Preparedness for when

thriftwizard

MTSTM, the Netherlands are a bit different to Cumbria and Lowland Scotland, in that they are a flat area at the end of a vast watercourse; the fresh water collects upriver in areas completely outside the remit of their Government. And a fair amount of the country was originally under the sea, which is also not subject to government, or even EU, policy. East Anglia is not dissimilar, but the regions with problems now are very different; dykes and ditches designed to channel slow-moving silt-laden water aren't going to be much use against vast quantities of fast-moving water sheeting off a bare fellside.

One big problem is that the politicians are going to go for easy answers now, to try to shut people up, rather than invest in long-term answers like growing broad-leaved trees that take decades to get to "useful" size and would probably be worth more as timber anyway. There is no incentive whatsoever for them to take the long view and challenge the EU policies that pay farmers to damage our uplands with a "crop" (sheep) that's worse than worthless (and I'm a spinner) but makes people think they are protecting our countryside. This needs to change...

moneyistooshorttomention

[QUOTE=GreyQueen

ETA; MTSTM Homes will have several electical circuits, some serving sockets and some lights. Even a tiny flat like mine has one socket circuit and one lighting curcuit. Most houses will have 2 or more socket circuits, at the least one upstairs and one down, sometimes two downstairs and one upstairs = this is just a standard 3 bed home. The wiring serving these will be horizonal in the walls at whavever height the sockets are set at- 18 incehs or 3-4 ft is a matter of choice.

From booking repairs and talking to electrical engineers, I know that water ingress into the electics will take down the trip and the water-damaged fittings will need to be isolated from the circuits (this is a professional job) so that the rest can be used safely. Wet fittings need several days to dry out before they can be re-instated. I would expect a house with standing flood water in it to have ruined ground floor sockets and saturated plaster, which may well have to be taken back to the brick, and all the wiring for the sockets replaced. There may also be some wiring running under floorboards, which will be ruined.

All these homes will need to be carefully checked for electical safety or you could have appliances being shorted out, and fire risk. Also, there are the consequences for the meters, which are the property of the utility company. Many houses have their meters in small boxes just above ground level near the front door, and these will have been underwater.[/QUOTE]

Yep...got that re different circuits and my little house duly has several different circuits. My sockets have two circuits - so when a socket recently shorted it sent out some of the sockets in the house, but the others kept working as normal.

Got that that the wiring in the walls to the sockets is horizontal (not vertical) and some people may even have wiring under the floorboards. Being totally non-technically minded as I am - than I am reading your post as meaning that if sockets were (for the sake of argument) 4' up from the floor and no wiring down underneath those floorboards - then, if that floodwater rose to 3'10" up from the floor then those sockets would presumably NOT get shorted and still be working okay?

I also interpreted your post as "The lights would still be working okay - because they are on a different circuit and the wiring to the light switches would be coming down the wall vertically to the light switches".

Have I interpreted that aright that if all sockets (AND their wiring) were up above flood level then they couldn't short out?

When you say re "water-damaged" fittings being isolated from circuits and that this is a "professional job" (ie electrician) then wouldn't it be the case that the householder in a standard house (ie with downstairs sockets down very near the floor and therefore flooded) would be able to push the button/throw the relevant switch on their circuit breaker board to just switch off those bits of the electrics only. Thus - carrying on using, say, the lights and upstairs sockets (ie because they are on different circuits)?

Yep...I'm definitely the customer my workmen need to explain these technical matters to "slowly and clearly":rotfl: so I understand what they are doing...

EDIT; just read Nuatha's post and yep...got that...re some houses will have junction boxes down under the floorboards. Or - put in my simpleton technical language - that would mean that if people have concrete floors (rather than floorboards) that they would know they definitely DON'T have those underfloor junction boxes.

Frugalsod

greenbee wrote: »

I was talking to a relative recently who is a civil engineer specialising in flooding (river and tidal to be specific) and it appears that it isn't just he politicians but the civil servants (who tend to be the ones who are around longer) who won't listen, or simply drag their feet making decisions.

I suspect that now they are facing budget cuts and so delaying any spend at all, knowing that there is no guarantee of being able to finish the work.

greenbee wrote: »

As my house is built on old watercress beds, with streams on both sides, flooding is something I need to consider. But it is also built on the highest part of the plot, on a floating concrete raft, with a 12" step up into the house. I'm still considering swapping the jet master for a stove (so I can block the vent under the fireplace) and getting flood proof doors. Unfortunately the boiler is in the garage which is rather lower, but can be protected with sandbags, and the electrics there are all 3' or higher.

Why not stick some out board motors on the concrete raft and if the flood does happen you just float up and then guide it to a nicer plot and then annex the ground that you land on?

BigMummaF

I'm probably going to be de-fonted for saying the following but if I keep quiet, I shall not be given alternative opinions & thus, will not evolve to be the best person I can be. Please remember that I am kinda thinking aloud & at no point, do I mean to cause offence.
Here goes...

One of the biggest mistakes to hit social housing & the benefits system, was to 'give' a woman the right to their own dwelling when they had a child. I know there are many reasons for single parent families, but I'm talking about those who purposely set out to create a situation that puts them higher up the list. I'm a 'single' parent but was in an established relationship when their father decided he wanted his freedom more than he wanted to fulfill his responsibilities, so consider myself a 'deserted wife'.

The U.K. is an island; when we run out of space, there is nowhere else to go. We're already building on historic geographical flood plains; surely that says we are full NOW, doesn't it? It's not just a housing crisis, it's schools, hospitals, shops & WORK too.

Why do some people need two or more completely furnished homes when they could - & should! - support local economies by booking their holiday like us plebs have to. If you have to visit somewhere that often, make 'halls of residence' type accommodation for them to stay in & put dormitories in Parliament. If our Armed Forces are expected to manage on the very basics then it's good enough for that lot too :mad::

We don't need fracking to disrupt the water tables any further either...

I welcome your opinions but don't really want to get into who did what when they were in power, cuz each of 'em have played a part over their time.

Frugalsod

The problem is that there will always be those that seek to game the system. The fact that many companies were giving advice on what benefits to claim like working tax credits meant that they were being subsidised by the tax payer. So single mothers or companies not paying their staff enough to live on which is the bigger villain?

Also building on flat flood plains is a lot easier and cheaper to build on than slopes, so that does not mean that we are full as a nation. It is just more profitable for developers to build there.

As for the empty homes then the solutions are taxes or council tax reforms, though I suspect that this could be mismanaged in such a way as to make it too painful for the average household to even catch the cabinet minister with several homes.

pineapple

We can debate about the causes and the solutions but both of these are going to be long term. Meanwhile the message we should all be taking home is don't for one minute expect to be bailed out (literally in this case) in an emergency. For every one of those communities in the media spotlight there will be many just being left to get on with it.
With my tin foil hat on I suspect we are not being told just how bad it is going to get in terms of pressure on resources and ensuing conflict.
I think we are at the 'fiddling while Rome burns' stage.
It might sound incredible but I believe our children's children may come to view this period as a time of plenty.
Or maybe I've just been watching too much Mad Max...

greenbee

BigMummaF wrote: »

I welcome your opinions but don't really want to get into who did what when they were in power, cuz each of 'em have played a part over their time.

So true... after all, they're all politicians :cool:

BigMummaF

I see your point Frugal, about building of slopes & things, but don't we need those slopes to do their thing in the Water Cycle too? And where are we supposed to graze animals & plant crops if the bit of land that is left, is reduced to bog?

All this faff over paying the Living - as opposed to Minimum - Wage is unbelievably short-sighted too; looks good on paper but how on earth is it ever going to work in practise In Any Where, area there's an independent trader, been there for years & employs around 12. To be able to pay them the shop puts up their prices, so any advantage of the rise is immediately countered by increase in outlay. Multiply that by everything you have to pay for & you're no better off than you are now!
The government just does not live in the same reality as the rest of us, & I reckon people have had enough of their 'blue sky thinking' for whatever reasons. If l didn't live so far away from a large city I'd be there protesting the cuts & challenging mps (they don't deserve capital letters) to live on a basic wage for six months, then see what bright ideas they come up with :mad:

nuatha

BigMummaF wrote: »

One of the biggest mistakes to hit social housing & the benefits system, was to 'give' a woman the right to their own dwelling when they had a child. I know there are many reasons for single parent families, but I'm talking about those who purposely set out to create a situation that puts them higher up the list. I'm a 'single' parent but was in an established relationship when their father decided he wanted his freedom more than he wanted to fulfill his responsibilities, so consider myself a 'deserted wife'.

I used to be a youth worker and have also worked with homeless, I've only ever come across one case where someone got pregnant to get a house. I have come across cases where the benefits system made it impossible for both parents to live together. There's been a huge amount of crap published in the media over the years (and the one case I mentioned above, did so because she'd read in the papers that it was the fastest way to get a house)

The U.K. is an island; when we run out of space, there is nowhere else to go. We're already building on historic geographical flood plains; surely that says we are full NOW, doesn't it? It's not just a housing crisis, it's schools, hospitals, shops & WORK too.

We can't invent more land, true. We currently live on approx 3% of the available land in the UK. Part of the problem is that people want to live within easy access to certain points, so being able to develop land with easy access to London is highly profitable, given this has long been the situation and Londoners (quite rightly) take a dim view of building in the parks and heaths then that means using whatever other land there is. As Frugalsod points out building on floodplains is fairly cheap, they tend to be relatively level and centuries of alluvial silt means they are easy to dig.
People want to live close to the sort of facilities you mention - though there has been discussion recently of another New Town initiative, developers generally aren't interested in building infrastructure (I know several developments that 20+ years on are still waiting for the promised shops and GP surgery) so they build relatively close to existing infrastructure (or build commuter dormitories).

Why do some people need two or more completely furnished homes when they could - & should! - support local economies by booking their holiday like us plebs have to. If you have to visit somewhere that often, make 'halls of residence' type accommodation for them to stay in & put dormitories in Parliament. If our Armed Forces are expected to manage on the very basics then it's good enough for that lot too :mad::

In general I agree.
Though until last year I did have an off grid holiday home (a grander description than the reality would suggest).

We don't need fracking to disrupt the water tables any further either...

Cognisant of your next comment, but one but piece of specific blame, fresh from negotiations about tackling climate change which the media trumpeted as us all having to give up gas, Cameron announced fracking in National Parks. Complete and utter contradictions let alone the lack of any actual sense.

I welcome your opinions but don't really want to get into who did what when they were in power, cuz each of 'em have played a part over their time.[/size][/font]

In general, I agree. Though some blame game might be necessary in trying to understand why x was done (and even what) a lot more effort needs to be put into providing actual long term solutions.

pineapple wrote: »

I think we are at the 'fiddling while Rome burns' stage.
It might sound incredible but I believe our children's children may come to view this period as a time of plenty.
Or maybe I've just been watching too much Mad Max...

I think politicians fiddling has been the major feature of the second half of the 20th century onwards (and probably long before).
You are almost certainly correct regarding future generations. I know the Golden Age myth has been with us for as long as we've had history, however I think we can now see exactly when the Golden Age was and the signs of it ending.

Is it possible to watch too much Mad Max?

fuddle

One example that I can give is:

The agreement to turn green belt land right along a riverside into brown belt. Then agree to the building of houses, destroying over 100 allotment plots in the mean time. Trees/shrubs/bushes felled in return for concrete over vast swathes of land.

These houses aren't for social housing, they aren't for first time buyers or the likes of the vast majority of people I know. They are for people who can afford to buy big and expensive in an area that is known for it's beauty dictating expensive property prices.

As far as I am concerned, and again this is someone voicing their opinion, I believe that so much of this is about greed from those that already have. They want more, they want better and there's plenty of people out there that will sell them it while manipulating moral high grounds to get it.

That's just what I have observed in a place where I lived. I'm not saying it's the reason to blame, I'm just saying that there are so many factors in what is happening right now.

I will go hunt out the guardian pieces. Thank you.

Elona you sound well and coping. Lovely DD's you have there, bless them. I am saddened by all the areas that this is happening to and so hope lessons can be learned.

I think we think we are highly intelligent beings who should be able to protect ourselves come what may but in reality we're greedy people who thrash about our intellect as a way of getting what we so desire and sod the consequences.