Cookham Discussion Board
January 22, 2018, 12:24:20 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
20 January 2018 - Make Your Own Nesting Boxes

22 January 2018 - Robbie Burns Faces Mother's Ruin

24 January 2018 - Cookham Surgery Closed for GP Training (12.30pm onward)

26 January 2018 - Jazz at the Altar Featuring Upbeat

TO REGISTER TO POST ON THIS DISCUSSION BOARD email the Webmaster@cookham.com with a User name you would like. This is due to spammers.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 15
  Print  
Author Topic: River Level  (Read 153177 times)
Paris
Guest
« Reply #30 on: January 06, 2014, 05:02:00 PM »

Are we becoming victims of the EA making it look to the good people of Maidenhead as though their flood defences are working? 
Logged
fehewer
Full Member
***
Posts: 107


« Reply #31 on: January 06, 2014, 05:07:15 PM »

Hello windymiller, My recollection from last winter is that the Bourne End Road floods quite soon after the Moor Road, but the Maidenhead Road over Widbrook Common takes longer - it did not flood last winter.  I'm sorry I don't have the river levels for that.  

Hello anon, The maximum height listed on the EA web site is 1.46m, but they don't give a date (aaahh!)

Hello school-laner, The Environment Agency control the operation of all the weirs along the river as well as the Jubilee river flood alleviation channel.  The 100cm figure is based on the gauge situated upstream of Cookham Lock.  The downstream gauge is also showing the river well above its typical range.
Logged
EUWAVE
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 269


« Reply #32 on: January 06, 2014, 05:25:29 PM »

It is only going to get worse before it get's better. Rain falling up river [Oxford way] will take 24 to 48 hours to reach the Henley - Marlow - Maidenhead area. I went passed the block of flats a few hours ago on the River road in Maidenhead opposite what used to be the Chef Peking [ great in it's day], the river was lapping the edges of the bank so not long before it breaches there. Then the flats underground car park becomes a swimming pool!
Logged
school-laner
Newbie
*
Posts: 12


« Reply #33 on: January 06, 2014, 06:15:35 PM »

Hi Fiona,

Yes, Maidenhead is higher than normal but not flooding like Cookham, Bourne End etc. The cynic in me suggests there is more than good business management at play here. Are you sure the RBWM Council isn't involved in any policy decisions as it relates to "river management"? I can't believe the EA have a vested interest in saving location A vs B.

FYI - this time last year the situation was the same!!

Regards
Logged
Showem
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 365


« Reply #34 on: January 06, 2014, 06:36:47 PM »

The moor area doesn't just flood from the river, it actually comes up (or rather, doesn't go down any more) from the ground. The ground water level is so shallow under the surface there, I don't really think much river management would make a difference. I'm no expert, just a general observation. 
Logged
smokey1
Full Member
***
Posts: 183


« Reply #35 on: January 06, 2014, 06:45:15 PM »

Is the river kept back in Cookham by not opening the weir as much to prevent flooding in Datchet and Wraysbury. Also there is a built up bung in the fields between Maidenhead and Cookham preventing the water rushing through and therefore staying back towards Cookham. Have I got this right, maybe someone will correct me.
Logged
school-laner
Newbie
*
Posts: 12


« Reply #36 on: January 06, 2014, 07:59:24 PM »

Yes it is excess water in the soil as opposed to "surface" water - but only because someone's decided to keep the weir closed to let the water over the river banks in Cookham to protect Maidenhead - I want to know who makes this decision. Cookham and co. flooding isn't an act of God but rather a conscious decision by someone.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2014, 08:08:42 PM by school-laner » Logged
Showem
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 365


« Reply #37 on: January 06, 2014, 10:11:18 PM »

What's the other option? Cookham fields aren't flooded, but Maidenhead homes are?
Logged
fehewer
Full Member
***
Posts: 107


« Reply #38 on: January 06, 2014, 10:13:29 PM »

River level at Cookham lock has risen to 1.11cm (upstream).  

Moor Road remains closed. Pedestrians and cyclists can use the Causeway.  Emergency vehicles will have access to the Causeway.

A4094 north of Cookham Bridge (Bourne End side) is open but flooding.  A4094 south to Maidenhead is open.  

Last time the Moor Road flooded, even after the river level started falling, it took 3-4 days for the road to open, so we should expect the Moor Road to be closed for a while.  

The latest EA river and flooding forecast is as follows: The river levels on the River Thames are very high and are continuing to rise slowly. There is a flood warning in force to cover part of this area. The weather prospects are to expect showers to spread across the area this evening some of these will be heavy. More heavy showers are expected overnight and through Tuesday. (20:31 on 06 Jan 2014)

Cookham remains at Flood Alert. Bourne End and Bisham to Little Marlow are at a higher level  - Flood Warning - because property flooding is expected.  The 3-day EA flood risk forecast is for flood risk in Windsor and Maidenhead to increase on Tuesday and Wednesday.

Updates and further information are available from:
BBC Radio Berkshire
EA Floodline 0845 988 1188
Twitter @CllrFionaHewer

RBWM road closures: http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/   home page
Cookham river levels: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/floods/riverlevels/136496.aspx?stationId=7162
EA flood warnings: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/floods/34678.aspx?page=1&type=Town&term=cookham
EA 3-day forecast (Thames) http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/floods/3days/125305.aspx

Cllr Fiona Hewer
Logged
school-laner
Newbie
*
Posts: 12


« Reply #39 on: January 07, 2014, 10:52:12 AM »

Showem,

It's more than Cookham isn't it? What about Bourne End and Marlow.

Logged
Jabber
Administrator
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 76


« Reply #40 on: January 07, 2014, 11:26:30 AM »

To try to answer Paris and anon, I have a picture of my neighbours garden taken in 2003 and it shows their picnic table with the water level about 1 inch below the table top (a picnic table like you get in a pub garden).  We have around 6 inches of water in that location now, so I would say that it was roughly 23 inches deeper in 2003.  This is on Spade Oak Reach.

A good picture of 2003 can be found in the middle of this article:
http://cookham.com/cookhamplannew/housinganddevelopment1/7flooding.htm
« Last Edit: January 07, 2014, 04:18:14 PM by Jabber » Logged
EUWAVE
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 269


« Reply #41 on: January 07, 2014, 04:14:27 PM »

The management of the flow of the river is down to The Environment Agency [EA], not the RBWM. The EA will look at all possible scenarios to minimise flood damage to property and possessions. If you look at the demographics of Marlow – Bourne End – Cookham and Maidenhead etc, by far the largest concentration of property that lies within potential flood risk area is Maidenhead. As Showem quite rightly pointed out the current flooding in Cookham has not impacted on property, only fields and roads.

Opening weirs is a red herring, a lot of what is happening along the river banks in our area at the moment is a mixture of the river breaking its banks and more importantly saturation of the water table. In Fifield over the weekend fields were under water and the road running through the village was un-passable, the village is ˝ a mile from the river, what occurred was water coming up from below the ground off the water soaked fields.

Suggestions that one area of the local community is favoured over another for publicity reason is really quite naive, it is simply a matter of risk assessment management, you have to weigh up the pros and cons of dealing with how to best handle the situation as it is occurring. This unfortunately means someone somewhere will come of second best.
Logged
emma5781
Newbie
*
Posts: 29



« Reply #42 on: January 07, 2014, 05:27:19 PM »

Great information on this thread, was going to say if people around the flood area needs shopping I will be willing to help out.
Logged
Friar Tuck
Newbie
*
Posts: 2


« Reply #43 on: January 07, 2014, 06:45:18 PM »

I find it very strange that residents of a riverside village are surprised that when it rains the river floods – that is how nature works.
The vast majority of the Cookham village sits on or is surrounded by either river or flood plain.  When people then build houses on the flood plain stopping the rivers natural flow it will only cause the levels to rise further.  The RBWM and the local councils have allowed the building on flood plain in Maidenhead from Boulters lock over to North town moor and then down to Bray, through which strand water try’s to flow, whilst in Cookham, Moor Hall has built additional buildings and raised ground for car parks restricting the flow through the narrow Strand water area. 
In addition to this, the silting up of Lulle brook and the failure to maintain Odney common stream also reduce the flow.  Odney common stream used to have enough water in it for the Ladies pool half way down the common.
I would even say that the flood defences installed around the village reduce the flow further and increase the height of the water trying to find its way down the valley.
Showem is correct in his/her statement about the water coming up through the ground as moor meadow is sat on sand and the river will permeate through this – that is why there is always a flow, even only small, through the fleet all year round.
If you look at the levels of previous floods from 1894, 1904, 1940, 1947, 1963 – all of these came up the high street in the village, making the “puddle” of today just a minor inconvenience.  In the days of these floods the lock keepers had limited communication and had to “read” the river to judge how many sluices to run.  It must also be remembered that the lock and weirs have only been in place since 1830 and prior to that there was no control of the river. It was in the 80’s that the new larger weir was built on the Odney side of the lock which was about 30% larger than the old weir, thus allowing even more flow – look at how many of its gates are open in the morning. In the 70’s there was dredging of the main Cliveden reach which also increased the volume of water able to pass though this narrow reach.
This is the problem of buying a picture post card house in a quaint village – my relatives are buried in the church yard on top of the hill where they can keep their feet dry.  Maybe you could ask the council to build a flood channel at the back of your garden, or would that effect the price of your house too much?
Logged
Gazzetta
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 282


« Reply #44 on: January 07, 2014, 07:39:59 PM »

Wow. I'm not sure whether that was a history lesson or a critique for wanting to live in Cookham. Has James Hatch been reborn like a Dr Who?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 15
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!