Drainage rates

[Steevo]

I feel like I'm about to start a thread that could either be very short, or could ramble on for many pages.

Had the drainage rates bill come through recently and it got me thinking.

We only pay rates on a proportion of the land, not all of it. The boundaries of the drainage board only extend half way across a couple of fields. The funny thing is all of these fields drain the same way.....so the bottom of the field pays rates, but the top of the field does not. On top of that, the neighbours have one field uphill (which drains down through mine) and the top of their field is the peak, before the water drains back the other way.

I assume the area if calculated based on height ASL or such, but it seems head scratchingly strange to me that it isn't based on a catchment area based on peaks and troughs that actually drain into watercourses, rather than arbitrary ground heights.

 

[Brisel]

I farm both sides of the boundary of a watershed for 2 rivers. One is ok, the other is the Hampshire Avon, a very Sensitive Catchment. The boundary is along a valley bottom, not the ridge. That valley actually turns away from the boundary. This is like a political map in geography - drawn on lines of longitude and latitude, not lines of culture or topography.

 

[nelly55]

Don’t get me going on drainage rates,river silted up,drainage bd won’t discuss issues.tje list goes on.Yet again another planning application in ,desk top figures and as long as it drains off Joe Bloggs patch sod the rest of us .Bad day today very bad day

 

[Werzle]

Don’t get me going on drainage rates,river silted up,drainage bd won’t discuss issues.tje list goes on.Yet again another planning application in ,desk top figures and as long as it drains off Joe Bloggs patch sod the rest of us .Bad day today very bad day

If the b##tards were on performance related pay like we farmers they wouldnt earn a bean