Costly culvert

[Wombat]

On Main River the wording says "Any works in, on, under, over or affecting the flow of" a watercourse. Replacing a structure, even exactly like-for-like, is still "works". Covers pretty much everything except routine clearance of vegetation which is specifically exempted.

None main river or drainage board ditch, it mentions contact llfa for works but when I rang them they had no clue what the llfa was or who in the council looked after it

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

None main river or drainage board ditch, it mentions contact llfa for works but when I rang them they had no clue what the llfa was or who in the council looked after it

The wording may be similar for "Ordinary Watercourses" like this one, Consenting on them was only being transferred to LLFA's as I left the EA so I'm not sure. As for who LLFA's are, most are County Councils.

 

[BELOWAVERAGE]

Struggling to get link to work.
A LANDOWNER in Chaddesley Corbett has been fined for covering over an open stream on his land without permission.

Richard Yardley, of Cakebole Lane, was fined £500 after being prosecuted for filling in six metres of the Elmley Brook and installing a culvert on his land, increasing the risk of flooding and potentially damaging the ecology and biodiversity of the area.

Wyre Forest District Council lodged legal papers against Mr Yardley under the Land Drainage Act on January 22 this year.
The case was brought after a senior officer from the North Worcestershire Water Management team visited the site in October 2019 and discovered that Mr Yardley had covered over part of the stream without consent from the council.

In February, Mr Yardley was given formal notice to remove the culvert by August 28, 2020, but a site visit in September revealed that the notice had not been complied with.

A magistrate imposed a fine of £500 and ordered Mr Yardley to pay costs of £194.19 and a victim surcharge of £50.


Wyre Forest Council is reminding residents they must seek approval before carrying out any work involving streams, brooks and culverts on their land.

Consent is required for any works that affect the flow of an ordinary watercourse, such as the installation of culverts, weirs or certain bridges.

Cabinet member with responsibility for water management, Councillor Nicky Martin, said: “It is important for residents to apply for permission before carrying out any work that alters the flow of a watercourse on their land. This is a legal requirement irrespective of whether works are permanent or temporary.

He's alright Richard, probably some one settling a score.

 

[Cab-over Pete]

What the chuff is a victim surcharge in this case?

Who has been victimised?

 

[Derrick Hughes]

What a load of bull shite

 

[Bertram]

Easy enough to put a culvert in but don’t underestimate how easily they block. This one’s in the middle of nowhere and I made a spillway around it, so no harm done. But it was lucky that I did. I can see why there’s some flapping if they’re near houses.

 

[ollie989898]

They don't like it if you interfere with the flow. Unless of course beavers were to put in two lengths of twin wall which would be AOK. Of course in the above example where you could just drive through the thing for forever and a day you would think a culvert would be preferable on environmental grounds but hey ho.

 

[Tarw Coch]

Easy enough to put a culvert in but don’t underestimate how easily they block. This one’s in the middle of nowhere and I made a spillway around it, so no harm done. But it was lucky that I did. I can see why there’s some flapping if they’re near houses.
View attachment 947590View attachment 947591View attachment 947592

That looks far bigger pipe in presumably a far bigger waterway than the one that has started this topic.
Either the one in the start of this topic is totally inappropriate for the size of watercourse or its a lot of fuss about nothing

 

[Ffermer Bach]

I have been surprised at how large the pipes have to be to take the full flow of water during heavy rainfall events, when during the summer or in normal time there is a trickle of water.

 

[Walton2]

I have a neighbour who did similar, I told him to make it 24inch minimum as storm water flow down that stream is vastly different to normal rates. He used 18 inch and I have had lots of problems ever since. Silted up old stone drains is the most annoying. They had worked for hundreds of years and were in superb condition when flow was unrestricted at all times. Effecttively there is only me that suffers.....I wish I had got the Council involved at the time.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

I have a neighbour who did similar, I told him to make it 24inch minimum as storm water flow down that stream is vastly different to normal rates. He used 18 inch and I have had lots of problems ever since. Silted up old stone drains is the most annoying. They had worked for hundreds of years and were in superb condition when flow was unrestricted at all times. Effecttively there is only me that suffers.....I wish I had got the Council involved at the time.

Not too late. Its an enduring offence so no time limit.....

 

[fgc325j]

Any Russkies about ?

Probably a distant relation to Jeremy Clarkson in the cab .... shouting POWER!!!

 

[teslacoils]

Not too late. Its an enduring offence so no time limit.....

What if it was done before the act was enacted?

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

I have been surprised at how large the pipes have to be to take the full flow of water during heavy rainfall events, when during the summer or in normal time there is a trickle of water.

Exactly this. Folk never allow enough for flood flow.

Multiple pipes are bad news too as debris builds up on the centre and greatly reduces flow just when you need it.

The worst possible option is extending a twin culvert upstream by adding a larger single one. You end up with a debris blockage inside where the twin starts with no safe way to clear it.

If you must cross a watercourse the preferred option is a proper bridge at bank top level. It doesn't interfere with flow at all then.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

What if it was done before the act was enacted?

The 1976 Land Drainage Act? Then they are probably fairly safe but you could possibly still sue for your damage suffered.

 

[Exfarmer]

The annoying thing is, there are thousands of miles of pipes been put in roadside ditches in the last 50+ years which worked perfectly fine, except everybody has forgotten that occasionally they need need de silting.
Then their are the roadside ditches which have never been piped but just filled in by lack of maintenance the result in both cases is far worse than the offenders actions in this case

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

The annoying thing is, there are thousands of miles of pipes been put in roadside ditches in the last 50+ years which worked perfectly fine, except everybody has forgotten that occasionally they need need de silting.
Then their are the roadside ditches which have never been piped but just filled in by lack of maintenance the result in both cases is far worse than the offenders actions in this case

Absolutely. One of my big gripes is that highways clear the drain gulleys annually but never jet the connecting pipes. As a result, in Hertford on the A414 trunk road, both carriageways flood in even light rainfall despite the drains being within 200m of the river!

 

[Dry Rot]

Who is most likely to know what the flow would be during a flood? The council or the occupier?

When I did a routine clean out of my ditches, I uncovered a culvert. Then, not happy with the depth of the ditch, I removed the culvert and deepened it further....and found another culvert at least 12" below the first one!

My farm used to flood. The water level in the ditches is 4' - 5' below what is was when I moved in nearly 40 years ago. The house used to flood and the floors were rotten! All dry now and no neighbours adversely affected.

But I did stop the council laying a culvert under the public road one foot higher than the ditches it joined on either side! They had to dig up and re-lay about half a mile of a French drain bcause they got the falls wrong -- after I'd advised them of the facts! God help us all if we had to rely on that lot. My neighbour's land still floods because the council don't clean the weeds out of ditches.

 

[holwellcourtfarm]

Who is most likely to know what the flow would be during a flood? The council or the occupier?

Whoever has the longest experience of the site. It's usually developers or new occupant householders who block drains or put silly little pipes in ditches.

"But it never floods like this and I've been here 2 years"

 

[Bertram]

That looks far bigger pipe in presumably a far bigger waterway than the one that has started this topic.
Either the one in the start of this topic is totally inappropriate for the size of watercourse or its a lot of fuss about nothing

It probably is. The first picture shows the normal summer flow, the second one is where it's blocked up by a combination of twigs and my neighbour's balewrap, but also shows where any excess can run around the top of the culvert so therefore doesn't cause any issues upstream, and the third is what it looks like in the depths of winter. @holwellcourtfarm is absolutely right when he points out that using twin or multiple pipes is actually bad practice as it encourages blockages but I put these pictures up to show how much extra capacity is required.