Flooding

[bigboab]

Watching the news this morning about people demanding Government help in flooded areas in the UK(England) it made me wonder who is to blame(Other than the weather).

How many of the houses involved are built in known flood areas? Why did/do Council Planning Departments allow building in such areas? I saw one TV reporter standing in floodwater up to her knees. There was a plaque on the wall of a house behind her. The plaque was about six foot above her head and displayed the line that floodwater reached in 1922.

In the town where I live there is an area about 1 square mile that is a well know flood area. It used to be a factory area. A foundry in the area had a section that was knicknamed 'The boat' because it had three furnace chimneys and was surrounded by deep floodwater on a regular basis.

Since the demise of factories this area has been rebuilt and contains a cinema and all the usual big stores etc, plus a few hundred private houses. They are building more at the moment. An eight foot embankment and wall has been built, courtesy of the EU. Nobody can tell me what happens if most of the flooding takes place inside the town and cant escape into the river because of the flood wall/embankment.

Is there any towns in your area where the same mistakes are being made with flood history bein ignored?

[Barbarossa]

I'm waiting for the offers of international help.

Look at all the help we gave the people of New Orleans when they got a bit soggy. Not to mention all the aid we give to Bangladesh, an entire country built on a flood plain...


I'm sure it's only a matter of time before the offers come flooding in.

[popopot]

I'm sure it's only a matter of time before the offers come flooding in.

Bu-dum-tish!

I saw on the news that most new housing developments are being built on flood plains, and apparently, the developers ask the environmental agency about flooding and whether they should build on flood plains; the agencies say no, but they just go ahead anyway. Also, the government has to subsidise the fucking thieving bastard insurance companies so that they will insure people that buy a house on a flood plain. Glad to see my tax money is being spent well. Fuckers.

[j2k4]

Is there any towns in your area where the same mistakes are being made with flood history bein ignored?

Don't know if you meant there or here, Bob, but we have tons of such examples, chief amongst them being New Orleans and our southern coastal areas which have been damaged by other recent hurricanage.

Rich guys on the coast get the government to rebuild their "beach houses" every time they get wrecked.

Sweet...for them, anyway.

Texas is a bit of a mess just now, too.

[jimbo12345]

they reckon when the polecaps melt, most costal areas will be gone anyway.

So, we'd have to build sea-defences before this, which must mean that we'd have to change the flow of rivers, as they'll be less places above sea level for the rivers to flow safely. Thats got to mean that the places considered reasonably safe now and above the predicted future sea levels, won't be. Property on mountains is the way to go.

[lynx]

I'm sure it's only a matter of time before the offers come flooding in.

Bu-dum-tish!

I saw on the news that most new housing developments are being built on flood plains, and apparently, the developers ask the environmental agency about flooding and whether they should build on flood plains; the agencies say no, but they just go ahead anyway. Also, the government has to subsidise the fucking thieving bastard insurance companies so that they will insure people that buy a house on a flood plain. Glad to see my tax money is being spent well. Fuckers.

Actually, the blame for this can usually be laid fairly and squarely at the door of the Environment Agency (EA).

The developer does not ask the EA for advice. If they did so and then ignored that advice they would almost certainly be liable, so they don't ask.

What happens is that the local authority will ask the EA for advice on allowing building on the flood plain, and the EA will usually say it is not advisable. That is sufficient for the local authority to refuse the planning application which is what they usually do.

At this point the developer lodges an appeal. That appeal is heard by none other than the EA, and the planning application is usually granted. Since the planning application has been approved by the EA, the developers are in the clear over future liability for flooding problems.

This system was introduced and approved by former deputy prime minister John Prescott. Who says he never did anything?

[popopot]

Bu-dum-tish!

I saw on the news that most new housing developments are being built on flood plains, and apparently, the developers ask the environmental agency about flooding and whether they should build on flood plains; the agencies say no, but they just go ahead anyway. Also, the government has to subsidise the fucking thieving bastard insurance companies so that they will insure people that buy a house on a flood plain. Glad to see my tax money is being spent well. Fuckers.

Actually, the blame for this can usually be laid fairly and squarely at the door of the Environment Agency (EA).

The developer does not ask the EA for advice. If they did so and then ignored that advice they would almost certainly be liable, so they don't ask.

What happens is that the local authority will ask the EA for advice on allowing building on the flood plain, and the EA will usually say it is not advisable. That is sufficient for the local authority to refuse the planning application which is what they usually do.

At this point the developer lodges an appeal. That appeal is heard by none other than the EA, and the planning application is usually granted. Since the planning application has been approved by the EA, the developers are in the clear over future liability for flooding problems.

This system was introduced and approved by former deputy prime minister John Prescott. Who says he never did anything?

I see. Ta. So money is also being wasted in the futility of denying the plans in the first place. Brilliant.

[vidcc]

I think there are other problems.

When a new development is planned there should/would be a requirement to have some sort of flood protection such as drainage or a barrier. This has it's own effect elsewhere. If water is prevented from flooding a natural flood area it has to go somewhere else.

I believe the UK has a growing housing shortage/affordability/space problem and to be able to build affordable houses and still make money prime land is too costly to use.

Here we have land problems around major cities but for the life of me I can't think of any explanation why people build on earthquake fault lines, guaranteed hurricane/tornado destruction zones or at the bottom of a muddy hill that will collapse if it rains for more than 30 seconds.

I find it hard to have any sympathy for the person on the news that says "this is the 12th time I've had to rebuild, but that river will not beat me"