E-mailed requests to engage with CEC technical representatives. Measure Twice – Cut Once ! This flood project needs more than a “rough check” before spending £1.5M. Can our people talk to your people?
Email exchange with Cheshire East Council (aka Applicant in the Poynton Pool Spillway planning application) executives referring to previous email exchanges with Poynton Pool Panel Engineer and The British Dam Society
From: [Friends of Poynton Pool (FoPP) Dam & Reservoir Consultant]
Sent: 23 April 2024 00:50
To: [Poynton Pool Panel Engineer 2016]
Subject: Fw: Jacobs Proposal for Poynton Pool embankment
Hello [Poynton Pool Panel Engineer 2016]
I keep coming back to you being the S10 Report Engineer. I’m really confused. The more I ask questions regarding trees on reservoir embankments the more I question why the CEC Planning Application has moved away from a conventional solution and documented guidance at a risk of mutilating the embankment.
I’ve received a response from – Dams and Reservoirs, The British Dam Society, Please read below.
“…..Sent: Friday, April 19, 2024 6:20 PM
To: [FoPP Dam & Reservoir Consultant]
Subject: RE: Trees on established embankments / dams
Hello [FoPP Dam & Reservoir Consultant],
Thank you for your response – I’ll deal with your points individually.
- The Reservoirs Act 1975, including clauses modified or added by the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, makes no mention of grass or trees, or indeed any other physical condition of a dam. It puts the onus for safety on a qualified civil engineer (the Inspecting Engineer) to identify any aspects that could put the dam or reservoir at risk. The Inspecting Engineer must then issue a report in which ‘Matters in the Interests of Safety’ are stated, which the undertaker (responsible for the safety of the reservoir) is then legally required to carry out.
- The publication by the Institution (not Institute) of Civil Engineers that I believe you are referring to is Floods and Reservoir Safety – 4th Edition. Note that this is not a legal document – it simply gives guidance to reservoir engineers. This document does indicate that trees on the downstream face of dam can cause changes in the flow pattern if the dam overtops, causing turbulence and erosion, but that is simply a reminder to reservoir engineers to consider the potential effects . It certainly does not say that trees must be removed or that the only growth accepted is grass.
- The many dams with trees growing on their embankments are typically at privately-owned reservoirs on estates, and I am not at liberty to release the names of these. However, during my 30 years as a Supervising Engineer I was appointed to a number of these, all of which were subject to Inspecting Engineers’ reports at least once every ten years. As these were often by different Inspecting Engineers from year-to-year quite a number of engineers saw these trees, but not one of them felt that – on these particular dams – they posed a risk to the dam’s safety. The documents that would contain information on which dams have trees growing on them are the Inspecting Engineers’ reports, which are not publicly available.
I trust that the above has now clarified the points I made in my previous email.
Regards,
Dams and Reservoirs….”
Dear [Poynton Pool Panel Engineer 2016] , I find it confusing that your own S10 Report, 2016 makes no reference to tree removal. Dams and Reservoirs quotes documents that don’t advocate tree removal.
Why would the Jacobs produce such an unconventional solution, based on a lack of factual engineering data regarding Poynton Pool embankment. — especially in a world where risk plays a massive part in engineering solutions,
Surely there must be a balance that occurs in engineering, when the flood alleviation proposal has an underlying effect / risk of weakening an established embankment, i.e Toddbrook 2019.
It just doesn’t make sense, Why??
Regards
FoPP Dam & Reservoir Consultant
From: [Poynton Pool Panel Engineer 2016]
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2024 3:30:21 PM
To: [FoPP Dam & Reservoir Consultant]
Subject: Re: Jacobs Proposal for Poynton Pool embankment
Hello [FoPP Dam & Reservoir Consultant],
Apologies for not getting back to you sooner. Please be advised that I am the Supervising Engineer for Poynton and not the Inspecting Engineer and did not author the last S10 Inspection Report.
I would be very happy to provide comments on your contents below, but as I’m procured through East Cheshire Council can you pass communication that way so that I can ensure everything is above board. It would take some time for me to respond to them all and would need to ensure I gained approval beforehand.
Kind regards,
[Poynton Pool Panel Engineer 2016]
From: [FoPP Dam & Reservoir Consultant]
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 12:50 AM
To: [Cheshire East Council, Chief Executive]; [Cheshire East Council – Acting Director of Place]; [Cheshire East Council – Interim Head of Estates]
Subject: Fw: Jacobs Proposal for Poynton Pool embankment 23/4152M
To All,
I emailed [Poynton Pool Panel Engineer 2016] , (Supervising Engineer Poynton Pool, Mott MacDonald) asking for his thoughts regarding the Poynton Pool S10 Report, 2016 and the subsequent interpretation leading to the Cheshire East Planning Proposal in Application Ref. 23/4152M.
[Poynton Pool Panel Engineer 2016] has kindly responded, 25th April 2024, see below, and as he’s requested, I am passing this communication onto Cheshire East Council to gain approval for him to respond in full to my email below.
(Apologies for the delay in passing this communication on but I’ve been out of the country for 8 days).
Thank you,
Regards
[FoPP Dam & Reservoir Consultant]
From: [Cheshire East Council – Acting Director of Place]
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2024 10:31 AM
To: [FoPP Dam & Reservoir Consultant]
Subject: RE: Jacobs Proposal for Poynton Pool embankment 23/4152M
Dear FoPP,
Thank you for your further email comments below.
Whilst it is acknowledged that the FoPP / Poynton Town Council are keen to obtain comments and feedback from all the technical experts involved on the presence of trees on dam walls, it is equally important to review this request, alongside the status of the current project:-
- the informal request for additional professional advice was made prior to the planning committee, where the decision was made to defer the decision on the submitted proposals.
- Mott MacDonalds are currently appointed as the Council’s Supervising Engineer to undertake the formal S10 reservoir inspections and there is clearly a need to maintain a level of scrutiny and independence between the professional duties and roles involved; appointed panel design engineers / appointed panel supervising engineers. It is also likely that additional professional fees will be requested to provide any further comments / feedback on matters, which based on recent planning decisions may become available via alternative means.
- Following the recent decision to defer the planning submission and the general delays to progress the recommendations, John Forster, the Supervising Panel Engineer has indicated that he will be proposing an early S10 Inspection of the dam in any event.
The Council, as ‘Undertaker’ will not support the request on this occasion but remains committed to work collaboratively with the FoPP and Poynton Town Council on development of an acceptable way forward through the planning process.
Kind regards,
[Cheshire East Council – Acting Director of Place]
From: [FoPP Dam & Reservoir Consultant] (FoPP)
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2024 11:34 AM
To: Cheshire East Council, Chief Executive]; [Cheshire East Council – Acting Director of Place]; [Cheshire East Council – Interim Head of Estates]; Cheshire East Council Local Planning Authority]
Subject: RE: Jacobs Proposal for Poynton Pool embankment 23/4152M
Hello (CEC),
Slightly perplexed, it has taken me a while to understand your response below. I am working with honesty, integrity and clarity, together with FoPP to determine the most beneficial, cost effective proposal for Poynton Pool Flood Resilience Scheme, 23/4152M
I live in Poynton, I do pay my Council Tax and on top of this, I believe I’m providing a valuable service along with FoPP, whilst enlightening CEC of the numerous inconsistencies within this Planning Application.
As you have mentioned ‘additional professional fees’, — both my input and FoPP’s are done free of charge.
I am concerned that CEC funds are being thrown at a Planning Application that has no viable foundation justifying the solution proposed.
In 50 years of working as a Civil & Structural designer in some major engineering projects;
1, I have never been refused communication with Senior Engineers, in my earlier years I was told, ‘if in doubt, ask’.
2, I think Senior Engineers appreciate communication during projects, as it ensures their designs are being interpreted correctly and, if designs do go slightly off course they can be brought back inline or, in some cases modified to incorporate improvement.
I acknowledge your concerns regarding below but I must make it clear, that I never asked John Foster for advice, I was asking his opinion, i.e.
Why would Jacobs produce such an unconventional solution, based on the S10 Report, 2016 and a lack factual engineering data regarding the 250+ year old Poynton Pool embankment. — especially in a world where risk plays a massive part in engineering solutions?
Perhaps you or your colleagues could answer this question or you could pass it onto your professionals.
Regarding advice, – Any advice or information I’ve sought and in fairness, passed onto CEC, I have received from totally independent sources.
Talking about information, here’s another interesting fact uncovered relating to a survey of Poynton Pool, dating back to the 18th November, 1844, (sourced from the internet), complete with contours at 6″ increments see attached). It’s very interesting, and again questions the accuracy of the volume of Poynton Pool listed in the Public Register, 130,000m3. (where did that figure originate?)
I’ve calculated the volume using the 6″ contours from 1844, this equated to 49,750m3. Bearing in mind the top water level then was 90.495m (296.9ft), this is 135mm below the current top water level, (assuming 90.63m).
Using the current top water level and the FoPP depth survey, I calculated a volume of 61,500m3, so realistically I don’t think Poynton Pool has ever contained a volume of 130,000m3.
At the ‘Strategic Planning Meeting’, 24th April 2024, Mr AB, Inspection Engineer, stated he’d made a ‘rough check’ on the volume of the Pool. – Is a rough check acceptable when spending £1.4m??
Do CEC accept this ‘rough check’ on behalf of the constituents and if so, how much has it cost??
Another consideration is, if he used a rough check regarding the volume, how many more rough figures have been used in the flood data?
The Public Register states the surface area of Poynton Pool is 68,000m2. — It also states the volume is 130,000m3. — How deep is the pool?
130,000 / 68,000 = 1.912m. —- but that implies the side of the pool is vertical,1.912m deep over the complete surface area with a flat bottom. If you visit Poynton Pool, as the Planning Officer did with the Planning Committee, you’ll see the pool has a gradual slope leading from the water’s edge, — it is not vertical!
In fairness it’s not only Mr AB, his Engineers and Hydrologist that should have questioned the Public Register, the Planning Officer, Planning Committee and every Councilor that viewed the Application could have raised the question.
Again, at the ‘Strategic Planning Meeting’, 24th April 2024, Mr AB, likened the Reservoir Act review to an MOT! — If a Qualified Mechanic had put forward a vehicle for MOT Approval that included a ‘rough check’ it would be illegal.
Another statement AB made in the meeting regarding Toddbrook Spillway, apparently the Canal & River Trust being slow to respond, but he never mentioned that Jacobs had reviewed the spillway in 2008, 11 years before the failure. (I have mentioned this in communications in the past).
Extract from Dr. Andrew Hughes Report 2020,
Unfortunately, if the lowering works to the left-hand wall, recommended by Jacobs in 2008 (Section 4.1), had been carried out, they would have solved the ‘problem’ with no cut-off in the short-term.
However, at no time, it would appear, did Jacobs investigate the construction elements of the spillway – namely that water stops were not provided in both directions, that the slabs just butted into a slot in the bottom of the wall, and the foundation stepped down the slope leaving very little cut-off into the face of the embankment in a number of places.
In my opinion, they did not check the suitability of the wall for raising and the gabion reinforcement and the shaped deflectors were not provided,
It would appear the Canal and River Trust being slow to respond wasn’t the only potential factor leading to the failure of Toddbrook spillway.
Let’s ensure that all the factors leading to the Flood Resilience Works at Poynton Pool are correct and justified.
Regards
[FoPP Dam & Reservoir Consultant]
From: [Cheshire East Council – Acting Director of Place]
Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2024 9:49 AM
To: [FoPP Dam & Reservoir Consultant]
Subject: RE: Jacobs Proposal for Poynton Pool embankment 23/4152M
Mr B
Thank you for your further note on the above.
My apologies, for any confusion caused, but as you are aware, the Council (as LPA) at the Strategic Planning Committee made several recommendations as part of the deferral decision on the recent planning application, to ensure that all parties, including the Council (as applicant), the FoPP and Poynton Town Council and all other interested parties work collaboratively to address the technical issues and queries raised.
It is expected therefore, that it will be through this process, with the Council (as LPA acting as chair), that the interested parties will develop and resolve any outstanding issues and reach agreement on a compliant and acceptable way forward.
Regards
[Cheshire East Council – Acting Director of Place]
From: [FoPP Dam & Reservoir Consultant]
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2024 4:31 PM
To: [CHESHIRE EAST COUNCIL – PLACE, GROWTH AND ENTERPRISE]
Subject: Fw: Jacobs Proposal for Poynton Pool embankment 23/4152M
Hello [Cheshire East Council – Acting Director of Place]
Thank you for your response below. The technical members of FoPP are looking forward to meeting in person with you, Jacobs (the applicant), PTC and the planning team, to collaborate on the technical issues.
(As requested, we sent details of the inaccuracies in the planning application to Paul Wakefield prior to the LPA deadline of 31 May).
Looking forward to receiving venue, date and time of the meeting from the LPA.
Your attention is appreciated
Regards
[FoPP Dam & Reservoir Consultant]
From: [FoPP Dam & Reservoir Consultant]
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2024 5:12 PM
To: [Cheshire East Council, Chief Executive]; [Cheshire East Council – Acting Director of Place]; [Cheshire East Council – Interim Head of Estates];
Subject: Poynton Pool Application, Deferral. 23/4152M, Strategic Planning meeting 24/04/24
Hello [Cheshire East Council, Chief Executive],
Apologies for not writing this sooner, but family commitments take priority.
I attended the Strategic Planning meeting, 24th April 2024, and thought, after all the inconsistencies questioned in the Application, the Strategic Planning Meeting would be open and honest. But I was disillusioned at the poor responses from AB (Jacobs / CEC Specialist), when he was being questioned by the Strategic Planning Committee.
Academically, he is privileged to stand alongside the Countries selection of respected Reservoir Engineers, – but AB openly stated in front of CEC (The Client), the Planning Committee, Chief Planning Officer, FoPP and Members of the Public.
- ‘Whatever the volume, the surface area brings it into the Reservoir Act’. —
Below is an extract from the Reservoir Act;
‘Reservoir safety is regulated through the Reservoirs Act 1975 (RA75), as amended by the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. RA75 applies to “large raised reservoirs” – i.e. reservoirs which store more than 25,000m3 above ground level’,
Please note; 25,000m3 indicates volume is relevant.
- He’d only done a ‘rough check’ on the volume of Poynton Pool!
CEC Planning Officer, can be heard, later in his response to the Planning Commitee, regarding the volume. – ‘Mr Brown gave quite a detailed response‘. – maybe the CEC Planning Officer should have said ‘an honest response’.
- ‘He didn’t see the necessity for a Site Investigation of the embankment’!
- There was no engineering design, to ascertain the length of the two 40m clear zones, sacrificing numerous trees. — ‘It was his opinion’!
How is anyone expected to accept such wooly explanations in a £1.4m project?
- He mentioned, The Canal & River Trust were slow to respond regarding Toddbrook. – was this directed at CEC taking time over their decision? — He did mention Professor David Balmforth’s report, but failed to mention Jacobs reviewed the Auxiliary Spillway at Toddbrook in 2008, (I’ve mentioned this before, please see Dr. Andy Hughes Report, Feb. 2020).
- He mentioned restoring the height of Poynton Pool embankment to that of the carpark, as it was originally! (Cars didn’t appear in Britain until 1894, 144 years after the embankment was constructed). There is no evidence to say the level of the embankment was ever that high – It’s more than likely the embankment was constructed marginally lower, — two reasons;
a). In 1844, (approximately 94 years after the embankment was constructed), the top water level was 90.495m (296.9ft), 135mm lower than today’s top water level, (assuming TWL 90.630m). Therefore, there is no known reason, in 1750, for the embankment to be constructed any higher than to achieve containment of the original lower water level. Bearing in mind the embankment was constructed by hand, I assume it was paid for privately, and I doubt there was a minimum ‘freeboard’ in those days.
b). If, as proposed, Jacobs raise the existing crest to 91.3m, (allegedly the same level as the northern carpark). In the event of severe flood, when the pool overtops at 91.3m (proposed kerb / crest level), it will also flood the carpark. – Obviously, if the crest was marginally lower, the carpark wouldn’t flood, thus protecting Anglesey Drive.
- He also mentioned that a new S10 Report would probably be more ‘onerous’, and ‘You’, (CEC) may have to do a lot more work. Were these words used as fact or were they directed to create further concerns for CEC? — Surely in 8 years, since the S10 2016, the embankment hasn’t deteriorated sufficiently for such statements to be made.
I believe the Client (CEC) should be absolutely certain they are getting the correct scheme for the right price.
The FoPP spillway proposals include low maintenance over the long term, and the opportunity to operate a built-in controlled / safe rapid draw down facility when required and, the work will involve minimum disruption to the embankment.
The FoPP spillway proposals took approximately 5 weeks to complete the preliminary designs / details. It should also be understood that by using more accurate ‘flood study data’, the structures could possibly be refined, i.e in size and ultimately cost!
‘CEC’ are the Client, you will take all the praise if things work out right, but you will also take the criticism if things go wrong.
Regards
[FoPP Dam & Reservoir Consultant]