6/8/2008Kilbirnie Flooding: Statement from North Ayrshire Council
Radio City after the flood. Photo James Galloway.
Investigations are continuing into why the River Garnock burst its banks and flooded part of Kilbirnie town centre recently.
The river bank was breached at a site previously occupied by a dye works at 7:30 am last Friday after torrential overnight rain.
Water flowed down Muirend Street and crossed the A760 into Garnock Street, Mill Road and Knoxville Street. It then flowed back into the River Garnock.
The police station was evacuated and some residents were taken out of the Millcourt sheltered housing complex. Three elderly residents were looked after by North Ayrshire Social Services - two were rehoused and the third taken into respite care.
Council staff were on the scene within half an hour and were able to start sealing the gap in the river bank by 09:30. This operation is complete and staff are monitoring the river at the location. Properties were sandbagged where necessary.
The flood water caused damage to walls, road surfaces and vehicles. The Radio City Centre was also damaged.
Investigations, by the Council's own engineers and consultants, will take a considerable time. - Statement by North Ayrshire Council on 6 August 2008.
================================================================================
Local councillor John Bell said: "An investigation is being carried out to find out what exactly happened."
-
Local councillor John Bell said: "An investigation is being carried out to find out what exactly happened."
Wake up and smell the coffee NAC; everyone knows exactly what happened!
With almost a month having now elapsed since the flooding, surely the Council must have arrived at the conclusion that everyone in Kilbirnie already knows, that it was the demolition of the retaining wall at the site of the old Dyeworks that caused the flooding?
I am somewhat disappointed at the apparent lack of action by NAC with regard to this event. I fully appreciate that they have commissioned a report from a firm of engineers, but come on, the facts are there for all to see. There was a wall on the river bend that held back the River Garnock for more than a century, take the wall away and "hey presto" the river does not go round the bend but straight through it and down Muirend Street! It's not rocket science, so why are they taking so long in arriving at their conclusion?
As well as the foregoing, questions must also be asked:
A) Did the contractors (Crudens Developments Ltd.) demolish the building without a valid building warrant in place; the previous warrant having expired in Feb. 2008?
And of more significance, B) Did they not undertake the comprehensive flood risk assessment, which was a condition of the planning consent prior to the commencement of the works?
The residents of Kilbirnie need to know what action is going to be taken by NAC against Crudens Developments for what looks like their complete and utter disregard for the legislative process, while at the same time pressure needs to be applied to the company in order that they finally admit liability. Once they do so, we can begin to reclaim the money that has been lost by all of us in insurance excesses and lost no-claims bonuses.
Not withstanding the monetary losses, a good number of my neighbours have been told that they will not be back in their homes until 2009; at the very least Crudens Developments should be making a public apology to all of them for the inordinate inconvenience that they have suffered.
Come on NAC get your finger out and start taking some real action.
-
It simply beggars belief that the contractors have not admitted liability for their shortcomings. Anyone who saw the gaping hole right on the river bend knew that it was an accident waiting to happen; I think everyone merely assumed that this would be rectified in a matter of days before the height of the Garnock increased?
If it is indeed the case that the contractors should have undertaken a flood risk assessment prior to the works beginning, why are NAC merely treading water (if you will excuse the pun) and not taking action against them now?
While I do not know if the Council had any damage done to any of their property; given the scale of the clean-up operation, as a Council taxpayer, I am assuming that the cost for this will be sent to Crudens for them to settle accordingly.
Why is it taking almost a month for the Council's engineering consultants to report on this? Is it a case of the longer it takes the more it will cost perhaps, or will everyone simply forget about this and go away?
- Could it be a case that the Council are taking their time, and fudging the issue, because they themselves are in the firing line? Did they give permission for the demolition of the wall before a warrant was granted or did they allow the works to commence before the pre start planning conditions (such as the approval of a flood risk assessment) were discharged? These questions need answered by NAC but I think this will end up as a mass cover up!
-
Was the wall taken down prior to the flood, does anyone have photographs to show this?
Crudens Insurance will use any excuse to avoid liability and it would be difficult to prove their blame in any of this. Especially with the council filling in the gap in the wall that afternoon, not criticising that but it will have covered over the tracks.
-
I have been approached by the Content Producer of this website to inset some comments plus my recent letter to the local newspaper:-
Dear Sir,
Further to the devastating flood which hit Kilbirnie on Friday 1st August.What has happened to the flood prevention scheme that has been spoken about by local councillors?
Councillor John Bell stated in a letter to this newspaper over 12 months ago that the bridge over the River Garnock at Kirkland Road, could not be replaced because the flood prevention plans were not fully finalised.
Here we are, years after a flood prevention plan for the Garnock Valley was first proposed and what exactly has been done? Nothing! We have no flood prevention scheme and no bridge replacement.
All that NAC have done is to allow a property developer to demolish a wall which residents of Muirend Street have intimated, was the main cause of Friday's flood.
Although a large quantity of rain fell in a short period of time, this is not unusual for the West of Scotland. This isn't climate change, it's normal weather despite what Mike Russell MSP says. We have had other periods of heavy rainfall over a number of days last winter without anything like this ever happening before.
What is needed is for the authorities to get their finger out and get flood protection in place before we get into the winter, or flooding on this scale, or worse, will not be the last for Kilbirnie.
Yours faithfully.
Iain Walker.The letter from Cllr Bell that I have cited in the above letter refers to one published on page 20 in the Ardrossan & Saltcoats Herald dated 28 March 2007.
I have also found the following which is published on the NAC website and is part of the planning consent approved by NAC on 15 January 2007:-
10. That, prior to the commencement of any works, full details shall be submitted of the measures to be taken to prevent flood water passing onto the site from the adjoining water course, for the approval in writing of North Ayrshire Council as Planning Authority. The submitted details shall specify the finished floor levels of the houses and adjoining site levels, to provide for the surfacing of the proposed footpath and the formation of a preventative barrier of a suitable height to be located between the houses and the river. The approved works shall be undertaken at the developer's expense and shall be completed prior to the occupation of any house and be maintained by the developer unless agreement is reached at a future date with North Ayrshire Council for an alternative arrangement.
The full details of the planning consent are fully available to anyone who wants to see them as follows:- Go to www.north-ayrshire.gov.uk > Click on Committee Minutes > Click on 'View by Committee' under the heading May 2003 - April 2007 > Scroll down the list to 'Planning Committee' & click on the Blue Triangle. > Click on '15 January 2007' and scroll down to 'Item 9.2' The above extract is 'Condition 10'
This raises quite a few points, e.g. did the developer submit their flood prevention proposals as required? Why was there not more stringent conditions imposed bearing in mind that NAC and the Scottish Executive / Government were supposed to be involved in working out a flood prevention scheme?
Cllr Bell's letter was dated after the planning consent was granted, therefore both Council Officials and Elected Representatives were well aware that there were flood prevention measures being proposed and did nothing to ensure that proper flood prevention conditions were made in the planning consent.
Iain Walker
Vice-Chairman
Kilbirnie & Glengarnock Community Council.
- Planning consent would be for building the new houses, not for knockin down the old buildings. Would be better finding out if the wall was knocked down instead of trying to blame council.
- I have to correct you there Tom, the development is deemed to have commenced as soon as work begins on the site. That is why the contractors required a building warrant (which they ignored!) prior to knocking down the Dyeworks.
-
Water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink! Whilst Kilbirnie and Glengarnock were awash with flood water during the summer month of August, the local residents have had to endure days without drinking water and put up with horrendous traffic chaos due to water main upgrading. Ironic? No, it's criminal of a council that is committed to "Working together" to give us, the community, a "Better Life" - North Ayrshire Community Planning Partnership.
With regard to the flooding in the area on 1st August, why spend more public money investigating something that is a no-brainer? The Council should be working together to make sure everybody affected by the flooding gets assistance fighting their insurance companies tooth and nail for their entitlement of compensation. There was severe flooding of the river Garnock four years ago, almost to the day of this year's flooding, when the river burst its banks in several locations in Glengarnock. What contingencies have the council put in place since then? It would appear none as the same areas flooded this year. If the River had not overflowed into Muirend St. and Mill Rd. do you think it would have quietly made its way to Irvine Bay? No, Glengarnock would now be the focus of the flooding debate and residents would be out of their homes and in battle with their insurance companies. What exactly is the council doing about flood prevention? There are fields around Glengarnock that are used for silage and home to a few cows. These are natural flood plains, knock a few holes in the high embankment and when the water gets to a certain level it spills into the fields, after all it has to go somewhere, just ask the police! OK, give the farmer some compensation; it would be better than giving some consultancy big money to carry out an investigation every four years. Crying over spilled milk now is no use to me; I want to be safe in mind that if an inch of rain falls overnight my property will not be affected. I want to be safe in mind that I can insure my property without having to take a second mortgage to do so. I want to be safe in mind that I can sell my property in the future. NAC - Get with the Program. The Flood Prevention Program!
As for the water works and the traffic chaos, is this council so lily-livered that they can't keep their "digging contractors" to a time frame? How many times does the same spot need dug up? If these contractors were working in my house I'd have run them out of town long ago and got someone else in that could do the job. The council should take heed of this as there are a lot of disheartened people looking for answers and if they don't get them there is always the next election.
- Re planning issues, planning will be for the whole development and NOT just for the houses. Condition 10 re the FRA as Iain Walker outlines above is however a woolly and lazily worded condition. It requires the FRA to be submitted for approval prior to the works commencing, it does NOT, however, require the FRA to be approved prior to works commencing. This is where the cover up will begin, someone should request this FRA under freedom of information before it is conveniently slipped into a file somewhere!
- This will be a deal between insurance companies. The builder and their contractors' insurers will carve up a deal with the insurers of the Police Station and Radio City, I heard this could be as much as £1m, and maybe the household insurance if they find out the wall was damaged or knocked down before the flood. If they can't prove that, it will be the old "act of god" get-out clause and people will lose the excess on policies. What is needed is evidence of the wall being weakened or demolished. Don't think the council will be able to prove what happened, it will be the insurance company that will investigate, maybe go to court to sue builder, contractor or council.
- Is Malky brother no the planning officer
-
Alan, you are quite correct that my brother works as a planning officer with the Council, however as he is currently away on holiday I obtained my information from the following link on NAC's web site: http://www.north-ayrshire.gov.uk/ChiefExec/ComRA.nsf/6c56422ef9135b8e80256a87003d3312/13626e075e61885500257245004d8c72?OpenDocument
I hope this clarifies your cheap shot of attempted innuendo?
- The 6th of August "Local councillor John Bell said: An investigation is being carried out to find out what exactly happened." John, surely the Council must have concluded their investigations by now; how long do they need, come on they have had SIX WEEKS now! Whits the hold up????
-
"Kerrching" the longer the Councils engineers report takes to be finalised makes it appear that they have been working on a very complex and detailed situation; everyone in the town, already knows how "complex" the events leading up to the flood were. Come on John, get the Council to get a move on, this is just becoming plain stupid now; today is now six weeks since the day of the flood, the Council are playing the people of Kilbirnie as mugs.
As for the Developers, Crudens Ltd. they are firmly of the opinion that it was indeed NAC who were to blame for the events of the 1st August. They have stated that the flood was caused as a direct result of NAC authorising work on, wait for it, the other side of the River Garnock, a result of which caused an increase in the flow rate against the side where the river ran over!
How I wish I may be wrong, however I can see this entire sorry saga turning into a blame game between both parties and a "cop-out" being the ultimate result. Great for NAC and Crudens, however the residents and Council tax payers of the town will be the only victims of this outrageous cover up.
Come on John, prove me wrong!
- I think the bell has tolled for Mr Bell - we should vote in some new councillors. John Bell... mmmm his name doesn't ring a bell with me, but i think it will just be another clanger by our great council. NOAH
- So this is all just SNP politics. Whit about the lump of wood SNP councillor or joe 90 the MSP. We can vote them out as well.
-
Let's cut out the chirlish party political comments and slurs and get on with the job in hand; childish comments such as the previous two postings and the one printed in the letters page of last week's local paper only serve to switch people off from politics and deflect the focus from the job in hand.
As I could not attend Monday evening's meeting to update the community regarding the flooding issue, I eagerly awaited the arrival of this week's paper to find out what update the Council had advised at the meeting.
Surprise, surprise, the update reads the same as stated on the 6th August: "The Council has launched an investigation into the cause of the flood on the 1st August". The lack of progress made in respect of this issue is now approaching embarrassing proportions and the Council surely must, at the very least, even issue an interim statement as to how this report is progressing or when it is anticipated to be concluded.
We are all being treated as fools by NAC, how long can their lack of urgency be allowed to continue; I for one believe that the people of Kilbirnie deserve better, much better.
-
So are you pretending to be above the politics?
There are a number of organisations who might be to blame for the flooding namely:
* Crudens the site owners who might not have maintained the wall properly;
* Crudens contractors who might have damaged the wall in clearing the site;
* God - Who might have given more rain in a short space of time than the wall could cope with;
* The council for not making the others do what the were supposed to - or for not being successful in getting money out the Scottish Government to build new defences before now;
* The Scottish government who have not given the council money for flood defences in Kilbirnie.
But you choose to blame the council in isolation, get a grip.
-
Alan, I have no interest in politics whatsoever therefore I have little or no need to pretend or otherwise as you have alluded to. The point that I am trying to make here, that you have for whatever reason so far been unable to grasp, is that we will get nowhere with petty political sniping entering into this debate.
I am of the opinion that you are incorrect in stating that a number of parties could potentially be to blame; the reason I state this is that it can only be either Crudens who own the site (who are responsible for the actions of their contractors) or the Council. While both of these parties will try their damndest to blame the flood on God, I afraid that while the rainfall was heavy in the 24 hours leading up to the flood (22mm I understand?) this was by no stretch of the imagination excessive when you look back over the course of the previous 20 odd years when the River did not flood.
Given that this area has not been susceptible to flooding in the past, the argument regarding the Government's position re. making funds available for flood prevention has nothing whatsoever to do with this particular case. As you will be aware, the main thrust of the proposed future flood prevention work was to protect Glengarnock, which sadly does continue to flood on a regular basis.
The person who needs to get a grip here is whoever brought the foregoing into the debate; as this is simply an attempt, albeit a very poor one, to deflect the blame from NAC or Crudens.
-
Malcolm,
Your arguments are confusing, you started by saying it was a no brainer the wall was taken down without permission.
Then it's the council's fault because they can't make Crudens admit liability.
Then it was the council, because they did work on the other side of the river.
So what no brainer is it?
I still think the people most out of pocket, the insurance companies, will either cut a deal or go to court.
The householders' insurance companies and the insurance companies for the Police station and Radio City are taking a hammering. If they can point the blame at Crudens, Crudens' contractors or NAC they will. If they can't it will be an act of god.
If they can pin the blame on somebody, folk will get their excess back; if they can't they won't.
The flood plan I remember was to include new river walls right thro the town to protect Milton Park and other bits at risk when severe weather takes place, as well as Glengarnock.
The Cross area has flooded a number of times before, so you are wrong there as well.
If you are not political, why just have a go at the Labour councillor, there are 2 others and an MSP to aim at, or does that not fit your plan.
-
I'm not having a go at any Labour Councillor, if he/she were a BNP/SNP/Tory Councillor I would be asking the same questions. I have merely asked him to find out why the process of HIS Council seems to be taking so long. As John is the Councillor for the area I was hopeful of him being able to generate a response from NAC faster than I would?
I'm sorry, if I am confusing you Alan, however you must be very easily confused!
On the face of it, Crudens are to blame, however, as a result of the Council's complete and utter lack of enforcing their statutory responsibilities regarding legislation (no building warrant in place and no flood risk assessment) it may well be the case that as a result of this negligence, the blame will end up with them as they have comprehensively failed in their duty.
In my living memory, I can only ever recall "The Cross" flooding once and this was as a result of debris building up on one of the sluice gates immediately before the bridge at the Cross. To my mind, any major flooding has always been in the Glengarnock area; I am open to other comments from others in the Town whose memory may be better than my own however.
In conclusion, I do not have a plan, I merely want the truth to be clearly established and the residents of Kilbirnie (including myself) to be compensated for the losses they have incurred. Given this, it is clearly only NAC who can provide the answers, not God, not an MSP, the Council themselves; get it sorted!
-
1. The area has three councillors. At no point in your rants have you stated they are responsible for NAC's delay in reporting, just the Labour one. So stop pretending you're not playing politics.
2. You say there are no building warrant, and no flood risk assessment. How do you know? If they did the work without this paperwork, it would still be Crudens' fault.
3. You say Crudens says it was the council doing works at the other side of the river. Where did they say this?
4. You say the wall was knocked down by the contractors, other people say it wasn't but was damaged by them.
5. You say it was 22mm of rain, that's not right, it was pouring down all night with at least two absolute downpours that flooded streets up to the curbs.
6. This might be too obvious, but have you asked any of the councillors, MSP's, MP's for their views on this. Or do you just write on a noticeboard?
-
Good Morning "Alan",
In response to you latest comments I can advise you as follows.
1. As it was Councillor Bell who was quoted on the initial posting (which has now been deleted for some reason) on this thread that the enquiry had been launched, I have naturally been asking my questions of him. Additionally, as I know Councillor Bell and he comes from the town, why should I try to solicit an answer from someone else???
2. I know because the head of Legal Services (his name escapes me at the moment) at NAC advised me of this.
3. Mr. McGregor from Crudens Developments advised me of this in my telephone conversation with him some two weeks ago.
4. Knocked down / damaged, the fact is that it had held back the waters of the Garnock for a century and a half. Do you seriously think that this was mere coincidence???
5. You are wrong here yet again, it was the Met Office who advised me that the rainfall was 22mm in the 24 hours prior to the flood taking place.
6. Why would I want to ask anyone else?
Finally Alan, you stated in a previous post that "Your arguments are confusing, you started by saying it was a no brainer the wall was taken down without permission". For the record, at no time did I state that it was a no brainer, however I believe that someone else may have stated this.
As far as posting my queries and thoughts on this public website are concerned, the reason I have chosen to do so is because no one appears to be able to solicit meaningful answers from NAC. It is indeed a sad day when the residents of the town of Kilbirnie cannot obtain a response from their own Council.
-
Malcolm
1. Have you tried phoning emailing or writing to any of them directly instead of posting on a noticeboard
2. How does that make it the council's fault that the contactor acted illegally
3. If you had the information why do you keep posting asking for an update
4. You said everyone knew "it was the demolition of the retaining wall at the site of the old Dyeworks that caused the flooding", now you say it might not have been demolished
5. Did the met office measure it in Kilbirnie, don't think so
6. Why not ask councillors directly instead of trying to play politics
If you really want the council to provide a response why don't you ask the head of legal services by letter or email or telephone. Do you think he reads this as well.
-
Things obviously have to be explained to you very slowly Alan!
As the initial posting on this site was a comment by John.... "Local councillor John Bell said: "An investigation is being carried out to find out what exactly happened."
Given that this is a public site, I responded to this in an attempt to solicit a timeous reply/response from the Council. The fact that the Council could only "update" the Community Council meeting on Monday evening of this week with the same comment of seven weeks ago; speaks volumes. Had I written to them, do you seriously think that they would have told me any more than they would the Community Council?
I again re-iterate that I am of the opinion, which I am perfectly entitled to have, is that the Council have not dealt with the situation at all well. Ask anyone in the Town and you will get the same response; I have yet to meet anyone, with the obvious exception of yourself, who has a good word to say about them.
With regard to your previous postings, I am of the strong opinion that you are a
1) Labour Party Member or activist (which is OK)
2) Were not personally affected by the flood (which you should be grateful for)
3) Live on an elevated district of the town (good for you)
-
Alan (If this is indeed your real name),
You seem to be taking all this rather personal without actually posting anything constructive.
Your points on the "no brainer" do not make sense as you then gave 3 scenarios, all of which are the blame of the Council, so it would seem it is a "no brainer" (your words - no one else's).
What I believe Malcolm is attempting to do is to illicit a meaningful response from NAC on the matter, not their usual "there are ongoing investigations" and "we do not admit liability".
Let's be perfectly clear here, if the works were started without the building warrant in place and without the necessary pre start planning conditions discharged then NAC are to blame, together with the contractor. Were enforcement notices issued by the NAC enforcement officer?
It would seem to me from the postings that Malcolm has actually been affected by the flood and therefore has every right to ask the questions he has been asking, by any means he so desires.
Were you affected at all?
It also seems to me that there are "divert and deflect" tactics at play, not only on the whole flooding issue but also within these noticeboards - none of Malcolm's comments could be construed as being political in the slightest yet you seem hellbent in making this a personal and political argument.
I wonder why???
It seems to me that Malcolm is
-
"The flood water caused damage to walls, road surfaces and vehicles. The Radio City Centre was also damaged"
Investigations, by the Council's own engineers and consultants, will take a considerable time. - Statement by North Ayrshire Council on 6 August 2008.
Good heading - not!
_______________________________________________________________
............. perhaps someone out there actually realises that the damage caused was a little more severe than the quote above would have us believe??
Perhaps not!
How long will this consultation take and how much will the taxpayers have to pay for "the consultation"
To paraphrase Alan Rankine "It was not me mate, some big guy done it and ran away" But hey, it is after all a "no brainer"
Is there actually anyone out there that cares about the people who were, and still are, affected by all this?
I have stayed in this town for around forty years and I have no recollection of the cross being flooded before.
divert and deflect, divert and deflect,
snoooooozzzzeeee!
- Derek, your memory is worse than my own and thats saying something! As I said in a previous posting, I can recall it being flooded once, however are there perhaps any older residents in Kilbirnie who may be able to comment on this?
-
Jeez,
I wasn't taking anything personally until I read this. No, I wasn't flooded out and it's not my real name (I joined this at my work).
Derek - I don't know whether Cruden had paperwork in order or not, and don't have the information that you and Malcolm seem to. But you and Malcolm both said that the wall was taken down by the contractors and other people say it was still there but might have been damaged.
If the council are liable then they should be made to pay out. I just don't see how the assumption that they are to blame and that there is a cover up came about. And I don't see what any investigation could prove anyway.
And I admit I was wrong the no brainer line was in a post from Gerard Devaney not Malcolm.
Regarding a big boy done it and ran away and divert deflect. That sounds like politics. The point I was making is if you want information from the council, write or email the council, if you want information from a councillor MP or MSP, ask them by writing, emailing or phoning. Don't write it on a noticeboard. And if you single out the Labour councillor when we've got three and have the intelligent political comments like the one marked guest user noah then we have to question motives.
Conspiricies everywhere.
But to avoid doubt Malcolm: Have you written, emailed called or spoken to any of our councillors, MP's or MSP's on the subjects?
-
First of all, thank you for your honesty regarding your name.
"Conspiracies everywhere", the only way that the Council will avoid such talk is when they eventually publish their long awaited report. It's human nature, the longer it takes them to do so, an ever increasing number of people will begin to think that there is indeed something to hide!
As far as contacting the Council is concerned, to date I have left this to our MSP; as he was present in the area throughout the day of the flood. I understand however that he has been given as much information as yourself from NAC, NONE!
Given this, I will continue to make my comments known through this public site in an attempt to solicit a reply. I again re-iterate that 99.9% of the residents of the Town feel gravely let down by the lack of progress from their Council.
-
Very good Malcolm.
Kenneth Gibson was at an Aids conference in Mexico on the day of the flood.
I think pretending this is not an SNP political post is over now.
-
Your credibility has now gone completely!
How do you explain his picture in the paper then on the day of the flood with my neighbours Violet O'Neil and Billy King - ON THE DAY OF THE FLOOD!
-
So Alan/John has now been exposed once and for all as a chancer of the first degree. (I also have a photograph from the newspaper with the MSP at the scene of the flood on the 1st August, do you want me to post it on the site John/Alan or do you think I am a liar as well?) I also spoke with him at length during the morning and afternoon of the day in question.
What the residents of the Town are after here is open and honest debate; at no time have either I or Malcolm Craig brought your integrity into question, all we have sought to obtain is for you to do your job and obtain a response from your Council; you repay this by trying to make us out as liars with your fantastic fables such as "Kenneth Gibson was at an Aids conference in Mexico on the day of the flood".
There is no point in you even replying John/Alan as NO-ONE will ever take you seriously again.
My final words on this sorry debate is that the Council couldnae run a bath; the events of the last few weeks and in particular the comments of yesterday make this crystal clear.
-
How about a photo opp on the way to the airport.
When the going gets tough!
How do you explain Kenneth Gibson telling everyone he was in Mexico, unless it's an alibi in case he gets blamed for knockin the wall down, obviously not by you of course Malcolm.
- Sorry, what is the point you are trying to make here???
-
Alan/John that's quite funny don't know if I'm flattered tho.
And it's not a fantastic fable, I read the papers.
Let me sum up the story so far:
Malcolm/Harry say wall was knocked down caused flood at the start.
Derek says there is a big cover up.
I ask was the wall really knocked down because people I spoke to didn't think that.
Ian Walker says it's the council's fault because they should have had more stringent planning conditions, and they should be installing flood prevention.
Harry/Malcolm say John Bell should provide report.
Guest User says John Bell is finished Moses says SNP finished.
I ask is this just SNP politcal stunt noting that we have 3 councillors and only one is being attacked. I get grief, Malcolm saying of course it's not political it's just he knows John Bell.
Derek says it's a big conspiracy and there's a cover up and now I must be part of it because I ask how it's the councils fault if a builder does something without paperwork, and if the wall really was knocked down. And that of course it's not political.
I ask if Malcom has actually asked any of the counilors, MP's or MSP's and suddenly he admits is in constant contact with Kenneth Gibson MSP, but hasn't asked any of the others.
Harry/Malcolm then write nonsense about my council this and my job that - think you've got the wrong person there.
And how Kenneth Gibson was such a great help on the day of the flood.
I saw Katie Clark on the telly, I saw Mike Russel. I even heard John Bell on the radio, I didn't see Kenneth Gibson. I read in the paper he was at an Aids conference in Mexico. But you'll be right and I'll be wrong.
Harry says all they want is open and honest debate - point is that falls at the first hurdle, it was nothing but a party political attack on the Labour Councillor, and the fact yous think there are only 2 Labour voters left in Kilbirnie is class.
-
How do you explain his picture in the paper then on the day of the flood with my neighbours Violet O'Neil and Billy King - ON THE DAY OF THE FLOOD!
Answer the question?
-
Malcolm/Harry
Maybe you should ask your neighbours about when the photo was taken, or do you expect them to answer a website post.
You said Kenneth Gibson was in the area throughout the day of the flood but he wasn't in any of the press coverage on the day and the paper said he was at an Aids conference in Mexico.
-
Answer the question!
I have already stated that I spoke with Kenny Gibson on both the morning and afternoon of the 1st of August and I have offered to scan and post the photograph on this site of my neighbours with him on the day of the flood.
If I do so, will you then offer a public apology to all concerned?
-
You are the only one who is being political here, everyone else just wants answers.
Whether there is a cover up or not remains to be seen, however, the longer it takes to publish a report the more the local people will BELIEVE there is a cover up.
The Council have a legal duty to enforce builders to have the paperwork in place prior to commencing works.
The consultants I use in a day by basis in my work could provide me with a flood risk assessment and a report on the cause of the flooding within 2 weeks, max!
Perhaps you would care to guess why it is taking so long for the Council to publish its report?
-
I will apologise if I'm wrong, will you? You haven't so far. I have answered the question 2 times you just ask more. The picture would only prove anything if it had the time and date it was taken and it didn't look very wet in the picture.
You said at first he was around all the day of the flood now it's down to you spoke to him morning and afternoon. Was it on the phone, or face to face? You said it was not political and more and more it's you and Kenneth Gibson in constant chats.
You said the wall was taken down by the builders other people say it wasn't.
You attacked the Labour Councillor and claimed he was the target because you know him. You can phone the MSP but you canny phone the Councillor you know.
Admit it you are just a bitter wee nat and your credibility is gone.
You should offer an apology to everybody you slagged in your sneaky attempts to stir it.
- The more you post the more of a fool you appear, not just to me, but to everyone else on this site and in the town.
-
Malcolm
I am not the one telling lies here. Just say sorry you were wrong.
Derek
Agree the council should be updating us, if they have mucked up they should be made to pay I've no problem with that. I don't know why it's taking so long, maybe Malcolm's MSP friend could say. I just read what was in the papers like anybody else. But don't say this has not been made party political. Malcolm has already had more info than anybody from his MSP friend but posts on here asking for it from just one of the 3 councilors but then admits he has never actually asked anyone else. Then there is the story of the MSP being in the area throughout the day of the flood. I had trouble finding the story thought it was in the Sun but found this in the Arran weekly paper the date is the date it was published.
MSP in Mexico By Alison Prince Thursday, 7 August 2008 Kenneth Gibson MSP is currently attending an international conference in Mexico on AIDS. Click to see the article.
- The flood was on the 1st, the conference was on the 7th, with every post you make you get worse! Then again, given that you were not affected by the flood, the dates are probably not so important to you.
-
Alan,
The article states that the MSP was in Mexico on 7th August, was the flood not one week before this on the 1st August?
Two people on these postings have said they have talked to the guy on the day in question, that is good enough for me.
I do think you are trying to make this political, I do not see the harm in asking the local councillor for information, yes there are 3 councillors but is Mr Bell not the councillor for the area affected whilst the other 2 are not?
All people want are answers to what happened.
More importantly (and this has not really been addressed yet in any of the postings) what are the Council doing to ensure it does not happen again?
Answers on a postcard to the usual address!
-
Derek
No, the 3 councilors are for all of Kilbirnie and Beith, not wee bits that was the point, and that's why it was Malcolm/Harry trying to make it political. The other point was he was writing daft questions on a website but it turns out he hadn't actully asked them. But it turns out he had been talking to the MSP all along and had more info than anybody else.
But then that might not be true either since the rest of his stories haven't been honest either. I have been reliably informed yesterday that Kenneth Gibson said at the community council that he was in Mexico on the day of the flood.
On the other issue you're right, the council should be reporting on the incident and say what they are doing to get the flood prevention, but you said I was doing divert and deflect when spoke about getting the money before.
- I think this is about as close to an apology that we will be getting from you then then John/Alan?
-
I admire your brass neck Malcolm, keep on throwing even when proved wrong.
Your "friend's" motion in parliament:
*S3M-2367 Kenneth Gibson: Aids 2008 That the Parliament congratulates the success, and endorses the aims, of the XVII International Aids Conference 2008, held in Mexico City from 3 to 8 August, and its theme of Universal Action Now; recognises that 33 million people are currently living with HIV worldwide; is aware that three times more people are infected each day than begin antiretroviral treatment; believes that universal access to HIV prevention, treatment, care and support and eliminating the stigma often encountered by those suffering from HIV/AIDS is the key to reducing the spread of a disease that has killed around 25 million people worldwide over the last quarter of a century, including at least 1,600 in Scotland, and acknowledges that only continued global co-operation to eliminate poverty and full resourcing of health services and agencies battling with HIV/AIDS will lead to the eventual elimination of this scourge.
Hope you take precautions.
- Come on North Ayrshire Council why hide behind a policy we dont talk to Web Sites yet the Council advertises its Planning Lists, Licensing applications and puts its News releases on its own website. S1 is an public service web site just like NACs
-
Along with everyone else who reads this site, your latest posting again baffles; what is the point of this, is there any?
You have already demonstrated that you cannot accept the truth, even when you attempt to justify your wrong information with yet more inconsequential nonsense that only serves to further prove that you were indeed incorrect with your initial comment.
As for my "friend" that you refer to, apart from the day of the flood, the one and only other time that I have even been in the same room as him was when the now First Minister came to Radio City prior to the General Election. You will recall this well, as I happened to have a brief conversation with Councillor Bell as I left the meeting. (I assume this is where you have picked up the entirely wrong notion that I am an SNP lover!)
Moving away at a tangent onto a sensible posting from Donald Reid, I entirely agree; this site is a public service web site and as such the Council should be embracing this with enthusiasm. If however NAC do not have the common courtesy to update the Community Council however, what chance do we have?
-
Malcolm, I thought you were a Nat and trying to make it politics for reasons already listed. You only directed complaints on here at the Labour councillor when you have 3 and msp and mp to complain to. You bummed up the efforts of the SNP MSP, saying he was in the area all day and in constant contact on the day of the flood when everyone new he wisnae even in the country. Now your saying youve never met the guy and even better that Bell goes to SNP meetings.
Maybe I was wrong and you're actually a Tory, since they seem the only ones your not trying to drop in it.
- As someone much wiser than myself once said, "you can never win an argument with a fool", on this note I will ignore the rest of your postings as they make no attempt whatsoever to resolve the situation!
-
Alan,
What is the point in posting a blog about an Aids conference in Mexico to back up your assertion that the local MSP was there at the time of the flooding when the blog you quote clearly states that the Aids conference was held between the 3rd and 8th of August.
The flood was on the 1st August as previously pointed out and your post is therefore a waste of time!
-
Mr Clarkson, I feel I have point out that I did in fact propose a potential solution to alleviate some of the flooding problem in the Glengarnock area. I have been affected by flood on both occasions in the last four years and I have a vested interest in protecting my property. Imagine a bath running, when the water reaches a certain level excess goes through the overflow. We have a situation when the Garnock rises to dangerous levels there is no overflow. Yes, we could build the banks up further as I presume the council has done over the years, but all that does is send the problem downstream. Making an overflow and using the natural flood plains, which incidentally have been here long before AR dragged knuckles across the land, to temporarily hold the water until such time that the river drops. Instead of a channel, which in places is no more than 4 metres wide, raging with water over three metres in depth, (imagine the pressure) we have low quality agricultural land flooded to minimal depths. Yes, compensate the farmer but at least roads and other important infrastructure would be more secure but more importantly, from a personal level, people's houses and well-earned possessions would be safer. Going back to the bath imagine it now with out an overflow.
I do commend you in your attempt not only to bring us out of this futile bun fight and focus on the FLOOD and how to prevent future FLOODING but also your effort to post well structured and well balanced points to this important issue in spite of the slap dash clap trap that's coming from a malevolent trouble maker.
Mr Craig, the penny has finally dropped! You are right, in fact you've been right from the beginning, but this time you're dead right! You can't beat a fool in debate but even more pertinent you can't win an argument with someone who doesn't exist. Yes, you're right to ignore him/her/whoever. You have the right to push by any means you feel proper to pursue this issue to a conclusion as you were, I understand from your previous postings in fact flooded with both property and possessions ruined but to waste your time on this character is futile.
This "fool" as you have rightly called him has misquoted postings - "no brainer" He can't understand the concept of being in a location and then being in another location days later, it's a small world for goodness sake. He has backtracked and said he was wrong during his argument. His debating technique is to confuse and scattergun points of no relevance. The worst aspect of this individual is his cowardice; this snake is hiding behind a phoney name whilst attacking genuine people with genuine grievances who he knows. That's right, he knows you and that your brother is a planning officer. He is the proverbial cat amongst the pigeons. He joined s1 at work! What a lame excuse. Oh did he, so he is deceiving his employer too. Let's hope he's not a council worker, as we the taxpayers would be paying him to come on here and spout his drivel. The way he loses focus and his amateur debating skills coupled with his deceitfulness, if I were a betting man Mr Craig, I'd put a hefty wager on him being a failed politician or a failing politician. Look at his pseudonym Rankine...it rhymes with......
He must be a politician!
Unlike Schwartzenegger I shan't be back until this clown has finally gone back to the circus.
-
My goodness, what a carry on! Mr Rankine, if you're going to shoot from the hip, then be honest enough to do so with your real identity.
Keep up the quest for answers Malcolm, for 2 reasons!
1. To get to the bottom of the how this happened: Did the construction company act outwith the consents they had and if so what will the council do to bring them to account?
2. So that action can be taken to prevent this happening again, the upheaval and the costs for folks impacted, needs to be understood and avoided at all costs in the future!
-
A few days off and look what happens.
Mr McGuinness, if the question had been put like that there would have been no argument. But it was not. It was made political. And the nonsense rote to try and cover that up didn't work. As for the boring Kenneth Gibson bathtub story, I have never heard of Mr Devaney or Harry McDougall do they have to supply 3 forms of identity to write pure rubbish on a website. No, the only argument is because I spotted their game. And if you must know, I read Malky's brother's job on Friends Reunited. Debating style, I've had a few arguments but no any debates, I'll need to try that. And since I need to keep my job and you lot always on about guns am no tellin you.
- What's the obsession with Kenny Gibson being on holiday anyway??
- BREAKING NEWS: The reason there was no flood prevention plans in place was the North Ayrshire councillors were investing the money in an Icelandic bank.
- Ah Mr Gibson... We've been expecting you.
- Even if Kenny Gibson had been there he couldnt have done anything, unless he brought a bucket. All the others did was get interviewed and say how sorry they were.
-
I have just been reading all the Councils' responses to potentially losing monies in the Icelandic banks. Quite interesting reading from all the Chief Executives and Finance Directors as well as meaningful thoughts from spokespersons.
Then you read the statement from NAC!!!!
Good to see they have our very best interests at heart, no chance of any response on flooding if this is how they respond to potentially losing £15m of our money.
And yes, Mr Rankine, this one is political.
- NAC spokesperson (pc correct) has just informed me that they will be investing the remainder of their (our) money in this Saturday's Lottery as it's a rollover.
- North Ayrshire Council has released a statement about their £15m investment in Icelandic banks. Read it here!
-
Mr Clarkson, glad you come out of the closet at last.
On the money issue, the report in the paper yesterday claimed they had ignored the advice of their advisors to get money out of the banks. If that's true, it is a major scandal.
-
Wow, what a little catfight some posters have had to themselves!
Okay, we all know about the 1st of August flood, but one thing I have not seen in any media or net forums, is the absolutely horrendous state of repair that the burn bankings are in. Below the bridge at Dennyholm Wynd, the weir at Dennyholm Wynd backing onto the Paddockholm has 3 large holes in it which are actually getting bigger at every spate and all 3 of them are now down to bare earth having eaten their way through 3 feet of concrete, stone and brick. Then, if you actually look at the concrete walls from there to the bridge at Mill Road, both sides are collapsing in places and large portions of soil and bank are gone totally, leaving all of the houses in Glenriddet and Mill Road open to flooding.
I remember once about 30 years ago I actually saw council workers repairing bank sides in the Vale Park, but even that is needing urgent work done, we have had a taste of what the Garnock can do, but unless the powers that be address the issue of repairs to ALL of the banks and walls which line the Garnock in Kilbirnie, then only more of the same will happen and only the people of Kilbirnie and Glengarnock will as usual receive little or no help from the local authorities.
-
Good points well made Jon; I haven't seen these areas as you have described but I will certainly be making a point of have a look very soon.
As for repairs by the Council, I am guessing that NAC will say that they do not have the money for this, however I may be wrong. I also understand that they can apply to the Scottish Government for flood defence projects, however as of last month, no application has ever been made to them?
- This is another thing that was on the cards before the last election. Dalry By Pass, roundabouts on Beith Bypass, Flood Prevention, and Lochshore Regeneration. I suppose that's what happens when you swap a local MSP for a Glasgow Councillor.
- I was told that the council did apply for flood prevention for Kilbirnie but were turned down and asked to provide a bigger plan for all of the river, and that they have to wait for a new bill at Scottish Parliament to be passed before they can apply again.
- Easy Dan or you'll have the natpack after you.
-
Paul, I am of the opinion that NAC only asked the Scottish Government for advice on these matters?
The Environment and Rural Affairs dept. of the Scottish Parliament Information Centre have advised that officials in the flood policy unit of the Scottish Government were asked for "informal" advice on developing a flood prevention scheme in the Garnock Valley, but that no formal bid for a flood prevention scheme has been received from NAC at any time.
If I were a resident of Glengarnock who had been flooded on numerous occasions over the last few years I would be furious if this is indeed the case? Have the Council said that they had applied? If this is indeed the case, surely the person who stated this needs to be brought to account???
- Well it was the councillor who told me, he said he had asked a question at the council.
-
No political at all Malcolm.
Dan,
The Lochshore Scheme was stalled because the SNP changed Scottish Enterprise.
The Beith bypass was stalled because...?
The Dalry bypass hasn't happened because they took tolls from the Forth Bridge and want to build a new bridge, and don't have any money for places like the Garnock Valley. Our MSP was probly in Mexico when it happened.
-
Yet more political inaccuracies!
The Lochshore Project has not been stalled because the SNP changed Scottish Enterprise.
Central to the developement was selling off large areas at the North of Lochshore to housebuilders and the money raised would generate the remainder, or a large part of the remainder.
As everyone knows the current economic climate has hit housebuilders more than most and they cannot sell the houses they have built, never mind purchase a large are of land for future, speculative development.
Don't go looking for political scapegoats and blame where none exist.
- Sounds like an excuse for Lochshore not happening now, not for nothing happening since the election.
- No Mr Clarckson facts. When we lost a local msp who cares about the community we lost the opportunity. We now have someone who is not prepared to put the town first. The project was supposed to be taken to developers in summer 2007 didnt happened because Scot ENt got split up and it wasnt a priority for nat government. Its funny wher you can look for political scapegoats and blame when it suits you and your friend.
-
Tell me why it is still Scottish / Ayrshire Enterprise that are dealing with it then?
Ayrshire Enterprise are meeting with NAC at the beginning of next month to discuss further.
The TRUTH of the matter is that land earmarked for housing is central to the development as the monies raised are earmarked to decontaminate the land on the South of the site.
No housing developers are buying up land in the current climate.
Absolutely nothing to do with the SNP.
For info Alan, I have voted Labour all my life and will continue to do so, I have a dislike towards the SNP but do not see the need to blame them for matters outwith their control just to make a farcical political point.
-
Scottish Enterprise are dealing with it cos they own the ground. The real question was why have they not done anything since May '07, when they would have got builders desperate to get into it.
If you are a Labour supporter, why do you back up the misinformation spread by the Nats on the forum.
-
It is Enterprise Ayrshire that is dealing with it, meeting arranged for the beginning of next month, see above.
Statutories permissions are required Alan, once you get planning etc in place the land becomes more valuable when selling, these things do not happen overnight.
Why was nothing done prior to May 2007, indeed why has nothing been done since the steelworks were shut down? What did the Labour led politicians do about it in all this time if these things can be done so quickly as you allude to above?
I do not even know of any Nats on this forum Alan / Elains / whatever your name is.
What I do know is the vast majority of people on this forum have the gumption to use their own name whereas you do not.
I will join the many others on this forum and desist from replying to any of your posts until you have the decency to unveil yourself.
End of.
-
I agree, I canny stand people who don't have the honesty to reveal themselves in public!
As for Alan Rankiine, I am beginning to suspect that he is either a Tory or Nat imposter, as he has lost the Labour party a considerable amount of votes by his illinformed and nonsensical postings over the last few weeks!
-
Reveal themselves in public? I'd rather people keep there claes on.
Maybe I'm not as well informed as you and your friend, I haven't read anything about a Lochshore meeting. Where do you get your information from? If something's going to happen now it's been brouht up, then that's good, but nothing has happened since the election because our MSP cares more about independence than Kilbirnie. And comrade Clarckson, Labour only got into government since 1997 and that's when things started moving with Lochshore and stopped since the Nat got in. And I doubt Labour would have lost any votes wi you lot anyway and even then you can only get one vote each.
-
You are right, you are not well informed - not even informed. You should try reading something other than the Morning Star if you really want to be informed.
I will not reveal my sources to a faceless person who has no gumption to reveal their own name - let me know who you are and I will think about it. You really have a cheek to ask.
Lets use your logic, Labour were elected in 1997 and stayed in power for 8 powers and achieved a "feasibility study for Lochshore" no planning or funding.
SNP have been in power for 3 years and you expect everything to fall in place and have the works complete - illogical and unachievable in the current climate that Labour have created.
You have turned a serious debate on flooding into a political farce, all in the same week that a respected SNP councillor was laid to rest.
Hang your head in shame faceless one.
And here's me vowing not to reply to your ill informed rants as well!
- Herr Clarkson em, er, do you think we came up the clyde on a ballot paper? We er, em, er ken your em game? M, your nat smokescreen is fooling er, em, er naebody. Just you em, er, m wait. The m second er, em coming is imminent.
- s1kilbirnie has received an e-mail from MSP Kenneth Gibson about his whereabouts on the day of the flood. Read it here.
- Without appearing to be political, I think that the letter from Kenny Gibson has clarified matters significantly. ( I appreciate that AR will not see things quite the same however!) One area however that I am already having severe concerns about is the following, "The NAC report will not be published until mid November 2008 at the earliest. It appears that NAC do not wish to apportion blame"I sincerely hope that this is not the case as we do unfortunately need to have the blame for this event aportioned onto either Crudens or NAC. If this is not the case and the attempted whitewash is simply imposed upon the residents that were affected, then they (myself included) will lose out financially. I'm sorry, but I for one am not prepared to have the shortcomings of either the contractor or the Council swept neatly under the carpet.