During the week prior to the planned meeting on 26th January, we sent SCDC a list of 8 questions, intended to provide a focus for the meeting, for which only 1 hour of online time was available. We were promised answers to these questions well in advance of the meeting, so that we could properly reflect on the information provided.
These are the questions. Where specialised or technical terms are used placing your cursor over words in italics will provide explanation.
- Is it correct that the primary mechanism for limiting the level of the water table in Northstowe is the swalesWest-East drainage channels and that this process is ongoing and intentional?
- What calculations were made as to the upper acceptable level of the water table (to obviate the risk of flooding) and how were these calculations implemented in the design and execution of the swales?
- We understand that the east end of the northern swale end is at a height of 7m AODAbove Ordnance Datum (=above sea level) whereas all the Longstanton ponds, including the Kingfisher Pond, are at 10m AOD. Is this a straightforward explanation for Longstanton’s total loss of groundwater?
- Are the swales currently draining only to the level necessary to avoid flooding in Northstowe, or or are they currently constructed in such a way that they drain more water than necessary?
- Why were we repeatedly told during the initial dewatering process that the effects would be only temporary and that the ponds would recover when it must have been clear to the developers that allowing the water table to return to its previous level would result in seasonal flooding in the lower-lying areas of the site?
- With whom did the misinformation originate and which public bodies and agencies were privy to it?
- What can be done to remedy the damage done to Longstanton’s ponds, restore water supply to e.g. Larksfield nursery and provide restitution in case of future damage to Longstanton’s buildings and infrastructure? Bearing in mind the answer to the previous question, who is responsible for this and who foots the bill?
- Without reopening the discussion about the absence of an EIAEnvironmental Impact Assessment for Phase 3A, which is expected to drop the water table by a further 2-3 metres, would it not be profoundly reckless to proceed with this phase until the problems with Phase 1 have been identified and remediated?
Answers to these question were promised for the Friday prior to the meeting. In the event, they arrived after 11pm on the evening before the meeting was due to take place.
Previous page: the start of the story
Next page: SCDC’s answers to our questions