Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 1 2011, 08:45 PM

Newbury Town Council have wasted public money installing field drains with the fall going uphill. Even accepting that NTC's grasp of hydrogeology is famously weak, this does seem to be stupendously poor even by their standards of public waste.

Wash Common allotments can flood badly in the winter. It's typical to have several weeks like this anytime into March.


Wash Common was drained in the 1858 enclosure and the four acre site was created with a ditch and hedge all the way round it feeding into the the main Wash Common ditch #1 on the eastern side of the allotments and thence all the way down to Wash Water.

Through years of neglect and mismanagement most of the south ditch has been lost - enclosure boundaries were by law defined by the outside edge of the ditch with the hedge planted on the spoil which was piled on the inside, with the consequence that cheeky neighbours would fill in neglected ditches and gain an extra four or five feet of land. Without the south ditch and with the north ditch regularly blocked site drainage has become a problem.

So the Town Council decided to lay some lateral land drains which would discharge into the site ditches. Unfortunately they've layed them with a 14" fall away from the ditch they're meant to flow into, so the drain is completely useless and all the time and public money spent on materials is completely wasted.

Here's the start of one drain, and you can see the main ditch in the background by the oak trees. The ground level is about 18" below the height profile here, and the drain another 3" below the surface - so the drain is 21" below the height profile.


This is the drain run near the discharge end. The ground is now about 1" below the same height profile, and the land drain another 6" below the surface - so the drain is now 7" below the height profiel - that's 14" higher then where the drain starts.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 1 2011, 09:02 PM

I don't understand your geological references, but are you saying they have built the drain-away the wrong way round?

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Aug 1 2011, 09:13 PM

Pardon my ignorance, but are you saying that the end of the pipe is actually higher above sea level than the begining?

Whereas conventional wisdom has it that water flows downhill....

Posted by: NWNREADER Aug 1 2011, 09:22 PM

Do I gather the last two posters have managed to clarify in 1 or 2 lines what dear old Simon needed three pages and a book of photos to completely befuddle me over?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 1 2011, 09:26 PM

It's like this:


And the Town Council have installed the drains as in the top diagram, rather than the bottom one.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 1 2011, 09:27 PM

Quite so.

Posted by: user23 Aug 1 2011, 09:29 PM

So when the ditch fills up, the water drains down the pipe?

It seems to work much like a overflow on a cistern or basin.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 1 2011, 09:29 PM

Ah, but hydrogeology is devilishly difficult to explain. Allegedly.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 1 2011, 09:33 PM

Fortunately the drain emerges into the ditch at the top, and the ditch is four feet deep, so that won't happen, but it will drain half a dozen extra plots down into the low plots in the first photo.

Posted by: user23 Aug 1 2011, 09:36 PM

Not sure what the issue is here, you wouldn't put the overflow at the bottom of the trench, would you?

Surely you'd want it at the top as it appears to be, so the trench can fill right up before being drained away.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 1 2011, 09:43 PM

Interesting, but how do you know it is as you describe; without the appropriate gradient?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 1 2011, 09:44 PM

Yes, you might well have the outfall at the bottom of the ditch, but the crucial point is that the drain must fall towards the ditch it empties into. The issue is that this 100' run of drain falls 14" uphill, and water doesn't run uphill, so the drain is completely useless and the time and public money spent on the material is completely wasted

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 1 2011, 09:47 PM

I pegged out the drain run with height profiles and measured the invert (you can see the profiles in the picture) - it's what you'd do if you were digging a drain (or it was 30 years ago, I guess it's done with GPS now).

Posted by: user23 Aug 1 2011, 09:47 PM

Surely an overflow needs flow downhill and this it what it appears to do in your picture.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 1 2011, 09:52 PM

Perhaps they will dig another ditch at the low point?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 1 2011, 09:52 PM

It's not an overflow - the black pipe labeled "Drain" is a land drain, its job is to collect ground water from the surrounding land (it's perferated so the water can get in) and carry the water to the ditch. If the outlet is higher than the surrounding groundwater the groundwater will never flow down the drain and escape into the ditch.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 1 2011, 09:54 PM

That's a bit like the Porridge problem of how to hide the spoil from an escape tunnel - you dig another tunnel to put it in!

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 1 2011, 09:58 PM

Fair enough...at least they tried and it looks like they did something, eh?

Posted by: NWNREADER Aug 1 2011, 10:00 PM

I feel another 'allotment management' serial starting...

Surely the thing to do is to write a simple letter to NTC - as a tenant (which I assume you still are) - and ask a simple "It looks to me like the drain runs uphill...." question?

Posted by: Strafin Aug 1 2011, 10:14 PM

Good grief here we go again.....

Why don't you just give up your allotment if it's so bad, honeslty you're like a petulant teenager who thinks he knows better than everyone else all the time. I'm starting to agree with Panda, I think you should get a window box or a garden and be done with it.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 1 2011, 10:19 PM

If the council have ballsed-up, we should here about it. I'm just wondering if this remedial work is not finished. And please don't agree with 'panda', it doesn't suit you!

Posted by: Strafin Aug 1 2011, 10:26 PM

OK you're right. Sorry

Posted by: Cognosco Aug 2 2011, 09:17 AM

Not another, council can do no wrong, post?

Why not ask the simple question? Is the council correct or Simon? If the pipe is running uphill then the taxpayers money has been completely wasted and it would show that the council are incompetent. Why try to knock someone for pointing this out?

Posted by: Ron Aug 2 2011, 09:27 AM

It's not the Council that is incompetent, but the contractor they have used.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 2 2011, 10:12 AM

The Council are using Community Payback, and while they come with a minder I don't know that they come with a civil engineer. It'll be interesting to see if the Council blame Community Payback or take responsibility themselves. The trenches have simply been dug by eye, they haven't even marked out a straight run so there's no possibility they've been dug to a surveyed depth, they've simply dug a spit down and followed the contour of the ground.

I'm more than happy to show anyone round site so you can see for yourself - just PM me.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Aug 2 2011, 10:14 AM

True, up to a point. But if they used Stubbs instead of O'Riley knowing that Stubbs might not have the best of track records.....

You tend to get what you pay for. If you pay for a cheap (or free) service then sometimes you'd better pray that water runs uphill.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 2 2011, 10:23 AM

Actually it was O'Reilly who was the Irish cowboy, not Stubbs. What do they teach in schools these days.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Aug 2 2011, 10:47 AM

Darn, the irony didn't work. No matter. Now excuse me, I have to insert a large garden gnome into Mr O'Riley.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 2 2011, 10:55 AM

Well that explains everything then. An excellent opportunity for everyone to blame another.

I suppose there will be a residual benefit in the capacity of the the drain tube to hold some of the surface water! They'd probably be better off just digging a trench and filling it with porous rocks/stones.

Posted by: Cognosco Aug 2 2011, 11:57 AM

I hope they are not intending to use the same contractor to erect the Pavillion Pigeon Loft?
We could end up with more than a sagging roof!

Posted by: On the edge Aug 2 2011, 01:26 PM

Like you've been saying Simon - self management is the only answer. Big society? not whilst we have big egos.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 2 2011, 06:18 PM

Self-management doesn't guarantee a better service, but it does mean that a snafu such as this doesn't cost the tax-payer anything, but the Big Society is nothing but a con and the Council have gone out of their way to suppress any possibility of self-management in Newbury. The obscenity of it is that they have a £multi-thousand "Big Society" budget and a working group to spend it, and all they're talking about is how they can use the Localism Bill to wrest services off WBC so they can build their empire, when they should be talking about saving the Newbury tax-payer £300k by dropping the market, losing the mayor, giving up the Town Hall for an office on NGP, letting locals cut the grass and plant the borders on the open spaces, having volunteer park keepers and letting the Friends groups look after the parks, handing over the Christmas Lights to the TCP/BID, cutting the grants, and of course letting the allotment sites self-manage.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 2 2011, 07:38 PM

With you on that! Most will only notice when its too late - as usual apathy rules.

Posted by: blackdog Aug 2 2011, 11:20 PM

Newbury Town Council offices in Greenham - isn't that a bit bizarre? Why not have offices in Newbury?

What would you do with the Town Hall, demolish it and use the space for a couple of allotments?

Personally I'd rather have Newbury councillors in charge of changes to Newbury - must make more sense than putting a Pangbourne councillor in charge.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 3 2011, 01:01 AM

How daft is it that people living in Falkland Garth are constituents of The Town, yet people living in Eeklo Place aren't? Couldn't it be argued that The Town is broadly speaking all wards that fall within the mile of The Town? Indeed, doesn't The Town benefit immensely from revenue from the Greenham Common Trust?

Posted by: NWNREADER Aug 3 2011, 06:16 AM

You may be right, but that is an accident of ancient boundaries. There could be a change, but
1. is it a priority?; and
2. it would be a hotter debate than managing allotments, tenancy agreements and RGs top 30 topics rolled into one!!!!

Plus that debate would not only be about bringing the town end of Greenham Road into 'The Town', but depriving the surrounding Parishes (not just Greenham in the scenario you mention) of real estate, voters, etc....

And where is the town 'centre'? I can imagine councillors arguing over that detail for 10 years alone..... When the border goes through a 'nice' house, is it in or out? What about a 'not nice' one?

No.... Save me from that one for around 40 years, please.....

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 3 2011, 08:30 AM

I don't propose that, I just feel that the we all have a stake in the town that goes beyond the legal boundaries. I don't live in a town council ward, but I feel Newbury is my town, yet I have no direct say about its governance. In contrast, I feel no affinity to Thatcham.

I see no problem moving a council chatting shop to Greenham if it is more economic to do so.

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 3 2011, 09:10 AM

So you watched the drain being dug & didn't feel the need to point out the error? No wonder the 'big society' idea falls flat when people won't even give assistance to somthing they fell passionate about & would have benefited from.

If it had been me I would have tried to do something & ensure the darin was installed properly, not wait until it was finished & then gloat about it on a local forum.

Posted by: NWNREADER Aug 3 2011, 09:36 AM

Bobby?

I do rather agree that to watch something being constructed - especially if one has an interest in its' success - that looks defective, then trump about the (still only apparent) defect is a bit like ensuring there is something to moan about.......

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 3 2011, 09:42 AM

I do agree that it does look a bit like moaning after the event, but I would have sought clarification first before posting the problem. I'm sure though, whichever way Simon had approached this, you both would have had an opinion about it 'prepared'. Had he said from the beginning, I would imagine there would be people say, 'don't poke your nose', or people would have asked how does he know that the drain would have been installed wrong, until it is installed.

Only Simon has posted about this. This shows that no-one else is looking out for the site's welfare, even if Simon's motives are not altruistic.

What it might expose, assuming the ground works are in error, is that there might be a body supervising such work that might be incompetent. The way things work in life this that most bodies don't change things until a problem becomes apparent.

Posted by: NWNREADER Aug 3 2011, 10:57 AM

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 3 2011, 11:42 AM

I agree, Simon's methods are not always the most efficient, but the essence of the thread is more important to me than the strategy. The only thing I would criticise Simon for is not appearing to seek clarification on the remedial work. I also stand by the idea that sometimes you have to let things happen so you have a better example to demonstrate with. Simon's view is that the public could do a better job, so paradoxically, you have to have problems to prove the point. If this drainaway was built correctly, then Simon would be proved wrong and might not have an argument.

To answer your question, I suspect there are people now who are prejudiced towards Simon Kirby, regardless of his methods or motives. I say this being conscious that he appears to have a vendetta against the council, but it seems one that is reciprocated. You can't have a tail wagging the dog, but I think the council could 'manage' him better.

Meanwhile; the Tories really don't like Joe Public sticking their nose in! http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=17455

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 3 2011, 01:05 PM

As a result, councillors resolved to research other similar projects, define local open spaces where the project could be implemented and attempt to create a community-led working group to help move the project forward.

not my impression at all.

Posted by: Dodgys smarter brother. Aug 3 2011, 01:15 PM

"The seeds have been sewn for the idea of a community project, but have not yet borne fruit"

.....and for those of us with English as a first language?

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 3 2011, 02:45 PM

You missed: "Meanwhile, Howard Bairstow (Con, Falkland) said he felt the idea was “fanciful” as he said it was likely to take up a lot of council officer time, particularly with the maintenance and nurturing of all the crops".

Posted by: NWNREADER Aug 3 2011, 03:04 PM

Was that comment Tory policy, or a single councillor expressing an opinion? Is he right? I don't know, but to do someone down by their party as opposed to the validity of what they say seems dogmatic.
The cost of the project would seem likely to be publicly funded (Council precept) so it makes sense in my book to ensure it is a practical idea for Newbury, not just a 'good idea' that may have worked elsewhere.


Talking about community projects....
Where is our water wheel?

Posted by: On the edge Aug 3 2011, 03:27 PM

Where were you!

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 3 2011, 03:52 PM

dannyboy said he didn't get the impression at all (I think it is clear my sentence was rather flippant). Reading the passage, there is an attempt to portray this as a party issue. Libs seem in favour, the Tory(s) seem sceptical. Please don't shoot me for interpreting the piece as intended.


Of course, but with phrases like 'fanciful' (councillors really should learn to chose their words better), I wonder how enthusiastic they are about it.

Posted by: blackdog Aug 3 2011, 05:42 PM

? Eeklo Place is in the Pyle Hill Ward - its Newbury Town councillors are Arthur Johnson and Julian Swift-Hook.


You can argue many things - but Newbury Town Council is the representative body for the civil parish of Newbury, to locate their operations in another parish would be really bizarre. You would also find many residents of places like Speen, Donnington, Shaw, Cold Ash, Thatcham, Greenham, Hampstead Marshall, Enborne, Newtown etc getting upset if they found themselves 'moved' into Newbury.


I'm sure it does as do many other places - I note, for instance, that NGT have their name on the new village hall in Beech Hill. I doubt that there would be many Beech Hill parish councillors wanting to have meetings at NGP.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 3 2011, 06:20 PM

OK I tried to use an extreme example, but many people at the of of Greenham (for instance) are excluded from determining the governance of Newbury Town, yet people equally distanced, like in Essex Street, are included. Pyle Hill Ward is included, Greenham Hill, or whatever the ward there is called, is not.


Exactly why would it be bizarre? If it was more economical AND efficient to hold the meetings out of the town centre?


Wards stay the same, don't they, it is only demarcation. People wouldn't be 'moved' to Newbury. Indeed, I know a few people who moved to Greenham, only to discover that they were classed as Thatcham! Which was costly due to a higher insurance premium.

My point is, as conurbations grow and become more populated, surely there should be restructuring. Especially as I would imagine people are more mobile these days. Newbury town is now only a matter of minutes travelling by car for may who live near Newbury, and probably make more journeys to the town than in the old days. I would say that if this is true, they should be entitled to a stake holding in its governance.


They would not need to, but should consider it, if it meant cheaper and more efficient governance. Not so, if it didn't.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 3 2011, 06:58 PM

In point of fact I didn't see the ditch being dug, it was dug in the day and I saw the result in the evening. A couple of years ago when the idea of additional ditches was first mooted I made the serious offer to my ward councillor to dig the ditches myself.

Ten years ago when the Council regime was benign I dug a 120' drainage ditch, 2' deep, 3' wide. It was possible because I'd also dug out 100' of the south ditch so that the water would drain away. Three years ago I dug out all of the north ditch, about 1000' of it - about 100 hours work over six weeks.

I have been up to the Council several times to ask for allotmenteers to be allowed to maintain the site and the suggestion has been dismissed out of hand without discussion - it's a matter of public record which you are welcome to verify. The rules, which previously obliged me as a tenant to keep the ditches clear, were changed specifically so we could not clear the ditches. As one tory councillor said: "where would we be if we allowed tenants to volunteer to maintain the sites?" Where indeed.

In all of this time not once has any single officer or councillor sought to talk to me about how I or the allotment society could help maintain the sites or save the tax-payer money on the administration. As a minimum I would have expected at least one of my ward councillors to want to discuss the possibility with me.

The Big Society has failed in Newbury because Newbury Town Council don't want it to succeed. Like I said, there's an easy £300k of business to be lost if the Big Society isn't pwned, and the Council are not asleep on watch.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 3 2011, 07:01 PM

Fine, whatever, let them take an office in the Greenham or Wash Common community centres or whatever. I think you're mising the point.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 3 2011, 07:30 PM

Perhaps NWNREADER might take a leaf out of his own book and seek the facts before making comment. On the face of it, I think you have addressed the points raised by Tory1, dannyboy, and Tory2, NWNREADER.

...but if you are lying...I'll be back!

Posted by: dannyboy Aug 3 2011, 09:41 PM

who cares what one councillor thinks? It was decided in the end that As a result, [the] councillors resolved to research other similar projects, define local open spaces where the project could be implemented and attempt to create a community-led working group to help move the project forward.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 3 2011, 09:48 PM

I have already explained my comment was tonguing in cheek, but I was just challenging your 'at all' statement. Why so sensitive to anti-Tory rhetoric?

Posted by: NWNREADER Aug 4 2011, 03:47 PM

In my defence, M'Lud, the comment by Daniel was made a couple of days before I added mine. I fell into the trap of no response meaning the interpretation was not wide of the mark..... Simon is usually regular updating items he has an interest in.
I withdraw, gladly.

Tory? Me? No party afiliation whatsoever. Just seek decent info, clearly set out. Richard Heads come in all shapes and sizes.......

I would still like for Simon to confirm he has raised the issue with the Council so that a proper response may be forthcoming... I trust there is not a pump midway along the drain..... Pass another straw, this one is bending......

Posted by: NWNREADER Aug 4 2011, 03:51 PM

"If it tales one man 100 hours to dig 1000' of ditch, how long would it take a whole Council?" Show your working-out in the margin.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 4 2011, 06:54 PM

No, there's no pump mid-way or anything, the drain was simply dug a spit deep, and as the ground rises on the way to the ditch so too does the drain. And the Council read this forum well enough, so unless they fear accountability they can come on here and say how much this particular snafu cost.

As I said, I'm more than happy to show anyone around the allotments, and of course I'll post the picture in the winter when the allotment is again flooded.

Posted by: blackdog Aug 4 2011, 07:48 PM

Wards change all the time - boundaries move, houses are built, etc. The insurance issue is irrelevant, it simply has nothing to do with ward or civil parish boundaries. Insurance companies use postcodes when calculating risk - not local govenment boundaries. The Post Office controls postcode area boundaries - based on the efficient (?) operation of their mail delivery system, they would not change just because a town boundary changed. Parts of Greenham are in RG14, parts are in RG18 so even within Greenham the insurance rates will vary. They will, however, pay less council tax than Newbury residents.


Newbury (originally the borough, since 1974 the civil parish) boundaries have extended over the years to encompass large chunks of Speen, Greenham, Thatcham, Cold Ash, & Enborne - I'm sure the boundaries will be extended again in the future. At that time there will be plenty of objectors (not wanting to be 'moved' into Newbury) as well as supporters of the change. Until it happens Newbury Town Council will be elected by the residents of the current civil parish. The residents of the adjoining parishes elect their own parish councils.

In reality the town council has very little to do with the governance of Newbury - WBC has far, far more control - so all voters in West Berkshire have a chance to influence things in Newbury. Of course residents in Pangbourne and Streatley rarely ever visit Newbury - but have far more say in its development than the residents of Newtown, Highclere, etc for whom Newbury is their local town

I, personally, think that Newbury residents should have more say in the development of the town - for which reason I would like to see a far more powerful town council with real power in planning decisions and town development projects, all of which are imposed on the town these days by the functionaries at WBC.


NTC's biggest problem is the Town Hall - NRDC/WBC were happy enough to give it to them as it is in economic terms a white elephant. The site is a good one, but the building is all but useless for any modern commercial use. That said it is listed and even Patrick Griffin hasn't yet come up with a plan for a replacement. I suppose they might be able to sell it for conversion to another Wetherspoons and move to an office somewhere in town and save a considerable sum.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 4 2011, 08:31 PM

Think this suggests we have far too much 'government' in Newbury! We are supposed to have a unitary authority which was supposed to have eliminated the petty squabbling and empire building so beloved of little Councils. It's high time we eliminated the urban parish councils and treated Newbury as the Town it has become. Lets face it, Greenham, Speen, Shaw *** Donnington are simply suburbs of Newbury - not separate habitations.

Posted by: user23 Aug 4 2011, 08:47 PM

This isn't actually true.

You http://ww2.westberks.gov.uk/InternetMapping/Map.aspx?tool=zi&x=446616&y=167051&scale=20&size=large&layers=8.6.7.9.55&opencat=1&import=&report=&daterange=&uprn=&qlayer=&qfield=&qin=&join= here that almost all of the urban area is in Newbury itself, whilst the surrounding parishes are mainly rural.

Posted by: Andy Capp Aug 4 2011, 08:52 PM

That is how I feel. I think the urban parish councils are an anachronism.

What is in the red loop is Newbury. What is in the blue loop is Thatcham, and what is in the green loop is The (Newbury) Town. Apologies for it is very rough and an approximate.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 4 2011, 09:30 PM

Against today's boundaries - wholly agree. However, the base contention is amply demonstrated by the map - the main habitations in the parishes concerned are actually extensions of built up Newbury. So we could bring the Town boundary up to date, or why not be more radical and eliminate the Parish tier altogether - with today's communications they are wholly unnecessary. An expensive luxury. If people living in these localities felt the need for some public forum - then a residents association would be just as effective.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 4 2011, 09:31 PM

Good representation - illustrates the position very well.

Posted by: blackdog Aug 5 2011, 09:18 AM

Unitary Authority meant the abolition of the county council, not parish councils. It was only in Newbury that it was truly unitary because they failed to allow a parish council to replace the borough council when it was amalgamated with the district council.

WBC is a little council - and we see the petty squabbling all the time (mind you we se that in all sizes of council).

Unitary authorities were created out of some ideological scheme that would break up the more powerful county councils and make everything more controllable from Whitehall - fortunately the process failed and most places avoided UAs, sadly not so in Berkshire. There are signs of reversal as tiny councils like WBC are encouraged to share more and more functions with their neighbours - I wonder how long it will be before a single executive organisation is seen as the most efficient way to run the six Berkshire UAs?

The current government is pushing through a Localism Bill that should see a greater role for the parish councils - though their latest planning law proposals go the other way in taking even more power away from local authorities - so you'll probably get you wishes fulfilled as all the fields around the conurbation of Newbury Thatcham disappear under houses over the next 20 years.

Still, not to worry, one day they will redraw the boundaries and we will find ourselves in part of Greater London.

Posted by: On the edge Aug 6 2011, 12:31 PM

I think this is rather sad. Indeed, 'my wish' nearly came true under the last political administration in West Berkshire. The LibDems couldn't resist pouring concrete and bricks on any bit of green they came across. As the New Hospital and the 'sports park' in what was the green gap between Thatcham and Newbury amply illustrates. Its claimed to still be a green gap - presumably because that's the colour of the artificial grass!

Posted by: Simon Kirby Aug 9 2011, 01:24 PM

I asked the supervisor chappie this morning about the uphill drainage just in case it was all some cunning plan that I wasn't aware of, but it wasn't, the drains have simply been laid uphill. So I'd guestimate the cost of the thirty-odd tonnes of pea shingle and several hundred metres of drainage pipe at around £1500. All wasted.

Posted by: Cognosco Aug 9 2011, 05:51 PM

Is it only in Newbury the council are unable to manage a project to a satisfactory level - or does it only seem that way?

I suppose like this new drain the blame will only run down hill, it will not manage to go uphill to reach those in charge?