« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
2. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES
2.1 Categorisation of Respondents
To facilitate the analysis of the responses, a set of groupings was identified describing the organisation the respondents were representing. The groupings are shown in Table 1. A full list of the respondents is provided in Appendix A.
Table 1 - Respondent Categories
| Abbreviation |
Local Authorities | LA |
Emergency Services | ES |
Statutory Organisations | S |
Consultants | C |
Private Sector | PS |
Non-Governmental Organisations | NGO |
Members of the Public | P |
Professional/Industry Organisations | PRO |
As described in Figure 3, 33 responses were received from local authorities, 32 from members of the public, 32 from non-governmental organisations, 16 from private sector organisations, 2 from members of the emergency services, 10 from statutory consultees, 6 from professional organisations and 12 from consultants. It should be noted one local authority provided more than one response.
Figure 3 - Number of responses by category of organisation

2.2 Grouping of Responses by Topic
Respondents were asked to indicate whether they were answering questions relating to flooding, reservoirs or both topics. The breakdown of this grouping is shown in Table 2.
Table 2 - Grouping of responses by topic
Topic | Number of responses |
|---|
Flooding | 35 |
|---|
Reservoirs | 8 |
|---|
Both | 78 |
|---|
In a small number of cases the respondents indicated they were answering on both topics, but only provided answers on a single topic. These cases were noted by the analysis team and, for the purposes of clarity, these categorisations were reallocated to match the questions answered. The number of responses which provided answers to the two subjects is detailed in Table 3.
Table 3 - Single Category Answers
Topic | Number of responses |
|---|
Flooding | 4 |
|---|
Reservoirs | 1 |
|---|
In subsequent sections these values will be used as the basis for calculating proportions of answers.
2.3 Responses from Members of the Public
A total number of 32 responses were received from members of the public, many of whom were highlighting historic instances of flooding. Table 4 provides an indication of the locations where flooding was reported.
A map is also provided as Appendix D showing locations of the flooding instances reported by the public.
2.3.1 Geographical Coverage of Responses from the Public
A map is provided, included as Appendix C, which provides a geographical representation of locations where responses were received from members of the public.
2.3.2 Reports of Historic Instances of Flooding
There were a number of responses from members of the public which included references to historical instances of flooding in the local area. These flooding events are listed in Table 4.
Two of the responses referred to landowners' failure to maintain ditches. Bridges restricting flow were also highlighted as an issue on two occasions. Other problems highlighted included development in the floodplain, problems with a high water table and two responses relating to surface water drainage resulting in flooding.
Issues relating to landowners responsibilities to clear watercourses were also raised in the public meetings.
Table 4 - Instances of flooding reported by the public
Date | Location of Flooding |
1994 | Paisley |
No dates | Kincardine on Forth |
No dates | Cove, Berwickshire |
Autumn 2006 | Bonhill Bridge, Dumbarton/ Vale of Leven |
30 July 2002 | Lenzie |
9 August 2004 | Deerpark, Glenmassan, Dunoon |
January 1993 and August 2004 | Little Dunkeld |
1997 and November 2002 | Elgin |
No dates | Annan, Dumfrieshire |
No dates | Kilmarnock |
No dates | Dalguise, nr Dunkeld |
No dates | Inverness |
No dates | Uddingston, South Lanarkshire |
« Previous | Contents | Next »