If water run-off from a road has always drained into a nearby marsh or stream, I presume that a landowner has no right to block that drainage and as a result create a permanent flood in the road.
But what happens if that situation newly arises because of increased rainfall?
A road near us has always been bordered by a marshy field on one side, and a dry field on the other. The raised bed of the road separates the two.
Increased rainfall over recent years has now raised the water level in the marsh, and the water flows across the road into the dry field. Last year the council dug a ditch to encourage this process. This year the farmer, obviously angry at the council action in deliberately flooding his field, has blocked the hole in his bank, so restricting the water to the road.
The result is a ford, about a foot deep and 20 yards long. It arose before all the recent rain, so is likely to be permanent. Farmers with tractors and LandRovers don't care, but other users now have to make a detour of several miles.
Does anyone know the likely legal position with regard to the "right to flood"?
|
|
Does the road have surface water drainage?? or as mentioned just the fields
|
Have you taken the matter up with the council's highways department?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
|
|
|
Does anyone know the likely legal position with regard to the "right to flood"?
The council must not allow drainage from the road to flow onto anyone's property. If you are the owner of a property adjacent to a road, your land to may drain onto the road.
|
That seems to tie up the rights and duties regarding existing water courses.
Also it seems pretty clear that in circumstances of freak flash flooding their is no right of action against your neighbours, eg for letting the flood from their property flow through into yours.
This case however appears to represent the birth of a new watercourse, arising because of changing weather patterns or underground shifts in the water table or springs.
At present the farmer and the council seem locked in dispute. He sees no reason to lose his field: the council is reluctant to undertake massive drainage works to divert the water miles away to the nearest stream, all for the sake of a small country lane serving a few scattered houses.
Is a council obliged to take any necessary measures at any expense in order to safeguard a minor road, or can it simply abandon a public highway?
|
Isn't it a matter for the local drainage board rather than "the council"?
--
L\'escargot.
|
|
The environment Agency would have an involvement in this issue.
|
Likewise Cliff under Highways Act 1980
Section 100.
Drainage of highways.?
(1) The highway authority for a highway may, for the purpose of draining it or of otherwise preventing surface water from flowing on to it, do all or any of the following:?
(a)
construct or lay, in the highway or in land adjoining or lying near to the highway, such drains as they consider necessary;
(b)
erect barriers in the highway or in such land as aforesaid to divert surface water into or through any existing drain;
(c)
scour, cleanse and keep open all drains situated in the highway or in such land as aforesaid.
(4) If a person, without the consent of the highway authority, alters, obstructs or interferes with a drain or barrier which has been constructed, laid or erected by the authority in exercise of their powers under subsection (1) above, or which is under their control, then?
(a)
the authority may carry out any work of repair or reinstatement necessitated by his action and may recover from him the expenses reasonably incurred by them in so doing, and
(b)
without prejudice to their right to exercise that power, he is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding three times the amount of those expenses.
dvd
|
|
|
|
