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.