From the BBC:
People will have to pay more towards flood defences in their area in future, the Environment Agency has warned. The government agency responsible for river and coastal flooding said flood management spending had hit a new high. But despite taxpayer funding of £629m this year, it said business, landowners and communities would have to pay more. It said they needed protection from the increased risk of flooding and coastal erosion in the future, brought on by climate change.
OK, that last bit about 'climate change' is doolally, of course, but doesn't commonsense dictate that it is entirely up to the people (or 'communities' in modern parlance) who are potentially affected by flooding to make the decision on whether to do something about it and if so what; and be the ones to pay for it if the expenditure seems worthwhile? Why on earth should 'the taxpayer' generally chip in for any of this?
If we take this to the obvious conclusion, then there's no need for an 'Environment Agency' at national level to tell people what to do, it should be up to local or county councils to put it to the voters, and, if they agree, to slap a precept on Council Tax and Business Rates and get the river dredged, a bridge reinforced or a sea wall built, job done.
Tuesday, 29 June 2010
Outbreak Of Commonsense
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
it should be up to local or county councils to...slap a precept on Council Tax and Business Rates and get the river dredged...
Makes sense in theory, but I'd be rather miffed if I had to pay for flood defences in my area because vast developments many miles upstream were altering the river flow patterns.
While it is right that the people gaining should pay most of the cost & the DoE less it does rather leave the question of what we taxpayers get for our £629 mill & whether the cuts in thje budget will be proportional to cuts in handouts. Sounds to me like the handouts will decrease from saym 30 million to 15 & the budget will stay the same going from 95% paper shuffling to 100%.
McH, the only example I can think of is vast car parks with no proper drainage that tend to cause flash floods - which ought to be sorted out at the planning stage, but if not, fair enough, they ought to contribute as well.
NC, that's likely true as well, although they'll keep a bit in reserve for friends and families of government ministers who need a sea wall or something.
but doesn't commonsense dictate that it is entirely up to the people (or 'communities' in modern parlance) who are potentially affected by flooding to make the decision on whether to do something about it and if so what;
Ah, but that's not what it says. What is says is that the Government, or more precisely some faceless Environment Agency bureaucrat, will decide whether you need protection or not, and will tax you for its benevolence. The chance of such a decision being made in the economic best interests of the owners of property on the flood plain is precisely zero.
People who chose to buy property on the high ground will find themselves taxed to pay for the barriers that will protect their neighbours down the hill.
To make it weirder the eco-fascist lobby are against reclaiming land. It isn't natural. So we may see the Ministry spending some of that £629 m on preventing people defending their land.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/netherlands/1519602/Dutch-told-to-return-land-they-won-from-the-sea.html
Anon, as I said. shutting down the EA would be an important first step.
NC, they've called for that to happen in Norfolk as well.
Many natural flood plains have been built on & most houses now have hard-standing outside instead of front gardens. So there's nowhere for the rain to soak into.
Both these changes have happened over many years under the benign, incompetent gaze of local authority planning departments - so, yes, get rid of the EA, but also disband local planning for all the good it does (and reduce council tax).
Ed P, that is one of the few areas where I think planning can be a force for good, i.e. to make people use those little concrete blocks with plenty of drainage holes instead of flat concrete.
Anon, I've reconsidered my response.
If you happen to live on top of the hill, but a mile away from the town in the bottom of the valley, although your physical property wouldn't be affected, you might still work down in the town, or own business premises there, or be saddled with a much longer journey to work if the bridge gets washed away or the railway station flooded, so it seems fair enough to ask you to vote on whether you want to chip in or not.
Mark, the point I was trying to make was that councils DON'T prevent home-owners paving over their front gardens, as planning controls are ineffective.
You are right - drainage blocks would solve this problem.
But if you've ever objected to an application, you will know how pointless it is, perhaps because the planning committee have been bribed to pass it regardless. But of course that would never happen in Britain!
Ed P, that drainage thing is difficult, I'm not sure if there is a way of preventing it.
Sure, the council can easily check front gardens, where it is more likely to happen as people park their cars there, but what about back gardens?
I don't think you can tell from satellite photo's and the Daily Mail crowd would start wailing about 'council snoopers' so let's not go there.
Post a Comment