Cumbria flooding

To what extent are these floods a consequence of building on flood plains and other areas susceptible to flooding? If that's what's happened then I don't see why taxpayers should pay a penny to help these people.

Alternatively, if this is just 'act of god' stuff, or a consequence of the actions of, e.g., bad agricultural practices, then I can see the need for more financial help.
 
kissenger said:
To what extent are these floods a consequence of building on flood plains and other areas susceptible to flooding? If that's what's happened then I don't see why taxpayers should pay a penny to help these people.
Click to expand...

It's not quite as simple as that however.

Someone could have quite sensibly bought a house in an area that's "not" susceptible to flooding, and then several years/decades later, a floodplain upriver has been built over (and flood defences built), meaning the flooding which would have occurred upriver has now been "pushed downstream" to the area which was previously "safe" - should the sensible person not get any help because their house is now in an area that's susceptible to flooding through no fault of their own?
 
Haggisman said:
It's not quite as simple as that however.

Someone could have quite sensibly bought a house in an area that's "not" susceptible to flooding, and then several years/decades later, a floodplain upriver has been built over (and flood defences built), meaning the flooding which would have occurred upriver has now been "pushed downstream" to the area which was previously "safe" - should the sensible person not get any help because their house is now in an area that's susceptible to flooding through no fault of their own?
Click to expand...

But how sensible have they been if they didn't object to planning permission for the thing that eventually caused the problem? And why was it granted planning permission in the first place, because surely flood susceptibility is surely something that's taken into account in the planning process? And why are flood defences being built in a way that merely moves the problem to another heavily populated area?

I'm basically just saying that it's not a good policy to dole out taxpayer money when individual responsibility and/or better planning could obviate the need for it in the first place.
 
kissenger said:
I'm basically just saying that it's not a good policy to dole out taxpayer money when individual responsibility and/or better planning could obviate the need for it in the first place.
Click to expand...

How does building activities upstream fall under "individual responsibility"? Should a person be responsible for keeping an eye on all building activity that occurs upstream on any rivers or tributaries from their location? Are they then individually responsible for preventing those developments?

If planning failures caused or contributed to the problem, then as a public department any claims are going to end up being funded by the taxpayer, so I don't see any solution that doesn't involve public money.
 
A friend of a friend has a house, she couldn't afford the house insurance as 10 year ago her area was flooded so her quote was £9000 for the year on a standard little flat. No one can afford that kind of money, so she was forced to go without it. Unfortunately she was affected by the floods.

She's stuck though, as before the floods (recent ones) she was unable to sell the flat as no one would buy it, no one would rent it for her to buy another etc etc...
 
This is a planned deveopment site in Whalley as shown Saturday:

9Yjsfxuh.jpg


Hopefully they build houseboats instead. I'd consider one.
 
That signs been there a while, definitely genuine!

How did you know where to find that? I'm impressed.
 
There lies the problem tbh. It doesn't just affect those houses either, the very presence of them causes more surface runoff, regardless of the new planning regulations.
 
kissenger said:
But how sensible have they been if they didn't object to planning permission for the thing that eventually caused the problem? And why was it granted planning permission in the first place, because surely flood susceptibility is surely something that's taken into account in the planning process? And why are flood defences being built in a way that merely moves the problem to another heavily populated area?

I'm basically just saying that it's not a good policy to dole out taxpayer money when individual responsibility and/or better planning could obviate the need for it in the first place.
Click to expand...

A lot of planning for things like housing doesn't necessarily take notice of the affect downstream.

And even when the council etc have objections from virtually every involved party there is a lot of pressure on them to build as they're often expected by the government to build a certain number of homes.
We've got a proposed development near us that is getting the go ahead despite warnings from the EA re drainage and flooding, the water board and all the local services about the affect it would have on services

The likes of the government, the councils and the EA don't really seem to work well together with regards to planing and the requirements - it's a little like there was a thing on the news earlier about a massive shortage of housing suitable for the disabled, and yet at least one of the governments proposed major house building initiatives is using a suggested template house that would be utterly unsuitable and expensive to convert after the fact (things like multiple steps up to the front door in a terraced block), as the government suggests it would be up to the local council to make sure they met requirements (as opposed to the basic design meeting them from the word go). Basically the government's own designs and suggestions ignoring the governments own design criteria and regulation.
Which fits completely with "don't build on flood plains" and "why aren't you building houses over there *points to flood plain*"
 
Werewolf said:
A lot of planning for things like housing doesn't necessarily take notice of the affect downstream.

And even when the council etc have objections from virtually every involved party there is a lot of pressure on them to build as they're often expected by the government to build a certain number of homes.
We've got a proposed development near us that is getting the go ahead despite warnings from the EA re drainage and flooding, the water board and all the local services about the affect it would have on services

The likes of the government, the councils and the EA don't really seem to work well together with regards to planing and the requirements - it's a little like there was a thing on the news earlier about a massive shortage of housing suitable for the disabled, and yet at least one of the governments proposed major house building initiatives is using a suggested template house that would be utterly unsuitable and expensive to convert after the fact (things like multiple steps up to the front door in a terraced block), as the government suggests it would be up to the local council to make sure they met requirements (as opposed to the basic design meeting them from the word go). Basically the government's own designs and suggestions ignoring the governments own design criteria and regulation.
Which fits completely with "don't build on flood plains" and "why aren't you building houses over there *points to flood plain*"
Click to expand...

This kind of thing is bound to cause problems. And to think there's people going through absolute hell for completely avoidable reasons like this.
 
Werewolf said:
A lot of planning for things like housing doesn't necessarily take notice of the affect downstream.

And even when the council etc have objections from virtually every involved party there is a lot of pressure on them to build as they're often expected by the government to build a certain number of homes.
We've got a proposed development near us that is getting the go ahead despite warnings from the EA re drainage and flooding, the water board and all the local services about the affect it would have on services

The likes of the government, the councils and the EA don't really seem to work well together with regards to planing and the requirements - it's a little like there was a thing on the news earlier about a massive shortage of housing suitable for the disabled, and yet at least one of the governments proposed major house building initiatives is using a suggested template house that would be utterly unsuitable and expensive to convert after the fact (things like multiple steps up to the front door in a terraced block), as the government suggests it would be up to the local council to make sure they met requirements (as opposed to the basic design meeting them from the word go). Basically the government's own designs and suggestions ignoring the governments own design criteria and regulation.
Which fits completely with "don't build on flood plains" and "why aren't you building houses over there *points to flood plain*"
Click to expand...

They're between a rock and hard place regarding housing - on the one hand you don't have enough supply and people wanting more houses built and on the other hand you have fewer and fewer suitable areas for building houses hence the situation you end up in.

But as you say better communication would help!
 
The Environment agency boss is apparently in Barbados on holiday! He was probably already there before all this flooding started, his response to the whole thing is rather poor though.

Can't they just raise the houses up a metre or two on stilts? I know it won't happen to already built houses but it isn't impossible on new-builds. Sounds daft but pretty sure it can be done.
 
Last edited:
thebennyboy said:
The Environment agency boss is apparently in Barbados on holiday! He was probably already there before all this flooding started, his response to the whole thing is rather poor though.

Can't they just raise the houses up a metre or two on stilts? I know it won't happen to already built houses but it isn't impossible or new-builds.
Click to expand...

It's the EA's chairman who's in Barbados - he doesn't run the EA day to day and is only employed to do a couple of days a week, the chief executive is what we'd call the 'actual' boss.....but this makes a better story for the papers ;)
 
I live on the hills of the north-west we don't get flooding here I feel sorry for all those affected. There is also a lot more heavy rain and strong winds coming in tonight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom