DEAR EDITOR - Bromsgrove District Council has given what your paper termed a 'retort' as regards the flooding in Callowbrook Lane, Rubery, in which the council was reported as saying: "It is not fair to suggest that the council has failed to look after the interests of those residents".

I believe it is fair to suggest just that -

1 The cause of the flood was the blockage of the culvert by debris from up stream -- land owned by the council.

2 The consultants employed by the council in 1999 stated: "The catchment has become much developed, vastly increasing the run-off to the brook and the council's recreation ground was once a large and deep marl pit that may have provided a flood storage and flow attenuation facility." Also, an independent consultant engaged by the county council stated clearly that a lack of maintenance of the brook, not removing debris, could cause further flooding. He was ignored.

3 The council agreed on October 26, 1999 to honour its obligations and carry out the following works: a) the initial cleaning of the brook; b) the installing of a drain at the boundary of the recreation ground and the properties at Callowbrook Lane; c) following this a close monitoring of the situation.

4 In June 2000 the council, after receiving advice, decided to stop all works, even cleaning the brook out and to serve notices under Section 25 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 on the property owners of 115a and 119 Callowbrook Lane.

5 The district council would not accept £10,000 from the County council towards the costs associated with works to alleviate the flooding (September 1999).

There are other factors that could be added.

Anyone who attended the public meeting held in July last year will know just how unhelpful the district council was.

At the meeting it was the county council who offered to fund the works at a cost of £25,000, to put local residents out of their misery. Unfortunately, the cost of the works given by the district has snowballed, and with no financial help from the district council it has taken two years to get where we are today.

It is quite clear that the district council has failed to look after the interests of those residents.

Cllr P MacDonald,

(by e-mail)