The cricket and hockey club at Riverway flooded again last week. Much of the potential damage was mitigated by new flood defences we're glad to say. But just adding to this thread...
This is the fourth time since July 2007 that the clubhouse had had water inside it with a further 2-3 near misses in the last 13 years where water has got to within 100mm of coming in. The building was constructed in 2000 and the club have been on the land since 1984. In the 23 years before 2007 there were no issues and no near misses to the previous clubhouse. We are also not aware of any issues prior or leading upto 1984 but stand to be corrected on this (for instance can anyone ever remember the main works carpark behind St Georges rd ever flooding?)
We are now at a stage where we expect to be flooded. If this had been a thing before 2000 or it was to be constructed now, we would obviously have made DPC 400mm higher or located the building on higher ground.
So what has changed in Stafford and who is responsible...presumably someone is and knows how the hydraulics of the town have changed
We flood from the forebridge drain not The Sow. One assumes with surface run off from the proposed new housing estates on main works and Fairway, we can expect more disasters? Or do the "models" say different?
There are lots of factors, but one in particular stands out and that is the number of developments built on the floodplain, that now occupy space that would have previously been occupied by water.
For example, upstream of Stafford town centre, Doxey Marshes, a vital part of Stafford's flood defences, has been encroached upon by several developments, most recently the large area occupied by the rugby club. That displaced water does not disappear, it moves elsewhere.
There are countless other examples across Stafford and, whilst each one, individually, won't make a huge difference, collectively they add up to a massive influence on the town.
Sadly, the models have also failed to keep up with the effect of these developments and also the potential impact of climate change, meaning that models are just not fit for purpose. I would also question whether or not the Environment Agency is fit for purpose for not keeping on top of the modelling, nor objecting strongly enough to these devgelopments. Equally, the Borough Council's planners have a lot to answer for, as even if they haven't had the appropriate advice from the Environment Agency, they should still be able to see the effect of the flooding, in recent years, and stop approving such planning applications.
Unfortunately, over 2,200 years after Archimedes of Syracuse discovered the principles of water displacement, it appears our planners have not yet caught on. Had he been around today, Archimedes would have probably said we are screwed.