Building in flooded areas

Generali

SailorSam wrote: »

Sapphire, London is protected from flooding by the Thames Barrier. And i understand they're having to close that a lot more often than they use to 'cos of rising sea levels. So many more millions are going to be spent to continue giving London the protection it has grown use to.
Why is the life of someone living in the south of our Country worth more than the lives of people from the North ?

It isn't. The value of protecting millions in London is greater than thousands in Cumbria thus more is spent. I don't see why that is so hard to understand.

Marktheshark

Nobody is king canute.
Archaeology can teach us that wet periods are historic cycles and we can see abandoned villages and settlements that are now on dry land again that were left to changes in weather patterns.

SailorSam

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't know your situation and one doesn't want to be unkind; but money has to be spend where it is most cost effective.

Wasting money that can be better spent, simply damages everyone for little gain.

Clearly more money will have to be spent but we need a bit more research before rushing in for political purposes.

Someone suggested earlier in this thread that those people that have had their homes damaged in the floods, more than once, should simply cut their losses and move to places where it's safer. Leave the land and let nature take over. If that's a good idea for those living in the North, surely the same can be said for those living on flood plains in the South. Let the sea reclaim the land and those living there cut their losses and move.

Marktheshark

The Change of the holding pattern of the Gulf stream further south is caused by falling temperatures in the Artic region, the last blip was in the 70's and before that 50's, remember the Ice age is coming in the 70's, they airbrushed that out, but those who lived those times will remember the chicken licken impending ice age and the last wet warm winters, which gave way to the coldest in the late 70's
Perhaps there is a cycle to the pattern, but science is chicken licken based at present, anyone daring to speak the truth will be burned as a witch.

ukcarper

SailorSam wrote: »

Someone suggested earlier in this thread that those people that have had their homes damaged in the floods, more than once, should simply cut their losses and move to places where it's safer. Leave the land and let nature take over. If that's a good idea for those living in the North, surely the same can be said for those living on flood plains in the South. Let the sea reclaim the land and those living there cut their losses and move.

There was bad flooding in the South East in early 2014 and there's been no additional flood protection or any concrete plans.

patman99

Colchester is protected by the Colne Barrier at Wivenhoe. It has been stated that the whole river bank leading up th the barrier needs to be raised by at least 1 metre within the next 5 years or the barrier will simply be rendered useless.

There are no imediate plans to undertake this work. Yet within feet of the barrier and at a level several feet below the level of the river bank they are building a new estate.

The mind boggles.

CLAPTON

SailorSam wrote: »

Someone suggested earlier in this thread that those people that have had their homes damaged in the floods, more than once, should simply cut their losses and move to places where it's safer. Leave the land and let nature take over. If that's a good idea for those living in the North, surely the same can be said for those living on flood plains in the South. Let the sea reclaim the land and those living there cut their losses and move.

it's not a matter of north versa the south but a matter of spending money with most effect

if one had to choose between protecting Glenridding and protecting Penrith, most people would say that it makes more sense to protect Penrith

Proper analysis needs to be done as to the costs of protecting different places. The population and economic importance must be a factor is how much is spent and where.

vivatifosi

SailorSam wrote: »

And the money they can't find to protect Cumbria can be found to protect London.

I know people who were flooded in Wraysbury and Datchet, not far at all from London. The fact that it is in the north this time does not make it always so.

System

Sapphire wrote: »

There were no floods in London, and there was very little rain, so it's hardly surprising that London was 'protected'! This assertion that is being banded around is thus rather silly (it's like blaming the government for an act of God, when such major rainfall was unprecedented, according to scientists).

London is, in fact, at great risk of flooding, especially given the amount of building that has been going on there recently, and the fashion for paving over everything so that water cannot run off (it amazes me that people are still being allowed to pave over their front gardens, as is happening in the streets around me). The Thames Barrier will prove ineffective to flooding before long, due in particular to the effects of climate change (which so many people have been in denial about because it suited their own vested interests).

London is built on a floodplain. At one time places in the East End, for example, were inundated every year and people waded around in a foot of water – since they were poor, hardy workers, this was just an accepted thing. Drainage and so forth has 'helped' to prevent this in recent decades. Creating 'marshland' areas for the water to drain off could help (though this would be a major and very costly project, and would no doubt be resisted, again by those with vested interests, in property for example). However, the sea cannot be held back indefinitely, and coastal erosion and encroachment by the sea is inevitable.

The Thames barrier was built to counter excessive high tides and storm surges from the North Sea. As the recent floods have proved, the danger is from upstream so the barrier would be ineffective if the Thames had to deal with the extra rainfall that the rivers up north have had to deal with.

silverwhistle

kathrynha wrote: »

Over recent years Leeds and Bradford councils have allowed thousands of homes to be built in the area,....

I've no idea about your particular area, but councils often refuse planning permission for the developers then to go to appeal, eventually to central government when the minister overides the local decision.

In my local area objections to new housing often focus on the impacts on drainage and potential flooding.

As for covering front gardens in London and so on, I believe the regulations have changed and the substrate has to be porous. Perhaps someone who knows could comment on that aspect.