Pumping Water into the Bell Water System - Find a freedom of information request

I ask under the freedom of information act. I note you do not wish to comment on a risk assessment not being conducted before pumping water into the Bell Water system. That is the problem, mistakes have been made and no one has the guts to admit to them.

1.How can anything be learnt with regard to any future flood problems if evidence is ignored?

2.When it happens next time, will the risk assessment be ignored again? a.Or will this be taken on board? Water was stood on that field until June the following year.

3.Don't you agree that gives ample time for someone to visit the flooded field? I was told by WFD that the engineer had visited the site and taken photos. I asked for copies of those photos. The photos that were sent weren't even of this holding.

4.Where you aware that WFD was falsifying evidence?

5.Was flood risk, aware that a million cubic meter of water was to be pumped into the Bellwater system?

a.And was it approved by flood risk before the pumps were started?

b.Were you aware at the time of the water being pumped that a safety assessment had not been conducted?

c.And if so did you still agree the action taken? I have an email from FACT which states when it was realised the land was being flooded the pumping was turned down, and it confirms the flooding was not caused by rainfall but by the actions taken. I have photo which confirm the same thing. The only field with water on is the low field all the surrounding fields have no water stood on them.

6.When did you become aware that the field was being flooded?

7.Were you aware that a survey had been completed by WFD in 1984, and its contents? I originally go in touch with WFD in Nov 2019. First with two phone calls then with a visit to WFD offices. All of which was a waste of time. I am of the opinion that it was realised that the action taken was illegal and uncontrolled. If any one had bothered to check the records of1984 they would have realised the implications of the actions and a watch kept on the low field. All very simple.

8.Wouldn't you agree? Irrespective of where the field is situated. If it's outside the original boundaries or the various amended boundaries. Field TF4658 2096 is the lowest in Witham Fourth catchment area as confirm by a 1984 survey conducted by Mr Shearer the engineer of WFD confirm. That was in the days when a drainage engineer was in charge of WFD instead of an accountant.

9.Even though WFD had the survey information since 1984 they were completely ignorant of it. Why is that.?

10.Pumping a million cubic meters of water into any system is illegal if it is done without a safety assessment, and come under criminal damage. Check it out.

11.Without a safety assessment all it does is push the problem down stream. Don't you agree? Fifty year or so ago they was, and probably still is an underground complex to the east of Fodder bank. I have no idea who was responsible for it. I'm guessing either the RAF or the Observe corp.

12.Was this taken into consideration before pumping the water? A million cubic meters of water, which is the amount pumped into the Bell water system as confirmed by the ADA report. A million cubic meters of water on an acre of land would be 4 ¾ times the height of Nelsons column. That amount of water doesn't mysteriously disappear.

13.Where do you think it went?

14.The LCC will have a copy of that 1984 report as also does WFD and myself. I assume by your email you haven't sourced that report. Why is that? I attach part of that report. You will note it confirms that field is the lowest in the catchment area and that the water would only have to be 1 to 2 inches higher for flooding to occur. It doesn't mention anything about what would happen if the water was 57 yards higher which is the height of 4 ¾ times Nelsons column. You can check all the figures out for yourself, it depends if you're conscientious in your work or not. You will note that Mr.Abrahams was the land agent for the LCC at that time. Mr.Shearrer was WFD engineer and Mr. Wrisdale was the chairman of the board but he stood out , I believe a conflict of interest. Mr.Wrisdale is a neighbour and as since sadly passed away.

15.Who do you believe was responsible for initiating the pumping? When this action was put in place every one and his dog wanted to claim it was their actions that saved the day.

16.Since then when it's been realised the actions taken were illegal no one know want to claim credit for it. Why do you believe that is? I await your reply with interest.

1. This question is not within the scope of FOI/EIR, in any event we are not able to answer this.

2. This question is not within the scope of FOI/EIR, in addition we cannot speculate on the response to future events.

3. This question is not within the scope of FOI/EIR, in any event we are not able to answer this.

4. The only allegation we have received of malpractice by Witham Fourth District Internal Drainage Board has come from Mr Dennis himself

5. By flood risk, we assume you mean the Flood Risk team, if so then no, no such notification was received, furthermore we wouldn’t be expected to receive such a notification.

a. It is not a function of the Lead Local Flood Authority to grant these approvals.

b. I refer you to our previous response c. Not applicable, please see previous responses.

6. We were made aware that the field was flooded in an email from Mr Dennis dated 14/02/2020.

7. We were made aware of the WFD survey completed in 1984 via an email from Mr Dennis dated 01/02/2021, this was provided in a .MIX format, we are unable to open.

8. This question is not within the scope of FOI/EIR, in any event we are not able to answer this.

9. This question is not within the scope of FOI/EIR, in any event we are not able to answer this.

10.No response required,as this is not a question.

11.This question is not within the scope of FOI/EIR, in any event we are not able to answer this.

12.We do not hold the information to respond to this.

13.This question is not within the scope of FOI/EIR, in any event we are not able to answer this.

14.LCC received a copy of the 1984 WFD report from Mr Dennis, as stated above it is not in a file format that we are able to open

15.This question is not within the scope of FOI/EIR, in any event we are not able to answer this.

16.This question is not within the scope of FOI/EIR, in any event we are not able to answer this.