Environment Agency: 'More than 1,000 homes in Barnet remain at risk of flooding'

Times Series: Oak Hill Park, which regularly floods, has been underwater for much of 2014 so far Oak Hill Park, which regularly floods, has been underwater for much of 2014 so far

Environment Agency figures show 1,136 homes in Barnet remain at risk of flooding despite forecasts predicting the weather will improve this weekend.

Barnet has the third highest number of homes at risk across the capital, though Barnet Borough Council has had to deal with just four reports of flooding the past three weeks.

The agency says the River Brent, Dollis Brook and Silk Stream all remain at risk of overflowing, but with sunshine forecast today and Saturday, that risk is likely to subside.

Barnet Council says it has dealt with reports of flooding in Mill Hill, East Finchley, and Colindale, but that no properties were affected.

Comments (1)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

3:28pm Sat 22 Feb 14

IanIEA says...

Inside the Environment Agency Blog: http://www.insidethe
environmentagency.co
.uk - An ex-EA manager put the internal green conflicts succinctly in his comment the other day, so it's lack of proper direction and priorities: John: "You can consider me one of those senior EA manager - worked in various functions for 9 years, the last 3 as a AEM before leaving in 2011. Most functions outside of FCRM are over funded and inefficient (sustainable places, biodiversity, groundwater, fisheries, even EM itself). At least a fifth of the budget could be re-allocated to higher priority projects by reducing these functions without any detrimental impact to their ability to meet legislative requirements. Unfortunately, the Pitt Review from the 2007 floods was rushed, so didn't go far enough, otherwise, the EA would not again be in the position it is in. That being said, there are some very fine, hard-working and dedicated employees."
Inside the Environment Agency Blog: http://www.insidethe environmentagency.co .uk - An ex-EA manager put the internal green conflicts succinctly in his comment the other day, so it's lack of proper direction and priorities: John: "You can consider me one of those senior EA manager - worked in various functions for 9 years, the last 3 as a AEM before leaving in 2011. Most functions outside of FCRM are over funded and inefficient (sustainable places, biodiversity, groundwater, fisheries, even EM itself). At least a fifth of the budget could be re-allocated to higher priority projects by reducing these functions without any detrimental impact to their ability to meet legislative requirements. Unfortunately, the Pitt Review from the 2007 floods was rushed, so didn't go far enough, otherwise, the EA would not again be in the position it is in. That being said, there are some very fine, hard-working and dedicated employees." IanIEA

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree