HC Deb 29 November 1961 vol 650 cc586-94

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Campbell.]

11.7 p.m.

Mr. John Howard (Southampton, Test)

I must confess that I did not expect to be on my feet at this hour. I am much relieved that I am able to speak today and not tomorrow morning.

I must begin by assuring my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that this debate was not inspired by the reference he made the other day to iron bedsteads, perambulators and other impediments, allegedly the property of my constituents, which had been found in Tanners Brook, which is the subject of the debate; but rather by the need to raise with the Hampshire River Board the difficulties which my constituents are experiencing from flooding in the Mill-brook area of Southampton.

When, first, some of my constituents lived in this area, Tanners Brook was a pleasant stream at the bottom of their gardens. Now, particularly during certain of the winter and autumn months each year, their gardens are at the bottom of Tanners Brook. These constituents do not view with equanimity the reply which the Parliamentary Secretary gave to me on 6th November in answer to a Question. A delay of four years before a comprehensive scheme for the entire brook can be completed in 1965 really is a long time to wait. Certainly more immediate measures are necessary if this flooding is to be contained.

Members of the River Board are nominated and not elected, and therefore there is no effective means of questioning the board on its activities other than through action in this House. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has the responsibility of answering for the river boards and for the Hampshire River Board in this instance. The Hampshire River Board seems unwilling to accept that one of its functions is to deal with surface water within its domain and to deal with that surface water presumably without damage or undue inconvenience to the residents in the vicinity of the watercourse under its control.

In the case of Tanners Brook, the lower part of the brook passes through my constituency and in that section of the brook it receives the discharge of storm water from some nineteen drainage pipes varying in diameter from 6 to 36 inches. Undoubtedly the flooding is due to housing development in the Millbrook area over a period of years, and the streets and drains cause the heavy rains in particular to flow immediately into Tanners Brook instead of percolating through the soil as the rains did when the area was more countrified. The present result is that after heavy rain the level of the stream rises very quickly and causes the trouble which is the subject of the debate tonight.

There has been little or no effort to increase the capacity of the brook since 1950 when the Hampshire River Board took over. Indeed, the contrary is rather the case, as I shall endeavour to show later. The problem of flooding from Tanners Brook is such that I deem it necessary to draw attention to the matter tonight.

The brook rises in Baddesley, which is outside my constituency, and flows for five miles until it joins the River Test. During the latter part of its journey it passes through the Millbrook area of Southampton, and it is in this area that the problem principally lies.

In the autumn of 1960 severe flooding occurred notably in the Stanton Road and Percy Road areas of Millbrook, and the cause clearly was that the watercourse was inadequate to carry the storm water. Water also built up at a point where the Millbrook road crosses Tanners Brook, and there severe flooding occurred, due principally, I think, to the fact that the stream bed was not sufficiently deep and, therefore, there was inadequate clearance between the stream and the arch of the bridge.

The flooding not only spread back up the stream, causing floods which are the subject of the debate, but the main road which carries traffic from Southampton to Bournemouth was also flooded. My constituents inform me that allotments to the north of Romsey Road were flooded; oil drums and other unpleasant matter were floated off from the allotments, adding to the congestion and also to the unpleasantness of the inundations suffered by the residents in the area.

The culverting of the brook is the responsibility of the Hampshire River Board, and the question arises as to whether or not this culverting is adequate. The Hampshire River Board claims that the stoppages are largely due to rubbish which is jettisoned into the stream, although the board engineer in a letter dated 23rd February, 1961, to a constituent of mine agreed that the section of the brook to which I am referring was in poor condition. It is true that the deposit of rubbish has caused blockages to the watercourse, and undoubtedly this is a contributory factor.

Here again, the key is maintenance, and maintenance is the responsibility of the Hampshire River Board. The board states that maintenance is carried out twice yearly. In dealing with this section of the matter—that is, maintenance—two points arise. First, it is much easier to clear a stream if the sides of the banks are slabbed. Secondly, it is quite useless to clear the stream and then to leave the rubbish on the banks. The various items which have collected, such as logs, prams, mattresses, and the famous old iron bedsteads, may be fascinating to children who want to build dams with them across the stream—we have all enjoyed building dams in our time—but, in addition to the building material, as one might term it, other matter such as mud is put on the banks; and this tends to be washed away when the next flooding occurs.

My hon. Friend was justified in speaking of some of the reasons for there being other objects in the stream. Adults with a diminished sense of responsibility throw all sorts of articles into running water, and if the rubbish could be carried away and if the local authority could pursue prosecutions under the Litter Act, some progress might be made towards improving this particular aspect of the problem.

Even then, the major problem would be left; and that is the volume of the water passing through the watercourse. My constituents are dismayed at the prospect of their having to wait until 1965 before the Hampshire River Board can complete its plans for dealing with the flow of water to the river itself. Local authorities have sent letters to my constituents, and these letters have counselled patience; but it is surely too much to ask my constituents to be patient while their gardens are flooded and, possibly, their homes. Certainly it is too much if it is to be for the next four years.

The Hampshire River Board has stated that silting up is part of the reason for flooding, but again aggrieved gardeners point out that the silt is really topsoil from their gardens which has been washed away. The volume of water over a section of the stream has increased since the river board sealed a millrace which, until a few years ago, took water from Tanners Brook for about half a mile to a mill which is now disused, and then discharged the water into Tanners Brook at a point which is below one of the flood areas. The course of that millrace still exists, but it is now overgrown and harbours stagnant water during the summer months; but I understand that it may be possible to reopen it. I suggest this might be a temporary measure to relieve pressure on the main stream and to act as a safety valve when heavy rain swells the stream and fills up the river to flood proportions.

I hope that the Hampshire River Board will examine this possibility if it has not already done so. I apologise for having kept the House at this late hour upon what is, after all, a purely parochial matter; but the action, or lack of action, by the river board is a Ministerial responsibility, and I am left, therefore, with no alternative but to use this opportunity to urge upon the river board the need for immediate action to help my constituents.

11.20 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. W. M. F. Vane)

This debate gives me a chance to amplify the replies which I gave to my hon. Friend's Question on 6th November. As he explained, this brook, which has now become notorious, is a small stream which rises at North Baddesley, about four miles long, two miles of which flow through Southampton County Borough before discharging into the River Test and then into Southampton Water at Millbrook. There is, of course, increasing development along certain parts of its course.

The brook was made main river in 1951 when the Hampshire River Board was formed, and since then the board has regularly maintained the stream. Normally, maintenance work is done twice a year. The only serious recent flooding—and this, I am told, affected gardens only—took place in the autumn of 1960 after exceptionally heavy rains. I understand that 3 inches fell in the twenty-four hours of 8th-9th October of that year, and 9 inches of rain were recorded for the whole of the month of October, 1960.

Mr. Howard

It did cause quite severe flooding of several of the roads—certainly Stanton Road—but I accept the point which my hon. Friend makes.

Mr. Vane

The last occasion on which cleaning out was done in the County Borough of Southampton between Mill-brook and Coxford Bridge was in May and July of this year. It was a thorough cleaning out. This work, as my hon. Friend has said, besides silt involved the removal of, I am sorry to say, various domestic debris. Children are everywhere the same—my own included—and, if there is a chance of building dams, playing in the beck or throwing things into the water, the temptation is impossible to resist.

I am told that the river board does cart away the debris which from time to time is taken out of the brook, but I accept the point that, perhaps, some of the silt at times of heavy rainfall or small flooding could be washed back into the bed of the stream. It is not, I believe, accurate to say that this notorious debris is just left at the side of the brook so that it may return by the next flood.

In addition to normal maintenance, the river board constructed a concrete channel as part of an improvement scheme, and it did this work in 1959 and 1960. This channel now runs the length of the brook at the back of Percy Road.

Mr. Howard

That information is not strictly accurate, if I may say so. The slabbing does not run the whole length of Percy Road. I have examined the whole of that area myself.

Mr. Vane

I could not argue with my hon. Friend about that because, clearly, he has paced it all out. I was giving the best information which I have been able to obtain.

The future in this case is probably more important than the past. What of the future? I understand that the Board has already authorised the preparation of a further scheme of improvement works to be carried out on the brook throughout its length in the county borough and into Hampshire. The preliminary survey has been completed and a recorder has been installed to gauge the flow of water. The scheme is in course of preparation. My hon. Friend will appreciate that it cannot be finally settled until the surface water drainage requirements of Southampton Corporation's proposed development in the Nursling and Rownhams areas of Hampshire are known in detail. This is important in the light of the development along the rest of the brook.

It is proposed to begin work on this scheme in 1963. As has been said, it is expected to take about two years to complete. That is not to say that no work will be done before 1965. It is intended to start in 1963.

My hon. Friend asked why this should take so long. I assure him that it is not because the river board is failing in its duty but because the board and its resources are at present fully employed in carrying out other works in different parts of its area where the flooding of houses has taken place, works which the board considers—I think we should all take the same view—should be given a high priority. These schemes must receive urgent attention. That has been the order of priority adopted by the board, and I understand that in the case of all the works which it now has in hand flooding of houses has, unfortunately, occurred. I could not quarrel with the Board's view of the priorities.

My hon. Friend did write to me the other day and gave me some indication of the points he was going to raise, and I have been in touch with the River Board to find out the latest position. In fact, as soon as the river board was aware of the hon. Member's Question on 6th November its engineer looked at the Brook again and there was supplementary cleaning throughout its length in the city borough and this work was completed by 17th November. Again I say with some regret, that there was another load of domestic debris.

After our consultation with the board I am afraid that there appears to be some doubt as to the flooding my hon. Friend was worried about. I now think I am right in assuming he was mainly interested in the floods of the autumn of 1960, which were the most serious, and not flooding this autumn. I understand that the engineer has been unable to find any sign of flooding this autumn. Nor has the board received any complaints from local residents. Similarly the corporation say it has received none apart from a question which was raised at one of the council meetings about the maintenance work at Tanners Brook when the member who asked the question was assured that all was in order. It does, therefore, seem that the serious flooding in question was that of 1960 which followed the exceptionally heavy rainfall.

One of the points which has been referred to which I would agree does contribute as a general rule towards flooding is the rapid runoff from urban development on land alongside a watercourse, and that, as I said, is very much under consideration with the council at the present time. The river board does appreciate that this is a contributory cause, but there is no evidence to suggest that this is the sole cause, and the exceptional weather conditions of last autumn must be taken to be the cause mainly responsible, I think, for the bad flooding of 1960.

As to one or two points my hon. Friend raised, and first the millrace. This has not been declared main river by the river board, but I think it is true that if work were necessary there it could be covered as work in connection with main river. The board has been in touch with Southampton Corporation and the corporation engineer has advised that nothing has been done to prevent water from entering the Mill race. It is true the millrace is overgrown and, I gather, is no longer in operation. This is going to be looked into as part of the comprehensive scheme for the brook. It will be looked at again by the river board to see if it may achieve some alleviation, but clearly, it will not be a complete solution of the problem. The river board, we must accept, must be the judge as to what should be done now or later as part of the comprehensive scheme.

Millbrook Bridge a little lower down the brook is on the main Southampton to Bournemouth road. One must admit that in time of flooding it does restrict the flow. Very many bridges all over the country do this to a greater or lesser extent, and there are various ways whereby the flow at a bridge might be helped. The board carries out regular clearance under the bridge, but I appreciate that the only real remedy to make sure there would be no restriction of flow at all in any circumstances would be to rebuild the bridge, which would be a very costly operation. No doubt, major improvement will again be looked into by the board as part of the comprehensive plan. It would mean, of course, that the Ministry of Transport would have to be consulted and have to agree to anything which might be considered. Any major work would undoubtedly be very costly in proportion to the benefit which would result.

I think that covers the majority of my hon. Friend's points. In this House we do appreciate the damage and inconvenience to constituents when flooding occurs. Probably all of us at one time or another have known something of this kind. When it affects houses as well as gardens and other property, it can cause even greater damage.

It must, however, be admitted that the river board has done a considerable amount of work on this brook since the board was formed in 1951 and it tries to maintain the brook by regular work. I have given brief details of the future programme and the intentions of the board. The board will be pleased to hear from my hon. Friend and from any of his constituents who have suffered flooding or who have any particular problem. This intelligence is useful to the board in formulating its plans. It would like to know whether there is recent evidence which it has missed of flooding of property or gardens—the depth, where it occurred, and so on.

Mr. Howard

I am sure that my constituents will be pleased to be in touch with the river board and to supply such information as they can in regard to recent flooding.

Mr. Vane

I hope they will. River boards are not secret societies, as my hon. Friend almost suggested at the commencement of his speech. They want to maintain the closest contact and confidence with the people and interests in their areas. It seems in this case that such information as has been passed to my hon. Friend has not always been given to the river board. The board says that it would like to have information of all these cases. The question of priorities between different work must, however, be left to the river board, which has a general responsibility over its area. It is doing a service which we appreciate, and we pay tribute to river boards, not only in Hampshire, but in other parts of the country, too.

I hope that although I cannot give an exact timetable and details of the plan what I have been able to say tonight will reassure my hon. Friend and that he will be able to reassure his constituents that the Hampshire River Board is active and intends to go ahead with flood alleviation schemes as quickly as is practicable.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Twelve o'clock.