Millhouse Flood Action Group, April 2017 Update. "(First & only one)"
A Statement was issued in April 2017, by the Flood Action Group to village residents and locals.
A copy is published below.
We have highlighted in detail a comment below each topic raised, in italics, titled "Comment" .
__________________________
A copy is published below.
We have highlighted in detail a comment below each topic raised, in italics, titled "Comment" .
__________________________
Update: April 2017 on progress so far …
Members of the Millhouse Flood Action Group (MFAG) has been actively working with all the appropriate authorities to work out the best ways forward to protect the village from potential flooding in the future.
Both Dr Mike Townend and Philippa Groves have attended numerous meetings in their own time and at their own cost on the flooding in Cumbria and potential ways to minimise the risk in the future.
Members of the Millhouse Flood Action Group (MFAG) has been actively working with all the appropriate authorities to work out the best ways forward to protect the village from potential flooding in the future.
Both Dr Mike Townend and Philippa Groves have attended numerous meetings in their own time and at their own cost on the flooding in Cumbria and potential ways to minimise the risk in the future.
Website Comment:
Sadly, these meetings with the authorities were based very much on biased self opinions from a minority of M.F.A.G. individuals. The meeting's topics certainly appear to have been very inventive, but not factual, with a very obvious lack of practical, logical, basic local knowledge and experience of the actual 40 year credible functioning of our very viable existing resilience infrastructure, which has recently been inadvertently desecrated by an unregulated man made structure.
There are many regular viewers of this now very prominent website, (and the previous .co.uk website) who have studied the photos showing the flood levels, who do wonder why MFAG have not taken them seriously, and reacted.
_______________________________________
These meetings were held with authorities, and authority members, (not surveyors or engineers) who are themselves complete strangers to the village of MILLHOUSE, with NO actual practical first hand experience of recent and past historic flooding events, very little knowledge of the capability of the current already-in-place preventative infrastructures and their recent inadvertent man made abuse, and the persistent lack of regulation to maintain the credibility of the infrastructures.
The representatives of our M.F.A.G. were not even aware of the actual true flood water source,
and the maximum lagooned levels experienced during the crescendo of storm Desmond, (proven on this web site).
The meetings content appears to have been a complete farce, with their emerging content miles away and completely out of tune from real life practical factual reality.
Sadly, these meetings with the authorities were based very much on biased self opinions from a minority of M.F.A.G. individuals. The meeting's topics certainly appear to have been very inventive, but not factual, with a very obvious lack of practical, logical, basic local knowledge and experience of the actual 40 year credible functioning of our very viable existing resilience infrastructure, which has recently been inadvertently desecrated by an unregulated man made structure.
It would be marvallous if we were able to publish some positives about MFAG projects and activities, but to date we can't because there aren't any. Not one of the projects they've organized and carried out to date, hold any practical & realistic qualities to provide flood resilience to MILLHOUSE. Sadly, this fact will be proved during the next relentless rainfall storm.
Until such times that MFAG are prepared to swallow their pride, to take seriously all the factual photo's displaying real life water levels, on this website, and discuss them in a genuine way with the authorities, (which should have happened well over 2 years ago) we'll have no alternative but to continue publishing the unrelenting blunders, and inventive tangents.
There are many regular viewers of this now very prominent website, (and the previous .co.uk website) who have studied the photos showing the flood levels, who do wonder why MFAG have not taken them seriously, and reacted.
_______________________________________
Bund work on Gilcambon Beck
This work was carried out using a local recognised professional contractor on advice from the relevant authorities and with permission from the landowner and taking into consideration local observations. This work has formed a larger area for flood water to access therefore slowing it down somewhat before joining the Caldew. The road bund was also reinforced to a consistent level and reseeded, also the appearance of the area has been improved. The cost of this work has been stood by MFAG.
This work was carried out using a local recognised professional contractor on advice from the relevant authorities and with permission from the landowner and taking into consideration local observations. This work has formed a larger area for flood water to access therefore slowing it down somewhat before joining the Caldew. The road bund was also reinforced to a consistent level and reseeded, also the appearance of the area has been improved. The cost of this work has been stood by MFAG.
Website Comment:
Yes, its a good job, well done, but as the village was flooded from the Caldew, not the Gillcambon, how will this quite unnecessary project benefit and contribute towards resilience for the vulnerable properties in the village?
And anyone who has genuinely seen this beck in full spate flood mode will know that there is not a cat in h**ls chance of it being somehow "slowed down before joining the Caldew" by this or any other potential project.
And due to the age old back-flow issue up the road drains,
(which will be difficult to rectify) "the road will still lagoon to the same level as the beck", (as seen here) as it has done for decades, still does, and always will.
(which will be difficult to rectify) "the road will still lagoon to the same level as the beck", (as seen here) as it has done for decades, still does, and always will.
"The No. 1 Golden Eternal rule for earth's natural gravitational force":-
Water does "always" find its own level, without exception.
Water does "always" find its own level, without exception.
______________________________________
Tree Work on the Caldew
This work again was identified after numerous consultations and surveys. Trees help to stabilise the river bank by means of their root systems but if the roots become undermined by the flow of water when the river is in spate they are in danger of falling into the river, especially if they are already top heavy or leaning towards the river. If this happens they are in danger of being swept away and forming a dam, for example by blocking the bridge, or causing damage to the protective bund when they are uprooted. It was felt that most of the trees on the riverbank should be pollarded or coppiced as they had been in the past. Pollarding and coppicing stimulate further growth, including root growth, which will anchor them more firmly and increase the stability of the river bank. Two larger trees on Mrs Mallaband’s needed removal as they had become top heavy and their roots were deeply undermined by the river, leaving them in danger of coming down in the next flood and causing severe disruption of the protective bund. This work has been carried out by another local professional contractor with advice and direction from all relevant authorities. Permission was sought from Natural England and was granted to the landowners for this work which was considered necessary to protect the bund from further destabilisation. The cost of this work has been stood by MFAG. Owing to intervention by some local residents the work was not fully completed and an inspection by a Tree Expert and the EA will be carried out in the next couple of weeks and if further work is required the cost will have to be discussed with those individuals.
This work again was identified after numerous consultations and surveys. Trees help to stabilise the river bank by means of their root systems but if the roots become undermined by the flow of water when the river is in spate they are in danger of falling into the river, especially if they are already top heavy or leaning towards the river. If this happens they are in danger of being swept away and forming a dam, for example by blocking the bridge, or causing damage to the protective bund when they are uprooted. It was felt that most of the trees on the riverbank should be pollarded or coppiced as they had been in the past. Pollarding and coppicing stimulate further growth, including root growth, which will anchor them more firmly and increase the stability of the river bank. Two larger trees on Mrs Mallaband’s needed removal as they had become top heavy and their roots were deeply undermined by the river, leaving them in danger of coming down in the next flood and causing severe disruption of the protective bund. This work has been carried out by another local professional contractor with advice and direction from all relevant authorities. Permission was sought from Natural England and was granted to the landowners for this work which was considered necessary to protect the bund from further destabilisation. The cost of this work has been stood by MFAG. Owing to intervention by some local residents the work was not fully completed and an inspection by a Tree Expert and the EA will be carried out in the next couple of weeks and if further work is required the cost will have to be discussed with those individuals.
Website Comment:
Not sure why there has been numerous very expensive "professional" consultations and surveys.
Dispite the belief of MFAG, there many local intelligent individuals brimming with practical knowledge, experience and common sense who are perfectly capable of looking at a tree, and to judge instantly if it's a bad tree or a good tree? The decision can be made there and then, to sort it, or not to sort it, without the expensive consultations and surveys, without any cost to the MFAG or tax payer, and without the wait.
The Only beneficiaries from these surveys:
"The Surveyors".
Thankfully, these extremely expensive consultations / surveys are not carried out to the whole length of the Caldew, although there are many, many remaining unstable trees upstream to Haltcliffe Bridge and beyond, that still present more of a threat to our village than these ones ever did. The majority of the trees that line the river Caldew, (in general) have exposed roots, BUT are very stable and have flourished in their current positions for centuries, and are still flourishing. One or two of our trees may have exposed roots but it doesn't mean they are unstable. They are probably very stable, probably much more stable than the hundreds of others further upstream, and did not in any way pose any threat to the village.
There are also many many "large remaining" trees on the "West Bank" that have exposed roots actually growing out of the river bed, which have maintained this format for centuries. These trees actually appear to flourish better than the others, and their vertical profile has never been changed by any of the huge river levels.
So why has this hugely expensive tree surgery only been prioritized on the (east) village side of the river, high level coppicing, (or pollarding) the most healthy trees and saplings of this section of river, whilst there are still dozens, probably hundreds of remaining unhealthy, bent and rotten limbs of trees remaining on the other side. And when the wind blows "from the west", (as it does) these will be the trees most liable to be blown apart into the river?
This project has exceeded all proportions, with a huge unnecessary cost, resulting in the only beneficiaries being the consultants, surveyors and the tree surgeon, with absolutely NO direct benefit to the village or any flood vulnerable property. We really do have to question the mentality of the individual who instigated it.
A local intervention is mentioned in the above statement. Contrary to the MFAG claim, according to the tree surgeon his initial instructions were completely cut down to ground level most of the healthy river edge saplings and mature trees. This would have completely distroyed the invaluable established tree root system which will provide vital river bank stabilization for future generations of village. A last minute local intervention thankfully stopped this unnecessary desecration to very healthy trees with well established root systems. The cost to high level coppice, (or pollard) instead of to cut down, will be greater.
Once again, this expensive inventive project will NOT have any direct benefit to the vulnerable properties in the village.
_____________________________
Bund work on the Caldew
We are awaiting the results from the latest surveys, permissions (applied for) and advice from all the relevant authorities to continue with the work necessary to raise and reinforce the bund on the Caldew on both Mrs Mallaband and Mrs Barwis’s land. Applications have been forwarded to relevant authorities and the cost for these applications has been borne by MFAG again.
We are awaiting the results from the latest surveys, permissions (applied for) and advice from all the relevant authorities to continue with the work necessary to raise and reinforce the bund on the Caldew on both Mrs Mallaband and Mrs Barwis’s land. Applications have been forwarded to relevant authorities and the cost for these applications has been borne by MFAG again.
Website Comment:
"The recently errected fence on top of the bund is certain to present a problem, and to place this quite unnecesssary project on hold, which is now a huge embarrassment for the group who have slept while it happened.
In reality, there are no low or high spots of any significance to the bund top to warrant a survey, as the bund overflowed at such a huge volume for almost it's entire length, and then was submerged in stacked lagoon format to a huge depth of over 2ft for almost it's entire length, which incorparated the village.
"The recently errected fence on top of the bund is certain to present a problem, and to place this quite unnecesssary project on hold, which is now a huge embarrassment for the group who have slept while it happened.
In reality, there are no low or high spots of any significance to the bund top to warrant a survey, as the bund overflowed at such a huge volume for almost it's entire length, and then was submerged in stacked lagoon format to a huge depth of over 2ft for almost it's entire length, which incorparated the village.
So the current MFAG money being thrown at this survey is being totally wasted yet again, with the only beneficiaries being the surveyors !!!
Apparently the survey has been conducted to pick out so-called "low" spots.
Contrary to the survey, there are no "low" and "high" spots of any significance.
Paramountly, to date there are no confirmed proposals to reinstate the essential original bridge overflow path to provide access to the original flood plain.
If priority is given to a quick fix on so-called low spots on the bund, at the expense of putting the essential bridge overflow path on a back burner, the river will again stack to unprecedented levels on upstream land, and potentially overflow the bund once again to the exact same degree and level during the crescendo of the next Desmond type storm, within the next 2 years, may be even this year.
___________________________
Proposed future Tree planting.
A future plan to plant more trees on the land adjoining the Caldew is being investigated but this is not relevant until the bund work has been finished. Funding for this will be sought from The Rivers Trust and the Woodlands Trust.
Website Comment:
If more trees were planted along the river edge to create crucial root stabilisation it would be a positive action, but any trees planted further back would just be cosmetic.
_______________________________
If more trees were planted along the river edge to create crucial root stabilisation it would be a positive action, but any trees planted further back would just be cosmetic.
_______________________________
Bund work below the bridge
Mr Henry Little has given permission for the raised land immediately below the bridge to be lowered allowing flood water to access the flood plain as soon as it passes through the bridge. Once relevant permissions have been sought this work will be carried out by a local respected contractor. This cost for this work will be borne by MFAG.
Mr Henry Little has given permission for the raised land immediately below the bridge to be lowered allowing flood water to access the flood plain as soon as it passes through the bridge. Once relevant permissions have been sought this work will be carried out by a local respected contractor. This cost for this work will be borne by MFAG.
Website Comment:
The funnelling effect of the bridge only allows a certain amount of flood mode water, (combined volume/current) through the arch at a specific time, and no more.
The funnelling effect of the bridge only allows a certain amount of flood mode water, (combined volume/current) through the arch at a specific time, and no more.
Just a simple experiment with a household funnel will reveal that it has limitations of how much flow capacity it can handle. When the liquid "input" is increased, the "output" flowrate does not follow up, but remains minimal, the funnel then stacks and overflows.
On a larger scale, MILLHOUSE
Bridge has the same phenomenon, which becomes seriously overwhelmed during extreme storms, unable to accommodate the sheer volume of the inflamed river in full spate.
When the river becomes swollen during extreme storms, it completely overwhelmes the bridge, (now deprived of it's orriginal overflow path), and routinely stacks to unprecendented levels upstream, and to the mercy of the vulnerable properties in the village.
When the river becomes swollen during extreme storms, it completely overwhelmes the bridge, (now deprived of it's orriginal overflow path), and routinely stacks to unprecendented levels upstream, and to the mercy of the vulnerable properties in the village.
By carrying out the proposed quite unnecessary work on Henry's river bank will NOT IN ANY WAY increase the flow capacity of the bridge, but just undo valuable work done early last century to prevent the field flooding during relatively lower levels of the swollen river.
Henry needs to be justly warned that by removing or flattening the bund in his field it will cause his field to flood much more frequently during relatively lower river levels, during regular periods when there is absolutely no threat to the village, (which is why the bund was initially installed by the Summers, who owned the field at the time). Henry will have no alternative but to move his livestock out of this field during these more frequent periods.
And Henry needs to be reassured that he will not have to foot the bill for the reinstallation of the bund himself, when it is discovered what happens?
Henry needs to be justly warned that by removing or flattening the bund in his field it will cause his field to flood much more frequently during relatively lower river levels, during regular periods when there is absolutely no threat to the village, (which is why the bund was initially installed by the Summers, who owned the field at the time). Henry will have no alternative but to move his livestock out of this field during these more frequent periods.
And Henry needs to be reassured that he will not have to foot the bill for the reinstallation of the bund himself, when it is discovered what happens?
The "orriginal overflow path for the bridge" used to convey the excess flood water to Henry's field very efficiently, "and only when required".
For more about the history, plus the realistic negative characteristics of MILLHOUSE bridge, visit "the Bridges" page. https://www.millhouse-hesketnewmarket.com/the-bridges
________________________________
Website Comment:
This, and the previous .co.uk website has bent over backwards to provide crucial factual friendly practical experience and advice in an easy to understand photograph format, (with the aim of triggering the necessary reinstatement quickfix) for well over 2 years now, but has been very arrogantly demeaned and ignored by certain members of the Flood Action Group.
This, and the previous .co.uk website has bent over backwards to provide crucial factual friendly practical experience and advice in an easy to understand photograph format, (with the aim of triggering the necessary reinstatement quickfix) for well over 2 years now, but has been very arrogantly demeaned and ignored by certain members of the Flood Action Group.
It is very obvious that certain self opinionated members of Millhouse Flood Action Group are unwilling to accept friendly factual practical local down to earth experience and advice.
. Certain members are apparently unwilling to listen, and to accept the uniquely proven "documented" evidence on this, and the previous website.
. Certain members apparently just can't be bothered to actually read the uniquely proven content of this, and the previous website.
. Certain members apparently, would rather believe their own, or be hoodwinked by other very fabricated "undocumented" versions.
. Certain members apparently believe that qualifications (rather than hands on historic experience) are essential to make decisions for the future welfare of MILLHOUSE.
That is why there is an underlying but very obvious reluctance of potential new members to join, therefore the group certainly has been, and still is a self opinionated "closed shop".
_____________________________________
. Certain members are apparently unwilling to listen, and to accept the uniquely proven "documented" evidence on this, and the previous website.
. Certain members apparently just can't be bothered to actually read the uniquely proven content of this, and the previous website.
. Certain members apparently, would rather believe their own, or be hoodwinked by other very fabricated "undocumented" versions.
. Certain members apparently believe that qualifications (rather than hands on historic experience) are essential to make decisions for the future welfare of MILLHOUSE.
That is why there is an underlying but very obvious reluctance of potential new members to join, therefore the group certainly has been, and still is a self opinionated "closed shop".
_____________________________________
Other works not funded by MFAG
. Mr Murray has done a huge amount of landscaping in his garden to help with the situation.
. Improved flood doors and other barriers have been installed at Smithy Cottage, The Mill and other properties at the owners’ expense
. Some upstream management has been carried out after consultations with the EA, RT and WT by Mr & Mrs Groves on their land upstream on the Gilcambon, this work has formed a small holding reservoir for water once the river has breached a certain level and also allowing floodwater to spill onto a larger area on their land. Extensive tree planting has also taken place on their land.
. Mr Murray has done a huge amount of landscaping in his garden to help with the situation.
. Improved flood doors and other barriers have been installed at Smithy Cottage, The Mill and other properties at the owners’ expense
. Some upstream management has been carried out after consultations with the EA, RT and WT by Mr & Mrs Groves on their land upstream on the Gilcambon, this work has formed a small holding reservoir for water once the river has breached a certain level and also allowing floodwater to spill onto a larger area on their land. Extensive tree planting has also taken place on their land.
Website Comment:
You may have created a few extra seconds, may-be even minutes of flood water hold-back time by containing several hundred/thousand gallons in your garden and land, but nothing more. When the reservoir and land area is full, it's full. Flood water can not be halted or persuaded to slow down. The natural current flow is deemed to progress down its orriginal natural gravitational flow path at full volume, as it has no where else to go. The village of MILLHOUSE will not notice any particle of benefit from it. "But probably a nice water feature".
However, this holding feature, and any others placed in becks and rivers, have a strong dangerous potential to create an unwelcome flooding disaster downstream. It has the potential to "burst open" due to the sheer weight and pressure of the water behind it. It is inevitable that serious errosion will occurr due to constant overflowing during periods of relentless rainfall. If this so called dry dam bursts, it will create a tsunami type extreme capacity surge in the Gilcambon beck, and Caldew, which is certain to cause devastation downstream when it comes in contact with the potentially already stacked overwhelmed capacity bridge, and spill over to flood vulnerable properties in MILLHOUSE.
____________________________
You may have created a few extra seconds, may-be even minutes of flood water hold-back time by containing several hundred/thousand gallons in your garden and land, but nothing more. When the reservoir and land area is full, it's full. Flood water can not be halted or persuaded to slow down. The natural current flow is deemed to progress down its orriginal natural gravitational flow path at full volume, as it has no where else to go. The village of MILLHOUSE will not notice any particle of benefit from it. "But probably a nice water feature".
However, this holding feature, and any others placed in becks and rivers, have a strong dangerous potential to create an unwelcome flooding disaster downstream. It has the potential to "burst open" due to the sheer weight and pressure of the water behind it. It is inevitable that serious errosion will occurr due to constant overflowing during periods of relentless rainfall. If this so called dry dam bursts, it will create a tsunami type extreme capacity surge in the Gilcambon beck, and Caldew, which is certain to cause devastation downstream when it comes in contact with the potentially already stacked overwhelmed capacity bridge, and spill over to flood vulnerable properties in MILLHOUSE.
____________________________
Sadly, a huge amount of money has been fired at these nonsensical totally unnecessary projects. Projects that will not benefit MILLHOUSE
in any form. Instead of instigating these lame duck projects on a tangent, it would have been a great deal easier, and just as beneficial to the village for the self opinionated officials to stand in a row and throw £20 notes off the bridge into the river Caldew.
The sooner the original overflow path for the river Caldew bridge is reinstated, the sooner the properties in MILLHOUSE
will actually become desirable and marketable, (as they used to be).
