Rosefield Park & the figgy burn

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 08 Mar 2010, 13:24

What have they done to Rosefield, is it recent, not been in ages.

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 08 Mar 2010, 13:27

Couldnt find a current thread so thought I'd start one.

The 'flood prevention' works carried out last year in Rosefield Park and Adelphi Place has to be the worse titled works ever under-taken by any council.Previous to the works being carried out I really cannot recall the burn flooding into the park or the river flooding into Adelphi Place.The burn pretty much runs through my front garden and I've never had to break out the sand bags.It's got pretty high, but never flooded.

Since the works have been completed, I think the park area near the burn has been flooded three times, a couple of instances making the bridge un-usable.What a waste of money, not to mention the damage it's done to the area closest to the water.

I really think they have made a bad situation out of nothing.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 08 Mar 2010, 13:32

The flood prevention works at Rosefield were necessary because of flood prevention works up stream. Once those are completed the risk of flooding here would otherwise increase significantly.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 08 Mar 2010, 13:41

The grids are meant to be regularly inspected and cleared of any accumulated rubbish, but a problem seems to be that when the burn is in spate, the grids can very quickly go from being relatively clear to heavily blocked.

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 08 Mar 2010, 14:01

seanie wrote:The flood prevention works at Rosefield were necessary because of flood prevention works up stream. Once those are completed the risk of flooding here would otherwise increase significantly.

So instead of the risk of flooding increasing significantly, we have gone to cast iron guarantee of flooding?I dont have any issue with the culvert, but the grate at the end of the park is causing real problems as all the debris from up river gets caught there.And the condition the park is in now is pathetic, especially at the bend.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 08 Mar 2010, 14:03

I've no idea waht the problem is. I'm just pointing out that the works weren't carried out because of a history of flooding at Rosefield.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 08 Mar 2010, 14:13

Franck, I'm with you on the grate being the problem.

As to the rather neglected appearance of Rosefield Park, I believe there are plans in the pipeline(no pun intended!) to revamp it .

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 08 Mar 2010, 14:27

I don't think you can not have the grate.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 08 Mar 2010, 14:46

seanie wrote:I don't think you can not have the grate.

I'm sure there's a reason why it's there, but recently it seems more of a hazard than a benefit. I remember prior to work commencing on the works, someone raising concerns about it at a CC presentation and assurances being given about it being regularly cleared of debris, but at that time I had no idea how quickly it would block during periods of heavy rain or thaw.

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 08 Mar 2010, 14:55

Marya wrote:Franck, I'm with you on the grate being the problem.

As to the rather neglected appearance of Rosefield Park, I believe there are plans in the pipeline(no pun intended!) to revamp it .

There was a couple of guys there yesterday planting two trees, they look very nice...the tree's, not the guys.When asked if anything was going to be done about the condition of the area mentioned, 'a work in progress' was the response.

rmolehusband · Post by **rmolehusband** » 08 Mar 2010, 15:44

What would be great, though I suspect highly unlikely, would be a path connecting Figgy and Roseburn parks. Walking to/from the Duggingston side of HLR to Porty along Southfield/Brighton places is far from a pleasure and cycling is downright dangerous.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 08 Mar 2010, 19:15

Having no grate at all would be dangerous in itself, and although debris get's clogged at least it's possible to remove it there. If it got lodged within the culvert there'd be precious little you could do about it.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 09 Mar 2010, 10:46

seanie wrote:Having no grate at all would be dangerous in itself, and although debris get's clogged at least it's possible to remove it there. If it got lodged within the culvert there'd be precious little you could do about it.

We could just send small children down like they did in the Victorian days.

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 09 Mar 2010, 11:45

seanie wrote:Having no grate at all would be dangerous in itself, and although debris get's clogged at least it's possible to remove it there. If it got lodged within the culvert there'd be precious little you could do about it.

The culvert has it's own grate, the one causing all the flooding is after the bridge at the end of the park/beginning of adelphi place.I guess it's there to stop any debris making it's way down to the beach, but it could have been better positioned imo, possibly in the stretch of the burn that runs down the side of the pitz where the walls are much higher than those in the park, allowing for any build up of water to contained much better.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 09 Mar 2010, 12:15

I'm confused; shouldn't the extent of flooding be determined by the inlet of the culvert?

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 09 Mar 2010, 13:45

seanie wrote:I'm confused; shouldn't the extent of flooding be determined by the inlet of the culvert?

If there was only one grate, then yes, but there are two.The culvert takes any additional water caused by high rain fall, it has a grate stopping any debris falling down into it.All the debris is pushed past the culvert by the water-flow under the wee footbridge from the park to Standard Life to the second grate.This is the one thats causing all the flooding.Flotsome is caught here and creates a dam effect pushing the water back and up, flooding what used to be quite a nice wee area of the park.Now it looks like a tatty bog.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 09 Mar 2010, 14:19

But if the water basks up and rises, more water goes down the culvert. It's the level of that that determines the extent of any flooding.

Sounds to me like the 'tatty bog' is intended to flood when water levels rise.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 09 Mar 2010, 14:58

Franck wrote:, flooding what used to be quite a nice wee area of the park.Now it looks like a tatty bog.

And here's proof that things used to look better

Post by **wangi** » 09 Mar 2010, 15:03

So, what's it look like now?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 09 Mar 2010, 15:10

Fine figure of a man in waders...

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 09 Mar 2010, 15:58

seanie wrote:But if the water basks up and rises, more water goes down the culvert. It's the level of that that determines the extent of any flooding.

Sounds to me like the 'tatty bog' is intended to flood when water levels rise.

My point is ( and I'm maybe sounding like a moan here) is that without the second grate ( or a better positioned one), nothing would back up and the culvert itself would still take the increased level of water.

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 09 Mar 2010, 15:59

wangi wrote:So, what's it look like now?

I'll take a pic tonight and post it.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 09 Mar 2010, 16:16

I don't see how the second grate will make all that much difference if the culvert grate remains clear. That's what sets the limiting factor on the rise. Even if completely blocked the water would would only rise to the point that the flow into the culvert balanced it out.

If that level means that the low lying bank sometimes gets flooded it's hardly a big deal.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 09 Mar 2010, 16:55

wangi wrote:So, what's it look like now?

Hmm, why do I get the feeling that you weren't impressed with how it looked, even though I included that fine figure of a man in waders?

Here are some current shots :

The same view minus that man

The new grid over the Figgate Burn that blocks so easily

The culvert and the barren muddy ground I stood on to take the pics

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 09 Mar 2010, 17:03

Mud.

Near a stream.

Why isn't this front page news?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 09 Mar 2010, 17:31

I don't like it, because it smells, looks bad and effectively reduces the park area . I suspect, however, that there is now a grid on the burn, because the flood workings elsewhere mean a far greater flow of water (and therefore more of a danger to young kids) at our end. Is there a grid on the Figgate Park side of the burn I wonder? The problem is all the debris that comes through. I would have expected more to be caught on the Figgie Park side

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 09 Mar 2010, 18:01

seanie wrote:Mud.

Near a stream.

Why isn't this front page news?

I think your missing the point.It wasnt mud last year it was a nice wee part of the park my kids enjoyed playing in.It's been reduced to it's current condition by some of the works carried out which I find pointless.

As for the increased flow of water, thats one I cant work out either.Is there now more than one river feeding into the river?Surely the volume of water will be the same.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 09 Mar 2010, 19:12

Right now it is muddy and barren and looks rubbish but this is hardly surprising. After all, there have been large-scale works involving heavy equipment lasting many weeks. And although we haven't had a lot of rain there has been plenty of snow melt. Give it time and the whole area will look a whole lot better once the vegetation is re-established.

Anyone know who is responsible for removing the debris from the screen?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 09 Mar 2010, 20:25

The reason for the flood prevention works was the existence of bottlenecks further up stream that lead to flooding in heavy conditions. By reducing that problem upstream, more water will end up downstream in such conditions. Hence the need for the culvert even though there's not been a flood problem at this end before.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 12 Mar 2010, 14:18

I understand that funding is currently being sought for this proposal for Rosefield Park.

http://www.porty.org.uk/pdf/rosefield_park.pdf

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 30 Mar 2010, 17:53

They were busy this afternoon clearing the debris from the burn, which is a relief considering today's weather and the overnight forecast.

Concern over the new screens and flooding was raised at last night's Community Council meeting. I'm waiting for a report, detailing a meeting held last week regarding Rosefield Park and the new flood prevention measures, to be circulated to community council members. As soon as I receive it, I'll post up more info.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 30 Mar 2010, 20:57

My husband reports that the drains are blocking and water levels are rising. We're going to attempt to clear any stuff we can. If anyone else lives nearby and is worried, you might like to join us!

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 30 Mar 2010, 21:54

Four of us gave it our best shot using garden hoes etc to clear the larger branches from the main blocked grid - forget trying to get anywhere near the overflow culvert, which is completely submerged - but it is a losing battle. We've improved the flow, but Seanie's 'natural flood area' is now covered and the water level is still rising.

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 01 Apr 2010, 13:50

Marya wrote:Four of us gave it our best shot using garden hoes etc to clear the larger branches from the main blocked grid - forget trying to get anywhere near the overflow culvert, which is completely submerged - but it is a losing battle. We've improved the flow, but Seanie's 'natural flood area' is now covered and the water level is still rising.

Good effort.I was out on Tuesday night but went round when I got back, about 10.30.Credit to the council, they had a couple of guys out inspecting the burn.Given the volume of water all they could do was look, nothing could have prevented* the build up of debris, and therefore the flooding.

*with the exception of not actually having the gate there in the first place.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 01 Apr 2010, 17:01

We probably made no difference, but who knows? I'd have felt more foolish if the park and nearby houses flooded and we had done nothing for fear of appearing to over react.

The grid on top of the burn has a much finer mesh grid (so it can be walked on), so it blocks easier. Having seen the water levels on Tuesday night, I think it is likely that at some point the park will flood totally, if things remain as they are.