"Government should compensate flood victims and purchase houses"

prowla

mayonnaise wrote: »

I disagree.
We're not talking some cowboys here who knowingly built or bought in a regularly flooded plain.
These are well established towns, Old Windsor, Datchet, Wraysbury, Egham, Staines, Shepperton...etc..
To assume that the inhabitants of the above made a well informed gamble to bag a cheap property is ludicrous.
And the house in the valley, especially a riverside location would attract a premium, not the other way round.

I agree (with you disagreeing) - this is not just foolish people buying on vast flood plains despite all warnings to the contrary.

Sure buildings right on the river bank would be something you have to consider, but those further back?

Of all those locations, I would guess that Old Windsor across the river would be the most obvious place where you would think twice about, but I've driven through Datchet many times and it never occurred to me that the roads and railway line would be underwater.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

which was amusing, if not a little worrying!

Moral hazard always comes up in this kind of catastrophe.

Some people's 'I'm alright Jack' attitude is worrying.

smartn

It's an interesting one but surely its the job of insurers/owners to sort this out unless the government can be proved negligent. The government should look at cost effective ways of introducing more flood defences though.

I own shares in SSE and Centrica and a direct result of political interference has cut the value of these companies. Should I be getting compensation? Personally I think not, all things have risks, you insure against those risks and can't expect a government bailout every time.

This is not to say I don't think the response and help should have been quicker for the flood victims and we are a wealthy country and should help out these people in there time of need but that doesn't go to the extent of buying there houses of them!

lostinrates

vivatifosi wrote: »

It's worse than that, something we were discussing on the NPT for a short while. Planning actually does turn down some applications for higher set houses or rural houses on higher land because they are not in keeping with the local norms. I think one of the flooded guys on the news said as much: he applied to build his house higher, but was turned down. Yes, you can build measures into new houses such as flood doors, but isn't it better to raise them up in the first place, as other more sensible countries would?

I also provided the example of a bungalow added to a farm. The farm has been in that family for a come of hundred years. Its a mill farm. They are pretty familiar with the flood pattern there and were some what resistant to building the retirement bungalow for retiring parents in the middle of the flood meadow nest to the millpond.. After a two year battle it was built over the road. Newer property owners might not have had that knowledge to present such a strong argument but also, the time it took is money better spent in other planning. In either location the property is ' not in keeping' with the historic nature of the mill farm, but does meet the needs of the retired elderly couple moving into it and their social care is met by their ( farming) children.

(I also mentioned I would have given the farm an alternative option were it me!)

Bantex_2

Buy a house on a flood plain, what do you expect?

lostinrates

Bantex wrote: »

Buy a house on a flood plain, what do you expect?

So e of them haven't bought a house on a flood plain. Some of them have inherited homes or family businesses like farms. Some are buying but trying to stay near family.

I do not believe they should be compensated at old market values but I can still have sympathy.

prowla

Bantex wrote: »

Buy a house on a flood plain, what do you expect?

Have you read the rest of the thread?

vivatifosi

lostinrates wrote: »

So e of them haven't bought a house on a flood plain. Some of them have inherited homes or family businesses like farms. Some are buying but trying to stay near family.

I do not believe they should be compensated at old market values but I can still have sympathy.

I agree.

There's also a fair chance in a one in 250 year event that some of the affected houses were not considered at great risk.

The red risk area maps show all the way up to the perimeter of Heathrow now, that's miles from the Thames... whole villages, not just one or two houses or streets.

Bantex_2

prowla wrote: »

Have you read the rest of the thread?

Yes, and stand by what I say. Cannot see it is the governments (taxpayers) problem if people make poor house buying decisions. Sometimes assets lose value for various reasons, why should houses be treated any differently?

smartn

Bantex wrote: »

Yes, and stand by what I say. Cannot see it is the governments (taxpayers) problem if people make poor house buying decisions. Sometimes assets lose value for various reasons, why should houses be treated any differently?

I can understand where you are coming from and agree that it's not the governments job to pay compensation for loss in house values however I think the government/taxpayers have a moral obligation to help these people out with increased funding for flood defences and dredging etc and to provide plenty of support while the crisis continues.