Watery Lane Update

November

28

6 comments

Watery Lane
Watery Lane

Ron Oatham went to a meeting last Monday regarding Watery lane. The consultant presented a report which basically put forward nine possible options, none of which significantly reduced the the flood risk enough to attract Flood Defence Grant Aid.
The option to raise the road by 1.2 Metres was clearly out of the question financially.
ECC agreed to look at the possibility of a new ditch on the south side of the road and the installation of a pump to route water direct to the River Crouch. This wouldn’t deal with once-in- 30-years events but might help with the less extreme rainfall.
It was frustrating that some of the bodies involved wanted another body to take a step before they would take a step…

About the author, admin

  • This seems to be similar to meetings that Rayleigh Town Council has had. No group wants to take responsibility for repair work. Would be interested to know Rawreth Parish reaction to this. The Crouch is tidal and may push water back towards the village. Not sure of this and am willing to be corrected.

  • Clue is in the name “Watery ” Lane , it is effectively part of the Crouch water meadow ( just like the Chelmer at Chelmsford – the road to Spingfield is on stilts ), likewise it could be solved but the cost would be enormous.
    So as it is just an old country lane it will not qualify, the fact that we all know (from recent experience) it is the rat ran of choice which takes some of the load off Rawreth Lane, that will not count.
    We need a County Council that is looking for a big picture solution to Hullbridge access – before they build another 500 at Hullbridge and a 500 road block at Rawreth
    ( North of London Rd ) Lane.
    Where are the people of vision that this country produced to build an empire world wide let alone a backwater of Essex?.

  • You are absolutely correct in that assumption Bruce.We and the residents have continuously tried to alert the authorities of the dangers in the Church Road area of the increasing regularity of flooding but only falls on deaf ears .A flood forum was set up by the residents before ever RDC decided to do the same .It incorporates others from outside the parish such as Bowers Gifford .Other residents have taken action to clear parts of the brook and keep gulleys free .There is a lot of anger and resilience as well there . It is at the confluence of three main channels draining Rayleigh,Thundersley,North Benfleet,Bowers Gifford,Nevendon and Eastern Basildon,so as you can see all areas are having increased Developement which however many attenuation schemes ,still increases the speed water reaches Rawreth and Battlesbridge .Watery lane is on another catchment which although smaller has huge economic effects when in flood which it seems to do increasingly.The Beeches brook drains parts of Hullbridge Downhall and Rawreth Lane including Priory Chase and the Laburnham Close .These were supposed to not increase the chances of flooding when built but that simply is not the case as shown by the frequency.Beeches Brook runs through very low lying land therefore is slow running with a large natural flood plane of which Watery Lane is part .The outfall into the Crouch is through three pipe valves which when the tide is high do not function therefore in a rain situation will flood the lane .The only solution would be to install a pump ,which is expensive and would not meet the criteria for grant aid.The criteria does not take into account the economic benefits to do this only the properties that are at risk which according to the report amount to 46 ,tell that to the householders and the thousands of people inconvenienced every day when there is an inundation.
    Good thing the lane was open last night after incident on the A127 as it was nose to tail through beeches road and watery lane as Rawreth Lane A129 and the A130 were all at a standstill until 7pm .We all have this to look forward to with increased population in our narrow peninsula..If Government insists on South Essex taking increased numbers then it needs to centrally invest in adequate infrastructure as the developements themselves will not generate enough section 106 funds to finance anything more than a few traffic lights! The answer is to bridge the Crouch further east to connect into a dualled A132 onto an improved junction at The a Turnpike .Perhaps the increase in the Dartord Tolls should be used for the new link .

  • Although criticised by some , my arguement all along has been no development without proportional development of the Infrastructure – and this is clearly one of those aspects too.
    The Dutch have been solving these type of problems for centuries ( long before heavy plant/ machinery and Computor simulations ) – but we are now a disfunctional nation –

    Developer responsibility ends at site boundary , Roads are ECC ( who have no buy in to the project ), Sewers are AW who, by law, have to accommodate new connections regardless of capacity, Schools that someone else , so is the NHS , Social services -Emergency services and so on , basically no interested parties involved.

    And of course a Political Class who don’t have a clue , and what’s more don’t care –
    An example for you – the Government has imposed 16000 new homes for Basildon,
    a recent independent survey has analysed the actual ‘need’ as 8600 – even allowing for immigration to the area and it’s new town development status. That is a massive degree of error ( some might say negligent ).

  • RE. A.Matthews above @3

    Did anyone catch the Look East News programme where Andrew Sinclair claimed a full report concerning flooding has been produced by the Environment Agency? It has apparently been sat on by the Government. He seemed to suggest it might have great implications for communities in Essex in regards to development on areas subject to flood. I will contact Look East but if any of our community representatives can exercise some influence in getting to this report that might be helpful.

  • {"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}
    >
    %d bloggers like this: