hydraulic gradient, that river; it has been there a long while, and therefore there would be an ongoing maintenance requirement, so one needs to think quite carefully how one can actually achieve that. But again it would have a major impact on the environment, as Mr Cooil has said, which is where the balance comes. Mr Rimington: Right. George? 67 Appendix 4 Daily Water Level and Rainfall Readings at Sulby Dam, October 1998 .186.000 70.0 Overflow Level Is 185 metres AOD I 185.000 --1•1.-M—FIM—.0-=—M—M-=.-10 In ---IM -Me -Mr -I= -.= Mt -S--•41-1•• -00 --IIM 0.---410 --1111.--M-1111• -M--•• --=- •II. M. -M. ND ---•• •• -M. 41D-W, -M. --.• ..- -. 60.0 Rainfall 184.000 50.0 183.000 40.0 A Water Level 182.000 30.0 181.000 20.0 180.0 10.0 , 179. 0.0 0, W to rn 8 in 8 co 0 1 4 2 9 Delo Water Level (metres above Ordnance Datum) -4, —1. _L C0 CI3 l 03 CO 03 co CD 0 —% I VFo CO A b b b b b O O o o io o O O o 0 o to o O O 1-Dec-00 2-Dec-00 3-Dec-00 4-Dec-00 a) 5-Dec-00 6-Dec-00 tD 7-Dec-00 13-Dec-00 9-Dec-00 CD tit 10-Dec-DO 11-Dec-00 XI 12-Dec-00 23. 13-Dec-00 Ette 14-Dec-00 CD 15-Dec-00 O co 16-Dec-00 CO 17-Dec-00 A) 16-Dec-00 Cl) 19-Dec-00 20-Dec-00 21-Dec-00 22-Dec-00 3 23-Dec-00 O CD 0 24-Dec-00 CD 25-Dec-00 LT CD 26-Dec-00 -1 27-Dec-00 O O 28-Dec-00 O 29-Dec-00 30-Dec-00 31-Dec-00 ...k iv co .A. 0) O o o o 0 0 O b 'o in Daily Rainfall at Dam (millimeter) Appendix 5 . . . - , • . . • • . •'; 780 781 785 786 3 6.573 7'154 1547 1.424 1533 3-488 sz ,A.A. 1544 .• •LA .3 SS 1 .scalf . 63. f y .-1g- ,,0-*—-- S9 . cbulbv Bridge \ 1527 .... ..• ,, 18-010 3 ,-.f'Tl •!---• \ 1549 '1645 \ \_ MB 1550 N ;151 ?,,. .. '814 •.,:-. ,...." Parson-age- 'C' 1599 .124 \•••.-Fx 1531 5.284 ,e1 1 60 dd -•••• ,•• 1530 513714--: A. Lv L-.- 160&— 1532 ' .09L 62 .----":;.(431 4 cii:44- 4- .9 / .846 sf 1595 7\ • 44. i .Li,1589 N._, 4 , „,,..„.. 1602 il :1.124 ....._: z4/ - 1E0'2 2.778 1 .67 E 1605 .1607. • ,` • '•-;- ..../ 1591 1.496 1.557 e ,.. 1.812 / ..• / / • ___/„.• al ..." , 1606• Y .. ,./ ,, •Q;,/ 1594 160:3 ','--. 1.469 1E98 .r..- 7: g._ , "'--ri • 1•6&s. .., 1497 , •-• 4,:• 1601. .'. / ' • X \ ‘ . .:819; \ 1592 1597 16 i t . '. • !1590 -, •60C / 3.1.S1 1.311E 1600 6' 7(1-05'eYOUCZ7 - ..: 1.517-.E 888 1 77 4 • 1672 3 1685 1682 2-584. 4492 - • / ",•, 3261 /fp ye.1.7,1;•ca (Alt U z COef.t7.:::PF Appendix 6 Appendix 7 Application No: 97/0848 ON REVIEW Ref: SC/RF' Town and Country Planning Acts, 1934-1991 ISLE OF MAN PLANNING SCHEME (DEVELOPMENT PLAN) ORDER 1982 To: Mr J P Brew Willow Cottage Ballaugh Curraghs In pursuance of powers granted under the above Acts and Order the Department of Local Government and the Environment does hereby APPROVE the application made by you Infilling of disused millrace, behind Sabrew, Main Road, Sulby, Lezayre. which was considered on the 27 February 1998, subject to the compliance with the conditions or modifications specified on the attached schedule, numbered 1 to 4. Date of Issue: 79 April 1998 Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas, Isle of Man. Secretary. Note 1: This permission refers only to that required under the Town & Country Planning Acts and does not include any consent or approval under any other enactment, byelaw, order or regulation. Note 2: NO WORKS MAY BE COMIENCED UNTIL SUCH TIME AS - a) the time for requesting an appeal in relation to any decision at review has expired; or b) any appeal has been completed. Note 3: Rights of appeal against the decision of the Planning Committee are attached. Note 4: An appeal may be requested within a period of 21 days. SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS Application No. 97/0848 1 The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of four years from the date of this notice. 2 A porous pipe 225mm in diameter is laid in the base of the race with 100mm surround of 12mm gravel with suitable plastic sheeting to prevent earth and other fill contaminating what shingle is in place. The pipe must be laid in a consistent line and to an even gradient. 3 The new pipe must make provision for connection to all existing road gullies and private downspouts which presently discharge into the millrace. 4 A manhole or access chamber must be included at the connection between the access road culvert and the new pipe and access to the pipe must be available where there is a change in direction of the pipe. Note: The applicant is strongly advised to consult the Department of Transport regarding supervision of the work. All filling must be undertaken so as to not to undermine the stability of the banks of the race. Note: This approval does not imply any approval to further infilling elsewhere along the millrace. Note: It should be noted that the Committee has been advised that as the mill race or at least part of it is privately owned, additional discharge into it can be a matter which should be discussed between those who intend to discharge additional water into the mill race and the owner of the mill race. ' / LEZAYRE PARISH COMMISSIONERS BARRANTTEE SKYLL CHREEST NY H'ARREY Clerk : Mr. R. Peel 1 C,00ilbane Cottages, Tel / Fax (01624) 897045 Sulby, Please reply to Isle of Man 1M7 2HR. the Clerk. The Secretary, The Planning Committee, Department of Local Government and the Environment, Murray House, Mount Havelock, Douglas_ Date 421 OIS • 9 7 Dear Sir, Re Planning Application (47 ovtg (gyei.")) The Commissioners have considered the above application, and 2. Have refused the application on the following grounds: Ile ifill putt behivA SA.reio lid" .44 bail .eLe . .4014-1.44-.014. lee*, .4"itioi4 .4444. iesi4ited . tt. .4174? . 14. .6.0740111 .1:11. .61)14e411C. g4 1'L4* . PetedP P.Pti.e41.6 .Aamt. .444.442,1 . 614104 sm9 tiks . . te).17( . . 14)40te . 411.411.4vt opt II 41VA 4a DI4 -at 60~A.tiositers xol- t...0;;A • — lutoc a IA It ctd.e.,4, Yours faithfully, 7;c) Robert Peel, Clerk to the Commissioners. cc!) 44,4 cvokild tjk Auk,'" ah„ degokskAt wrziat. ittg kide...1 1111144m 4#146t Igo A lin leo4.0. .2.01..) /ikon.. 44.4( ,a. Lad/Pr fAR C )000141-14i-aft tes 001 t C40 1.404%01 141a. L4zt / 5° citsilred 1vw101 j tee0ov riti.474 ► Department of Transport Rheynn Arraghey Highways & Traffic Division ittV$ Sea Terminal Building, Isle of Man Douglas, Isle of Man, IM1 2RF Government Switchboard: (01624) 686600 B. W. Hannay, B.Sc., (Hoes), M.Sc., C.Eng., Direct Line: (01624) 68 MICE, man-, C.Dip., A.F. Fax: (01624) 68 Directoreflikkysti.c Traffic 24th October 1997 LOCPA_ DEPT OFO T ENV 01.11EF FIXECUT Miss S Corlett 1110 Planning Officer 211 Department of Local Government and the Environment Murray House Mount Havelock DOUGLAS Isle of Man Dear Miss Corlett PA 97/0848 Infilline to Millrace, Sabrew, Main Road, Sulbj, Lezayre I refer to your letter of 22' September and apologise for the delay in my reply. This Department has no objection to the filling in of the mill race provided; a) a 225mm diameter porous pipe with a 100mm surround of 12mm gravel is laid in the base of the race. b) all existing road gullies that discharge into the race are connected to the above pipe. It would be as well to include all private house downspouts in this requirement. c) a manhole or access chamber is contracted at the connection between the access road culvert and the new pipe. As far as we understand the mill dam was filled in many years ago so the mill race is defunct as far as its original purpose. It also seems to be a source of nuisance to the immediate area. There exists a possibility that the groundwater table may rise but this hopefully will be controlled by the porous pipe. Yours sincerely C QUAGGIN Network Operations Manager cc H Garton D Corkish Clerk to Lezaye Commissioners DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT .15IGliCWAYS & TRAFFT.0 DIVISION SINTSCHBOARD:(10624) 686600 NETWORK OPERATIONS DIRECT LEE: (01624) 686665 SEA TERINZGYAL BUILDUNGS FAX (01624) 686905 DOUGLAS ISLE OF MAN 2RF FACSIMILE TO; FOR THE NrTENTION OF: S' a.97:4 f-S) FROM: C •.2 DATE: q 7 FA, NITNIM:R! 5 Scr CAGE 1 OF • (INCLUDLNG THIS COVER) )214, I 5u T //a (KCl sElyiA.R.Ks.riNsTRucl.foiN-s rma J -r-) ) pyfor:L 1 etAlq (-Y) e' le 7-rcte c4.0.411 b -.C( )-e-cti Al 41,041>a/7-c-eA-f, 14/ a,14, 14/ q i'''"' 1 114.1;-)-a, 1 I Itite-t" /20 1. 4 7-a,(Ar ct to 0..1 9 -mit a i i )4 S vIlt, 17 t(::• ,c,..e?,,,,AL je, 771x { 1( r ,(41.4.11,-1„. ;12-te: 0 ? 3 4 6e....„ 4 j2 1?..11-49r4 -ee/a 4vatr ceLcz-ac,1 ( f er.a. Cf /.r.c>,, 6,24.61 470 I- ea ,,a) , hi 314 C/7,11..X1 , KELLA DISTILLERS LIMITED KELL'S MILLS . SULBY . ISLE OF MAN TEL:Sales 01624 848099.Distillery 0 I 624 897777. FAX: 01624 898100 VAT REGISTRATION NUMBER GB 000 2690 36 EXCISE WAREHOUSE CODE A 6101054 UK 1.):-; Mr. R.Quine Secretary, Planning Committee Department of Local Government and Environment Government Offices Doualas . .. 22/8/97 Dear Mr. Quine, RE: 97/0648- Infilling of disused millrace behind Sabrew, Main Road Sulby The millrace is still very much in use for the purpose of draining water away from the Kella Mill. Not only is the millrace used in the disposal of our surface water, but also all 'the water used to cool the companies condensers. The amount varies from two or three thousand litres a day, to twenty thousand litres at present. In the not too distant future, we expect to use more river water for cooling purposes and so would need to increase discharge into the race by at least one thousand per cent. As far as I know, the millrace has never been out of use since it's inception. At the moment, due to the deliberate filling in of the race behind Sabrew, we now have a problem with stagnant water backing up to and actually into Kella Mill. I notice that the application is once again retrospective, why are the applicants allowed to disrupt our everyday business with their could'nt care less attitude?. I feel sure that an on site meeting would be of some help to explain to you the problems that would occur or indeed have occurred with the infilling of the millrace. Yours Sincerely R Taylor Manager Appendix 8 DoLGE evidence on Planning re:- Mill Race & Carrick Park Pertinent points Mill Race PA 84/375 "The finished floor level of the proposed dwellings must be agreed in consultation with the Board's Chief Environmental Health Inspector prior to the detailed submission of any detailed application in respect of the proposed development, to the satisfaction of the Committee (Note: the site is known to be prone to flooding)." - condition of approval Lezayre Parish Commissioners (LPC) "The proposed filling in of the mill race will cause heavy flooding in the area marked red on the site plan. Mr Quane, to my knowledge, has had two feet of water in his garden when the sequence of tide and river coincide to push the water back up the millrace." - Mr I Corkill, Clerk PA 84/1155 "The proposed bridge over the mill race must be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the Committee and the IOM Highway and Transport Board" "The finished floor level of the proposed buildings must be agreed in consultation with the Board's Chief Environmental Health Inspector PRIOR (their emphasis) to the submission of any detailed plans, to the satisfaction of the Committee. (Note: The site is known to be prone to flooding)." - conditions of approval PA 87/481 " The proposed bridge over the mill race must be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the Surveyor General of the Department of Highways, Ports and Properties." " The finished floor level ditto above" - conditions of approval PA 88/1443 " The following matters must be resolved to the satisfaction of the DHPP prior to the commencement of any works: (a) A 4.0m horizontal piece of ground on top of the river bank needs to be kept clear of any obstruction (i.e. Walls, trees, other structures) for future river maintenance " "NOTE: The floor levels of the buildings are very near to ground level. In an area which may be prone to flooding, the finished floor levels may be critical. The applicant should ensure adequate cognisance of these facts has been taken prior to the determination of the finished floor levels." - conditions of approval Comments on Flooding of the Site - photocopy enclosed - from Holmes Grace Consulting Engineers? - note floor level recommendation of 300 mm above ground and "During the design stage of the proposed development, an hydrological study should be considered and early reference made to the Rivers and Bridges Section of the DHPP." (our emphasis) PA 88/1444 - conditions identical to PA 88/1443 PA 96/296 - Plot 2 show house - no reference to any of the above matters in the conditions. PA 97/195 to PA 97/206 inclusive - Plot 1, 3 - 12. Only condition of approval relating to flooding matters "Prior to commencement of works on any plot, details of existing and finished ground and floor levels must be approved by the Committee for each plot." LPC letter 17/7/97 "The Storm Water comes off the High Road over quite a long stretch, which is diverted into the Millrace. At present the Millrace is stagnant and backing up due to the Millrace being blocked. This has resulted in stagnant water 3 feet deep in places which is a danger for children especially. The depth of water is a potential drowning hazard (even more so when there is inadequate fencing on the bridge). It is also a health hazard." Carrick Park No reference to flooding or alleviation measures in any of the submitted applications. LEZAYRE PARISH COMMISSIONERS BARRANTTEE SKYLL CHREEST NY H'ARREY 1 Coollbane Cottages Sulby Isle of Man. IM7 2HR Clerk : Mr R. Peel Goff . Tel/Fax : 01624 897041 Please reply to The Clerk. Mr. T.A. Bawden, 17th. November 2000 Clerk Assistant of Tynwald, Legislative Buildings, Douglas IM1 3PW Your ref: C/PeAn01/gmw Dear Mr. Bawden, Select Committee on the Petition for Redress of Grievance of Albert Edward Ansfield and Geoffrey Sheard Sanders. Lezayre Parish Commissioners wish to state the following: The land on which Carrick Park and latterly Millrace private estates have been built has always been known and observed (by local people) as areas which periodically flooded. When there were no houses on these areas, flooding was not considered much of a problem. As for the 24th-25th. October 1998 flooding, the Commissioners firmly believe that the flash flood was very much affected by extremely heavy rainfall to the East of Sulby River. Huge amounts of water joined Sulby River below the Sulby Dam, i.e. from Ballamanagh, The Cluggit. Tholt-y-Will etc. This information is necessarily that of eyewitnesses. The Commissioners wish to bring to the Select Committee's attention their absolute conviction that a government financed hydrological study should be started immediately for the whole of the Sulby River Floodplain, to encompass the Parish of Lezayre and also Ramsey, as the only proper means of determining where future property may be safely built, and also where existing properties are in danger. The Commissioners would like to quote from a letter received from the Chief Minister in which he says the Department of Transport "believes that the responsibility for carrying out a risk assessment and any required hydrological studies to enable the construction of new properties should lie with the developer." The Commissioners wonder what studies the developers of Carrick Park and Millrace had carried out. The Commissioners do not accept the Department of Transport's belief concerning this matter. Yours sincerely, Robert Peel, Clerk to the Commissioners Department of Local Government and the Environment Rheynn Reiltys Ynnydagh as y Chymmyltaght Director of Planning and Building Control Mr. W.B. Vannan isle of Man Government Reffiyi Non Vartrvn Planning and Building Control Directorate Murray House Mount Havelock Douglas, Isle of Man IM1 2SF Telephone (01624) 685902 Fax (01624) 685943 MEMORANDUM To: Brian Sinden, Acting Director Of Planning & Building Control From: Siamack Rowaichi, Senior Building Control Officer Date: 13 March 2001 Subject: The Mill Race Housing Development Further to your memorandum dated 6th March 2001 my advice are as follows: - 1. I have not found any records of ever been a consultation with the Department's Chief Environmental Health Inspector in respect of finish floor levels for the development. 2. There were not any details of floor levels in relation to the river in any of the 15 applications made under Building Regulations 1993 since 1997. 3. An application was made for Roads & Sewers (BL 93/2157) under the 1976 Byelaws. A note from Mr Jack Gray, Environmental Health Officer in the Works Section of the Environmental Health Inspectorate suggests that the application was approved on the recommendation of DHPP. Unfortunately Mr Gray is no longer with us to shed any more light on this matter. A cross section of the surface water sewer discharging into the river shows a difference in level of road to the discharge point into the river of only 730mm. I am not able at this time to provide you with copies of the plans for the Roads & Sewers application, but I shall endeavour get these to you as soon as they are available. Thank you. 7 ea • Siamack Q:\SIAMACICAMEMOSIMillrace.DOC Appendix 9 Association of British Insurers 51 Gresham Street, London EC2V 7HQ Direct Tel. 020 7216 7513 E-mail [email protected] Direct Fax. 020 7696 8995 Mrs M Cullen Clerk to the Committee 7 June 2001 Office of the Clerk of Tynwald Legislative Buildings Ref G/210/038 Douglas Isle of Man IM1 3PW Dear Mrs Cullen Flooding Events in Sulby Thank you for your letter of 21 May. We do not have any specific information about the cost to the insurance industry of the floods you refer to. We only collect aggregated claims figures. I enclose a copy of our latest statistical bulletin for your information. I cannot comment on the specific situation in the Isle of Man but insurers have made it clear that they want to continue to provide cover to as many policyholders as possible. ABI has agreed with its members that flood cover will be maintained for a minimum of two years for domestic properties and small businesses for existing policyholders. ABI and the Government recognise that in exceptional circumstances insurers would need the flexibility to discontinue cover. Exceptional circumstances might be habitual flooding of a property, or properties situated in a locality where there are no imminent plans to improve weak flood defences. Within the two-year period insurers will expect Government departments and agencies to put in place: • Satisfactory planning controls to ensure a presumption against new developments in flood plains. If development is allowed there should be adequate flood protection. • A plan to improve flood defences in the most vulnerable areas exposed to inland flooding. In the time available I have not been able to prepare a specific reply to your enquiry. However, I enclose a copy of the ABI response to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on their consultation on the new draft planning policy guidelines PPG25 and our response to the current Ministry of Tel: 020 - 7600 3333 Fax: 020 - 7696 8999 Web site http://www.abi.orguk 1 Agriculture , Fisheries and Food review of funding which I hope sets out our position. Government and industry will need to work closely in partnership to deliver continuing protection for homeowners and businesses at risk of flood damage. Yours sincerely Jackie Bennett Deputy Manager, Property and Household [17juncuilenIben] Mrs M Cullen Clerk to the Committee Office of the Clerk of Tynwald Legislative Buildings Douglas IM I 3PW Your Ref: C/PeAnOl/gmw Our Ref: DS/wjn 12 June 2001 Dear Mrs Cullen Sulbv Floods Many thanks for your letter dated 21 May 2001 following my conversation with John Rimington. I can only give you some broad comments from this Company's point of view, hopefully the ABI in London will respond with an Industry view (they may need a reminder! — their website www.abi.or_g.uk). It is difficult to be precise on costs but, as a guide, we think that at Tower we have approximately 20% market share in terms of Private House insurance and in round figures, both of the flood incidents have cost us approximately £500,000 on each occasion. That will give you some idea of the approximate total cost to the industry in terms of claims paid to which you then have to add all the other various losses, which will have occurred as a direct result of the two floods and which will not have been insured by the residents living in the area. Our concern is that the two incidents have occurred so close together following weather conditions which we perceive to have been not too much out of the ordinary for the time of year and if no action is taken to reduce the likelihood of such floods occurring on a regular basic, then we might have to budget for such losses recurring, in our future business plans. In reality, that would mean we would have to consider withdrawing flood cover in that area or increasing the Terms and Conditions to be fair to all our other policyholders who have property insured with us but do not have the specific exposure of the river flooding in and around Sulby. i 2 At this stage we are renewing all of our contracts for customers in that area on "normal" terms. For us to maintain that approach, we will be looking for some evidence from the Authorities (whomever that may be) to have investigated the causes of these losses and also to have taken remedial action to reduce the potential damage in future. Yours sincerely David Stacey Managing Director Appendix 10 L_ - Telephone: (01624) 685452 ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CHAMBERS Fax: (01624) 629162 DOUGLAS ISLE OF MAN IM1 3PP Your ref: WJHC/KFWG Our ref: C/PeAn01/gmw 4 June 2001 Mrs M Cullen Clerk of Tynwald's Office Government Office Douglas Dear Mrs Cullen PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCE MESSRS ANSFIELD AND SANDERS Thank you for your letter of 23rd May. I am not aware of any substantial defects or inadequacies in the Land Drainage Act 1934. I understand that the engineers who have to operate it consider that it is in need of updating, but I do not know what changes in it they wish to see. The former Highways and Transport Board wrote to the then Attorney General in April 1983 advising of a proposal to replace the Act, but nothing came of it. 1 believe that, since then, suggestions have been made from time to time by officers of the Board and its successor, the Department of Transport, that the Act should be looked at with a view to its replacement. However, the Legislative Draftsman has always advised that, if the Act was to be replaced, a policy decision would be needed on whether to retain or abolish the power to impose a drainage rate on land within a drainage district (sections 19 to 26), and no such decision has ever been taken. Currently there is a proposal, arising out of last year's report on Coastal Erosion, to transfer the functions of the Department of Transport under the 1934 Act to the Department of Local Government and the Environment. However, this is not likely to be progressed separately from the question of coast protection, and in any case would not affect the functions themselves. Yours sincerely 444! . W J H Corlett Attorney General Appendix 11 [WI; itti.c2 .enn2;ti in122.21.C, • c71 Inodeet;cte 225rtilii-0)*(6;••;Ir-9 the flow of 4". its bt•ttorn section. bucks w tor up Ifll 111)cc Water Ilowe.1,o1onkjii'roctpat iROGG e , ,y,/, '''''''''''''''' Sully (fridge Nt Water bockc up ovel\ 1 „..".f.'". \ I sluice gate at weir r,j°114f.‘!:17,f)) ..6_,, I.R.101C:ci, eARK ESTATE ,. '. 1:\:...\,_. r t .... r. M c14 VA* • 4;10 V . .... ,047. p7/ . P9 '....--'"Elki.:- Pdtc..ESTATE 401.1.48.4 446 AN , vAiri,„ , :"4,- $,),.ii \ '. criinYcrnt'2'r.'.. ;:;lni ;wcitin.%1- 'odrii.c;:t6ittrn11 1.2;kil lr foOtiirridge- 40 ditch iTh(1,,,i01;c1,...... _.....-t--) ;Old .; 1 Ke, ‘,7161 \ 7.3„______—...... 7 + i-.0, 0 (tinge! Hal: - Piu:'.-I'. :.;..----',.....- ". 1 li :.• inarlei:ate chon.iiel lead 44, t, overtopping / `,?.)\k.f / •-.„.46i\ .\_...(..; ''N'i(2-Ks' ) ' Overtopping :•)6`..the 0-eyon I :..,„\ / / '••0•• • ;,••75,,,.;"( I of ,r..C.Kolicv..'We.; ..'" C' '... .,;„1 I.. [Civertoing increases flow I un - off causefl oini all clamp the ;rill OGC sietently high •r 1 , .e. / 1` Key: Extent of flooding Direction of flow of water ..••• / j." 11 air 4./ 27/ Bockflow of water Clefddaghs.:Weir •-- h7.;;;Iio- IA-NI Factors contributing -•CIodd aq'hs.~ Bridge to flooding 32 House numbers affected Increased water'•iev0 by flooding weter to flow Mang .1..611 Race ; .h40 retie Client :1.0..m. GOVERNMENT Department of Transport NOTES SULBY RIVER Omen By P.T.R. Rat. 01101:1199 Rherm Arr.:whey FLOOD REPORT Checked by DESIGN SERVICES DIVISION Scale A) Bell, 11.5c.(Hons), C.Eng., MICE, MII-1f Director of Works 8; Design 5enrim D reelm Tetle ..lee Ref 1:5000 Sea Terminal Building, Telephone: ati.RIedPEIti LAYOUT AND Douglas, (01624) 686600 APPENDIX 13 Orbeteg RV Fax: eeornf mMeant AREA FLOODED Isle of Man, (0r624) 686970 Government 001 IM1 2RF. Email: Dolligovim Appendix 12 12 Recommendations 1. The Joint Working Group to continue to meet to further develop the issues arising from the Final Report. 2. The full-time post of Land Drainage Engineer be progressed as a matter of urgency by the DoT. 3. The introduction of two codes of practice, one for river bank maintenance and the other for agricultural drainage, to be initiated by the DoT in conjunction with DAFF and DoLGE. 4. The procedures relating to the introduction of a penalty system for contravention of the Land Drainage Act to be further examined by the Joint Working Group. 5. DoT to develop, in conjunction with DAFF and DoLGE, and implement maintenance policies for designated main rivers. 6. DAFF to lead, in conjunction with DoT and DoLGE, the introduction of river corridors for maintenance and environmental protection. 7. DoLGE to undertake a review of the planning process for development in flood plains and other areas susceptible to flooding. The resulting paper to be further considered by the Joint Working Group. 8. DoLGE to undertake, in conjunction with DoT and DAFF, the preparation of guidelines for developers who seek to develop in areas susceptible to flooding. 9. DoLGE to lead the securing of an improvement in the quality of information provided by developers, particularly in respect of risk assessments. DoLGE also to establish procedures whereby this information is then disseminated to relevant Departments. 10. DoT to produce guidelines aimed at improving communications between Departments and statutory undertakers. 11. DoT Working in conjunction with DAFF and DoLGE to carry out limited channel improvements on the Sulby River and to produce and implement a revised maintenance regime for the river. 12. Adequate personnel and funding to be made available to relevant Departments to enable further progress to be made. 13. The use of storage reservoirs as flood protection measures is not progressed. 26 Parliamentary Copyright available from: The Tynwald Library Legislative Buildings DOUGLAS Isle of Man IM1 3PW British Isles October 2001 Tel: 01624 685520 Fax: 01624 685522 e-mail [email protected] Price: £8.00