Rate this:

A lot has been made in these pages of the importance of the Sequential Test in deflecting an objection from the Environment Agency and the errors contained within it. However, much of this is very involved and technical allowing the PCT room to obfuscate and claim they have used ‘experts’ to draw up their reports.

In order to clarify matters, we felt a few pictures explaining things would help: here goes.

This is an extract from the Sequential Test for the Swinemoor Lane site submitted by the PCT. You will see that it says the site is in Flood Risk Zone 3.

It also says that the land did not flood in 2007 – this is disputed.

Here is the site highlighted underlain by the Environment Agency’s Flood Zone 3.

As you can see most of the site is within the zone with only a small section adjacent to Swinemoor Lane in a lower flood category (Flood Risk Zone 2).

Now let’s take a look at the situation near the ambulance station: here is the extract from the Sequential Test submitted by the PCT:

Firstly it states that the land is in Flood Zone 3 then afterwards says that some is in Flood Zone 1. It does not say that it did not flood in 2007 - it didn’t!

What do the actual Flood Zones look like? Here they are:

As you can see very little of the area near the ambulance station is in Flood Risk Zone 3 at all and siting the hospital here would have avoided all the additional costs associated with flood defences and flood alleviation measures on Swinemoor Lane.

Whilst, in this case, the actual scoring was correct (a tick), overall there is a clear attempt to overplay the flood risks near the ambulance station whilst toning them down on the Swinemoor Lane site.

Remember, the PCT may employ experts but they are the client and He who pays the Piper……..

Advertisement