bloodyjon

Like it or not you live in an urban city where the city landscape will evolve. Floods will happen more often than not and just because a major flood hasn't occurred in *your* lifetime doesn't mean it won't in the future. In any case the park will only be flooded when necessary thus saving people's properties and businesses from destruction. Or is the sight of damage properties and likelihoods better than spoiling your precious park for that one week in decades when it actually do flood? Stop being so selfish.

So you have no problem with this as long as another park bears the brunt out of sight? Nimby.

So people's homes are worth destroying so you can carry on using a waterlogged park??

What an ill informed alarmist post by the OP, who would rather see homes get flooded so a bunch kids can continue playing football whenever it rains heavily.

What a typical James storm in a tea cup Barber post. Some people might believe that a swimming pool is excessive (I do) but I really don't see what relevance it to this discussion. Would the road closures have been less bad if they were building something else? Also at a time when police should be focusing their resources on tackling crime, to advice people to call the police to deal with *intermittent* road closures three times a day is downright irresponsible.