2026 06 18 Objection to Flood Risk Assessment Limetree House Lime Tree Barn

To Allerdale Planning Objection to LBC/2026/0023

From Peter Nicholson, Lane Foot Cottage, Dovenby, Cockermouth CA13 0PN

Published 22nd June  Objection to information presented in application

I give my permission for my name and address to appear in this objection which I want to be put online as an objection to this application.

I refer to the applicant’s submission: Flood Risk Assessment For Listed Building Consent & Planning Permission -Rebuilding of Garden Wall Adjacent to Watercourse – Limetree House, Dovenby, Cockermouth.

The applicants make a false statement in their application form 16^th April 2026 para 7 that “Neighbours are supportive of rebuilding the garden wall that was damaged by flood” This is a false statement and there has been an attempt to deceive the planning officer and to deceive neighbours by making this statement when neighbours were not notified by the applicant nor by the planning authority. It was only after receiving my objection against the proposal that the planning officer decided to notify neighbours, and I received notification today 18^th June 2026 after two months! The accuracy and honesty in this matter must be paramount and my previous objection should be treated as a criticism of the planning authority and the applicants as well as an objection to the planning matter.

I explain below that the design of Limetree House/Lime Tree Barn replacement wall must consider the volume of flood water from Dovenby Hall Estate M-Sport Ltd / M-Sport UK Ltd, and must consider the flood attenuation or management at Dovenby Hall Estate, or there will be a re-occurrence of this same flood damage when there is a repeat of November 2025 red weather rainfall catastrophe.

I use the paragraph numbers in the applicant’s document. Refer to my other objection published on your website Neighbour Response 15.06.26

Para 1 Executive Summary:

My previous submission shows that there is no calculation of the volume or flow rate that entered Limetree House/Lime Tree Barn garden and built up behind their boundary wall to such a great extent that the wall was demolished. Without flow rates and volumes and weight of water then there can be no valid calculation of the size of the drainage holes that are required to let the water flow through them at a rate that does not cause a backup of water in the garden which would potentially flood their house, as previous occupants reported to me after multiple occasions in the 35 years since I have been a neighbour, though their evidence was verbal to me and my wife.

The capacity of Dovenby Beck has not been measured nor investigated so nobody knows the normal flow rate nor the flow rate and capacity to deal with a future flood. Mitigation or alleviation design is not possible without knowing flow rates and frequency of potential occurrence.

Para 2 Site Description

The rapid response to heavy rainfall is the high-flow event that has caused the wall to collapse on two occasions, and the size of the drainage holes in the previous rebuild have not been mentioned and thus the failure of the previous design to allow flood water to escape without destroying the wall, has not been calculated.

Unless the applicant submits professionally competent predictions of rainfall patterns according to established planning norms, and predicted rainfall accumulation and flow rates and the maximum capacity of the existing drainage system, then there can be no reliable predictions that the rebuilt wall with its unvalidated drainage holes, will work to stop a re-occurrence of the disastrous flood event.

The consequence of the flood that destroyed their garden wall was to flood our house. I repeat, if their wall had allowed water to flow through it in a gradual controlled way then the flood may have gradually entered the drainage system of Dovenby Beck. Thus their garden wall must allow the next inevitable flood to be stored in their garden, and must be released in a controlled manner into Dovenby Beck, otherwise our house will have another wave of water entering Lane Foot Cottage and our neighbour’s Cottage and damaging our property. 

The design solution must provide appropriate Government department statistics, predictions and calculations of future rainfall events, normally stated as 1 in 100 or 200 year events that allow predictable rainfall and then the catchment area and permeability and appropriate flood flow and mitigation measures can be submitted that will give a more realistic and professional submission to guide a decision on remedial resilience of future flooding.

Para 2 States: “The surrounding area is predominantly residential and rural, with no highly vulnerable uses immediately downstream.”

You must reject this application or you will be validating this arrogant and cruel assertion that my 82 year old wife and my 78 year old self, both with age related health conditions, are not highly vulnerable. We, and our property were affected by this flood in November 2025 and our house has two main rooms not useable because of the flood, we are immediately downstream of this application.

We have had to call an ambulance four times because of underlying health conditions. We are vulnerable and downstream. And our house was flooded by the inappropriate and incompetent design of the previous wall that collapsed because its drainage slits were inadequate to deal with the accumulation of flood water from Dovenby Beck and Dovenby Hall Estate.

Para 3 Flood Risk Context

The plan is deliberately or incompetently misleading because any site visitor to Dovenby will see that there is a section of Dovenby Hall Estate wall, two metres 2m high and approximately 10-20m long, that has been demolished by the same rainfall event that caused a wave of water to flow from Dovenby Hall Estate to Limetree House / Lime Tree Barn garden and that wave of water from Dovenby Hall Estate was a significant contribution to the flood event that demolished Limetree House/ Lime Tree Barn boundary wall to Dovenby Beck. And then flow downstream to flood us at Lane Foot Cottage.

Thus the rainfall accumulation and rainfall volume that came from Dovenby Hall Estate should be part of the calculation that informs, predicts and validates the amount of water that will come from Dovenby Hall Estate in a future rainfall event of similar proportions.

There needs to be an adequate explanation from the applicant of the cause of the volume and flow rate from the sudden high flow rate, a significant part of the flow coming from Dovenby Hall Estate which obviously has inadequate flood attenuation and the flood attenuation measures of the existing planning permissions of Dovenby Hall Estate must be examined in detail and in relation to the flood risk assessment and remedial action for this planning application and for Dovenby Hall Estate.

I repeat, until the cause of the flood includes the sudden catastrophic event from flood water accumulation in Dovenby Hall Estate, then any calculation of flood attenuation measures such as holes in the proposed wall, are not factually based, not based on technical and environmental data that is freely available and thus are invalid.

3.2 Historic Flooding

This statement is significantly misleading. My previous submission online of 15 June 2026 contained links to photos that recorded previous flooding. My wife and I have lived adjacent to the applicant’s property for 35 years and we can clearly remember at least, I repeat at least, three significant events when Limetree House occupants reported that it was flooded. I did not include the evidence of one of the photos that showed one of the previous owners in the flooded garden in great distress because the house had been flooded. I also recall that a previous owner said that in one of the regular floods of the garden, they had the flood gates erected but the water pressure in the garden caused the flood water to go under the foundations and up into the floor. I remember that is why they said they had put flagstones in the kitchen so that when the next flood happened they could just mop it up.

3.3 Sources of Flood Risk

See my clear explanation in section 3. The Source of the Flood Risk includes Dovenby Hall Estate evidenced by the accumulation of flood water on their estate that was so great that it demolished their boundary wall and thus allowed their wall of flood water to flow to Limetree House/Lime Tree Barn and then continue to flow into my house and my neighbours house.

4 Proposed Works

I object that this is an inadequate proposal and incompetent appraisal and is a guess at an unlikely remedy that ignores the frequency and quantity and regularity of the flood in this garden in Dovenby that have flooded their house, and in this case has flooded my house. The proposal has a vague design that does not consider the volume and flow of flood water, with no data that explains all the causes of the flood damage to the wall on the plan.

The proposal requires professionally relevant evidence of

Volume of flood water from all sources that caused this event,

Location of sources of flood water ie Dovenby Hall Estate as well as surrounding farmland

Flood attenuation measures of Dovenby Beck upstream of this property and analysis of their efficacy

weight of flood water that would push against the retaining wall,

flow rate through the gaps in the wall,

area and thus volume of flood water through the holes in the wall,

frequency of occurrence based on records of flooding at this property,

frequency of extreme rainfall events predicted by government agency

all this is required to justify the design of the wall.

The ineffectiveness of flood prediction and attenuation measures at Dovenby Hall Estate that were accepted by Allerdale Planning Authority when they permitted a huge amount of park land to be concreted to make a race track and car factory. The car factory has not been used for its intended purpose nor has it provided the employment that millions of pounds were given to M-Sport Ltd for an extra 100+ jobs, yet the plans and the construction have contributed to the build up of flood water that destroyed the boundary wall of M-Sport Ltd / M-Sport UK Ltd and then flowed to destroy the garden wall of Limetree House/Lime Tree Barn and then continue to flood Lane Foot Cottage and neighbour’s Cottage.

Further legal action may be taken to seek a remedy that will make sure M-Sport Ltd and or M-Sport UK Ltd will not cause a repetition of their build up of flood water in Dovenby Hall Estate that contributed in a large part to the wave of water that destroyed the wall in this planning application and then significantly causing my house to flood.  For the sake of clarity and the avoidance of doubt, the height of the wall of water that demolished M-Sport Ltd M-Sport UK Ltd Dovenby Hall Estate wall was unprecedented, unless they clarify that their property has flooded to the same extent previously.

When the flood in 2025 demolished M-Sport Ltd M-Sport UK Ltd boundary wall it allowed the huge volume of flood water to flow into two neighbouring properties causing huge disruption, distress and cost. This inadequate proposal aims to stop a repetition of this traumatic event by putting “Incorporating weep holes to relieve hydrostatic pressure” If this design and subsequent build occurs then the “weep holes” will be us at Lane Foot Cottage and at our neighbours Cottage who will weep because there is no attempt in this plan to measure the volume of flood water that must be allowed through the rebuilt wall, and there is no attempt to identify the composite causes of the flood event.

This section is technically and professionally incompetent if it does not contain any information that explains the amount of flood water that “weep holes” are designed  to allow the flood water to flow through them.

Unless you know the volume and rate of flow that is informed from rainfall of the two previous events that demolished the wall in the past, then the rate of accumulation of flood water and its volume and the rate of flow through the proposed “weep holes” cannot be ascertained.

“Weep holes” … it is enough to make a competent person weep!

This application and its remedy is guess work, and hope, and not validated with professional mathematical calculations based on rainfall events, accumulated rain volume, flow rates from the fields, risk from repetition of the Dovenby Hall Estate DHE boundary wall becoming a dam barrier to the flood on DHE land.

There should be no permission to rebuild the wall until the cause of the flood is fully admitted and validated.

The flood water accumulation at Dovenby Hall Estate must be calculated and incorporated into a design solution for Dovenby Hall Estate and for Limetree House/Lime Tree Barn.

No design and no work should be approved until the owners of Dovenby Hall Estate submit their own solution that makes sure that their flood water stays on their property until it is released in a slow and controlled manner that is caused by technical and construction design, ie flood attenuation ponds that are adequate for this flood event to be contained on their premises until their stored flood water can be released in a controlled manner that does not flood any property, including the applicant’s property, and of course including making sure that M-Sport Ltd / M-Sport UK Ltd do not contribute to flooding my property.

The design submitted should be withdrawn or invalidated because of there is no analysis of flood volume nor calculation that predicts future flood event frequency nor calculation of the size of drainage holes nor the volume of flood water that the drainage holes will drain and the speed of drainage, nor the weight of flood water that is at the height that is shown on my previous objection with the photos, that evidences the volume of water and thus the weight and flow that must be allowed in the replacement boundary wall.

Section 5 Impact on Flood Risk

The applicant design 5.2 states floodplain storage remains unchanged, but if the floodplain storage is to be the applicant’s garden then the retaining wall needs to hold back a 2 metre high wall of water that occurred and is evidenced by the debris deposited at the bottom of my garden, as shown in my previous objection photos.

Section 9 Conclusion

No resilience is possible unless the cumulative cause of the flood event is taken into consideration, which requires the flood level and volume from Dovenby Hall Estate to be ascertained and entered into these calculations.

An appropriate conclusion:

This proposal is inadequate .and should be rejected until a new proposal is considered which includes an analysis and combined solutions with all the parties that contributed to the flood event, which include M-Sport Ltd / M-Sport UK Ltd plans to remedy their contribution to the flood event.