Building in flooded areas

Jon_B_2

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.

Why so petulant?

Those unfortunate souls in Cumbria are to receive far more money than those unfortunate souls who got flooded out in Somerset a couple of years ago.

Stop trying to make this a North Vs South thing - lots of people have been flooded, it's a fact of life. The simple answer is to do your research before buying a house. Very simply I would not be buying a house in a settlement within 1/2 miles of a river.

Sapphire

Jon_B wrote: »

Why so petulant?

Those unfortunate souls in Cumbria are to receive far more money than those unfortunate souls who got flooded out in Somerset a couple of years ago.

Stop trying to make this a North Vs South thing - lots of people have been flooded, it's a fact of life. The simple answer is to do your research before buying a house. Very simply I would not be buying a house in a settlement within 1/2 miles of a river.

Well, unless it is on a slope overlooking a river – that's OK, though suppose it depends on how steep it is, and how near to the river. I live quite near to the Thames (upriver), but the ground slopes upwards quite a bit to where I am, and according to the flood-risk assessment, it is not in danger of flooding (though other parts of the area are).

Agree that it is a fact of life – and is likely to become more so. It certainly shouldn't be a north v. south thing, though, which the media is trying to make out to 'get a story' out of it, and which unfortunately some people are falling for.

Sapphire

!!!!!! wrote: »

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.

Yes, I know – but around London we will have to deal with both, because due to climate change sea levels are rising. With regard to extra rainfall, yes, this is another danger – about eight years ago there was a massive dump of rain near me in a short period of time. The river overflowed into Canbury Gardens and onto a neighbouring street, and there was a bit of flooding in the town centre (not for the first time). A few hours later the water had all drained away. I believe this sort of thing also happened in Wandsworth – the drains simply couldn't cope, and even then there was too much built upon, so the water could not drain away fast enough…

gfplux

This is a National issue and needs a strong Government taking strong and wide reaching decisions. Action needs to be taken to prevent flooding BEFORE it happens. We need a comprehensive long term plan. Not tinkering. This involves not only building flood barriers but putting laws in place to change all the other actions that lead to rain run off and flooding. I am no expert but those that know suggest things like..

Planning laws
Changes in land use
Hill farming
concreting over gardens

I am sure the list is much longer and only the Government can change these things

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Och away....

Just build the right flood defences and be done with it.

The Americans have the right idea....

Sapphire

gfplux wrote: »

This is a National issue and needs a strong Government taking strong and wide reaching decisions. Action needs to be taken to prevent flooding BEFORE it happens. We need a comprehensive long term plan. Not tinkering. This involves not only building flood barriers but putting laws in place to change all the other actions that lead to rain run off and flooding. I am no expert but those that know suggest things like..

Planning laws
Changes in land use
Hill farming
concreting over gardens

I am sure the list is much longer and only the Government can change these things

Yes – these things have to be dealt with, but I fear that those with a vested interest would create such a hoo-hah about any such changes that they won't happen until there are truly massive flooding events on a regular basis. An archaeologist who knows about the rate of coastal erosion on the east coast and in the Thames estuary at least, told me that preventative measures will work (but only to a certain extent, because the encroachment by the sea cannot be stopped, and nor can large amounts of rain falling). She said one method would be to create large areas (marshland) for the water to run off to – but of course that would affect affluent people who have a vested interest in property, and therefore like to deny that there's even such a thing as climate change, so it's unlikely to happen until the situation gets really bad.

CLAPTON

additionally, the reafforestation of the hill sides (reputedly will hold more water than grass for sheep) will be handicapped by the EU that pay farmer to have more 'productive' grass

kinger101

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.

Er.....flood plains are usually flooded by rivers or streams, not the sea. And are only flooded......erm......when there is a flood (i.e. the water rises above the banks due to high rainfall).

Sapphire

kinger101 wrote: »

Er.....flood plains are usually flooded by rivers or streams, not the sea. And are only flooded......erm......when there is a flood (i.e. the water rises above the banks due to high rainfall).

A natural floodplain can be flooded by freshwater or sea water. A floodplain is the area that would naturally be affected by flooding if a river rose above its banks, or high tides and stormy seas caused flooding in coastal areas.

For info., from this map it doesn't look as though places like Leeds are normally any more likely to flood than are places in London

http://watermaps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiyby.aspx?topic=floodmap#x=388734&y=396535&scale=1

It's just that the north of England received far more rain recently than did areas in the south-east – had there been as much rain in the south-east, there would have been equally severe flooding.

kinger101

Sapphire wrote: »

A natural floodplain can be flooded by freshwater or sea water. A floodplain is the area that would naturally be affected by flooding if a river rose above its banks, or high tides and stormy seas caused flooding in coastal areas.

For info., from this map it doesn't look as though places like Leeds are normally any more likely to flood than are places in London

http://watermaps.environment-agency.gov.uk/wiyby/wiyby.aspx?topic=floodmap#x=388734&y=396535&scale=1

It's just that the north of England received far more rain recently than did areas in the south-east – had there been as much rain in the south-east, there would have been equally severe flooding.

Yes, I did use the word "usually".