flood plains

[wallis1007]

So,the government have said that there is not enough evidence to stop building new houses on flood plains.How much bloody evidence do the bunch of numbnuts want. when will they learn that you can't just keep building houses (especially on flood plains). Apart from coverng the ground with concreteso the water can't soak away, the drains aren't capable of the amounts of water we are now seeing.We need to stop building more houses and concentrate on protecting the ones we have now.This was going to be a question but ended up more of a rant.GRRRR. sorry. Anyway opinions please.

[Whickerman]

As an outsider looking in, i think your point is more than valid, and watching the news on bbs and sky earlier I must say that it seems ludicrous.

[whiffey]

The entire news tonight, BBC, C4, is concentrated on floods. And still still they talk about building more houses, more and more bloody houses, more and more people, more and more relentless cars. It's time to tax severely any couple having more than 2 children.

God help us all if floods affect an ethnic minority area.

It is raining here, and has been solidly since 5pm.

[kwicky]

I think many people have got the wrong end of the stick. Flooding has occurred because rainwater is unable to be channelled away into the rivers as the river level is the same height as that on the flood plains. The obvious solution is to dredge the rivers and put in extra flood barriers like the Thames Barrier. The City of London is on a flood plain but the barrier prevents the river height exceeding the flood wall allowing rain water to enter the that part of the Thames. If this was done flood plains could accommodate more housing. The extra water built up could be channelled into a new river diverter as found in West London.

[mushroom25]

I always thought the Thames Barrier was there to stop storm surges from the sea, not to contain floods caused by rain.
Am I wrong?

[kwicky]

They do have additional flood barriers like the one on the Medway. The problem with that one is the water floods places like Yalding in Kent because the water is being held back.

[kwicky]

Like this one:

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/commondat a/acrobat/126554

[Andyvon]

Hi Wallis,

In the 1980s, I spent two years working in the Planning Department of my local County Council. One of my tasks was to assess what were termed 'constraints' affecting planning applications. Constraints include Green Belt, electricity and gas lines, footpaths, archaeological sites etc. Two of the constraints I had to assess for application sites were the 1947 and 1963 floodplains.

I was always amazed when planning committees granted permission for applications in those floodplains. Often when I learned another floodplain application had been granted I would ask around the office how that could happen. I always got the same reply from my fellow planners - "We need the building land, that area is only expected to flood once every fifty years, and its up to people to be insured".

That was in the 1980s. Since then, New Labour have become fixated on this build, build, build mentality, far more than Margaret Thatcher. It's quite obvious that floodplain development is even more acceptable to this government and that they are still happy for the inevitable flood damage to be met by insurers.

[jno]

yes, the clue is in the word 'floodplains', isn't it. But where exactly are people to live? We can't all be on the 20th floor; but because families are much smaller than they used to be the same number of people need a lot more houses. Where can they go?

[Andyvon]

There's no obvious answer is there jno - if I had one then I'd be making millions.

It's not practical or economically viable to protect every single premises at risk and it doesn't work on a larger scale (look at New Orleans, flooded 27 times in 200 years). The problem is that insurance companies are reaching the point where they are no longer covering homes in the floodplain, or premiums are so high that families can't afford them.

[Andyvon]

Sorry - still not finished!

I suppose the only answer for many people is just to make sure their own premises/home etc is prepared for when the next floods come. That's fine if you have the money and the practical abilities but most people don't. Other than that, I don't know.

[wallis1007]

jno, I think there is an answer. THIS COUNTRY IS FULL. More people means more building (on floodplains) more cars and more strain on the drainage system.We need to seriously limit the amount of people in this small country, It can't cope any more.I'm sat here now waiting for for my town to flood. We have been put on flood alert for tonght. Lets see what tomorrow brings.

[mightyWBA]

Building on flood plains is unnecessary.
Here in the West Midlands we have vast areas of empty factories ,since all our manufacturing has now gone to India and China.
Build the houses here instead.
Mind you if the ask the Dutch nicely I'm sure they could give some tips on how to keep the water out.

[jno]

Full? Tell that to the Japanese, wallis1007. They have twice as many people in a country the same size. Britain has a long, long way to go.

[wallis1007]

Your right jno. The Japanes have got serious problems with OVER population. Would it not be wiser to control it BEFORE it gets to that ?

[kwicky]

There is no reason why houses cannot be built on flood plains. I keep seeing suggestions where the ground floor is reserved for car parking.

[Scylax]

The answer could be in a simple piece of legislation:
all builders should be obliged, by law, to insure the
houses that they erect. Ditto for all other buildings. They
would certainly think twice before laying bricks on
floodplains.