If you live on a flood plain = You're going to get flooded

[portlock seagull]

Well I don't claim to have special powers but it was something I factored 10 years ago because we live in times of climate change. Hence why I bought a house on a hill above the very houses that are now flooded. Even though village hasn't flooded for nearly a century. I pay attention to the news and climate change. Looking at history books or listening to local estate agencies saying hasn't flooded in living memories didn't wash with me. I find it incredible people don't think just because it hasn't happened recently doesn't mean it can't happen given we've ruined this planet. If anything it will just become more frequent!

 

[beorhthelm]

The fact that rainfall has topped all records held and that people having lived in an area for over 40 years have not experienced flooding before ...

where are you talking about? not the Somerset levels thats for sure.

 

[Husty]

The fact that rainfall has topped all records held and that people having lived in an area for over 40 years have not experienced flooding before does indicate that flooding could hardly have been anticipated,as you appear to have special powers maybe you would inform us of any disasters in the future.

The fact it can't be ****ing anticipated is even more reason that people need to shut up and ****ing get on with it rather than standing around and whinging to the media, bunch of entitled twats.

 

[Gullys Cats]

It's an act of god right.....

Cue the athiests!

 

[Creaky]

And that's only the BOTTOM of the garden?? how big is the Top part?? that sure is a slightly bigger than average garden!

5.5 acres.

Going back to the Somerset Levels the people living there DO have a genuine complaint - if the problems were solely down to the exceptional heavy rainfall then those who are saying people living there should expect to be flooded may have a point.

The Somerset Levels is 'reclaimed' land, much sitting at or below sea level. The occupants do expect to be flooded, not necessarily the general population, but certainly the farmers. The number of houses that have been, and remain flooded is relatively low, no more than 50.

So as some clever dick suggests, you live in a house on the top of a hill, essentially what has happened in the Levels. the houses are built on the highest ground and haven't flooded. So there you are in your 'I'm alright Jack' house sat on a hill and the rains come - nothing has been done to keep the rivers and ditches free so the bottom of the hill floods and stays flooded for weeks - sure you're dry in your hilltop residence, but can't get out, have no food, no gas, no electricity and no emergency services - you wouldn't complain because you're dry!

The choice is quite stark - you either abandon huge chunks of the country such as the Levels, East Anglia and large parts of Essex, (some of the best arable land in the country), or taxes are used, (as they have been for centuries), and ensure that the drainage and flood defences are maintained. I wonder how the Dutch would decide?

 

[Hastings woody]

5.5 acres.

Going back to the Somerset Levels the people living there DO have a genuine complaint - if the problems were solely down to the exceptional heavy rainfall then those who are saying people living there should expect to be flooded may have a point.

The Somerset Levels is 'reclaimed' land, much sitting at or below sea level. The occupants do expect to be flooded, not necessarily the general population, but certainly the farmers. The number of houses that have been, and remain flooded is relatively low, no more than 50.

So as some clever dick suggests, you live in a house on the top of a hill, essentially what has happened in the Levels. the houses are built on the highest ground and haven't flooded. So there you are in your 'I'm alright Jack' house sat on a hill and the rains come - nothing has been done to keep the rivers and ditches free so the bottom of the hill floods and stays flooded for weeks - sure you're dry in your hilltop residence, but can't get out, have no food, no gas, no electricity and no emergency services - you wouldn't complain because you're dry!

The choice is quite stark - you either abandon huge chunks of the country such as the Levels, East Anglia and large parts of Essex, (some of the best arable land in the country), or taxes are used, (as they have been for centuries), and ensure that the drainage and flood defences are maintained. I wonder how the Dutch would decide?

Why use Tax money. Just stop foriegn aid for now. This country needs it right now. use it on flood defences.

 

[goldstone]

It's an act of god right.....

Cue the athiests!

I knew that "god" guy was an evil SOB.

 

[Weststander]

Fighting nature, in an increasingly wet climate (as predicted by almost all climatologists, who far from predicting a Mediterranean climate for us, for many years now have predicted that N W Europe would become increasingly wet, windy and with extreme events, as sea temperatures rise over the long term). This is what we have now, like it or not.

Councils and their planning units, and Government guidelines, must now take this into account, and stop with immediate effect the building of housing and shopping centres on flood plains.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Fighting nature, in an increasingly wet climate (as predicted by almost all climatologists, who far from predicting a Mediterranean climate for us, for many years now have predicted that N W Europe would become increasingly wet, windy and with extreme events, as sea temperatures rise over the long term). This is what we have now, like it or not.

Councils and their planning units, and Government guidelines, must now take this into account, and stop with immediate effect the building of housing and shopping centres on flood plains.

No this is what we have at the moment. It may well be the future but the last couple of winters have been cold and snowy rather than wet and windy. We're in the rather ludicrous position that local authorities are pilloried one year for not having enough grit, then the following year for having inadequate flood defences and dredging. Meanwhile, a central government that was partly elected on more localism is cutting their funding in real terms. You can't win.

 

[Weststander]

No this is what we have at the moment. It may well be the future but the last couple of winters have been cold and snowy rather than wet and windy. We're in the rather ludicrous position that local authorities are pilloried one year for not having enough grit, then the following year for having inadequate flood defences and dredging. Meanwhile, a central government that was partly elected on more localism is cutting their funding in real terms. You can't win.

Yes, we had unusual amounts of snow in SEEngland in most of the last 5 years, but in total that was a few days out of an entire year's weather. But the overall trend is more mild in the course of an entire year, and year on year. This winter is typical of the last 25 years - how many times have we had to scrape frost off cars this entire winter - once or twice? I cannot recall autumns and winters years ago of relentless low pressure systems dumping rain and blowing violent gusty gales month after month, but this is common now, and until last year, the summers 2007 to 2012 were cloudy and often wet in S E England. As predicted, overall it's becoming a more mild, maritime, windy and wet climate.

I never pilloried Councils or Airports for not having enough grit, ploughs and snowblowers, during those freak snowy spells, after 20 years of next to no snow. It would have been madness to spend £100m's out of limited budgets to cater for rare events.

Just saying that further building on flood plains is madness in this increasingly wet and extreme climate.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Yes, we had unusual amounts of snow in SEEngland in most of the last 5 years, but in total that was a few days out of an entire year's weather. But the overall trend is more mild in the course of an entire year, and year on year. This winter is typical of the last 25 years - how many times have we had to scrape frost off cars this entire winter - once or twice? I cannot recall autumns and winters years ago of relentless low pressure systems dumping rain and blowing violent gusty gales month after month, but this is common now, and until last year, the summers 2007 to 2012 were cloudy and often wet in S E England. As predicted, overall it's becoming a more mild, maritime, windy and wet climate.

I never pilloried Councils or Airports for not having enough grit, ploughs and snowblowers, during those freak snowy spells, after 20 years of next to no snow. It would have been madness to spend £100m's out of limited budgets to cater for rare events.

Just saying that further building on flood plains is madness in this increasingly wet and extreme climate.

Sorry I was making two separate points. You're right about building on flood plains. The question remains though should we plan for climate or plan for actual weather events? I don't think the funding's there for both. You're clearly saying we should plan for climate. I wonder how many other people would agree?

 

[Seagull over Canaryland]

Fighting nature, in an increasingly wet climate (as predicted by almost all climatologists, who far from predicting a Mediterranean climate for us, for many years now have predicted that N W Europe would become increasingly wet, windy and with extreme events, as sea temperatures rise over the long term). This is what we have now, like it or not.

Councils and their planning units, and Government guidelines, must now take this into account, and stop with immediate effect the building of housing and shopping centres on flood plains.

When huge targets for new housing were imposed on local authorities by John Prescott back in the early 2000s it was not matched with an insistence that the necessary infrastructure - hospitals, schools, transport, water supply, drains must also be provided. Fortunately the recession meant that much of this development was delayed or cancelled however in many cases the infrastructure didn't materialise, which has inevitably exacerbated the problem of existing drains and rivers not being maintained.

Even so I do feel that if you buy a property on the Somerset levels or in the Thames Valley that it is mainly incumbent on you to do the research on flood risk, take note of global warming, rising sea levels and then if you decide to purchase a property in these areas then you have to take the responsibility. Plus if flood warnings are given to take reasonable preventative action rather than just not bother and then blame someone else or expect the Government to ride to the rescue. Yes the recent rainfall has been exceptional but surely even more reason to give serious thought to your local situation. I witnessed superb resilience here on our coast during the recent storm surges, because punters knew it is a historical problem, listened to the excellent warnings, took positive action, no one got hurt and yes a few properties got badly flooded but they took responsibility and got on with it.

Flooding is a horrible experience and the consequences invariably don't go away for many months so I have sympathy for the genuine victims who have done all they reasonably can to mitigate the effects but still get inundated. But seeing some of these distraught home counties types on TV who have just woken up to the inconvenience and are demanding David Cameron and the army personally sort out her wet carpets otherwise little Jemima and Tarquin will be late for their ballet lessons because Mummy doesn't know how to drive the Range Rover through floodwater to Waitrose.

Ditto if you live on high ground you have to take responsibility in the event of not being able to get in or out due to icy roads, especially if some reason the Council cannot grit the roads, or this isn't effective. These are reasonable practical considerations when buying a property and not acceptable to just offload that responsibility on someone else. Sooner or later there will be bad weather.

We have seen a lot of complaints in my area of Norfolk from residents who don't like the noise from low flying military aircraft. Ok it does get very very noisy for short intense periods and some people will find this unbearable. But I find it bizarre that punters will buy properties within 20 miles of the 3 main air bases in East Anglia and then complain about the noise. These bases (eg Marham) have been there for almost a hundred years. Plus the with cut backs in budgets the volume of flying is significantly less than ever, plus punters seem to forget that there are brave service people actually training for operations in Afghanistan.

But then we also get JCLs moving here and complaining about noisy tractors or even cockerels crowing FFS. Some people just don't respect and understand the environment they live in.

 

[Nibble]

They've now closed my local Tesco's due to flooding. The irony.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Where is the DEC when you need them ? Severe flooding in Bangladesh or The Philippines sends all the charities and quangos into overdrive with aid arriving within days half way across the world.

 

[Bold Seagull]

When huge targets for new housing were imposed on local authorities by John Prescott back in the early 2000s it was not matched with an insistence that the necessary infrastructure - hospitals, schools, transport, water supply, drains must also be provided. Fortunately the recession meant that much of this development was delayed or cancelled however in many cases the infrastructure didn't materialise, which has inevitably exacerbated the problem of existing drains and rivers not being maintained.

This isn't entirely true. The planning policy and Local Plans from the 2000's were for housing developments to be submitted with sustainable urban drainage plans, flood risk assessments and making both social housing contributions and Section 106 agreements to go toward highways, play areas, and infrastructure requirements. Part of the reason why many of the developments given planning permission have not gone ahead is because the financial requirements of the contributions to infra-structure have been too onerous to make them viable. There were also updated rules regarding no rainwater run off from hardstanding, permeable paving and driveways, and no discharging of rainwater into combined sewers from new developments.

Even that said, the house building built post 2000 has generally had to pass the most difficult sustainable and infra-structural requirements that has ever been required. The big problem has been housing built pre-late '90's where you were still allowed to discharge rainwater into combined sewers, hard standing with no on site drainage / soak aways, and with flood zone plans not adequately updated.

The fact is, many flood zones have had their maps revised and updated over the years. A house bought a decade or so ago which was under no flood risk, may now well be in a flood zone today. Of course it's incumbent on people to research the location of their property, but there will be people flooded who were told nothing, and are in locations that have no history of flooding.

We all pay our taxes for our infrastructure and clearly if this has been neglected then people are going to be very angry. The house builders don't have to foot the bill for our entire drainage infra-structure, so blaming a policy of 2000 I think is just a drop in the flood plain!

 

[Nibble]

Popped over to see my Stepfather, he is running around like the 3 minute warning has sounded. Exhausting individual.

 

[Vegas Seagull]

Any NSC stalwart out there need some help with sandbagging etc??

 

[Creaky]

Where is the DEC when you need them ? Severe flooding in Bangladesh or The Philippines sends all the charities and quangos into overdrive with aid arriving within days half way across the world.

The difference is that with our floods it is not people's lives that are at risk - it is the economy. Relatively speaking there are not many houses at risk of flooding - it is mainly farmland.

There is little doubt that the cost of food will rise following these floods - we have already seen problems with railways and roads that have been flooded - these are consequences that affect us ALL regardless of whether we actually live in a flooded area.

 

[Nibble]

The difference is that with our floods it is not people's lives that are at risk - it is the economy. Relatively speaking there are not many houses at risk of flooding - it is mainly farmland.

There is little doubt that the cost of food will rise following these floods - we have already seen problems with railways and roads that have been flooded - these are consequences that affect us ALL regardless of whether we actually live in a flooded area.

That's not quite true. Towns up and down where I live are all being evacuated as are many along The Thames. There is an increasing risk to property and vulnerable folks, of course, we are highly unlikely to start getting cholera outbreaks.

 

[TWOCHOICEStom]

Can a mod please reword the title of this thread. It actually makes me twitch. Either of these is good.

Option A: If you live in a flood plain, you're going to get flooded.
Option B: You live in a flood plain. You're going to get flooded.
Option C: If thou resideth on the plain of a flood, the graciuos waters of God shal come forth unto thee.

Thanks in advance,
Tom's OCD