Stopping the floods - time to think out of the box
Comments
-
Cheer up KE, I understand we are getting some of London's cast off carriages in the not too distant future.
Write your comments here...breathless with the anticipation of such largesse from our "betters" ,TDA!
Write your comments here...
Write your comments here...PS the trains on our local services are older than the pacers
0 -
We are fighting a losing battle. In my children's lifetime big chunks of East Anglia will be under water, where we currently live it is predicted we will be an island. Private individuals and company's are already funding their own flood defence. A holiday
camp is starting phase 2 of its 5 million pound scheme bringing in more Boulders from Norway to beef up the cliffs0 -
We are fighting a losing battle. In my children's lifetime big chunks of East Anglia will be under water, where we currently live it is predicted we will be an island. Private individuals and company's are already funding their own flood defence. A holiday camp is starting phase 2 of its 5 million pound scheme bringing in more Boulders from Norway to beef up the cliffs
But the difference is that the threat is from the sea not from excessive rain necessarily. Most of the Fens remain stable because of the deployment of cut off channels. Perhaps those clever engineers need to be looking at how they can disperse the volume of water. Expensive but worth thinking about. If Cornelius Vermuvden could do it 400 years ago it might be worth thinking about now?
David
0 -
York as flooded for many years, why isn't there a flood barrier same as London? or why is it that London can have money spent stopping it flooding and the rest of the U.K. Have to suffer? It's pathetic. Holland used to flood but it is rare that we
hear anything about Holland flooding. They spent money digging dykes so that they guided the water away from residential areas.That is not correct, MollyM. They are just now having to spend Billions of Euros on new flood defences, reinforcing the dyke walls and putting people out of their homes so that they can flood vast extensive of low land to stop cities being
flooded. They too were taken by surprise by the extent of rise in sea levels and the high rainfall over the last few years. BBC Radio 4 tonight.0 -
The self-serving banks and building societies share some of the blame as if they didn't give mortgages for these flood-risk properties the developers wouldn't build them.
Where can they build then, all the best high level land is already built on. People don't want to live hundreds of miles away from centres of employment. Farmers aren't just going to sell their land which has been in their families for generations, for building
purposes. Should we just force them to do so? Where then will we get our crops to grow, or must we be solely dependent on importing all our fruit, veg and cereals, and at what cost?0 -
The self-serving banks and building societies share some of the blame as if they didn't give mortgages for these flood-risk properties the developers wouldn't build them.
Where can they build then, all the best high level land is already built on. People don't want to live hundreds of miles away from centres of employment. Farmers aren't just going to sell their land which has been in their families for generations, for building
purposes. Should we just force them to do so? Where then will we get our crops to grow, or must we be solely dependent on importing all our fruit, veg and cereals, and at what cost?Developers should pick up the cost of providing adequate drainage, sewerage etc. and build flood-friendly properties, on stilts if necessary as elsewhere in wet countries.
The facts need to faced that it won't stop raining and local authorities, architects and developers must recognise this.
0 -
But all this would add to the cost of the properties and then they would not sell. They won't add the extra cost of installing solar panels to new house, which should be a must IMO, for the same reason. The majority of people want a house at the cheapest
possible price.0 -
Well put spriddler. It's rained in this country for years,it's time someone came up with a viable solution.
0 -
But all this would add to the cost of the properties and then they would not sell. The majority of people want a house at the cheapest possible price.
That is precisely the trouble Nellie; the majority these days want cheap everything, regardless of quality, then complain that products are unsuitable etc.
We are paying the cost of mopping up the errors anyway through insurance premiums, environmental agency projects and military, police and fire brigade attendance, plus the cost of reinstating electricity supplies and mending the broken up roads.
It's common practice to build properties in Australia, Africa, Holland, India etc. off the ground. I lived in a house on a low cost starter-home estate in Holland where each house was on a 'raft' that lifted in floods and the water supply, drains, gas, electricty
was supplied via flexible pipes and cables. Developers here want a quick profit for their fat cats' bonuses and shareholders' dividends.0 -
The Gov't says we need to build 250,000 new homes this year and they also tell us the there was a net influx to this country in 2013 of 225,000 people.
It doesn't take Einstein to work out why we have to build cheap and on unsuitable land.
0 -
The Gov't says we need to build 250,000 new homes this year and they also tell us the there was a net influx to this country in 2013 of 225,000 people.
It doesn't take Einstein to work out why we have to build cheap and on unsuitable land.
Write your comments here...I feel great sympathy when I see properties built in the 1800s and early 1900s flooded, but little or no sympathy to properties built after 1952, when flood damage risk and ways to build against it were well known about (I remember,the
floods of 1952). Building on flood plains without adequate flood protection isn't just Stupid, it's criminally dangerous.0 -
I moved to Lowestoft in June 2015 , the houses about a mile up the road were badly flooded in July 2015 , they were up to their waiste in water , why because the houses had been built on a marshy land the rivers had not been dredged because of wild life
living there etc etc and the river itself joined the sea , it was months before anyone accepted responsibility , they cleaned the river out themselves , why has it got to be a struggle to get anything done !0 -
Perhaps more thinking like the above needed
0 -
Every area has different things to consider, down here with some sections on peat based soil houses have to have to be built on deep piles. I lived in a mining area when growing up with new houses built on rafts to avoid subsidence and I went to a "rock
and school" also built on rafts. Some of the solutions will work I hope, but older houses will be depending on better planned general schemes. Civil engineers will be busy!0 -
Each county should be responsible for creating and maintaining their own flood defenses. Their councils caused the problem by allowing building on land which could flood. A national approach to flood defense will not work as there will always be an
area which gets preferrential treatment. No prizes for guessing which area this could be.A few pounds increase in the council tax should fund the flood defenses in the appropriate counties.
K
0 -
A few pounds increase in the council tax should fund the flood defenses in the appropriate counties.
As I don't live on a flood plain and not at risk, I don't particularly want to fund everyones misfortune. Those at risk can pay the extra Council Tax and get protection.
0 -
There seems to be only one town that has escaped the floods because they ignored the "experts" ,and listened to people who understood that there is more than huge flood defences to tackle the problem ,by reducing the amount of water running off the hills , and that is Pickering
0 -
I was reading an article in a paper that said that under an EU directive from 2000 to do with inland waterways we are not allowed too dredge the rivers.It went on too compair the flooding in Yorkshire which comes down off the hills too the Somerset levels
which are flat and dont have hills.According too the article the levels have four rivers too take water away but they still flooded because the rivers are silted up.It also said that most other EU countries just quietly ignore this directive but we dont.It
did,nt say if the directive was an enviromental issue or a conservation one.peter.
0
