This is the Somerset Levels today

fretmeister

Clearly God is punishing them for tolerating incest.

maltingsaudio

There is also a conspiracy theory going round that the Government want the levels cleared so they can frack it . Don't know if it hold water though

http://therapybook.wordpress.com/2014/02/07/the-deliberate-flooding-of-the-somerset-levels/

ChrisMusic

fretmeister said:   Clearly God is punishing them for tolerating incest.

I thought that webbed feet were just Darwinian evolution at work   

VimFuego

heh, the one I heard was that they were deliberately flooding the levels to depopulate the country, ala agenda 21.

 

Personally I have all my tin foil hats tailor made, I'd never wear an off the peg one.

ChrisMusic

maltingsaudio said:   There is also a conspiracy theory going round that the Government want the levels cleared so they can frack it

There has been definite governmental policy in the past surrounding Sellafield and it's different named incarnations  (an obvious attempt at manipulated PR (or untruths)).  The road infrastructure to the very picturesque Cumbrian coast he's been deliberately held back for decades.  Even the A66 into the north Lakes is a comparatively recent occurrence.  As is the very new road in from Carlisle.

There is certainly a long and unfortunate history of government meddling and 'big business' favouritism in this regard, for any of a number of agendas.

holnrew

It's very sad. Even though it's been years since I lived there, it hurts to see and the government response has been insulting.

ICBM

I also think the insurance companies bear some responsibility. If they had a strict policy of not insuring new-build housing built on flood plains, then property developers would soon learn not to build there because the houses would be unsellable. But in fact, the insurance companies don't mind - the whole point of insurance is that it's profitable for the companies because even when they have to pay out, the premiums are calculated in such a way as to be more in total than the occasional payout, on the long-term/large-scale average.

And actually, if they've done their calculations right (and they do employ very good people to do this, don't confuse them with bankers) if anything the fear of flooding will make a greater proportion of people insure their property for more money and so it's still a win for the insurer in the long run. It's a bit like casinos welcoming the odd big winner because it draws in more optimists… but the house always wins overall. And if it looks like the scales are going to tip the other way and flooding is going to be more frequent, the premiums go up.

It's going to get really hard for people in these housing areas, especially now - it's not even easy to sell up and move away somewhere else… and even less so once prospective buyers find out they might get flooded. One thing growing up in Worcester taught me - never buy a house without looking into the possible flood risk first.

Fretwired

ICBM said:

I also think the insurance companies bear some responsibility. If they had a strict policy of not insuring new-build housing built on flood plains, then property developers would soon learn not to build there because the houses would be unsellable.

Insurance companies aren't allowed to discriminate.

Phil_aka_Pip

Fretwired said:

ICBM said:

I also think the insurance companies bear some responsibility. If they had a strict policy of not insuring new-build housing built on flood plains, then property developers would soon learn not to build there because the houses would be unsellable.

Insurance companies aren't allowed to discriminate.

They probably find a way to do so though. failing that they'll just rip the rest of us off for even more ....

ICBM

Fretwired said:

Insurance companies aren't allowed to discriminate.

Really? They already do - there's someone here (Vim I think) who has a house which most or all companies won't insure due to its construction. Or do you mean that they're specifically forbidden to discriminate against flood risk?

If so, I can see why for existing properties - since that's a retrospective penalty - but for new builds, it should be different.

Or if it can't be done that way, something else needs to change in the planning laws. It's lunacy to build on land with a known flood risk.

Fretwired

Phil_aka_Pip said:

Fretwired said:

ICBM said:

I also think the insurance companies bear some responsibility. If they had a strict policy of not insuring new-build housing built on flood plains, then property developers would soon learn not to build there because the houses would be unsellable.

Insurance companies aren't allowed to discriminate.

They probably find a way to do so though. failing that they'll just rip the rest of us off for even more ....

Insurance firms can bail out if the risks are too high - if nothing is done to alleviate the problems then millions of people will lose out. Try selling a house that is prone to flooding - nobody will want to buy it and mortgage companies won't lend money. The properties in the high risk areas could become worthless. Stopping this from happening again will cost trillions - the bill to keep the Netherlands dry is enough to make your eyes water.

ICBM

Fretwired said:

Insurance firms can bail out if the risks are too high - if nothing is done to alleviate the problems then millions of people will lose out. Try selling a house that is prone to flooding - nobody will want to buy it and mortgage companies won't lend money. The properties in the high risk areas could become worthless. Stopping this from happening again will cost trillions - the bill to keep the Netherlands dry is enough to make your eyes water.

Exactly - that's what I meant… not that they should stop insuring existing properties, since that would be punitive against those who live there, but new builds so no more people get sucked into living in flood zones. Or at least, if you don't believe in state intervention and want to do everything by economic pressure. (Personally I believe in state intervention, but I know a lot of people don't.)

If anything the best use of the money would be for the government to help finance moving people out of the risk areas - just as they (or is it local authorities) do with coastal erosion. You can't fight nature on the sort of scale that a lot of people seem to think or want.

chrispy108

Our ridiculous planning laws don't help.

In Brighton they've just started building the tallest building Sussex in the red square, which you may notice, is currently the sea.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14196839/Marina.PNG

The two blue plots are a piece of flat empty concrete, and an empty field. The developers say they tried elsewhere, but this was the only place they could get permission. Surely for the price of one block in the sea, you could build at least two on firm ground?

Phil_aka_Pip

@ICBM makes sense to me. They've decided to give up on the land between Southwold and Blythburgh for similar reasons. Either you hire another load of Dutch engineers to sort out the Somerset levels, or you cut your losses and help the people that live there to move out.

ChrisMusic

When I was looking to buy in Maryport on the Cumbrian coast just before the 'economic shit hit the fan', I seem to remember that there was an elevated insurance premium because of the proximity to the river Ellen, and the increased flood risk that implies.

It seemed somewhat odd to me as the primary housing I was looking at was on the hill top above the town overlooking both the river and the sea.

If we get 200ft floods then they may have a point, but I think that will be the least of everyones worries.  Bizarre discrimination, but discrimination none the less. 

Fretwired

We need beavers ... the best dam builders ever .. :-)

CabbageCat

chrispy108 said:

Our ridiculous planning laws don't help.

In Brighton they've just started building the tallest building Sussex in the red square, which you may notice, is currently the sea.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/14196839/Marina.PNG

The two blue plots are a piece of flat empty concrete, and an empty field. The developers say they tried elsewhere, but this was the only place they could get permission. Surely for the price of one block in the sea, you could build at least two on firm ground?

I think the development is bigger than that red box (unless it has changed). The whole section behind the casino, bowling alley and gym will be extended up to the end of the West Quay and the tall building is going to be in the south-west corner, right up against the breakwater.

It is bizarre that the Black Rock chunk (the left blue bit) isn't being developed. It's an eyesore at the moment.

bertie

ICBM said:

I also think the insurance companies bear some responsibility. If they had a strict policy of not insuring new-build housing built on flood plains, then property developers would soon learn not to build there because the houses would be unsellable. 

isnt that a case of bolting the proverbial after the whatsits.................. woulnt it make hugely bigger sense for the builders to be refused planning consent in the first place ?

chrispy108

Ah right, I didn't pay it masses of attention (unlike some of my angry neighbours) as I knew I was leaving. Bit ironic really as plenty of people protested about their house being built, now they're complaining about the next lot.

The area definitely needs some work, the access in and out is appalling and unattractive. Part of the new works is to create a footbridge from the breakwater to the front of Black Rock to create a nicer entrance into the Marina, at the moment you walk under the road and come into the back of the ASDA carpark.

But, the new plans are hardly going to be nicer or feel much safer whilst Black Rock is still a waste ground.

You could have built it on Black Rock, and still called it part of the Marina if you did up the access and branding, even if it's technically outside the walls.

ICBM

bertie said:

isnt that a case of bolting the proverbial after the whatsits.................. woulnt it make hugely bigger sense for the builders to be refused planning consent in the first place ?

Definitely, but in a world where developers seem to be able to push through planning permission against common sense, or in some cases by appealing against decisions which go against them, you may need to remove the economic incentive for them to try in the first place. As it is, they can build the houses, sell the houses and then let someone else cover the costs of them being built in the wrong place.

Personally I believe in state intervention and I would like to see it simply be illegal to build new housing on land with an identified flood risk - which is now well-known, there is a national database. I doubt that will happen though.