New House - Potential Flood risk

Cakeguts

Seraphexx wrote: »

House is 20 years old. Insurance cost is fine.

Ideally we want to go ahead with this property as it's the only one we have found that we really like.

It's a medium flood risk area, albeit on the edge.

I understand it doesn't look great, just looking to see if there are any options for us apart from pulling out.

The problem is that it is only 20 years old. The clue is in the age. That plot of land was not built on in the past because every now and then it flooded. What happens then is you get some town planners who grant planning permission for buildings in places where locals know that there is a chance of flooding.



Someone recently shared on social media a photograph of Fishlake. The place that has flooded recently. The photograph was dated 1923 and Fishlake was flooded. What has happened since then is that a lot of new housing has been built and it has all been built on land that floods. This makes the problem worse because it also reduces the land available for the water to sink into. Think of all the front gardens that are now parking spaces where water now runs off instead of sinking in.

robber2

madness;



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50419925


Rob

Seraphexx

davidmcn wrote: »

What sort of things were you thinking of? Either you accept the risk or you buy something else, surely?

I guess I was wondering if there are any builders/ surveys that can be done to tell you at what point you have to be worried about regarding the flooding. I.E. water would have to be a foot higher to penetrate the walls.

It's only one wall that's at risk that has no openings/ entry points for the water. The water from the flood didn't come up to the wall but it was very close. I guess id feel more at ease if someone said it would take an extra half a foot of water to flood the house (as this volume of water would not be possible in this area)

That being said, I take the hint from everyone responding and will start looking at other options.

[Deleted User]

Seraphexx wrote: »

I guess I was wondering if there are any builders/ surveys that can be done to tell you at what point you have to be worried about regarding the flooding. I.E. water would have to be a foot higher to penetrate the walls.

It's only one wall that's at risk that has no openings/ entry points for the water. The water from the flood didn't come up to the wall but it was very close. I guess id feel more at ease if someone said it would take an extra half a foot of water to flood the house (as this volume of water would not be possible in this area)

That being said, I take the hint from everyone responding and will start looking at other options.

The house we lived in in 2000 flooded and we lost everything as it was a bungalow.

The water did not come in via the doors etc, but in through the air bricks, flooded the underfloor and then seeped up into the house.

We had only owned the house for 18 months and it was at 'zero risk' of flooding. This is the reason our insurance paid out fully. So we went from zero risk to the bottom of the garden (which was on an incline) being about 25 feet under water.

If the house has almost flooded now then it is likely to flood again.

It would be silly to purchase the property.

[Deleted User]

Seraphexx wrote: »

I guess I was wondering if there are any builders/ surveys that can be done to tell you at what point you have to be worried about regarding the flooding. I.E. water would have to be a foot higher to penetrate the walls.

It's only one wall that's at risk that has no openings/ entry points for the water. The water from the flood didn't come up to the wall but it was very close. I guess id feel more at ease if someone said it would take an extra half a foot of water to flood the house (as this volume of water would not be possible in this area)

That being said, I take the hint from everyone responding and will start looking at other options.

Really?

There is a brook at the back of the house.

The brook will act as an overflow for a stream, which will act as an overflow for a river. The brook will also drain the water from the surrounding land.

The brook might not flood, but the connecting stream, river and surrounding land will and push all the water in the brook and then into your house.

To say there is no chance of the volume of water getting that high really does not make sense.

Seraphexx

Spider_In_The_Bath wrote: »

Really?

There is a brook at the back of the house.

The brook will act as an overflow for a stream, which will act as an overflow for a river. The brook will also drain the water from the surrounding land.

The brook might not flood, but the connecting stream, river and surrounding land will and push all the water in the brook and then into your house.

To say there is no chance of the volume of water getting that high really does not make sense.

Agreed - not stating the river may not get that volume of water, but (I don't think) it would be able to flood the house as that is uphill, i'd imagine it will flood the road and the fields opposite as they are downhill (which it was doing last thursday).

spadoosh

The best way of viewing this is to imagine you where buying the house.

Youve fallen in love with it but you go to view it one time and theres water coming up to the house. So you start to questions things, being inexperienced you go online for peoples views and opinion. At which point every single one of them says 'dont buy it' or 'avoid'.

Youve done this. Theres every chance any future buyers might do this too. If youve bought the house then theyre your potential buyers who are being told not to buy your house. This house isnt good if youre a buyer because you cant be sure it wont flood. This house isnt good if youre a seller because you cant be sure your buyer will be sure that it wont flood. If the house isnt good for a seller or a buyer, its not really any good.

Thrugelmir

Seraphexx wrote: »

This had apparently never previously flooded.

According to who?

Cakeguts

The previously never flooded could also relate to while there has been a house there. In the past when it flooded people wouldn't have taken much notice because there was nothing there to flood. It is only when a house has been built that it becomes something that might be noticed.

Dark_Star

We looked at a house many years ago in a quaint village.

All lovely. House not that near any water.

However, there had been flooding & flood defences built in the village.

I casually asked if there had been any flooding in the house...as the owners had not declared anything at all.

"oh not much really, just had to replace all the carpets"...

We legged it as fast as we politely could.

Run as fast as you can.

Water at the back of the house is not good unless you have an ancient castle & it's your moat to keep marauding politicians at bay.