Dovenby Village

Know your past, appreciate what is special, preserve our environment

All content are opinions and objections that were raised as part of the response to Msport planning application to Allerdale planning ref 2/2014/0350.  If you have any comment or disagreement then first realise that opinion is just that, opinion in a public planning process.  You may email factual errors to Contact @ dovenbynoise.info

A rural village with a medieval heritage - but an industrial estate imposed beside it

   Information & action to preserve rural tranquility

Contact DovenbyVillage.info email | Terms & conditions

APPLICATION - Misleading, false statement about pond that does not exist

Drawing is from Curtins drainage strategy.

The same fictitious pond is shown on the official site plans on which planning permission is based.


There is no “Existing Pond

There is no “Headwall / Connection to Beck

There is no “Existing Channel” to connect to the “Existing Pond” that connects to “Headwall / Connection to Beck

THIS IS A SERIES OF FALSE STATEMENTS

There is obviously neither “existing pond nor headwall connection here.These are photos of where an “existing pond” and connection to Beck is supposed to be

The fiction from Msport / Curtins

Showing “existing pond” that does not exist !

The reality where the “invisible pond” is supposed to be!

From: Faulkner, Mike

Sent: 13 November 2014 16:00

To: Brook, Sara

Subject: RE: 2/2014/0350

Sara, my principal concern is the flood risk to Dovenby village. As requested I have re‐examined the flood risk assessment / drainage strategy.

While I note some detail discrepancies in both the JBA report and the

drainage strategy I note from the latter the intention to divide the development site into two separate surface water drainage compartments with declared discharge rates. As this is the important point at issue I will clarify the developer’s intentions as I understand them.


It is noted that attention has been paid to my concerns made during the applicant’s initial enquiries and their intention is to limit discharge into Dovenby Beck to a better than equivalent green field runoff rate of 6l/s for the western compartment (hotel) and to route that discharge to Dovenby Beck at a point downstream of the settlement and clear of the length where past flooding problems have started.


The second compartment serving the remaining proposed

developments (test facility and track) is to discharge to Brides Beck to the east and well away from Dovenby village at a rate of 45l/s.


It is technically feasible to achieve these runoff rates by suitably designed and constructed storage and attenuation structures.   


It is not my intention to validate any of the supporting calculations but I am happy to recommend acceptance of the principle and quantity of these two runoff rates.


You may wish to impose a suitably worded planning condition that will stipulate these, together with the need to submit suitable detailed design information.


I would suggest this latter point is needed for the applicant to prove that there is sufficient room on site for adequately sized attenuation ponds and enough fall for pipework and open channels.


 hope this note is adequate but please come back to me if any of this

is unclear. Mike.

The applicant used the photo below which misleads because it does not show the normal flood level of same field on right in flood. Their pic from MM Flood Risk p37

This same place shows  the level of Dovenby Beck almost every year.  This photo 1999, others 2004, 2005 and 2014.  I do not record every event, they are too regular.  

The proposed discharge point is exactly on the right of the picture.  The height above sea level of this discharge point is not given so the drainage fall cannot be calculated accurately.



The development is anticipated to result in approximately 10.2ha of additional impermeable area Associated with the new infrastructure. Therefore flood risk from surface water is considered to be the Primary source of flood risk to, and from, the new development which is proposed in areas of the site  (From MM Flood risk assessment  P19)

10.9 hectare development site. (Curtins Drainage Strategy p4 1.3)


10.9 hectares = 27 acres = 109,000 square metres

will be covered in concrete and tarmac

in addition to the existing buildings


From Allerdale Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2010s4396_ABC_SFRA_Vol2 (1) page 13

planning policy is now heavily weighted against development which will cause or worsen flooding in any areas. The financial consequences of flooding are also more severe for most properties now than historically because of the greater value of the buildings and their contents. The average insurance claim for domestic flooding is now between £15,000 and £30,000 (Association of British Insurers).


All content are opinions and objections that were raised as part of the response to Msport planning application to Allerdale planning ref 2/2014/0350

If you have any comment or disagreement then first realise that opinion is just that, opinion in a public planning process.  

You may email factual errors to

Contact @ dovenbynoise.info

About the website