What sort of collective madness took hold of this country and allowed planning permission to be granted for estates of houses, shopping centres, etc. to be built on areas that were known in the past to flood?
Take the example of the Glucksman Building on the UCC Campus - this is a stunning piece of architecture and surely some very bright minds were behind its construction. And yet it is built within yards of a river and on an area that has flooded in the past. How could those behind its construction have overlooked something so basic?
On the Frontline last night Pat Kenny pointed out that perhaps people should have been more wary about buying in places with names like "Waterways", "Riverside", etc. But those in the audience claimed that they had no way of knowing the areas were in flood plains - (I'm thinking particularly here of the lady from Sallins). Should the responsibility lie with the purchaser for not checking the history of an area?? What do others think?
Take the example of the Glucksman Building on the UCC Campus - this is a stunning piece of architecture and surely some very bright minds were behind its construction. And yet it is built within yards of a river and on an area that has flooded in the past. How could those behind its construction have overlooked something so basic?
On the Frontline last night Pat Kenny pointed out that perhaps people should have been more wary about buying in places with names like "Waterways", "Riverside", etc. But those in the audience claimed that they had no way of knowing the areas were in flood plains - (I'm thinking particularly here of the lady from Sallins). Should the responsibility lie with the purchaser for not checking the history of an area?? What do others think?