Checkley Lane

 Today a private (is this possible for a public authority?) meeting was held in a 4 x 4 parked on Checkley Lane.  The passengers were the County Councillor Paul Northcott (not seen in Betley for a while), the SCC Portfolio Holder David Williams (also unknown), a Field Officer/Engineer of the SCC, and R Bettley-Smith  Parish Councillor for Betley.  It was a 'private discussion' to see what could be done re the constant flooding of Checkley Lane from the bridge towards the main road. the two local landowners and the Parish Councillor for  Wrinehill had been excluded from such privacy.      

Last week a grip had been dug to syphon off water from the road into a farmer's field.  This partially worked but the camber of the road meant that a large puddle remained on one side of the road - which happens to be where a large pothole has developed (the tarmac has been completely eroded to a damaging depth).  Vehicles using that part of the road have had the undercarriages of their vehicles damaged or removed - which won't please them or their insurance company.

Two years ago a solution re the flood on the bend adjacent to Malt Kiln Farm was agreed between the Landowner and the SCC for a pipe installed across his land to drain the water away from the road to the Checkley Brook.  When it came to the County Council for approval, the scheme was shelved owing, it was said, to a lack of funds.  The scheme was drowned, you might say, in the murky waters of politics and empty pockets.

For the past two years the Councillor for Wrinehill has produced 10 road, pavement and drain Reports for Wrinehill, warning of the current scenario and suggesting that steps be taken to avert worse flooding.  Some reports might have found their way to the SCC (who knows?), some were deferred by the Parish Council or the item on the agenda where they would have been considered had been passed over by the Chair.

Meanwhile the mast erected last summer appears to have caused issues of its own during construction by either disturbing a natural spring or damaging an underground drain - anyone's guess. The solution was to install a grid and dig a narrow channel to take the water from the mast, and high voltage cabinets, to the drain.   However, the stream of water was constant so someone had the idea of covering the dug ditch over with soil.  This meant that within a few months the grid taking the water had become blocked. The rest is history:  a very large pond calf-deep developed across the road, depositing sand rocks,  sludge and various parts of vehicles' anatomy.  On a sunny  day pedestrians could be forgiven for thinking that they were walking along a sandy beach.   

Adding insult to injury, the grids under the bridge became totally blocked (both of them)  and two grids taking water run-off from both sides of the road on the Cheshire East side also became blocked.  These provided two rivulets, constantly flowing and thus feeding the flood under the bridge.   The water under the bridge began to flow downwards towards the telecom mast site flood.  This was assisted by cars and vans driving very fast through the water causing a tsunami which reached the top of the bridge roof.  Perhaps they were pretending to be on the Log Flume at Alton Towers.              

Two grips were dug a week or so ago (by persons unknown) which drained some of the water away were pronounced by the Chair of the Parish Council to be the solution to the issue.  Unfortunately not a sustainable one since after another night of rain the flood was back to square one.  Even the grips couldn't cope with the amount of rain falling and the flow of water and run-off being generated.  

The SCC informs us that 'the verges and the grips cut in the verges' are 'SCC responsibility'.  And that 'drainage grips are used to channel water away from the road into ditches where there is an absence of a limited number of gullies, or other systems to remove water'.  However the next paragraph states that 'digging a grip is not part of the Highways Maintenance system', and that 'ditches for the drainage of water from the road are not the responsibility of the SCC but of the landowner.   One of the landowners was digging a ditch through his land nearest to the road at the time.   So perhaps one of the first actions of the 'private' meeting in the 4x4 would be to work out what is whose responsibility and what each is prepared to do to resolve the situation and then when agreement is reached to get on and do it.  

When the Portfolio holder who claimed that he held the purse strings was asked what will happen if this private meeting decides on a scheme to resolve the situation and there is not enough money in his purse to deal with it,  what then?   He didn't know.   (See above.)   But this is an election year so someone, somewhere, somehow might just pull something out of a rainy day fund.  We live in hope.     But people are running short of that, and patience.