The Flooding Aire

The green spaces and places of Leeds
User avatar
chameleon
Site Admin
PostsCOLON 5462
JoinedCOLON Thu 29 Mar, 2007 6:16 pm

Postby chameleon » Tue 03 Mar, 2009 7:52 pm

Cardiarms wrote:
Don't know the details of that but it is unusual to be YW's responsibility. It's not used for water resources and plays no part in Waste Water collection and treatment. Logically it should be council or EA.


It does seem to be a bit of a grey area, knowing which organisation is responsible for what. Even when there is a problem, (drainage, supply, floods streams....) you read one thing, then find you talk to somebody else and then everybody turns up and has a a finger in the pie!

Talking above about the report I wanted, seems YW may have written and published it, LCC were to take some action from it in their 'environment plan' and the Environment Agency want to build walls!

Some clarity on what responsibilities each has, (apart from the obvious!), YW, Local Council, Rivers Authority and the Environment Agency might help alot of people.
Cardiarms
PostsCOLON 2986
JoinedCOLON Tue 21 Oct, 2008 8:30 am

Postby Cardiarms » Tue 03 Mar, 2009 8:52 pm

Fully agree, the patchwork way responsibilities have developed has left an unsatisfactory situation, YW has been trying to get some concensus and way forward on sorting it out but other authorities have been dragging their feet, mainly cos it will involve money. Can you remember the name of the report and I'll try and get you a copy, I know some of the people who worked on it. The External Relations people revamped the website recently and a lot of usefull stuff seems to be unavailable.
raveydavey
PostsCOLON 2886
JoinedCOLON Thu 22 Mar, 2007 3:59 pm
LocationCOLON The Far East (of Leeds...)
CONTACTCOLON

Postby raveydavey » Tue 03 Mar, 2009 8:57 pm

chameleon wrote:
'The first one of those would seem the best candidate as the valley opens out more there, whereas further on a good deal more excavation would be required for the other option. '

Certainly would, that's the very area which was largely backfilled when the A64 was realigned and the Valley Walk later created and and the office park was built, further back is very flat if you think so a large deep excavation needed again. I was thinking from your last post you were sggesting simply daming the beck allowing the existing deep chanel to form a lake.

A positive indiator, most of that is designated open space with no development planned as such. Seriously doubt they'd consider the risk justified the cost though.    


Cost? We're about to have three million unemployed, according to the news. Give then a shovel apiece and it could be built for next to nothing in double quick time. It's how we got Waterloo Lake at Roundhay Park (soldiers with nothing else to do) so there is a precedent on the very same waterway.

Actually it's slightly scary to think that that little beck is the only escape route for any overflow from Waterloo Lake...
Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act – George Orwell
User avatar
chameleon
Site Admin
PostsCOLON 5462
JoinedCOLON Thu 29 Mar, 2007 6:16 pm

Postby chameleon » Tue 03 Mar, 2009 9:24 pm

raveydavey wrote:
chameleon wrote:
'The first one of those would seem the best candidate as the valley opens out more there, whereas further on a good deal more excavation would be required for the other option. '

Certainly would, that's the very area which was largely backfilled when the A64 was realigned and the Valley Walk later created and and the office park was built, further back is very flat if you think so a large deep excavation needed again. I was thinking from your last post you were sggesting simply daming the beck allowing the existing deep chanel to form a lake.

A positive indiator, most of that is designated open space with no development planned as such. Seriously doubt they'd consider the risk justified the cost though.    


Cost? We're about to have three million unemployed, according to the news. Give then a shovel apiece and it could be built for next to nothing in double quick time. It's how we got Waterloo Lake at Roundhay Park (soldiers with nothing else to do) so there is a precedent on the very same waterway.

Actually it's slightly scary to think that that little beck is the only escape route for any overflow from Waterloo Lake...


Vote for Davey!! Ravey for PM raving all the way!! he can sort em outWink

Yes I know what you mean about the lake, we've talked about that before.

Apparanatly the lake comes under the EU Reservoir rules, directives, thingysConfused To comply they had to improve the overflow and ensure it could cope wwith the ' 1 in a 1000 year flood'. I think that would be quite different to the dam collapsing but just to be sure they strengthened that too. Then it leaked!

You've talked about using the Fearnvilles as a flood plane - the valley is very flat there and the beck used to meander through; I wonder if it is coincidence that there is no development proposed there and if the possibility of that area absorbing a sudden release of water (by what ever cause) from the lake has been considered? I certainly think that would control the flow to some extent.

I was thinking too that the constriction provided by the culvert under York Road could also act to restrict the flow but, looking again at Live search maps, the size of the channel through the Dunhill estate seems remarkabley small - surely it must have been bigger at some time? If no consideration was given to such matters whe the housing was built, that was indeed a lack of forethought at least.


raveydavey
PostsCOLON 2886
JoinedCOLON Thu 22 Mar, 2007 3:59 pm
LocationCOLON The Far East (of Leeds...)
CONTACTCOLON

Postby raveydavey » Tue 03 Mar, 2009 10:21 pm

It's a distinct possibilty.

Once across Wetherby Road, the beck passes through a valley with a fairly flat bottom and relatively steep sides, but development definately encroaches on it as it approaches Easterly Road. The valley also narrows here - I wonder if the good people living on North Way realise there is a very big dam half a mile upstream and they live within a few yards of the only overflow...

I seem to remember as a kid that the actual tunnels that carry the beck under Easterly Road are quite narrow, which would result in a bottle neck and just after that another beck joins coming down from the Elmetes area, virtually parallel to Easterly Road for much of it's travel. I recall that this beck can also go from a trickle to a torrent very quickly if it rains heavily.
There is residential housing on the west side of the beck for some distance then from Dib Lane all the way down to Fearnville field, but the eastern side is quite open. At this point the beck is a good 3-4 feet below the level of the surrounding ground.

Another small beck joins from the direction of Asket Avenue and at this point there used to be what appeared to be the base of a retaining wall opposite the inflow of the new beck. This is where we used to build rope swings (in the days before H&S)
Slightly further on just past the bottom of North Parkway is another bridge, which is big enough to drive a car across (or was until it was cut off by the armco barriers which has a relatively narrow arch allowing the beck through under it. At this point the beck is around 5-6 feet below the surrounding ground and I have seen this entire section backed up to the top almost all the way to Wetherby Road in periods of exceptional rainfall.

After this bridge the valley opens out again and there were brick retaining walls either side of the beck for a (very) short distance - we never managed to find out why! - before the surrounding ground drops to virtually the level of the beck at what could well have once been a ford.

The valley sides rise up again shortly before dropping down again where the bridge crosses from Fearnville near Parkway Towers where an overflow pipe comes in, with pipe across the beck and then the larger culvert slightly later on carrying the beck that used to run along the central reservation of South Parkway before it was covered over and Parkway Vale built (and now demolished!)

After this the sides rise steeply and would again form something of a bottle neck, forcing the waters ever more quickly toward York Road and then the Dunhills.

Anway, the upshot of all that is that I'm now convinced I was right about where the holding area needs to be built.
Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act – George Orwell
User avatar
chameleon
Site Admin
PostsCOLON 5462
JoinedCOLON Thu 29 Mar, 2007 6:16 pm

Postby chameleon » Tue 03 Mar, 2009 10:41 pm

raveydavey wrote:
It's a distinct possibilty.

Once across Wetherby Road, the beck passes through a valley with a fairly flat bottom and relatively steep sides, but development definately encroaches on it as it approaches Easterly Road. The valley also narrows here - I wonder if the good people living on North Way realise there is a very big dam half a mile upstream and they live within a few yards of the only overflow...

I seem to remember as a kid that the actual tunnels that carry the beck under Easterly Road are quite narrow, which would result in a bottle neck and just after that another beck joins coming down from the Elmetes area, virtually parallel to Easterly Road for much of it's travel. I recall that this beck can also go from a trickle to a torrent very quickly if it rains heavily.
There is residential housing on the west side of the beck for some distance then from Dib Lane all the way down to Fearnville field, but the eastern side is quite open. At this point the beck is a good 3-4 feet below the level of the surrounding ground.

Another small beck joins from the direction of Asket Avenue and at this point there used to be what appeared to be the base of a retaining wall opposite the inflow of the new beck. This is where we used to build rope swings (in the days before H&S)
Slightly further on just past the bottom of North Parkway is another bridge, which is big enough to drive a car across (or was until it was cut off by the armco barriers which has a relatively narrow arch allowing the beck through under it. At this point the beck is around 5-6 feet below the surrounding ground and I have seen this entire section backed up to the top almost all the way to Wetherby Road in periods of exceptional rainfall.

After this bridge the valley opens out again and there were brick retaining walls either side of the beck for a (very) short distance - we never managed to find out why! - before the surrounding ground drops to virtually the level of the beck at what could well have once been a ford.

The valley sides rise up again shortly before dropping down again where the bridge crosses from Fearnville near Parkway Towers where an overflow pipe comes in, with pipe across the beck and then the larger culvert slightly later on carrying the beck that used to run along the central reservation of South Parkway before it was covered over and Parkway Vale built (and now demolished!)

After this the sides rise steeply and would again form something of a bottle neck, forcing the waters ever more quickly toward York Road and then the Dunhills.

Anway, the upshot of all that is that I'm now convinced I was right about where the holding area needs to be built.



You know, that's all more or less a modern-day take on much of the discussion on the coal mining thread when it transformed into the Foundry Mill debate!

There was a dam/weir about Easterly Road (or should I say Wetherby Road then), two in fact, one further up Asket Hill and the second stream you mention was derived in part from what is the Ring Road area and from the old Iron stone workings to the east.

The stream which ran down South Parkway, higher up, was interupted to feed the Mill Ponds over towards Foundry Lane before running off back to Wyke Beck.

Yes there was an area which resembled a ford roughly adjacent to the bottom of Fearnville Road and it did flood here regularly. I remember one time when it bacame quite deep and considerable remodeling took place then.

Ah! many a muddy, winter cross-country runDissapointed    
User avatar
liits
PostsCOLON 1153
JoinedCOLON Sun 25 Mar, 2007 11:24 am
LocationCOLON North London
CONTACTCOLON

Postby liits » Wed 04 Mar, 2009 1:42 am

In the field to the side of John Smeaton Swimming pool there was a pond. This was before the Penda’s Field estate was built. I’m guessing that the pond was fed by a spring as it never dried up. Even in the hot summer of 1976, it was plenty deep enough for my mate to fall into, he reckoned it was deep enough that his feet didn’t touch the bottom. I wonder, when the houses were built, where it was drained off to? The "water feature" in the garden of the house is a later addition.
Attachments
__TFMF_ypbcrualiub4yfmtoadubva5_79227112-c834-456e-9201-b6147c8756c0_0_main.jpg
__TFMF_ypbcrualiub4yfmtoadubva5_79227112-c834-456e-9201-b6147c8756c0_0_main.jpg (184.94 KiB) Viewed 931 times
User avatar
chameleon
Site Admin
PostsCOLON 5462
JoinedCOLON Thu 29 Mar, 2007 6:16 pm

Postby chameleon » Thu 07 May, 2009 7:19 pm

More info on the proposed flood defences for Leeds, with plans and consultations coming at the end of the month.

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/floods/106693.aspx

User avatar
chameleon
Site Admin
PostsCOLON 5462
JoinedCOLON Thu 29 Mar, 2007 6:16 pm

Postby chameleon » Thu 27 Jan, 2011 7:41 pm

Isn't it amazing how that which must be done come hell or (to prevent!) high water, what ever the financial, visual and amenity cost suddenly looses importance when the financial cost becomes difficult to meet?

We were being sold this project as an imperetive because we could not risk the potential consequences to the city and life in and around the area if it did not go ahead.

Postponed indefinately. You do start to question the original project business validation criteria.
raveydavey
PostsCOLON 2886
JoinedCOLON Thu 22 Mar, 2007 3:59 pm
LocationCOLON The Far East (of Leeds...)
CONTACTCOLON

Postby raveydavey » Thu 27 Jan, 2011 8:41 pm

chameleon wrote:
Isn't it amazing how that which must be done come hell or (to prevent!) high water, what ever the financial, visual and amenity cost suddenly looses importance when the financial cost becomes difficult to meet?

We were being sold this project as an imperetive because we could not risk the potential consequences to the city and life in and around the area if it did not go ahead.

Postponed indefinately. You do start to question the original project business validation criteria.


The real problem is that we're too far north of Watford.
Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act – George Orwell

Return to





Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 1 and 0 guests