On this page:

Report on Consultation : The Future of Flood Risk Management in Scotland

« 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

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 »

Page updated: Thursday, August 7, 2008