After the 2007 Floods - An uphill battle continues!

Following the 2007 flooding and during the preparation of the Mason Clark Report a number of problems were highlighted. The most significant in terms of cost to the comunity, effort required and resources expended has been the deliberate introduction of the two pieces of 12" pipe by one resident as mentioned in the previous blog article.

Following his discovery and revelation he has waged a virtual war on the Parish Council apparently for having the temerity to question his right to install the pipes in the dyke.

There are a number of pre-existing laws which cover such activity. These include the 1936 public health act, the 1991 land drainage act, the 1994 land drainage act, the Lower Ouse Internal Drainage Board by-laws and various aspects of Riparian Law. This same individual stated in a letter to the Flood Action Group that he had approached the Drainage Board and been told not to install the pipes but had gone ahead anyway with a home brewed and inadequate scheme hidden away out of sight behind his house. A disaster waiting to happen and happen it did in June 2007.

At various times subsequently he has claimed he (a) does own the dyke, (b) that he does not own the dyke, and (c) that someone else (anyone but him it seems) should pay for its maintenance.

After the County Council Engineers had designed a drainage improvement scheme and the Parish Council carried out wide consultation within the community (which showed overwhelming support for the project), following which a low interest, capital project, public works was taken out by the council and Mason-Clark Consulting Engineers engaged to oversee the works. This same individual is still attempting to derail the project by issuing leaflets containing blatant lies about the design process and fundamental misrepresentations about the finances. He writes to the press but runs to hide behind the Information Commissioners Office with spurious complaints when his name appears in public in responses to correct the lies he circulated. The false accusations simply add to council administration costs and achieve nothing except delay.

A view of two 12" pipes installed as an amateur culvert in the critical dyke between Scalby Lane and Chestnut Drive. Note that a 3 foot diameter council installed culvert lies upstream of this. Simple junior school mathematics show a 3 foot pipe to have a cross section area of 7.1 square feet - a 12" pipe has a cross section area of only 0.78 square feet. This is one of the deliberate bottlenecks of the critical dyke. Further downstream the dyke has not been desilted for thirty years and other bottlenecks also exist through this neglect. Until the early 1980s the Lower Ouse Drainage Board maintained this dyke on a voluntary basis but abandoned this and the dyke has become silted and obstructed since that time.

A glass half full rather than one half empty

I try to always look on the bright side of life as in the Monty Python song. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't.
I work with other members of the community of Gilberdyke to maintain or improve conditions where I can. My philosophy is that to achieve change you have to stand up and be counted.
I am a current member of the Parish Council and was for a while the chairman of Giberdyke Flood Action Group which was set up by the Parish Council following the June 2007 floods to determine why the village suffered so heavily. I worked with other members of the Flood Action Group, the Parish Council and Mason Clark Consultant Engineers to determine where the problems lay and press for remedial action to the appropriate authorities.
A report was produced and used to "persuade" the Lower Ouse Internal Drainage Board to desilt the main drainage dykes between the village and the River Ouse (previously last done in early 1980s), also the Parish Council forwarded the report to East Riding of Yorkshire Council and requested that body to take effective action to clear the drainage systems within the village.
A major part of the problems within the village were attributable to failure of Riparian owners to maintain (regularly cleanse) the dykes adjacent or within their properties, Deliberate infilling of some of these dykes and unauthorised culverting using totally inadequate pipe sizes. The solution to this should be simple you would think? Sadly one or two of those individuals who had directly contributed to the problems have spent the period from the discovery of the obstructions in challenging the proposed remedial works at every opportunity and throwing sand in the gears.