The ten page RBWM Report on Flood Defence Equality contains a warning (S5 – Legal Implications) to some local riparian owners. According to the report ‘Liability otherwise sits with the landowners responsible for ensuring the free flow of water downstream.’
The Wraysbury Drain Petition with over 1,300 names was considered at the RBWM Council Meeting held on Wednesday 17th July 2024 at 7.00pm.
There are some other related items on the same agenda.
You can find the RBWM Agenda (complete with links to the reports) here
You can find the RBWM Report of Flood Defence Equality here
The RBWM Council Meeting video can be found here on YouTube
The Petition introduction and debate commences at 16.25 minutes into the recording
A bit of history
The Wraysbury Drain is an ancient watercourse (about 2 miles in length and dating back to before 1799) that attenuates and stabilises the local ground water levels downstream from Wraysbury Station, through Wraysbury village centre and onward towards the River Thames.
The Wraysbury Drain was previously designated as a Critical Ordinary Watercourse i.e. a channel that can cause flooding – but has been restricted or totally blocked in places for many years.
This year (2024) there has yet again been much flooding. In this area the land is very flat and did not drain after the flooding – leaving the cricket pitch unusable and the Annual Fair relocated to the Memorial Ground.
RBWM have the powers to permit and powers to enforce on ordinary watercourses but no duty to take any action whatsoever. Large amounts of money (about £200,000) have been wasted on failed attempts to resolve the issues. Some local riparian owners have been ‘unhelpful’ (to put it politely).
EXTRACT FROM RBWM Report on flood Defence Equality
5. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
5.1 There is no duty on the Council to use these permissive powers and the
Council is not liable for any damages that result from blocked watercourses
unless the watercourse is under the control (on its land) or the responsibility of
the Council to maintain. Liability otherwise sits with the landowners
responsible for ensuring the free flow of water downstream.
SO HERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS STILL AWAITING ANSWERS:
- The Wraysbury Drain issues have caused problems for many (say 5) years. RBWM (as designated lead local flood authority) is responsible for ordinary watercourses. How much has RBWM spent on the previous failed attempts to resolve the Wraysbury Drain issues?
- RBWM commissioned a Wraysbury Drain survey recently. Please confirm that the entire length of the Wraysbury Drain has now been surveyed? (I believe the survey is incomplete).
- How much did the recent Wraysbury Drain survey cost?
- Have all the problem areas been identified?
- Have the solutions to the problems been agreed with the riparian owners?
- When will the problems be solved and the Wraysbury Drain flow/level be ‘normal’?
- Who is paying the costs of the repairs?
- What action will be taken to monitor channel condition and avoid reoccurrence in the future?
And the bottom line: The location of the Wraysbury Drain conveyance problem has been identified as restrictions/blockages in the Feathers Lane area. The precise cause of those restrictions/blockages has still to be identified by RBWM but I expect that the riparian owners can now look forward to a letter and/or visit from the Authorities. In my opinion it is about time that the Authorities (i.e. the designated lead local flood authority under FWMA 2010) had a DUTY to ensure that all ordinary watercourses are continuously maintained in a condition fit-for-purpose.
END