Muddy Boots Kids Outdoor Nature Group Mon, Tues & Fri 10-11.30
-
-
Latest Discussions
-
By Earl Aelfheah · Posted
They're not. But the work to build bunds which hold significant amounts of water in Dulwich and more recently Peckham Rye parks, was undertaken to mitigate the impacts of poor drainage and sewerage infrastructure (which was under invested in for years) causing flooding to properties. The latter is (as I understand it) the responsibility of the water companies. I believe taxpayers have paid for the underinvestment in infrastructure by the water companies in two ways; firstly, by paying to have the changes made to the parks (I never got a clear answer from Renata on this forum when I asked, but think this is the case); and secondly through the loss of amenity those schemes inevitably create when those parks are waterlogged through the winter months. As I said, privatised profits, socialised costs. -
Our waste collectors tip the food bins straight into garden waste. -
It looks to me as if the water companies don't have responsibilities for land drainage generally. See for example: "In 1989 the Thames Water Authority was partly privatised, under the provisions of the Water Act 1989[3] with the water and sewage responsibilities transferring to the newly established publicly quoted company of Thames Water, and the regulatory, land drainage and navigation responsibilities transferring to the newly created National Rivers Authority which later became the Environment Agency." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Water_Authority -
So what you are saying DR is Yvette Cooper becoming the new Priti Braverman?* (*That's a scary combination of the two)
-
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.