Jump to content

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, RichH said:

We had a leaflet dropped through our door in relation to this a few weeks ago. Assume the profits from Gala helped make this happen.

I really hope this doesn't lead to parts of the park being permanently waterlogged, as it did when they undertook similar work in Dulwich park. This quote (below), doesn't fill me with confidence....

Quote

capturing about 6 Olympic-sized swimming pools worth of surface water and releasing it very slowly

The cynic in me wonders whether this is a a case of an under investment in our infrastructure / drainage and sewage systems by private companies, externalising the costs of mitigation to councils (and to the detriment of our open spaces).

Edited by Earl Aelfheah
  • Like 2

Hi, I am one of the Peckham Rye Ward Councillors. To confirm that these are flood alleviation works. These are to bring improvements to the park and common and to reduce the risk of flooding by ground water to nearby residential properties. More information is included in the link.

Information Boards.pdf

  • Thanks 1

Southwark did some good work maybe ten years ago improving the drainage on the football pitch to the left as you look towards central London.  Both the Rye and Dulwich Park would be standing water for several weeks around the football training areas in late winter, geology and precipitation rather than any incompetence. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Not suggesting any incompetence. But reading the info, it suggests that the bunds are being put in place to hold water in the park:

“capturing about 6 Olympic-sized swimming pools worth of surface water and releasing it very slowly”.

…so I’m interested whether this will lead to the park being more regularly waterlogged.

I would have thought that the responsibility for drainage / flood avoidance is a joint one with the private companies who run this infrastructure, alongside the local authority, but may be wrong. Again it would be interesting to know the answer.

Edited by Earl Aelfheah
  • 1 month later...
On 19/07/2024 at 09:09, tercio said:

My understanding is that they are capturing the water under the surface and then releasing it. The commons should be less wet on the surface as a result. 

They are doing that and perhaps it will have that result, but the intended result is actually to reduce flooding in surrounding streets not on the common itself.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Or another thing journalists could do if they wanted to is unearth how many reform or Tory MPs are landlords with similar or worse errors   
    • I'm utterly baffled as to why anybody thinks this is newsworthy, let alone worth a front page. The economy has barely grown for 20 years and the housing crisis has been worsening for a similar time period. Note to any journalists on the forum: maybe focus your headlines on important issues.
    • Two wrongs might not make a right. But the two wrongs could at least be of equal value before we get too judgey    paying an estate agent to deal with all of the admin on my to have the estate agent not point out all of the admin  vs Deliberately hacking into an MPs email. And boasting about it (Badenoch)    as for throwing a local estate agent under the bus, when did local estate agents become the good guys?   doesn’t sound like estate agents are being thrown under a bus - they are fessing up. And Reeves doesn’t look to have done anything wrong  yet people will still believe the worst anyway    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/oct/30/rachel-reeves-row-standards-adviser-looking-at-new-infomation?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
    • Now who might that be?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...