Always told lies, and we love it, as we do nothing..

[AbdullaJones]

The OP is rubbish.

Let's be honest. Some people got a bit wetter than expected and now you're all mardy. It's actually a benefit because some filthy Guardian reading hippies finally got a wash.

 

:hihi::hihi::hihi:

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Assuming this scheme would protect 100 properties that’s only £3250 per property, so it would make sense for each property to contribute to the cost of the scheme. The more properties the scheme would protect the cheaper it is for each property.

I am responsible for protecting my property from the weather, burglary, so I don’t see why people that own properties in areas that flood shouldn't be responsible for protecting their properties from a flood, it shouldn't be down to the tax payer.

Why are houses built on flood-plains at all?

[I1L2T3]

Assuming this scheme would protect 100 properties that’s only £3250 per property, so it would make sense for each property to contribute to the cost of the scheme. The more properties the scheme would protect the cheaper it is for each property.

I am responsible for protecting my property from the weather, burglary, so I don’t see why people that own properties in areas that flood shouldn't be responsible for protecting their properties from a flood, it shouldn't be down to the tax payer.

 

This is true to a point but it's ridiculous to suggest that a property owner can take complete control of defending their home from flooding.

 

In Sheffield in 2007 it was found afterwards that 50 water channels had become blocked or restricted, a major contibutor to the floods that happened. If these blockages were in channels that were well-maintained when somebody in the locality bought a house, but the channels were subsequently poorly maintained causing that house to flood, then how do you blame that on the householder?

 

Have a think about it

[MrSmith]

Why are houses built on flood-plains at all?

 

Because someone thought it would be a good idea to increase the population and some else thought it would be a good idea to buy some cheap land that is prone to flooding and build houses on it, then someone else in planning thought it would be a good idea to give them permission to build and then lots of people thought it would be a good idea to buy them.

Why should someone that thought it would be a bad idea to buy a house on a flood plain then be asked to contribute to their protection.

[MrSmith]

This is true to a point but it's ridiculous to suggest that a property owner can take complete control of defending their home from flooding.

 

In Sheffield in 2007 it was found afterwards that 50 water channels had become blocked or restricted, a major contibutor to the floods that happened. If these blockages were in channels that were well-maintained when somebody in the locality bought a house, but the channels were subsequently poorly maintained causing that house to flood, then how do you blame that on the householder?

 

Have a think about it

I don't, I blame that on the incompetence of the council if it was their duty to maintain the channels.

[ricgem2002]

I don't, I blame that on the incompetence of the council if it was their duty to maintain the channels.

maybe they should bill the council then ?

[MrSmith]

maybe they should bill the council then ?

 

Yes I would agree, although there is a down side in which we all have to pay for the incompetence of the council even though some of us didn’t elect them.

[ricgem2002]

Yes I would agree, although there is a down side in which we all have to pay for the incompetence of the council even though some of us didn’t elect them.

yes its a hard life we lead

[I1L2T3]

I don't, I blame that on the incompetence of the council if it was their duty to maintain the channels.

 

You can blame the council for adopted drains and culverts. But you can't blame the council for channels, streams and rivers under the remit of the Environment Agency. If EA funding is cut and the maintenance, renewal, reconfiguration and addition of flood defences are all cut then that is not the fault of the householder, or the council.

 

Some cuts are more stupid than others. They put an amateur in charge. First Spelman wanted to sell off forests. Then she enthusiastically accepted a 30% funding cut for her department. There is nothing householders or councils can do in the face of such crass, ignorant stupidity.

[MrSmith]

You can blame the council for adopted drains and culverts. But you can't blame the council for channels, streams and rivers under the remit of the Environment Agency. If EA funding is cut and the maintenance, renewal, reconfiguration and addition of flood defences are all cut then that is not the fault of the householder, or the council.

 

Some cuts are more stupid than others. They put an amateur in charge. First Spelman wanted to sell off forests. Then she enthusiastically accepted a 30% funding cut for her department. There is nothing householders or councils can do in the face of such crass, ignorant stupidity.

 

No but the householders in an area that is prone to flooding could pay for the flood defences themselves, there isn’t a rainbow with a pot of gold for the government to keep dipping into. One wonders why all these flood defences weren’t build over the past decade when government had plenty of money coming in.