Greater Manchester borough claims it is has not flood 'crisis relief' and is asking: 'Why not?'
Stockport council has made a plea to the government for 'urgently-needed resources', claiming funds to help with the clean-up in the wake of new year flooding hasn't come through.
A major incident was declared - with more than 1,000 people rescued across Greater Manchester - following torrential rainfall. Stockport was one of the worst-hit areas.
Around 400 people were forced to leave Meadow Mill in the town centre after the River Goyt burst its bank and flooded the car park and lower floors. Water and power supplies were cut off. Businesses at the industrial estate behind the flats suffered extensive damage.
READ MORE: Waiting in the toilets at Manchester Airport, a gang of Americans thought they were about to make a lot of money
READ MORE: Man tragically found dead in river almost two months after major search commenced is named
The A555 Manchester Airport Relief Road was left submerged for days, while properties in Cheadle, Bramhall and other areas of the borough were also damaged. Stockport council said some of those properties 'won't be habitable again for months'.
Town hall chiefs have now queried why financial support has not come through. The council's cabinet member for finance, Coun Jilly Julian, said the Flood Recovery Framework has not been activated for the area.
Established in 2017, it is a central government scheme to support households and businesses in cases of severe flooding. But the council says its provisions have not been triggered, as it was in as it was in 2019, 2023 and 2024.
"Without that decision, and the funding it makes available, councils simply cannot afford to provide badly needed relief," Coun Julian said in an open letter to Emma Hardy MP, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Water and Flooding.
"However, despite the widespread devastation across our borough, we have received no correspondence from central Government as to why this support has not been triggered.
"Therefore, on behalf of the residents and businesses of Stockport, I believe it's imperative to make two asks of you and your Government. Firstly, I'm keen to know why you chose not to activate the Flood Recovery Framework following the 1st of January 2025, and provide much needed crisis relief in an already challenging financial climate.
"Secondly, in the absence of this funding, will you provide urgently needed resources to help those residents and businesses who are in dire need of central government financial support?"
The government said it has set out plans for a new 'strategic vison for flood investment'. A consultation will be launched 'in due course', it added, which will 'will include a review of the existing formula to ensure that the challenges facing businesses and rural and coastal communities are adequately taken into account when delivering flood protection'.
A new Floods Resilience Taskforce has also been set up with the first meeting chaired last September. A government spokesperson said: "Our thoughts are with all those whose homes and businesses have been affected by the recent flooding, including those in Stockport.
"We pay tribute to the emergency services and first responders across the country for their continuous and dedicated work to keep communities safe. There is much more work needed to be done to protect homes which is why we are investing £2.4bn to build and maintain flood defences, which will help protect homes and businesses across the country."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Welcome to the Biocene: How ‘natural capitalism' can save America and the world
Something much deeper than the price of eggs was at work when voters re-elected President Trump last year. Most Americans were unhappy with the country's direction; they still are. Last month, 59 percent said they were dissatisfied with 'the way things are going in the United States.' It's not just that people have very different opinions about the day's pressing issues. We lack a national vision or mission that transcends our differences. No one has articulated a compelling alternative to the country's unease, ennui and anger. We had purpose in the past. What is our purpose now? Trump's version of America definitely is not it. If most of us are unsatisfied, perhaps it is because America is not living up to its image as an opportunity society. The 90 percent may feel that their physical and economic security is less certain than it used to be. Science tells us, and weather disasters confirm, that civilization is careening toward a dystopian future. Trump is pressing the accelerator. However, the climate is only one of nine 'safe operating spaces' for life on the planet. We have already left the safety zones for six. What might our mission be? I'll suggest one for the sake of discussion. Its dual objective would be to (a) give everyone the tools to be the best they can be and (b) return society to safe operating spaces in this century. Regarding the first objective, let's assume we have a choice between three economic and social systems. The first is Darwinian capitalism — a dog-eat-dog economy that results in a permanent wealth gap between the haves and have-nots. Success in the Darwinian economy often is not based on merit. The rich get richer by controlling and rigging economic policies. They buy influence and pay accountants to find loopholes that allow them to avoid taxes. They oppose government regulations because they want unhindered profiteering. They believe it is their manifest destiny to rule. Meanwhile, less fortunate Americans remain that way because of inferior education, unaffordable health care, institutional barriers, less intergenerational wealth transfer, the inability to escape 'sacrifice zones,' uninsured losses to weather disasters, and a tax system that shifts wealth upward. It is exceedingly rare that any of them find, let alone climb, ladders to the top. If there are geniuses, artists, scientists, educators, saints and potential philanthropists in their midst, we will never know. The alternative is social capitalism, similar to systems found in the Nordic countries, whose people consistently rank as the happiest in the world. It combines a market economy with government services that offer everyone the basic tools for success: universal health care, free quality education through the post-secondary level, equal pay for equal work, child-care assistance for working families, social safety nets for people with genuine disabilities, and so on. Social capitalism ensures equal opportunity but not equal results. Each person's success depends on their willingness to use the tools and work hard. And yet social capitalism would be intergenerational, with each generation handing the next a world of ample natural resources and ecosystem services, a stable climate, and a robust economy. The U.S. Constitution would codify this obligation by recognizing the rights of future generations. A third economic alternative would return civilization to the planet's safe operating spaces. It is 'natural capitalism,' an economy 'in service to life,' as Hunter Lovins, one of its leading advocates, describes it. Its objective is society's productive harmony with nature Its goals would include the following: With these and other steps, the U.S. would model an evolutionary shift in humanity's relationship with the rest of the natural world. The Anthropocene era, a mea culpa on humanity's mistreatment of the biosphere, we would progress to the Biocene, where we recognize and respect our symbiotic relationship with the rest of the biological world. Then, if we choose to transcend the surly bonds of biology, we might know enough to do no harm. William S. Becker, a former U.S. Department of Energy central regional director, is executive director of the Presidential Climate Action Project. The project is not affiliated with the White House.
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Francis Fukuyama: A Revisionist Nightmare
This personal reflection is part of a series called The Big Ideas, in which writers respond to a single question: What is history? You can read more by visiting The Big Ideas series page. I've been having a recurring nightmare lately. It begins sometime in the 2050s. My grandchildren are in college taking a survey course on contemporary American history. In the textbook, they read that a critical turning point for the United States was the 2020 presidential election, which Joseph R. Biden, Jr. successfully stole from Donald J. Trump. This injustice was corrected only in 2024 when the country returned Mr. Trump to office and began to undo some of the terrible damage that had been done, not just by Mr. Biden, but by a whole series of Democratic and Republican presidents. The U.S. economy has not been all that strong in the past few decades, but Americans are much more self-reliant than in the past. They have realized they do not need all the products, food, movies and people that had once been allowed to pour into the country. Travel outside the country is considered highly overrated. Americans had to adjust, in any case, to the Greater Chinese Co-Prosperity Sphere in Asia, which encompasses Japan, Korea and Taiwan (finally returned to its rightful home in the People's Republic of China). Wise American presidents had recognized that the people of Asia could make their own decisions without American help and thereby avoided World War III. A similar peace prevails on the western side of the Eurasian continent. Russia had righted the wrong brought about by the breakup of the Soviet Union by reincorporating Ukraine, the three Baltic countries, Georgia, Moldova and eastern Poland into its sphere of influence. Again, the world had been spared a nuclear war when Washington realized it had no business telling Moscow how it should behave toward its neighbors. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Incendiary: President Trump's deployment of Guard troops in LA draws ire
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's order to deploy California National Guard troops – over the objection of the state's governor – to deal with protests over immigration raids is mostly political theater, according to government officials. But it is an act that runs the risk of tilting the nation toward martial law, some say. 'Presidents set precedents and this one is escalatory, incendiary, and could come back to haunt all Americans,' Sen. Jack Reed, the top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said June 8. Trump's order gives 2,000 soldiers the authority to protect federal property like office buildings but no power to arrest civilians, according to a spokesperson for U.S. Northern Command, which is directing the operation. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth also has put an active-duty Marine unit on orders to prepare to deploy to California. The 300 members of the California National Guard who deployed Sunday to three sites in Los Angeles appeared to face little in the way of organized opposition, according to a Defense official who was not authorized to speak publicly. Their presence was a performative show of force, the official said, as their authority is clearly restricted. Most of the Guard soldiers are military police officers whose day jobs typically are in civilian law enforcement. They understand the need for restraint, the official said. If they see a protester vandalize federal property, a Social Security Administration office, for example, they can detain the suspect and turn them over to local police. Trump's order fell short of invoking the Insurrection Act, an 18th century law that gives the president authority to use the military to enforce federal law, suppress a rebellion or protect a group's civil rights if the state does not do so. It was last invoked in 1992 during by President George HW Bush at the request of California's governor in response to riots after police officers involved in the beating of Rodney King had been acquitted. Trump and Hegseth's unilateral action over Newsom's objection sets dangerous precedent, Reed said in a statement. 'It is crucial that decisions of this magnitude are made with transparency, restraint, and respect for constitutional balance,' Reed said. 'The President and Defense Secretary should immediately stand down these troops and Congress should reject this dangerous overreaction.' This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: president donald trump deploys national guard california
