View report page

173
The negotiations, for the most part abortive, with authorities outside London for
contributions towards the cost of a relief scheme to deal with the overflowing of
Beverley-brook are referred to in the Annual Report for 1924 (vol. III., p. 129).
Negotiations, however, with the Barnes Urban District Council have been brought
to a conclusion and the arrangement was ratified in the London County Council
(General Powers) Act, 1924. The scheme involved is the construction of a culvert,
not less than 8 feet in diameter, to draw off storm water from the brook at a point
near Priest's-bridge, Upper Richmond-road, and to discharge it into the Thames
by the most direct route. The approximate estimate of the cost is £39,500, towards
which the District Council will contribute one-fifth or £8,000, whichever is less.
Work was begun on 17th September, 1925, and was completed in September, 1926.
Beverley
Brook.
Two storms of exceptional severity at certain places and during short periods
occurred on 11th August and 1st September, 1926. The fall on the former date
varied considerably. At the Isle of Dogs, .42 inches fell in five minutes ; at North
Woolwich, .50 inches fell in 10 minutes ; and at a number of places rain fell during
short periods at rates of 3 inches and 21 inches an hour. During the storm of
1st September, 1926, rain was general all over London, but was exceedingly heavy in
the east and south-west districts. The maximum recorded fall was .90 inches in
20 minutes at North Woolwich, and at a number of places falls at rates of 2 inches
and 1A inches an hour were observed. The heaviest falls approximated to high
water in the River Thames, and little benefit could be derived from the low level
storm outlets to the river. All the Council's pumping machinery available to meet
the conditions of the storms was in operation, and with the new sewers and works
comprising about 70 per cent, of the scheme submitted in 1919, undoubtedly prevented
more serious floodings.
Further
work9 for
relief of
flooding.
As a result of the study of the problem, several works not specifically included
in the original scheme were found to be desirable. Two measures of relief which
were relatively small were approved by the Council, and comprised a diversion of
drainage from the southern outfall sewer No. 2 into the southern high-level sewer
No. 2, at an estimated cost of £5,000 ; and a diversion of drainage from the Ravensbourne
and Lee Green sewer into the southern outfall sewer No. 1, at an estimated
cost of £1,000. The former work was rendered desirable owing to difficulty in dealing
with water levels in the southern outfall sewer No. 2 in storm times, accentuated by
the fact that a number of sewers draining higher ground discharge into the outfall
sewer instead of the high-level sewer. The diversion of drainage from the outfall
sewer into the high level sewer will obviate the necessity of its being pumped at the
Southern outfall, and will tend to reduce the surcharging of the outfall sewer in times of
storm. The connection between the Ravensbourne and Lee Green sewer and the southern
outfall sewer No. 1 is designed to reduce the risk of flooding in the Cold bath Street
area of Greenwich. Further works for the relief of flooding are under consideration
The Annual Report for 1923 (vol. III., p. 129) describes the negotiations with
the Lambeth and Wandsworth Borough Councils for the construction by the Council
of a new 4-foot sewer in Streatham-hill and Brixton-hill at the joint expense of the
borough councils in the proportion of two-thirds to Wandsworth and one-third to
Lambeth. The new sewer, which has been completed, is vested in the Council,
while the present local sewer in Streatham-hill and Brixton-hill will continue to be
maintained by the borough councils. The cost of the new sewer amounts to £46,845
(for works only), and the work was approved by the Unemployment Grants Committee
for the purpose of State aid.
Sewer in
Streatham
hill and
Brixton-hill.
Enquiry was made of the Council whether it would be willing to receive into the
London main drainage system the drainage of Barking and Ilford. In view of the
enquiry being held by the Ministry of Health in connection with the drainage of
London and adjacent areas, it was premature to consider the reception of the drainage
of these^areas.
Out-county
drainage.