In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 01/02/2021 11:31, alan_m wrote:
On 01/02/2021 11:18, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Mon, 01 Feb 2021 01:52:25 -0800, fred wrote:

Article in Guardian moots lower insurance premiums for those installing
flood defences. Question is what type of flood defences would be most
effective. Blocking widows air vents and doors, yes, but how would one
deal with a rise in the water table?

Surely it's better for the environment to have one scheme protecting
1,000 houses than 1,000 schemes protecting 1,000 houses ?

Or save money on flood defences by not building in inappropriate
places!

Or accept that a flood plain will in fact flood once every 30 years
and build the houses higher out of the ground - say on piles - and let
cars get parked underneath...

Thus saving all that on road parking

can build elevated roadways to service them out of soil dug out to make
a communal lake for soakaway purposes.

I think the problem starts further back.
Suitable spots for river crossings would have gathered a cluster of
businesses/housing for farm labourers etc. and gradually expanded to a
village.
1948 comes along and a bunch of *experts* are given a major input as to
where additional housing is to be permitted. For some reason they took
against new housing being *visible* which, apart from exception 32:
social housing, means everything has to fit in the valleys!
There is only so much land that *never floods* in a valley.

We may see schemes where landowners are compensated for managing river
meadow land to permit flooding in order to protect vulnerable
developments downstream. The deepening of river channels carried out in
the '60's-'70's may now be seen as contributing to the problem.







--
Tim Lamb