"Government should compensate flood victims and purchase houses"

N1AK

CKhalvashi wrote: »

It can (and will) be chucked out of planning in this circumstance. Then they come back with a car park below the apartments and we may think about approving it.

I've seen a few of those types of developments and it does amuse me. Surely, the first thing people should think when they see it is: Well this is clearly a place that's going to flood

BillJones

vivatifosi wrote: »

That how I felt when I moved here Bill. 450 ft above sea level, about 150ft above the nearest river. I felt so gutted for my neighbours when their houses flooded due to a massive burst water main. You never know what is around the corner.

No, I know that, but I just don't think that the state should be in the business of compensating people financially for unfortunate events such as that. Rescuing and protecting, yes, paying for new furniture, no.

vivatifosi

N1AK wrote: »

I've seen a few of those types of developments and it does amuse me. Surely, the first thing people should think when they see it is: Well this is clearly a place that's going to flood

They built one near me. No risk of flooding, just the developer shoehorning as much as they can onto land the size of a postage stamp... another poss reason for that solution.

CKhalvashi

N1AK wrote: »

I've seen a few of those types of developments and it does amuse me. Surely, the first thing people should think when they see it is: Well this is clearly a place that's going to flood

The land that came to mine there that we did that with was formerly a car park. Still 4 storey, just with parking underneath now, not to the side.

Part of it was a parking issue that we rejected it on, they came back with further plans to dual storey the car park (which solved the parking issue), and we then rejected it on the river flooding 15 years before.

You are, for the most part, spot on, as it flooded last week!

CK

skitler

you have been warned for years about living next to a river or on flood planes.


if you haven't moved your self why should others pay your way out.


some folk eh !!

System

Bantex wrote: »

Because the government did not make the floods happen, as opposed to a motorway build which is a deliberate act.

I think there is an on-going debate about that point.

It is obvious that the government and EA must be considering the possibility of abandoning some areas in favour of others. It's their job to look at such options.
In the same way as it is their job to weigh up the pros and cons of a motorway here, a high speed rail link there, a new town here, a reservoir there, etc etc.

To the extent that the consequences are the result of government action, or inaction, then compensation should be paid.

prowla

N1AK wrote: »

Why? Beyond the fact that you have deemed flooding to be one side of an arbitrary line in the sand. If I buy a house in an area at risk of flooding then that is an action I have chosen to take, the same as if I buy a house in an area with high crime etc.

If the government has been neglecting flood defences in an area then that's one thing; if the risks of flooding have been increasing due to climate change or have remained the same then it's something else entirely.

I'm glad your second paragraph at least goes part way to accepting that not all of the flooded areas were forseeable and that the government indeed has a responsibility for flood defences.

And similarly, I'm agreeing that if you buy a house right by the river with the waves gently lapping against the front of your decking patio, then you might not get much sympathy if the levels do rise and you get your feet wet.

But it should be quite obvious from the pictures that we are seeing that there are a heck of a lot of areas which fit into the former of those categories.

I can't say exactly where your line in the sand is, but I am pretty sure that there are many places that are across it though.

I'm not sure if this is global warming, an unusual coming together of circumstances, a template for the UK's future weather, or what; 4 years ago we had a quite severe winter with significant snow; this year it's been milder and that could be part of the problem.

Moto2

Until the Home Counties got hit, the government barely gets involved with issues like this.
All of a sudden they need to start handing out money

eg Sept 2012 in NE England

18 of the families still aren't back in this place



One the blocks was demolished and the developers eventually compensated the owners. At the time there was all sorts of attempts to deny any liability at all for anything.

The government? Pickles? nowhere to be seen

mayonnaise

Moto2 wrote: »

Until the Home Counties got hit, the government barely gets involved with issues like this.
All of a sudden they need to start handing out money

eg Sept 2012 in NE England

18 of the families still aren't back in this place



One the blocks was demolished and the developers eventually compensated the owners. At the time there was all sorts of attempts to deny any liability at all for anything.

The government? Pickles? nowhere to be seen

This was caused by a collapsing culvert under the block of flats. A structural issue. Why would anyone from the government need to attend?

Moto2

mayonnaise wrote: »

This was caused by a collapsing culvert under the block of flats. A structural issue. Why would anyone from the government need to attend?

The floods at the time generally we're horrendous which lead to the issues with the culvert being compromised, no one from national government bothered about it, let alone offer £5K to everyone involve