Letters to the editor


A response to the last letter on the flooding problems and the possible removal of the gravel bank as one alleviating measure.

The above photo shows the surface water outfall next to the leisure centre, and I hardly think that it will inspire confidence in the ability of the local sewerage system to allow adequate drainage to the river.

Flash flooding, which has tested the Witchden/River Street junction quite a number of times in recent memory, should have decreased with the building of the storm tank in the centre car park in July 2005.

The river bank has eroded along several stretches next to the pavement, and even the roads department is aware of issues at Brechin Bridge, so bed rock or not, there are problems.

If Angus Council ever get any cash for the Flood Scheme from the Scottish Government, the last report by officials gave a scenario of work being carried out in stages – so River Street could be protected without any other work being done – so the caravan site owners cannot be blamed for holding up that, and you will then get your six foot high concrete wall all along the pavement.

That said, water will still come back up through the drainage system within River Street unless Scottish Water fund other essential works.

My constant harping on the subject may have resulted in Scottish Water being more actively aware of the problems, and they are now working, to some degree, with Angus Council.

The boundary of the caravan site covers around one third of the whole length of the flood scheme, and will be one of a number of businesses affected in the Eastmill area.

Any reduction in the number of spaces for caravans or residential units will result in a greater loss to the wider Brechin economy than it will to the finances of the caravan park, which is why a number of other businesses support the gravel removal, albeit as a short term measure and some return on the funds already spent.

As for throwing some £125,000 down the river, over £1.7m has already gone that way without a drop of water being diverted from River Street, or more appropriately, housing at Eastmill which floods to greater extent than anywhere else.

The last correspondent contends that I should stick to what I know best.

Having spent some 15 years working on, and within, many of the rivers in several counties, I am quite aware of the various issues, allied with the assistance of others who have worked on Flood Prevention Schemes, so I may be an amateur to some, but I do my research and respond as accurately as possible.

Yours etc.,

Douglas Murray,

Trinity Lodge,