In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 11/12/15 11:29, Jonno wrote:
Fredxxx scribbled


On 11/12/2015 10:54, Brian-Gaff wrote:
Well, to me the main culprits are not the house occupiers who no doubt did
all the right checks about this sort of thing, its the planners and the
companies who develop sites.

Given the long term nature of housing and short term nature of some
building companies, I would say much of the onus goes on the local
authority for allowing house building on known flood planes rather than
alternative, even green field, sites.

We should assume builders and architects will build wherever they can to
make a profit.


There is one group with the clout that could stop house building on
flood plains - the insurance companies. They are backing a campaign,
but I've no idea if they have achieved any success.

http://www.floodfreehomes.org.uk/


It is trivial, if not totally cheap, to place new builds either in
bunded locations, or indeed above flood levels by simply giving them
'non habitable' ground floors (garages and the like).

In Carlisle there were "bunds" but they turned out no to be high enough.


But there is no code of practice to make this happen.

--
Please note new email address: