"Government should compensate flood victims and purchase houses"

mayonnaise

Moto2 wrote: »

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

Yes, floods are generally horrendous, wherever they happen. If your point is that floods 'oop north' generally receive less media and government attention than 'down south', I fully agree with you.

The Newburn flats is just a poor example.
The developer made the mistake of building on top of a shaky culvert (don't know the exact details really), lots of rain, block collapsed, 18 hard working families in trouble, get compensated by the builder/owner. Don't see where the government should come in.

Moto2

mayonnaise wrote: »

Yes, floods are generally horrendous, wherever they happen. If your point is that floods 'oop north' generally receive less media and government attention than 'down south', I fully agree with you.

The Newburn flats is just a poor example.
The developer made the mistake of building on top of a shaky culvert (don't know the exact details really), lots of rain, block collapsed, 18 hard working families in trouble, get compensated by the builder/owner. Don't see where the government should come in.

I was more thinking of the other victims of the floods at the time and other floods rather specifically that block of flats.
The level of help in the way of politicians, getting involved in the Home Counties is unprecedented IMO.
Terry Wogan gets is garden flooded and it's all hands to the pumps - 'scuse the pun - and offers of money all round.

Bantex_2

Moto2 wrote: »

I was more thinking of the other victims of the floods at the time and other floods rather specifically that block of flats.
The level of help in the way of politicians, getting involved in the Home Counties is unprecedented IMO.
Terry Wogan gets is garden flooded and it's all hands to the pumps - 'scuse the pun - and offers of money all round.

Probably because Up North if your home is destroyed by a flood, you can just buy another one for about 50 quid. (or so Ive heard)

wymondham

I'd much rather fund this than continue to pay for India's space programme whilst its slums increase......

Former_Spice

prowla wrote: »

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.

The flood plains are all published online.
http://watermaps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiyby.aspx?topic=floodmap#x=357683&y=355134&scale=2

C_Mababejive

CLAPTON wrote: »

some of these floods have been a direct result of government policies
they have reduces dredging; allowed changes to land usage; allowed housing in areas they used to absorb flood water


it's not realistic to expect ordinary people to look 20-30 years ahead and anticipate future government's policies.


I'm not sure one can get an insurance policy that covers you for the reduction in value of your house to zero due to government abandoning flood defences


of course where flooding predictable then the matter is different

But HM Government have done nothing to assist with regard to coastal erosion on the East coast where peoples homes and the land on which they stand (Crown Land) have gone over the edge and into the sea. At least the tide will go out in Surrey.

N1AK

prowla wrote: »

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.

Au Contraire. My comment was clearly limited to stating that if the government neglects flood defences then it is a different situation.

Find me an example of a house that would have been safe in the same weather at any time in the previous 20 years but has flooded because the government has allowed flood defences to decrease or taken intentional action to increase the risk of flooding and in those circumstances I think compensation may be appropriate. I'm not remotely sure that very many examples of this will exist though.

CLAPTON

N1AK wrote: »

Au Contraire. My comment was clearly limited to stating that if the government neglects flood defences then it is a different situation.

Find me an example of a house that would have been safe in the same weather at any time in the previous 20 years but has flooded because the government has allowed flood defences to decrease or taken intentional action to increase the risk of flooding and in those circumstances I think compensation may be appropriate. I'm not remotely sure that very many examples of this will exist though.

does not dredging the Somerset rivers count as government inaction?

skitler

Bantex wrote: »

Probably because Up North if your home is destroyed by a flood, you can just buy another one for about 50 quid. (or so Ive heard)

how much are flooded houses down south?

Perelandra

Thankfully, there seems to have been far less rain over Friday/Saturday than had been forecast, and as a result the water's going down quite fast in my neck of the woods. Down two feet altogether in my garden, now. Thanks for the good wishes.