Should I mention my neighbours plans to culvert the burn to SEPA?

[ProDave]

As many of you may know, a small burn runs through my garden, in fact through the garden of my existing house and my new build. In fact it passes through about 8 people's gardens down our road.

 

It's only a short burn, less than a mile from where it rises as a spring to where it joins the river. But it is prone to rising very rapidly when we get heavy rain.

 

A short section in both my new plot and existing house is culverted with a square steel box structure that was installed many years ago, long before we owned either plot. These are about 1 metre square, and are only just large enough.

 

The original neighbour (The one between my existing house and my new house) cluverted a bit more of the burn when he built his house in 2003. He used a 1 metre diameter round stainless steel pipe. It doesn't take a genious to realise a 1 metre round pipe has a much smaller area than a 1 metre square pipe.  Twice in the time I have been here, in heavy rain, this smaller round pipe has become overwhelmed and the burn flooded over the top of the culverted section. The square sections coped, just, but only just.

 

Now here is the issue. The current owner of the neighbouring house has for some time been talking of culverting the entire length of the burn through his garden. I have had a conversation with him several times and tried to persuade him this may not be a good idea, but if he must do it, use a much larger pipe.

 

Yesterday a large digger was delivered next door, and he's been busy taking down fences etc ready for action.  Today I spoke to the neighbour and asked what size pipe he is going to use. "The same as what's there" (i.e 1 metre diameter) Again I tried to persuade him this was really not a good idea and I can predict it not coping. Cost was his argument for not going larger.

 

Now you can see the problem I have. More so for the new house. If a long culverted section below me is too small to cope with a know level of flow that occurs from time to time, then it is going to back up in my garden. I think you can understand me not being happy at that prospect. Also, a short culverted section is relatively easy to clear of debris should it get blocked. I worry at an almost 100ft culverted section being nigh on impossible to clear if it starts getting blocked.

 

Time I think to tell SEPA of his plans. I really really hate the idea of being a snitch and even if I inform them anonymously, he is bound to realise it was me, but I don't see an option. I am not just going to do nothing and let someone do something that may cause me problems in the future.

 

What would you do?

[Calvinmiddle]

I think you have to tell them.  You have spoken to him, several times, with your concerns, if he doesn't seem to care then surely your only option is to go to the people he should be getting permission from in the first place ( if I've understood what he should be doing)

[jamiehamy]

Tell him your not happy about the flood risk to your house and are going to seek advice from SEPA. That's what I'd do,  not saying it's right but no point sugar coating it - diggers are on site and its your house at risk. 

 

Or I'd take measures to protect my property I. E make sure any water diverted his way.  But the former is my instinct.  

 

 

 

[CC45]

Tell them your concerns again and point out the probs it will cause you & then deliver the good news - put a bigger pipe in or you leave me with no option but to report.  His choice then.

[ProDave]

3 minutes ago, jamiehamy said:

Tell him your not happy about the flood risk to your house and are going to seek advice from SEPA. That's what I'd do,  not saying it's right but no point sugar coating it - diggers are on site and its your house at risk. 

 

Or I'd take measures to protect my property I. E make sure any water diverted his way.  But the former is my instinct.  

 

 

 

There's not much I can do. My (new) house is upstream of the neighbour in question. If his new pipe did become overwhelmed then the water would back up, the level would rise, and it would end up flowing over his lawn above the culvert to get back into the burn. There is nothing I can do on my own plot to prevent that, and nowhere else for it to go other than through, or over, his garden, somehow. By the time it backed up far enough to flow over his garden, it would have also flooded part of my lawn, i.e the burn would have "burst it's banks"

 

Here is a picture of the burn when it's "a bit full" looking downstream. this was taken not long after we got the plot. You can see the square culverted section in the distance where it goes under the fence between me and the neighbour. At this state of flow the square culvert is less than half full.  You can see the issue, that if a smaller culvert downstream causes it to back up, there really is nowhere for it to go other than back up until it gets high enough to flow over next doors garden, probably wiping out his fence in the process. the ground to the left is a field and rises, so no way out there. the ground to the right is where my new house is and rises. In fact now the plot is landscaped the ground level on the house side of the burn is at least half a metre higher than the far side that you see in this photo.

 

[Stones]

Agree 100% that you have to contact SEPA. IIRC, culverting a watercourse for land gain requires a licence. Can't imagine they would be that happy about increasing or creating a localised flood risk, nor the pollution that the work would create downstream.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/150919/wat_ps_06_02.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi_7eOimfrSAhWpI8AKHVIEDicQFggwMAI&usg=AFQjCNEmVS1yN9UrLXrH0v5dFJDOl1HPOQ

 

[Barney12]

Agree with everyone else's comments. 

You have to tell them. 

[Ferdinand]

Time for the asbestos underpants and the tin helmet methinks.

 

All the best.

[ToughButterCup]

[...]

There's not much I can do. My (new) house is upstream of the neighbour in question. If his new pipe did become overwhelmed then the water would back up, the level would rise, and it would end up flowing over his lawn above the culvert to get back into the burn. There is nothing I can do on my own plot to prevent that, and nowhere else for it to go other than through, or over, his garden, somehow. By the time it backed up far enough to flow over his garden, it would have also flooded part of my lawn, i.e the burn would have "burst it's banks"

[...]

 

So not doing what he proposes is in his interest somewhat more than yours. What's the difference in cost between what he proposes and the higher spec? 

[Ferdinand]

Edited.

Edited March 29, 2017 by Ferdinand

[Onoff]

As this is a public forum there's a good chance he'd find out anyway that it was you?

 

Btw, what's the purpose of the culvert? To gain access across the burn?

 

Any thoughts of a small hydroelectric plant there?

 

(I'd love a stream like that!)

Edited March 29, 2017 by Onoff

[Triassic]

Have you read this SEPa document giving guidance on culverts, it might help https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/150919/wat_ps_06_02.pdf

 

 

Edited March 29, 2017 by Triassic

[Crofter]

51 minutes ago, Onoff said:

As this is a public forum there's a good chance he'd find out anyway that it was you?

 

Btw, what's the purpose of the culvert? To gain access across the burn?

 

Any thoughts of a small hydroelectric plant there?

 

(I'd love a stream like that!)

 

If the ground is flat enough to flood, there's probably not enough head for a hydro.

[Triassic]

You could try talking to your local plannng authority first, I would assume he needs planning permission for a culvert. 

[Calvinmiddle]

Can you build up the banks on your side of the boundary so that if it does back up then it still will be within the banks in your garden so will go the only way it can - over his garden and the top of the culvert.

 

If at the boundary line the banks suddenly drop a foot then surely that is where the water will go?

[ProDave]

9 hours ago, Stones said:

Agree 100% that you have to contact SEPA. IIRC, culverting a watercourse for land gain requires a licence. Can't imagine they would be that happy about increasing or creating a localised flood risk, nor the pollution that the work would create downstream.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/150919/wat_ps_06_02.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi_7eOimfrSAhWpI8AKHVIEDicQFggwMAI&usg=AFQjCNEmVS1yN9UrLXrH0v5dFJDOl1HPOQ

 

I think my first line of attack is going to be to print that document and give it to him as "guidance"  It shows to him the risks and (il)legalities of what he is proposing.

 

Also note the guidance says a culvert if allowed must be higher than the exiting bank, which will dictate a very much larger size of pipe, and if he did that, it kind of buggers up the reason he is doing it.

[ProDave]

2 hours ago, Onoff said:

As this is a public forum there's a good chance he'd find out anyway that it was you?

 

Btw, what's the purpose of the culvert? To gain access across the burn?

 

Any thoughts of a small hydroelectric plant there?

 

(I'd love a stream like that!)

The purpose of culverting the burn is he wants a larger flatter garden *, so he wants to hide the burn and put a lawn on top. As the post above, if he used the correct size pipe that would raise the ground level so he would have a bump in his lawn, unless he raised the entire ground level which would mean the "back up level" before it could overflow would also be raised.

 

I do intend to experiment with small scale hydro later on, but with only 1 metre of fall across our land you won't get much power from it. Possibly a simple under shot water wheel might work. It would be more for fun than any real practical gain.

 

* I don't know why anyone buys a house with a burn running through the garden and a steeply sloping bank, when all they really want is a flat lawn. To us it's a wonderful feature to be enjoyed for what it is in it's natural state.

[ProDave]

41 minutes ago, Calvinmiddle said:

Can you build up the banks on your side of the boundary so that if it does back up then it still will be within the banks in your garden so will go the only way it can - over his garden and the top of the culvert.

 

If at the boundary line the banks suddenly drop a foot then surely that is where the water will go?

Reading that SEPA document linked to, building up the banks is discouraged.  I have already raised the ground level of my site on the house side (finished site levels agreed during planning permissions) but deliberately left the ground at the other side of the burn untouched so there is somewhere for the burn to flood to if it needs to. I am not going to get myself into a situation where I have to install a flood defence scheme because of a neigbours activity.

 

I hope just presenting that document to him will make him think again. I won't contact SEPA at this stage , not until a load of pipe is delivered to his site so I know what size of pipe he is proposing.  My own culverts (as I say installed probably 20 or more years ago long before we owned the land) do not comply with the guidance, so if SEPA did get involved they could well insist those are changed or modified.

[ProDave]

3 hours ago, recoveringacademic said:

[...]

There's not much I can do. My (new) house is upstream of the neighbour in question. If his new pipe did become overwhelmed then the water would back up, the level would rise, and it would end up flowing over his lawn above the culvert to get back into the burn. There is nothing I can do on my own plot to prevent that, and nowhere else for it to go other than through, or over, his garden, somehow. By the time it backed up far enough to flow over his garden, it would have also flooded part of my lawn, i.e the burn would have "burst it's banks"

[...]

 

So not doing what he proposes is in his interest somewhat more than yours. What's the difference in cost between what he proposes and the higher spec? 

He was saying the small pipe is £600 per length, the next size up is £1000 per length. It is likely he would need to go up a couple of sizes to achieve a proper solution. He did not define how long these lengths are and how many he would need. It certainly does not sound like a cheap exercise he is proposing.

[Crofter]

Could he dig a ditch and divert the burn instead?

[Jeremy Harris]

This is a tricky one, as once you formally report this to SEPA the law of unintended consequences could easily kick in, with them coming out to investigate and then deciding to place some onerous requirements on all the riparian owners that bear responsibility for the burn.  The knock-on effect could be significant, as the chances are that none of the culverts were installed with the proper authority, and SEPA could easily decide to tell all the owners of culverts along the burn to replace them with a solution that meets their requirements.

 

Would it be possible to ask SEPA for formal advice, rather than make a complaint?  I'm not sure if they would be helpful, and the outcome might well be the same as making a complaint, but seeking advice might be seen as less adversarial by your neighbour.

Edited March 29, 2017 by JSHarris

[Jeremy Harris]

I've just had another thought.  It might be a good idea to start taking loads of photos, even if you do nothing else.  Having evidence that the actions of your neighbour now, has caused damage to your property at some later date, might be useful.

[dogman]

You could mention to him that you are going to speak with your insurance company about who would be liable for any damage caused as a consequence of his actions as you are worried your insurance might not cover it.

Tell him that he could find himself liable for any damage caused( not sure about the legal stuff but it sounds about right)

 

If you did go to SEPA you then say it was the insurance company.

[ProDave]

Yes my current plan is not (yet) involving SEPA , I will give him a copy of the document @Stones linked to above and hope that changes his mind.

 

I don't want to open that can of worms of getting every culvert in everyone's garden replaced (including my own) but I have to say if they did ask for mine to be removed, it would be replaced with a bridge instead.

 

I will be taking photo's today before any work has started.

[mike2016]

Simplistic answer but would a coupler of smaller cheaper pipes work better at flood levels rather than 1 or two expensive larger ones? You could offer a % £ contribution but that might lead to some legal muddlement but if it gets the right solution in place....? Would a pump to force higher levels of water through upset the person at the far side? Is there anywhere further up the source where excess could be diverted when over a threshold? 

Edited March 29, 2017 by mike2016