A NORTH-South divide could mean Worcester flood victims losing out to well-heeled homeowners in the Home Counties.

Angry victims of last year's flooding claim the Environment Agency's criteria for spending on defences insists on a three-to-one ratio - every £1m spent must protect £3m of property.

Worcester householders say that is simple in the south-east, where homes can easily cost £1m each.

But they fear that, with the agency having to justify spending to the Treasury, schemes to protect a handful of homes in lower-priced Worcester would not be agreed.

Mary Dhonau, chairman of the Worcester Action Against Flooding Committee, said the criteria must be changed after £98m was spent protecting a stretch of the Thames.

"Any money here has to be cost-effective," said Mrs Dhonau, of Waverley Street, Diglis.

"It will be easier to get the £3m benefits on the Thames because there are a lot of houses worth £1m. But, if houses cost a lot less in Worcester, it's not going to be cost-effective to them. They need to reduce the scale."

An agency spokesman said each location was looked at on its merits. There was no "rule-of-thumb".

"We have to meet strict Government rules when it comes to our feasibility studies. It looks at economic costs, what's going to be protected, how often it floods, and what damage it causes.

"Then it looks at the cost of defending the area. Then there are a lot of calculations and, if the ratio comes out at less than one for the feasibility, then it's not cost-effective."

Mrs Dhonau said flood victims were heartened by news that a £2m Severn Trent plan for a pumping station for the Waverley Street area was due to go before the city council this month.

Householders have also heard that one option could be for the Environment Agency to buy their homes.

But EA spokeswoman Lyn Fraley said there were "no proposals at the moment to do this. It was part of a discussion of all possible options for long-term management".

Ros Adams, of Waterworks Road, Barbourne, said that, whatever the arguments, the Agency needed to address the problem urgently.