councilanddeveloper1008005.jpg

Culvert Map

councilanddeveloper1008006.jpg
councilanddeveloper1008007.jpg
councilanddeveloper1008003.jpg
councilanddeveloper1008001.jpg

Rayden Engineering definition of a "Minor Issue."

councilanddeveloper1008004.gif

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY 2nd FEBRUARY 2007

"The site lies within a Flood Zone 3 from the River Erewash and there is a culvert running under the site. During high river levels, water emerges from the culvert and floods this area thus the Agency must OBJECT to the proposal..."

wp1d26ce6c.png
wp27b8fb74.png

The ancient culvert starts at the former Babbington Colliery and runs through the parishes of Awsworth and Cossall before entering Ilkeston Junction, where it crosses under the railway bridge to Wentworth Street before continuing on its final journey across land currently occupied by Rayden Engineering but absent from his Title Deeds. This land is adjacent to the adversely possessed triangle of land next to our properties. After crossing this land it meets with the River Erewash at the bottom of Wentworth Street. Under normal circumstances the water drains into the river. During high river levels a flap valve to this culvert fitted by the Environment Agency in 2002 automatically shuts to prevent river water back surging through the culvert to flood the land taken and occupied by Rayden Engineering. During high river levels the drainage collected from Babbington, Awsworth, Cossall and Ilkeston Junction is unable to escape via the River Erewash and overspills onto the previously porous Flood Zone 3 land. This water is now unable to drain away through the compacted hardcore with no drainage laid without planning consent by Rayden Engineering.

During high river levels, water from the first parcel of land acquired by Rayden Engineering for storage drains onto the lower level compacted hardcore with no drainage, now built up higher than the 15 properties and gardens situated at the lowest level of all the Rayden Engineering development, thus taking all of the trapped and rediverted floodwater.

Culvert under tonnes of metal

RAYDEN ENGINEERING FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT

"Where development encroaches on the floodplain, it can cause an increase in water levels due to a loss of floodplain storage. This may cause an increased flood risk due to displacement of water or backwater effect. Given the minimal nature of the development ...this should be a MINOR ISSUE."

wp9d2d7d67.png
wp600ee0bf.png

THE RAYDEN ENGINEERING

FLOOD PLAIN DEVELOPMENT

wp9fb44e65_0f.jpg

Surely you are not breaching the conditions attached to the Planning Inspectorate Appeal are you??

Appeal Number: APP/N1025/A/07/2055144

“No further development shall take place nor shall the site be brought into use for storage purposes until full details of the provision and implementation of a surface water run-off limitation scheme, incorporating sustainable drainage principles, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.”

 

You have yet to submit a suitable sustainable drainage system scheme for planning approval, therefore the development below is in clear breach of imposed planning conditions attached to the Appeal. Which ever way you chose to alter land levels on land you should not be working on without prior approval  will not constitute a sustainable drainage system!

wp356f6246.png
wpf1b9a033.png
wp948f670c.png
wp94dc3602_0f.jpg

“If the south west boundary of the site was fully screened, possibly incorporating an earth bund to give any tree planting added initial height, the visual impact would be significantly reduced.”

                                                                                              Planning Inspector Jeremy Eagles June 2008

COMMENT: ERR.. If Dastardly Dick is a little short of readies despite saving a considerable fortune stealing instead of purchasing his vast land bank, perhaps he would care to donate some of his “Woodlands”trees to incorporate “initial height” to the planting scheme. Though we are a little puzzled over which tree planting scheme has been implemented. Is it the Traffic Commissioner conditions of operation tree planting scheme 3 months later than the official deadline? Or is it the Planning Inspectorate Appeal condition for screening the site through planting?

After all with TWO tree planting schemes imposed as part of the conditions attached to TWO entirely separate Rayden Engineering operations, one would have expected a  view similar to the one above which Rayden Engineering destroyed in order to “significantly improve our visual outlook”.

THE TREE PLANTING SCHEME

Guess we won’t have any trouble spotting the bats roosting!