Your browser is no longer supported

For the best possible experience using our website we recommend you upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Block and tackle


Your article Probe starts into why flood defence failed twice (NCE 10 November) yet again raises the question of preventive maintenance.

The nvironment gency seem loath to undertake any works to remove fallen trees or deleterious matter from watercourses. The preferred action is to leave this work to nature in the hope that the problem is rectified naturally under the guise of protecting the environment.

I have recently received confirmation from the Agency that they will only remove animal carcasses if there is a possible pollution problem.

It takes little imagination to envisage the consequences when a combination of a large animal carcass and other extraneous debris collect at the mouth of a culvert or small bridge during periods of inclement weather.

Why spend large sums on fl ood alleviation schemes then ignore maintenance which would help watercourses to handle flows more effectively?

James Kirkbright (M), Seasons Cottage, Cookswell, Shillingstone, Dorset, DT11 0QZ

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Please note comments made online may also be published in the print edition of New Civil Engineer. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.