POSITION PAPER – Flooding issues preventing the delivery the proposed

Carterton West Development

We believe the Carterton West Option is undeliverable because of a number of

technical, planning and political issues. This document highlights the flooding
issues concerning the site identified as “Carterton West”. We oppose the
Carterton West Option, as it will have a catastrophic impact on Carterton, the
local environment and surrounding villages.
Flooding Issues
The Carterton West Option development site is prone to flooding. Any significant new housing will limit soak-
away potential and therefore flooding of the site and potentially the RAF Brize Norton facility will become an
issue. Events have highlighted that the current foul drainage provision is stretched to the maximum and any
further development will only exacerbate this situation, which is already unacceptable to residents of
Bampton and the surrounding areas.

At present, inaccurate assumptions regarding flood mitigation are being formed for the whole site,
based on an unrealistic sample over an inappropriate timescale. The proposed Developers trial pit (TP) 1
shows no permeability of the soil due to presence of ground water and therefore the soil is water logged.
TP3 soil is 6 times less permeable than TP2, but figures are based on TP2, which is the most
advantageous for soak-away.

The site is modelled as zone 1 in ‘most’ areas, with the Shill Brook as zones 2 & 3. No rating is given to
surrounding villages, which is in fact the real issue. Flooding has occurred on the site in 2007 and is still
evident at times, but it has not been as bad as resultant flooding in Bampton, Shilton and Alvescot.

The Developers run-off calculation is based on a soil factor and is presumably derived from the permeability,
which is overestimated, as it is based on TP2. The answer given is therefore probably unrepresentative and
the run-off volume may be much higher. The run-off calculation also assumes that the Developer only builds
on 50% of the site. This means that they are building 1300 homes, all the roads, schools and shops on
60ha. This equates to 0.11 acre per home including roads and communal facilities and therefore seems
unlikely. In any event, areas have been left to the west for future development, so in that case the
percentage of land that is built up will be greater than 50% and the remaining soak-away will be much less.

The report concedes that run-off will be increased by a factor of 2.5, but calculates that balancing ponds
have sufficient capacity to absorb the extra and more. This is based on 50% of the site remaining green for
soak-away. Of course, if only 25% remains green, which is more likely if the development is
extended, then run of will presumably increase by a factor of 5.

The pond capacity calculation by the Developer, takes no account of the general water table within the
ponds, which judging by TP1 may be high and leave little space for run-off. Therefore, the calculation is
flawed. In reality, with high water table, balancing ponds will be ineffective and ‘run off’ could be increased
by a factor of between 2.5 and 5, which would be disastrous for RAF Brize Norton and surrounding villages.
Even if the water table at the time of flooding was 1m below the surface, (which is unlikely judging by TP1),
the 37,000 cu. m. of run-off capacity stated could only be achieved in ponds the size of over 5 football
pitches. This is all based on optimistic calculations, so the real area of pond could be much higher.

It would be irresponsible to develop a site that even with the Developer’s optimistic assumptions, is
acknowledged by them to increase run-off by a factor of 2.5. Any measures provided in mitigation can
only be assessed by calculation at this stage, which in turn can only be based on assumption and
judgement.

Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS)

Because of the water table issues, balancing tanks are likely to be more effective than SUDS, which is no
doubt why the MoD has installed one. However, the number and size required to cater for the increased run-
off would be massive and involve vast amounts of excavation and cost.

In reality balancing measures are not a substitute for a proper surface water drainage system. Balancing
ponds require ongoing maintenance to prevent silting up and pollution. The Developer dismisses this as
minimal, but in fact it is costly.

The area required to take the optimistically low run-off within a 1m water level variation, times the 4m depth
will require an excavation of 185,000cu.m., allowing a 25% over-dig, which may yet be insufficient.
Unfortunately, it appears that this site has rock close to the surface. A basic rock excavation rate would be
around £100/cu.m., but to a depth of 4m, it would not be unreasonable to assume £150/cu.m., once
preliminaries and attendances are taken into account. Therefore the excavation cost could be £29M
(£21,000 per house) just to remove the rock for balancing ponds. Then there’s the concrete bank
construction, the back-fill, the pathways, the netting, the fencing and vehicular access. Therefore, the initial
cost per house just to resolve flooding issues will be very high, with ongoing maintenance costs to follow ad
infinitum. It is difficult to understand how this ties up with WODC’s intention to make a large proportion of the
homes affordable and the Developer’s need to set the selling price of the remainder at market value.

The Existing MoD Balancing Tank

The Developer has assumed that the MoD balancing tank is ineffective, describing it as unmaintained, and
that it has no effect because it discharges into the brook. They also assume that the MoD will agree for it to
be in-filled and replaced by a balancing pond. In fact, whilst the vegetation in the vicinity may be overgrown,
the tank is still operational and the purpose is to store storm water once levels reach a dangerous height.
The tank then discharges it back relatively slowly into the brook, only once full, allowing time for the surface
water surge to subside or dissipate. As stated above, the proposed balancing pond replacement will not be
effective, due to the high water table, especially around the Shill Brook. It is likely therefore that at the very
least, the MoD will want a like for like tank, which will mean huge amounts of additional excavation of the
Shill Brook banks.

Increased Risk of Bird Strike

The MoD is concerned about the risk of bird strike from new developments. As a result of this, the use of
open water is restricted within 13km of a runway. Ideally, it should be avoided, but if it’s essential, there are
measures that have to be taken to avoid attracting birds to the water. The ponds should be netted and the
water must be 4m deep minimum. The banks must be vertical, which means that they will need to be
formed with reinforced concrete. The surrounding area needs to be paved or long grass planted,
instead of a pleasantly landscaped area. This is not the country park feel that has been presented. In fact,
the depth of the water and the steep banks would present a significant health and safety risk, so that the
ponds would have to be fenced off from the public.