All hands to the pumps and road battle is won

Malvern Gazette: All hands to the pumps and road battle is won All hands to the pumps and road battle is won

AS water levels slowly recede in Worcester, a busy city-centre road has now reopened after it was submerged under floodwater.

Rising riving levels forced police to close Hylton Road on Thursday evening due to excessive surface water but it re-opened again yesterday morning.

Ed O’Brien, of Severn Trent, said engineers were working 24 hours a day with the Environment Agency and the Highways Authority to help manage rising waters.

“To help minimise the effects of flooding we’re continuing to use three pumps to clear water from Hylton Road,” he said. “Two pumps have been working as planned since last Friday night, but yesterday evening we used our back-up pump as well, because the flow of water increased.

“Unfortunately, some flooding on Hylton Road did occur. We are happy to report that as a result of these actions flooding in the road was reduced.”

The news comes as water levels begin to recede and a drier and brighter outlook is expected for the weekend.

However, county council gritters were set to head out overnight to prepare roads for a predicted frost this morning.

Ian Michaelwaite, of netweather.tv in Pershore, said after a frost overnight and into this morning, today would be much better with very little cloud and maximum temperatures of 5C or 6C.

“There’s a risk of icy stretches through the early hours of the morning,” he said.

“There will be a hard frost throughout Saturday evening and Saturday night with temperatures dropping to 0C or –1C and in rural areas, –2C or –3C. The hard frost will gradually lift as the day approaches lunchtime.”

More rain is expected on Sunday afternoon and into Sunday evening, with up to 10milimetres of rain falling in the county and a risk of localised flooding.

As your Worcester News went to press, six flood warnings remain in place for the river Severn after peaking yesterday morning.

Warnings are in place at Pitchcroft, Diglis, Court Meadow, Kempsey and Callow End, along with East Waterside and Hanley Road in Upton-upon-Severn, and Hanley Castle and Saxons Lode which includes properties directly next to the river in Uckinghall and Rectory Road, Upton-upon-Severn.

Comments (14)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:49am Sat 11 Jan 14

Andy_R says...

So, The Environment Agency and Worcester City Council spent £1m on flood defences that simply don't work. We paid for a scheme that was supposed to only flood once in 100 years, and yet it seems to flood several times a year. When will we get our money back, and who will be sacked for getting it so drastically wrong?
So, The Environment Agency and Worcester City Council spent £1m on flood defences that simply don't work. We paid for a scheme that was supposed to only flood once in 100 years, and yet it seems to flood several times a year. When will we get our money back, and who will be sacked for getting it so drastically wrong? Andy_R

12:54pm Sat 11 Jan 14

jovialcommonsense says...

I understand the flood water backs up through the drains in Hylton Road. Had the work not been done the road would have been fully closed for many days. The local householders and businesses would have been in despair.
I understand the flood water backs up through the drains in Hylton Road. Had the work not been done the road would have been fully closed for many days. The local householders and businesses would have been in despair. jovialcommonsense

7:09pm Sat 11 Jan 14

The Doosra says...

Andy_R wrote:
So, The Environment Agency and Worcester City Council spent £1m on flood defences that simply don't work. We paid for a scheme that was supposed to only flood once in 100 years, and yet it seems to flood several times a year. When will we get our money back, and who will be sacked for getting it so drastically wrong?
Are you clueless by design or training? You only have to look at the flood levels to appreciate that without the flood barrier in Hylton Road, all the houses would have had an ingress of water. What actually happened was the minor inconvenience of Hylton Road being closed for a few hours overnight.
[quote][p][bold]Andy_R[/bold] wrote: So, The Environment Agency and Worcester City Council spent £1m on flood defences that simply don't work. We paid for a scheme that was supposed to only flood once in 100 years, and yet it seems to flood several times a year. When will we get our money back, and who will be sacked for getting it so drastically wrong?[/p][/quote]Are you clueless by design or training? You only have to look at the flood levels to appreciate that without the flood barrier in Hylton Road, all the houses would have had an ingress of water. What actually happened was the minor inconvenience of Hylton Road being closed for a few hours overnight. The Doosra

7:13pm Sat 11 Jan 14

The Doosra says...

Andy_R wrote:
So, The Environment Agency and Worcester City Council spent £1m on flood defences that simply don't work. We paid for a scheme that was supposed to only flood once in 100 years, and yet it seems to flood several times a year. When will we get our money back, and who will be sacked for getting it so drastically wrong?
Are you clueless by design or training? The flood defence in Hylton Road worked. There was a flood level which would clearly have resulted in an ingress of water to the houses along the road, which the bund prevented. The only inconvenience was the overnight closure of Hylton Road. Not such a high price to pay surely?
[quote][p][bold]Andy_R[/bold] wrote: So, The Environment Agency and Worcester City Council spent £1m on flood defences that simply don't work. We paid for a scheme that was supposed to only flood once in 100 years, and yet it seems to flood several times a year. When will we get our money back, and who will be sacked for getting it so drastically wrong?[/p][/quote]Are you clueless by design or training? The flood defence in Hylton Road worked. There was a flood level which would clearly have resulted in an ingress of water to the houses along the road, which the bund prevented. The only inconvenience was the overnight closure of Hylton Road. Not such a high price to pay surely? The Doosra

11:05am Sun 12 Jan 14

Andy_R says...

So, you're completely happy with spending £1m on defences that are supposed to only flood once in 100 years, but actually floods about once every 100 days?

Yes, obviously it helps, almost anything put in the way of the water would help, but it doesn't help anywhere near as much as it should. Botched flood defences are better than no flood defences at all, but that doesn't mean we should be paying for a system that doesn't do what it's supposed to. We were ripped off, and the fact that Hylton Road has been closed several times during the current flood (not just for a few hours overnight) proves this. It would have been open the whole time if the flood defences had worked properly.
So, you're completely happy with spending £1m on defences that are supposed to only flood once in 100 years, but actually floods about once every 100 days? Yes, obviously it helps, almost anything put in the way of the water would help, but it doesn't help anywhere near as much as it should. Botched flood defences are better than no flood defences at all, but that doesn't mean we should be paying for a system that doesn't do what it's supposed to. We were ripped off, and the fact that Hylton Road has been closed several times during the current flood (not just for a few hours overnight) proves this. It would have been open the whole time if the flood defences had worked properly. Andy_R

12:21pm Sun 12 Jan 14

moonpig says...

Andy_R wrote:
So, you're completely happy with spending £1m on defences that are supposed to only flood once in 100 years, but actually floods about once every 100 days?

Yes, obviously it helps, almost anything put in the way of the water would help, but it doesn't help anywhere near as much as it should. Botched flood defences are better than no flood defences at all, but that doesn't mean we should be paying for a system that doesn't do what it's supposed to. We were ripped off, and the fact that Hylton Road has been closed several times during the current flood (not just for a few hours overnight) proves this. It would have been open the whole time if the flood defences had worked properly.
I travel Hylton Road every day and it is much better since the flood defences were put in place. I must be blind because I have not noticed the road closed 'several times during the current flood' and in view of the quantity of water that has fallen from the sky over recent weeks this surely shows the effectiveness of the defenses. The only thing I wish the council would do now is when the road is closed to put some sort of traffic controls into St Johns.
[quote][p][bold]Andy_R[/bold] wrote: So, you're completely happy with spending £1m on defences that are supposed to only flood once in 100 years, but actually floods about once every 100 days? Yes, obviously it helps, almost anything put in the way of the water would help, but it doesn't help anywhere near as much as it should. Botched flood defences are better than no flood defences at all, but that doesn't mean we should be paying for a system that doesn't do what it's supposed to. We were ripped off, and the fact that Hylton Road has been closed several times during the current flood (not just for a few hours overnight) proves this. It would have been open the whole time if the flood defences had worked properly.[/p][/quote]I travel Hylton Road every day and it is much better since the flood defences were put in place. I must be blind because I have not noticed the road closed 'several times during the current flood' and in view of the quantity of water that has fallen from the sky over recent weeks this surely shows the effectiveness of the defenses. The only thing I wish the council would do now is when the road is closed to put some sort of traffic controls into St Johns. moonpig

12:49pm Sun 12 Jan 14

The Doosra says...

Andy_R wrote:
So, you're completely happy with spending £1m on defences that are supposed to only flood once in 100 years, but actually floods about once every 100 days?

Yes, obviously it helps, almost anything put in the way of the water would help, but it doesn't help anywhere near as much as it should. Botched flood defences are better than no flood defences at all, but that doesn't mean we should be paying for a system that doesn't do what it's supposed to. We were ripped off, and the fact that Hylton Road has been closed several times during the current flood (not just for a few hours overnight) proves this. It would have been open the whole time if the flood defences had worked properly.
When, during the recent flood, was Hylton Road closed other than to install the pumps and overnight on Thursday?

Flooding every 100 days? Really? Want to prove this?
[quote][p][bold]Andy_R[/bold] wrote: So, you're completely happy with spending £1m on defences that are supposed to only flood once in 100 years, but actually floods about once every 100 days? Yes, obviously it helps, almost anything put in the way of the water would help, but it doesn't help anywhere near as much as it should. Botched flood defences are better than no flood defences at all, but that doesn't mean we should be paying for a system that doesn't do what it's supposed to. We were ripped off, and the fact that Hylton Road has been closed several times during the current flood (not just for a few hours overnight) proves this. It would have been open the whole time if the flood defences had worked properly.[/p][/quote]When, during the recent flood, was Hylton Road closed other than to install the pumps and overnight on Thursday? Flooding every 100 days? Really? Want to prove this? The Doosra

1:23pm Sun 12 Jan 14

jovialcommonsense says...

Andy_R wrote:
So, you're completely happy with spending £1m on defences that are supposed to only flood once in 100 years, but actually floods about once every 100 days?

Yes, obviously it helps, almost anything put in the way of the water would help, but it doesn't help anywhere near as much as it should. Botched flood defences are better than no flood defences at all, but that doesn't mean we should be paying for a system that doesn't do what it's supposed to. We were ripped off, and the fact that Hylton Road has been closed several times during the current flood (not just for a few hours overnight) proves this. It would have been open the whole time if the flood defences had worked properly.
So how many millions are you prepared to be spent for watertight flood defences (impossible of course)? At what point does it not become a "rip off".
Do you really think human intervention can beat nature 100%? That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to do the best we can, with the money available, however.
[quote][p][bold]Andy_R[/bold] wrote: So, you're completely happy with spending £1m on defences that are supposed to only flood once in 100 years, but actually floods about once every 100 days? Yes, obviously it helps, almost anything put in the way of the water would help, but it doesn't help anywhere near as much as it should. Botched flood defences are better than no flood defences at all, but that doesn't mean we should be paying for a system that doesn't do what it's supposed to. We were ripped off, and the fact that Hylton Road has been closed several times during the current flood (not just for a few hours overnight) proves this. It would have been open the whole time if the flood defences had worked properly.[/p][/quote]So how many millions are you prepared to be spent for watertight flood defences (impossible of course)? At what point does it not become a "rip off". Do you really think human intervention can beat nature 100%? That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to do the best we can, with the money available, however. jovialcommonsense

5:09pm Sun 12 Jan 14

Andy_R says...

jovialcommonsense wrote:
Andy_R wrote:
So, you're completely happy with spending £1m on defences that are supposed to only flood once in 100 years, but actually floods about once every 100 days?

Yes, obviously it helps, almost anything put in the way of the water would help, but it doesn't help anywhere near as much as it should. Botched flood defences are better than no flood defences at all, but that doesn't mean we should be paying for a system that doesn't do what it's supposed to. We were ripped off, and the fact that Hylton Road has been closed several times during the current flood (not just for a few hours overnight) proves this. It would have been open the whole time if the flood defences had worked properly.
So how many millions are you prepared to be spent for watertight flood defences (impossible of course)? At what point does it not become a "rip off".
Do you really think human intervention can beat nature 100%? That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to do the best we can, with the money available, however.
Try reading what I actually wrote rather than just ranting about what you think I wrote. Nobody ever mentioned watertight flood defences, and nobody ever said we shouldn't do the best we can.

We were quoted a price of £1m for a flood defence that only floods once every 100 years, and that's what we paid for. So to answer your question, the point at which it becomes a rip off is (obviously) when we don't get what we paid for!

Nobody's saying we can expect perfect flood defences, but when someone takes our money in return for a 1 flood per 100 years system, and they don't deliver what we paid for, that's a rip-off. You may like the idea of being sold a shoddy product based on fake promises, and having the contractors laugh all the way to the bank, but I don't!
[quote][p][bold]jovialcommonsense[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy_R[/bold] wrote: So, you're completely happy with spending £1m on defences that are supposed to only flood once in 100 years, but actually floods about once every 100 days? Yes, obviously it helps, almost anything put in the way of the water would help, but it doesn't help anywhere near as much as it should. Botched flood defences are better than no flood defences at all, but that doesn't mean we should be paying for a system that doesn't do what it's supposed to. We were ripped off, and the fact that Hylton Road has been closed several times during the current flood (not just for a few hours overnight) proves this. It would have been open the whole time if the flood defences had worked properly.[/p][/quote]So how many millions are you prepared to be spent for watertight flood defences (impossible of course)? At what point does it not become a "rip off". Do you really think human intervention can beat nature 100%? That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to do the best we can, with the money available, however.[/p][/quote]Try reading what I actually wrote rather than just ranting about what you think I wrote. Nobody ever mentioned watertight flood defences, and nobody ever said we shouldn't do the best we can. We were quoted a price of £1m for a flood defence that only floods once every 100 years, and that's what we paid for. So to answer your question, the point at which it becomes a rip off is (obviously) when we don't get what we paid for! Nobody's saying we can expect perfect flood defences, but when someone takes our money in return for a 1 flood per 100 years system, and they don't deliver what we paid for, that's a rip-off. You may like the idea of being sold a shoddy product based on fake promises, and having the contractors laugh all the way to the bank, but I don't! Andy_R

5:19pm Sun 12 Jan 14

Andy_R says...

The Doosra wrote:
Andy_R wrote:
So, you're completely happy with spending £1m on defences that are supposed to only flood once in 100 years, but actually floods about once every 100 days?

Yes, obviously it helps, almost anything put in the way of the water would help, but it doesn't help anywhere near as much as it should. Botched flood defences are better than no flood defences at all, but that doesn't mean we should be paying for a system that doesn't do what it's supposed to. We were ripped off, and the fact that Hylton Road has been closed several times during the current flood (not just for a few hours overnight) proves this. It would have been open the whole time if the flood defences had worked properly.
When, during the recent flood, was Hylton Road closed other than to install the pumps and overnight on Thursday?

Flooding every 100 days? Really? Want to prove this?
It was closed on Saturday night.
[quote][p][bold]The Doosra[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy_R[/bold] wrote: So, you're completely happy with spending £1m on defences that are supposed to only flood once in 100 years, but actually floods about once every 100 days? Yes, obviously it helps, almost anything put in the way of the water would help, but it doesn't help anywhere near as much as it should. Botched flood defences are better than no flood defences at all, but that doesn't mean we should be paying for a system that doesn't do what it's supposed to. We were ripped off, and the fact that Hylton Road has been closed several times during the current flood (not just for a few hours overnight) proves this. It would have been open the whole time if the flood defences had worked properly.[/p][/quote]When, during the recent flood, was Hylton Road closed other than to install the pumps and overnight on Thursday? Flooding every 100 days? Really? Want to prove this?[/p][/quote]It was closed on Saturday night. Andy_R

5:41pm Sun 12 Jan 14

The Doosra says...

Andy_R wrote:
The Doosra wrote:
Andy_R wrote:
So, you're completely happy with spending £1m on defences that are supposed to only flood once in 100 years, but actually floods about once every 100 days?

Yes, obviously it helps, almost anything put in the way of the water would help, but it doesn't help anywhere near as much as it should. Botched flood defences are better than no flood defences at all, but that doesn't mean we should be paying for a system that doesn't do what it's supposed to. We were ripped off, and the fact that Hylton Road has been closed several times during the current flood (not just for a few hours overnight) proves this. It would have been open the whole time if the flood defences had worked properly.
When, during the recent flood, was Hylton Road closed other than to install the pumps and overnight on Thursday?

Flooding every 100 days? Really? Want to prove this?
It was closed on Saturday night.
Yes, to install the pumps, and for two hours - not quite gridlock-inducing mayhem.
[quote][p][bold]Andy_R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Doosra[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy_R[/bold] wrote: So, you're completely happy with spending £1m on defences that are supposed to only flood once in 100 years, but actually floods about once every 100 days? Yes, obviously it helps, almost anything put in the way of the water would help, but it doesn't help anywhere near as much as it should. Botched flood defences are better than no flood defences at all, but that doesn't mean we should be paying for a system that doesn't do what it's supposed to. We were ripped off, and the fact that Hylton Road has been closed several times during the current flood (not just for a few hours overnight) proves this. It would have been open the whole time if the flood defences had worked properly.[/p][/quote]When, during the recent flood, was Hylton Road closed other than to install the pumps and overnight on Thursday? Flooding every 100 days? Really? Want to prove this?[/p][/quote]It was closed on Saturday night.[/p][/quote]Yes, to install the pumps, and for two hours - not quite gridlock-inducing mayhem. The Doosra

6:11pm Sun 12 Jan 14

jovialcommonsense says...

Andy_R wrote:
jovialcommonsense wrote:
Andy_R wrote:
So, you're completely happy with spending £1m on defences that are supposed to only flood once in 100 years, but actually floods about once every 100 days?

Yes, obviously it helps, almost anything put in the way of the water would help, but it doesn't help anywhere near as much as it should. Botched flood defences are better than no flood defences at all, but that doesn't mean we should be paying for a system that doesn't do what it's supposed to. We were ripped off, and the fact that Hylton Road has been closed several times during the current flood (not just for a few hours overnight) proves this. It would have been open the whole time if the flood defences had worked properly.
So how many millions are you prepared to be spent for watertight flood defences (impossible of course)? At what point does it not become a "rip off".
Do you really think human intervention can beat nature 100%? That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to do the best we can, with the money available, however.
Try reading what I actually wrote rather than just ranting about what you think I wrote. Nobody ever mentioned watertight flood defences, and nobody ever said we shouldn't do the best we can.

We were quoted a price of £1m for a flood defence that only floods once every 100 years, and that's what we paid for. So to answer your question, the point at which it becomes a rip off is (obviously) when we don't get what we paid for!

Nobody's saying we can expect perfect flood defences, but when someone takes our money in return for a 1 flood per 100 years system, and they don't deliver what we paid for, that's a rip-off. You may like the idea of being sold a shoddy product based on fake promises, and having the contractors laugh all the way to the bank, but I don't!
I was commenting, you are ranting.
The flood defences worked, the drainage system backed up which is what the pumps are there for. Disruption was negligible.
I am obviously not intelligent enough to grasp what your point is.
[quote][p][bold]Andy_R[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jovialcommonsense[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Andy_R[/bold] wrote: So, you're completely happy with spending £1m on defences that are supposed to only flood once in 100 years, but actually floods about once every 100 days? Yes, obviously it helps, almost anything put in the way of the water would help, but it doesn't help anywhere near as much as it should. Botched flood defences are better than no flood defences at all, but that doesn't mean we should be paying for a system that doesn't do what it's supposed to. We were ripped off, and the fact that Hylton Road has been closed several times during the current flood (not just for a few hours overnight) proves this. It would have been open the whole time if the flood defences had worked properly.[/p][/quote]So how many millions are you prepared to be spent for watertight flood defences (impossible of course)? At what point does it not become a "rip off". Do you really think human intervention can beat nature 100%? That doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to do the best we can, with the money available, however.[/p][/quote]Try reading what I actually wrote rather than just ranting about what you think I wrote. Nobody ever mentioned watertight flood defences, and nobody ever said we shouldn't do the best we can. We were quoted a price of £1m for a flood defence that only floods once every 100 years, and that's what we paid for. So to answer your question, the point at which it becomes a rip off is (obviously) when we don't get what we paid for! Nobody's saying we can expect perfect flood defences, but when someone takes our money in return for a 1 flood per 100 years system, and they don't deliver what we paid for, that's a rip-off. You may like the idea of being sold a shoddy product based on fake promises, and having the contractors laugh all the way to the bank, but I don't![/p][/quote]I was commenting, you are ranting. The flood defences worked, the drainage system backed up which is what the pumps are there for. Disruption was negligible. I am obviously not intelligent enough to grasp what your point is. jovialcommonsense

6:58pm Sun 12 Jan 14

Andy_R says...

If you can't grasp that there's a problem with a flood defence that was supposed to only flood once every 100 years, and it's flooded after just 4 years, when the water is nowhere near as high as it was in 2005 or 2007, then yes I agree, you do appear not to be intelligent enough to see what my point is!
If you can't grasp that there's a problem with a flood defence that was supposed to only flood once every 100 years, and it's flooded after just 4 years, when the water is nowhere near as high as it was in 2005 or 2007, then yes I agree, you do appear not to be intelligent enough to see what my point is! Andy_R

7:43pm Sun 12 Jan 14

jovialcommonsense says...

Andy_R wrote:
If you can't grasp that there's a problem with a flood defence that was supposed to only flood once every 100 years, and it's flooded after just 4 years, when the water is nowhere near as high as it was in 2005 or 2007, then yes I agree, you do appear not to be intelligent enough to see what my point is!
Or could it be your inability to express yourself clearly?
Of course this could be the 1 in 100 years and you won't see it again in your lifetime.
[quote][p][bold]Andy_R[/bold] wrote: If you can't grasp that there's a problem with a flood defence that was supposed to only flood once every 100 years, and it's flooded after just 4 years, when the water is nowhere near as high as it was in 2005 or 2007, then yes I agree, you do appear not to be intelligent enough to see what my point is![/p][/quote]Or could it be your inability to express yourself clearly? Of course this could be the 1 in 100 years and you won't see it again in your lifetime. jovialcommonsense

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree