Exactly my point, we are building 16,000 homes on a flood plain but OMG all builders are idiots.
Who needs flood defences...
- Thread starter -BA-
- Start date
Exactly my point, we are building 16,000 homes on a flood plain but OMG all builders are idiots.
Soldato
Ultimately you cannot protect everywhere. The same with coastal erosion and tidal defense. You place some hard defence solutions and the erosion / flooding occurs just alongside it around the corner.
Flood plains are there for a reason, to allow the river to flood. To contain this mass of water would require high structural defenses along the length of all major water courses. A massive trillion pound undertaking.
London and most major cities on tidal rivers have flood defence levels of 10-12m approx above Newlyn datum. This level could be becoming marginal with increases in sea level in association with storm surges.
Development on flood plains should be discouraged, however where it is deemed necessary, flooding asessments and mitigation for the surrounding area should be carried out as part of the planning process.
Where land is low value or primarily low lying agricultural land it should be allowed to flood
Flood plains are there for a reason, to allow the river to flood. To contain this mass of water would require high structural defenses along the length of all major water courses. A massive trillion pound undertaking.
London and most major cities on tidal rivers have flood defence levels of 10-12m approx above Newlyn datum. This level could be becoming marginal with increases in sea level in association with storm surges.
Development on flood plains should be discouraged, however where it is deemed necessary, flooding asessments and mitigation for the surrounding area should be carried out as part of the planning process.
Where land is low value or primarily low lying agricultural land it should be allowed to flood
Last edited:
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
It sounds like they are being asked to make savings like all departments and have chosen now to press release it for some political capital..
Associate
If that cheap land cost had fed into cheap house prices it wouldn't be a problem.
I would buy a house on a flood plain, if it was a 10th the price of a "normal" house. Instead the criminal manipulation of the housing supply by the cartel of house builders, nimbys and government, meant those houses cost more than the "normal" house price.
I would buy a house on a flood plain, if it was a 10th the price of a "normal" house. Instead the criminal manipulation of the housing supply by the cartel of house builders, nimbys and government, meant those houses cost more than the "normal" house price.
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;25590724 said:
That and the fact that their capacity to flood model is limited. They now depend on consultants for the bulk of their strategic modelling and continue to update and enhance their flood models based upon information obtained as part of the Flood Risk assessment process, which is required for most development these days.
In terms of living in the hatched area, this is the "defended" flood plain. Although it is defended, there is always the risk of breach caused by defence failure. The likelyhood of a breach failure coinciding with a high event storm is small though, but it has to be considered as a probable factor.
Active flood plain can be built on, although compensatory level for level volumes have to be provided for elsewhere. As long as the type of development is acceptable for the level of risk then there are no issues. You have to remember that climate change is now applied to the Flood Risk factor when determining whether development is suitable or not.
Last edited:
Soldato
Are they?? Hmm, actually the EA are structured in 3 tiers, National, Region and Area. Region is being binned off, and you will probably find that the people who are being laid off are people who don't actually go round building the flood defences, but more office based workers, I.E. my other half.
Last edited:
Soldato
To add -
I haven't been in the Civil engineering industry long, but in my 6 years, flood risk assessments have been a huge deal and clients (local authorities, developers) are very well informed and advised by designers. You can design for it and new regulations are gradually including for it. The company i work for has recently completed a flood-resilient house on the Norfolk coast in fact.
With regards to the OP, the fact this is in the news is exactly to highlight the fact that they cannot afford to lose staff when flooding is more common so are looking for support. I have an old uni mate working for them, and he says they are always swamped with work (excuse the pun) and it's mostly flood related.
Absolutely and yes Fox I agree it quite probably has been held back until now (it was originally announced a few months ago in a trade journal I believe) but isn't a lot of news timed conveniently for maximum impact?
News is designed to make people think and discuss and if this was released in the summer it would have generated a, "So what" response. Release it now and people will actually question it.
Of course they might still just not give a ****.
Soldato
Correct me if I am wrong but didn't I see a program about Danes who built floating houses - as water level rose so did the house.
I remember when they built Shrewsbury bypass and they sited the developers next to river Severn - went past just after Xmas to see the diggers and huts were up to cabs in water.
Dave
I remember when they built Shrewsbury bypass and they sited the developers next to river Severn - went past just after Xmas to see the diggers and huts were up to cabs in water.
Dave
Soldato
Actually it was announce back at the end of October, that was when the email went out to all staff. Unison decided to jump on the 'Storm Band Wagon' with the references to St Judes.
http://www.unison.org.uk/news/uniso...ironment-agency-jobs-potentially-catastrophic
Unison said:
Yet what they actually fail to mention is that the email from the boss says the following...
Paul Leinster said:
As per usual the unions can't help themselves.
Still though, as I said, my Mrs is at risk, which is not great, but what I can't understand is that 3 years ago they went through the same round of cuttings jobs, yet to only go and hire more staff over those 3 years to get them back up to an unsustainable amount of staff.
The management at the EA don't really know what they are doing.
Associate
I feel sorry for the flood victims but im ok im 30 miles from a river/sea
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,257
The government is cutting jobs as we can't afford to employ the people.
Its not that roles are not needed.
Why don't you pay 80% tax for the rest of your life and I am sure they can employ someone else for some part of that money to help with flood defences.
For my part, I pay enough taxes, if services need to be cut back, then cut them.
If things get critical, then reconsider, but I would rather the books balanced first and Milliband and Balls not in charge when we do.
I believe very similar has happened in the Immigration Service or whatever it is now called since they moved away from Borders Agency. They made a load of cuts but now employ no end of temp staff with much less competency forcing hot-desking in the offices because they sold off half of the building to another department.
That is usually the point of no return.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,257
Now, that makes much more sense than your OP.
I completely agree that when budgeting and making cuts the should take a ten or fifteen year view with regards what savings can be made and what potential shortfall that might need to be plugged.
The overall issue remains we don't have the money. It isn't there, it doesn't exist, we need to look at this going forward and not spend what we don't have, or that which we don't have a hope of obtaining.
Soldato
Actually, you would be quite surprised how much money the EA makes from permitting. Also, the government is not cutting jobs. The EA is not a government department. The only reason that the jobs cuts are being made is because the ring fenced funding that DEFRA was providing the EA is no longer being ring fenced. The result of this and the fact that (as someone previously mentioned) the EA contract a ton of work, they need to make cuts.
What they should be reviewing is the number of grade 6 employees within the company, and also the removing a considerable number of incompetent coms team members.
But then heck, I'm biased.
In the US it is quite simple, buy a house on a flood plain and you won't get it insure. At time or purchase you typically pay for a flood analysis.
I purchased a house on top of a hill. It would have to be a Noah's ark level of flooding to affect me.
I purchased a house on top of a hill. It would have to be a Noah's ark level of flooding to affect me.