'Burner site' under water

“There is stubborn as defined in a dictionary and stubborn like the county council (about 10 times worse).
It's all very well saying we know and have factored in the flood risk but why risk putting a waste plant in the flood plain? Ye Gods do you have to be terminally dim to be in council management. It's quite simple just don't take the risk. There is an entire county of thousands of square miles, 99% of which does not get flooded so why be so stupid as to build on a flood plain? It makes no sense other than the fact that Stan Waddington who never ever admits he was wrong will not back down. He is so stubborn that he has even signed up to the contract before it has been fully approved thereby ensuring that the county has to pay the builders even if it did not go ahead. To my mind that is criminal incompetence.”

“The site is still flooded today - it looks like there's a couple of feet depth of water just where that incinerator is supposed to be built. And it hasn't rained since Monday. Wake up UBB - this is a flood plain!”

“In that case they wont mind paying the county council millions of pounds if they are proven wrong. I suggest that they get the cheque book out now because we all know that builders are not cpapble of coping with flood planes. If they are so clever then why were parts of Lonlevens flooded in 2007? Either they were incompetent and did not know that they were building on land that would see the occupants flooded or more likely, the corruption that money brings meant that they didn't care because at the end of the day when they have finished they take no responsibility and expect the rest of us to pay for it all via council tax and household insurance premiums.
Builders should be forced to be directly responsible for their actions in relation to this and they and only they, should have to bear the full cost of repairs after floods.”

“Ever since they built the 3-forked roundabout at Javelin Park about 6 years ago the drainage system in the area has been disrupted and badly affected. The surrounding farms have experienced serious flooding. Think how much worse this will be with water displaced by a building/roofs that are 2.2 acres alone, plus all the roads and hardstanding. Their SUDS scheme is woefully inadequate. And the buildings will go down to a depth of 13m disrupting all the ground water flows too. They may be able to build systems that protect the site itself (though i doubt it), but at what expense to neighbouring land/home owners and to the surrounding road network? There was 3 foot of water on the site, the nearest house and surrounding areas for several days. Atkins are right to be worried...”

“Hmm. At least this current flood situation has shown the undeveloped site can flood (whatever the flood risk assessments might say). Better to know now, than after the plant is built?

But what are the possible knock-ons to the surrounding area? CleanAir mentions possible issues with the M5, plus the locals have already been flooded out of their homes. Surely the plant will be protected, either through a raised platform, or bunds? In which case a large area of currently porous ground will be taken out of the equation, pushing run-off elsewhere.

They might be confident their surface water management is incorporated into the scheme, but if the existing system they will be connecting into is full / backed up, their surface run-off won't be going anywhere fast.

Needs a through review now I'd say, rather than after the first flood episode after the plant has been built.”

“What about Adkins report that says more research must be carried out to establish that the development will not cause flooding on the M5 and even lead to subsidence of the M5.
Adkins are saying no construction should commence until these issues have been addressed.This does not sound like they are 'satisfied with the plans' to me.

Come on Mr Peiro - lets keep it to facts please and not keep putting cheerful spin on your answers!”

“Who would you believe here?”