Now that a stink appears to be gathering over houses built on flood
plains, if I remember correctly did'nt Pratscott have alot to do with
overturning many of the objections to allow the building to take place.
This must be all the valuable work he will still be able to do by staying
in office.

Dave

Aren't the people who buy houses on flood plains just as guilty as the
ones who build them, thus creating a market for it.

Maybe houses should be constructed knowing that the land will
occasionally flood. One solution would be to build them on stilts.

Just a thought.

Rob wrote:
Aren't the people who buy houses on flood plains just as guilty as the
ones who build them, thus creating a market for it.

Maybe houses should be constructed knowing that the land will
occasionally flood. One solution would be to build them on stilts.

I do kind of like the 'house constructed on polystyrene raft' solution.
Gets a bit wet, and it just floats up.

Ian Stirling wrote:

I do kind of like the 'house constructed on polystyrene raft' solution.
Gets a bit wet, and it just floats up.

Make sure that the gas, water, and lekky all come in on coiled "feed
through" connections then ;-)


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:
Ian Stirling wrote:

I do kind of like the 'house constructed on polystyrene raft' solution.
Gets a bit wet, and it just floats up.

Make sure that the gas, water, and lekky all come in on coiled "feed
through" connections then ;-)

True - and you either need some sort of anchor system, or an outboard

The message
from Ian Stirling contains these words:

I do kind of like the 'house constructed on polystyrene raft' solution.
Gets a bit wet, and it just floats up.

Make sure that the gas, water, and lekky all come in on coiled "feed
through" connections then ;-)

True - and you either need some sort of anchor system, or an outboard

And an absence of icebergs.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

On 11 May 2006 09:12:43 GMT, Ian Stirling wrote:

|Rob wrote:
| Aren't the people who buy houses on flood plains just as guilty as the
| ones who build them, thus creating a market for it.
|
| Maybe houses should be constructed knowing that the land will
| occasionally flood. One solution would be to build them on stilts.
|
|I do kind of like the 'house constructed on polystyrene raft' solution.
|Gets a bit wet, and it just floats up.

Our lightweight concrete.
Seen some of those *on* a river in ?Holland?
Very impressive.
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

The message
from Ian Stirling contains these words:

I do kind of like the 'house constructed on polystyrene raft' solution.
Gets a bit wet, and it just floats up.

How likely is it to settle back down on a flat spot?

My sister had a floating patio when they lived on Canvey Island 'cos
their bit of town was below high tide.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Rob wrote:
Aren't the people who buy houses on flood plains just as guilty as the
ones who build them, thus creating a market for it.

Maybe houses should be constructed knowing that the land will
occasionally flood. One solution would be to build them on stilts.

Just a thought.


I think so entirely..a building regulation couple be brought into
enforce this.

There are already such to cover other natural events, like storm force
winds and so on, and fire...why not flood?

On 11 May 2006 00:48:11 -0700, "Rob" wrote:

|Aren't the people who buy houses on flood plains just as guilty as the
|ones who build them, thus creating a market for it.
|
|Maybe houses should be constructed knowing that the land will
|occasionally flood. One solution would be to build them on stilts.
|
|Just a thought.

Alternately new developments quite often have houses with a ground floor
which is mainly garage.
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

The message
from Dave Fawthrop contains these words:

Alternately new developments quite often have houses with a ground floor
which is mainly garage.

Which many people turn into another living room and then park on the road.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

gort wrote:
Now that a stink appears to be gathering over houses built on flood
plains, if I remember correctly did'nt Pratscott have alot to do with
overturning many of the objections to allow the building to take place.
This must be all the valuable work he will still be able to do by staying
in office.

Dave

The answer to building on flood plains is trivially easy. Each house,or
housing estate should be surrounded by a levee over which the access
road runs, sufficiently high to prevent flooding.

Or build the houses on stilts, and use the under-house space for storage.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
gort wrote:

Now that a stink appears to be gathering over houses built on flood
plains, if I remember correctly did'nt Pratscott have alot to do with
overturning many of the objections to allow the building to take place.
This must be all the valuable work he will still be able to do by staying
in office.

The answer to building on flood plains is trivially easy. Each house,or
housing estate should be surrounded by a levee over which the access
road runs, sufficiently high to prevent flooding.

Or build the houses on stilts, and use the under-house space for storage.

There are various ways to do it. Another is to bank the soil so the
houses run along the crest of the banks with the access roads along the
troughs, and all gardens will be sloping. Another is to just have the
ground floor as garage storage only. Another is to use a floodproof
construction with pumping, and so on.

Theres no need to specify one way to address it, but there is very much
the need to require that any house built on a flood plain must be
designed to survive floods unharmed. That this isnt in place is
somewhat scandalous, and frankly a bit stupid.


NT

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
gort wrote:
Now that a stink appears to be gathering over houses built on flood
plains, if I remember correctly did'nt Pratscott have alot to do with
overturning many of the objections to allow the building to take place.
This must be all the valuable work he will still be able to do by staying
in office.

What information do you have that Prescot of any quasi Labour
government minister has assented to the idea?

As it happens it was a fact in the Tory government in the catastrophy
for the building industry that was Thatcherism and continued into the
grey era. (And in the Vaucluse region of France around the same time.)

The Secretary of State for Wales over-ruled the wants of local councils
in North Wales when builders developed the flood plain between Colwyn
Bay and Rhyl. A couple of weeks after the flood, he quietly resigned.
Nobody mentioned a dickie bird.

Why?

Because the insurance companies wanted to get away with fraud and
larceny on a grand scale and the Tories wanted to secure their
sinecures with them when they retired from office.

The floods moved the houses off their foundations and should have cost
the insurance companies dearly. As it was they nearly sank. It was the
era Lloyds went bump. There was a time that the malicious business
practices of all those evil men nearly brought a return to the era of
the 1930's

The answer to building on flood plains is trivially easy. Each house,or
housing estate should be surrounded by a levee over which the access
road runs, sufficiently high to prevent flooding.

Or build the houses on stilts, and use the under-house space for storage.

Like they do in Mississippi and Louisiana? Haven't you heard of
Hurricane
Bush?http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/la...ex.php?id=6791

Flood plain is some of the richest agricultural land going. So why even
consider it? Rock is the least fertile but it also the best foundation
for housing. Why not build on that? People even prefer to live on hills
and it is better for their health too.

There is no sensible reason to build on a flood plain. But who has
allowed it in this government?

On 11 May 2006 03:37:22 -0700 Weatherlawyer wrote :
Flood plain is some of the richest agricultural land going. So why
even consider it? Rock is the least fertile but it also the best
foundation for housing. Why not build on that? People even prefer
to live on hills and it is better for their health too.

Do people really want to live in hilly areas? Rock may be fine for
foundations, but there's a lot more digging for services

There is no sensible reason to build on a flood plain. But who has
allowed it in this government?

The 'sensible' reason is that it's cheaper. Should it be up to
government? What about insurance companies and mortgage providers
using their power?

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.12 released 8 Dec 2005]

In article ,
Tony Bryer wrote:
On 11 May 2006 03:37:22 -0700 Weatherlawyer wrote :
Flood plain is some of the richest agricultural land going. So why
even consider it? Rock is the least fertile but it also the best
foundation for housing. Why not build on that? People even prefer
to live on hills and it is better for their health too.

Do people really want to live in hilly areas? Rock may be fine for
foundations, but there's a lot more digging for services

There is no sensible reason to build on a flood plain. But who has
allowed it in this government?

The 'sensible' reason is that it's cheaper. Should it be up to
government? What about insurance companies and mortgage providers
using their power?

Misuse. ;-(
Technically our house is built on the Mersey flood plain - though, assuming
that the Mersey burst its banks just a hundred metres or so away from us, it
would still need to flood a few square miles more than 2 metres deep before
our ground floor got damp. Effectively we're on stilts. Other houses, built on
land that has been flooded in the last 20 years past the level of their first
loor windows, is not shown on the government's (liable to flood) map.

I wouldn't trust an insurance company to make a reasonable decision.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

What information do you have that Prescot of any quasi Labour
government minister has assented to the idea?

Prescott should stick to what he has been taught, and that is how to
serve Gin & Tonic on a boat.

Chris.

On Thu, 11 May 2006 03:37:22 -0700, Weatherlawyer wrote:


The Natural Philosopher wrote:
gort wrote:
Now that a stink appears to be gathering over houses built on flood
plains, if I remember correctly did'nt Pratscott have alot to do with
overturning many of the objections to allow the building to take place.
This must be all the valuable work he will still be able to do by staying
in office.

What information do you have that Prescot of any quasi Labour
government minister has assented to the idea?

Err, like I seem to rememeber it being widely reported in the newspapers.

Dave

On Thu, 11 May 2006 10:18:00 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

|gort wrote:
| Now that a stink appears to be gathering over houses built on flood
| plains, if I remember correctly did'nt Pratscott have alot to do with
| overturning many of the objections to allow the building to take place.
| This must be all the valuable work he will still be able to do by staying
| in office.
|
| Dave
|
|The answer to building on flood plains is trivially easy. Each house,or
|housing estate should be surrounded by a levee over which the access
|road runs, sufficiently high to prevent flooding.

Remember Katrina, or ?1956? in fenland
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

Dave Fawthrop wrote:

|The answer to building on flood plains is trivially easy. Each house,or
|housing estate should be surrounded by a levee over which the access
|road runs, sufficiently high to prevent flooding.

Remember Katrina, or ?1956? in fenland

Of course. Levees simply not adequate.

I lived ON the fens for many years protected by levees from a river that
ran 8 ft above the ground floor level of the house.

The beauty of small scale levees is that if one goes, it doesn't take
out the houses down the streets.

Parts of the fen exist as flood areas, which take surplus water in order
to protect against generalised flooding.

The biggest danger is sewage backing up if you find the loos temporarily
below flood level, but thats taken care of by sealed sewers and ****
pumps at the station.

Its all well known stuff..the troubles is developeres won;t do what the
regulatins don't force them too.

I'd be totally happy to build a house on a place that got 4 ft of water
every 5 years or so for a week or so.

On Thu, 11 May 2006 17:18:38 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

|Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|
| |The answer to building on flood plains is trivially easy. Each house,or
| |housing estate should be surrounded by a levee over which the access
| |road runs, sufficiently high to prevent flooding.
|
| Remember Katrina, or ?1956? in fenland
|
|Of course. Levees simply not adequate.
|
|I lived ON the fens for many years protected by levees from a river that
|ran 8 ft above the ground floor level of the house.

I've *seen* that sort of house and shuddered.
I live 750ft above sea level and regularly think how sensible I was to buy
this house.
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.

The message
from Dave Fawthrop contains these words:

I live 750ft above sea level and regularly think how sensible I was to buy
this house.

We're at about 145m here, the Severn is about 65 meters below us in the
gorge. Something we considered when buying the place.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

Dave Fawthrop wrote:
On Thu, 11 May 2006 17:18:38 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

|Dave Fawthrop wrote:
|
| |The answer to building on flood plains is trivially easy. Each house,or
| |housing estate should be surrounded by a levee over which the access
| |road runs, sufficiently high to prevent flooding.
|
| Remember Katrina, or ?1956? in fenland
|
|Of course. Levees simply not adequate.
|
|I lived ON the fens for many years protected by levees from a river that
|ran 8 ft above the ground floor level of the house.

I've *seen* that sort of house and shuddered.
I live 750ft above sea level and regularly think how sensible I was to buy
this house.

I had many very good times there.

It used to be fun to wander the fens and see which fields they had
flooded this time..

WE never got flooded.

On Thu, 11 May 2006 17:39:33 +0100 someone who may be Dave Fawthrop
wrote this:-

I've *seen* that sort of house and shuddered.
I live 750ft above sea level and regularly think how sensible I was to buy
this house.

I tend to agree.

However, were I foolish enough to move to a house that was not some
way up a hill I would arrange it so that the important things wee
above the likely flood levels.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

The message
from Dave Fawthrop contains these words:

Remember Katrina, or ?1956? in fenland

I thought the night of the great flood was 31st January 1953. Not just
the fens but most of the East Coast from Yorkshire down to the Thames.
IIRC 300 UK deaths and some 2000 in Holland. We went to gawp the next
day but the police had all of Harwich and some of Dovercourt cordoned
off. Eight died in Harwich that night.

--
Roger Chapman

The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

The answer to building on flood plains is trivially easy. Each house,or
housing estate should be surrounded by a levee over which the access
road runs, sufficiently high to prevent flooding.

The drawback with building on the floodplains in the first place is that
they are then no longer available as dampers (lousy pun) on water
levels. Build on one and the problem downstream may still be manageable.
Build on several in a row and the poor buggers downstream get hit with
floods out of the blue in a previously nonflooding location.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

In article ,
Guy King wrote:
The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

The answer to building on flood plains is trivially easy. Each house,or
housing estate should be surrounded by a levee over which the access
road runs, sufficiently high to prevent flooding.

The drawback with building on the floodplains in the first place is that
they are then no longer available as dampers (lousy pun) on water
levels. Build on one and the problem downstream may still be manageable.
Build on several in a row and the poor buggers downstream get hit with
floods out of the blue in a previously nonflooding location.

Very true. The best answer is to produce numerous, small water-slowing areas
close to water collection areas. It would be incredibly expensive to produce
them manually but there is an alternative and that is to do it not 'man'ually
but 'castor'ally, ie not by man but but Castor fiber (beaver) which is how it
was done in this country before we wiped out the animal.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...

Very true. The best answer is to produce numerous, small water-slowing
areas
close to water collection areas. It would be incredibly expensive to
produce
them manually but there is an alternative and that is to do it not
'man'ually
but 'castor'ally, ie not by man but but Castor fiber (beaver) which is how
it
was done in this country before we wiped out the animal.

The best answer is to pull the houses down that are on the flood plain and
stop people getting flooded.
Its probably cheaper than the flood defences and it would stop them
demanding even more of my tax money to waste.

In article , dennis@home
wrote:

"John Cartmell" wrote in message
...

Very true. The best answer is to produce numerous, small water-slowing
areas close to water collection areas. It would be incredibly expensive
to produce them manually but there is an alternative and that is to do
it not 'man'ually but 'castor'ally, ie not by man but but Castor fiber
(beaver) which is how it was done in this country before we wiped out
the animal.

The best answer is to pull the houses down that are on the flood plain and
stop people getting flooded. Its probably cheaper than the flood defences
and it would stop them demanding even more of my tax money to waste.

Flood plains are, by definition, too far down the rivers to be anything but a
long stop. The very best answer is to have short-stops to stop the need to
rely more than once a century on long-stops.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

Guy King wrote:
The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

The answer to building on flood plains is trivially easy. Each house,or
housing estate should be surrounded by a levee over which the access
road runs, sufficiently high to prevent flooding.

The drawback with building on the floodplains in the first place is that
they are then no longer available as dampers (lousy pun) on water
levels. Build on one and the problem downstream may still be manageable.
Build on several in a row and the poor buggers downstream get hit with
floods out of the blue in a previously nonflooding location.

Exactly. This is why you need to have areas to allow flooding onto,.
without compromising the housing.

You could, for example, build a small town entirely on a concrete raft
on piles.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Guy King wrote:
The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

The drawback with building on the floodplains in the first place is that
they are then no longer available as dampers (lousy pun) on water
levels. Build on one and the problem downstream may still be manageable.
Build on several in a row and the poor buggers downstream get hit with
floods out of the blue in a previously nonflooding location.

Exactly. This is why you need to have areas to allow flooding onto,.
without compromising the housing.

Not necessarily though. Houses themselves only occupy a minority
percentage of the land, and if theyre flood-safe the area can flood,
giving almost the same protection as before.

Alternatively, corrugating the land, with the houses running along the
corrugation peaks, would yield even more flood protection, since at any
given water height below the peak of the corrugations the plain
actually has more water capacity than flat land. It is entirely
practical for developers to do this. In times of flood, people would be
stuck with using boats to get around, but houses shops and factories
would remain dry, and since all loos would be above flood level, there
would be no sewage flooding houses..


NT

wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Guy King wrote:
The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

The drawback with building on the floodplains in the first place is that
they are then no longer available as dampers (lousy pun) on water
levels. Build on one and the problem downstream may still be manageable.
Build on several in a row and the poor buggers downstream get hit with
floods out of the blue in a previously nonflooding location.

Exactly. This is why you need to have areas to allow flooding onto,.
without compromising the housing.

Not necessarily though. Houses themselves only occupy a minority
percentage of the land, and if theyre flood-safe the area can flood,
giving almost the same protection as before.

Alternatively, corrugating the land, with the houses running along the
corrugation peaks, would yield even more flood protection, since at any
given water height below the peak of the corrugations the plain
actually has more water capacity than flat land. It is entirely
practical for developers to do this. In times of flood, people would be
stuck with using boats to get around, but houses shops and factories
would remain dry, and since all loos would be above flood level, there
would be no sewage flooding houses..




No, you simply drive along the corrugation peaks.

This is how the Fens are done..a bit like a waffle..you drive along the
ridges, and the levees are both roadways, and also contain bridges over
sluices and the drains run alongside the levees.

Flooding is controlled by selective flooding of the polders, and then
when the flow comes down, the pumps simply pump it all back up into the
rivers.

Some polders are never flooded, and contain houses...

NT

The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

The drawback with building on the floodplains in the first place is that
they are then no longer available as dampers (lousy pun) on water
levels. Build on one and the problem downstream may still be manageable.
Build on several in a row and the poor buggers downstream get hit with
floods out of the blue in a previously nonflooding location.

Exactly. This is why you need to have areas to allow flooding onto,.
without compromising the housing.

Probably best to avoid the whole issue by not building there in the
first place. Then the river can do what they like without bothering more
than a few sheep and cows.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

"gort" wrote in message
news

Now that a stink appears to be gathering over houses built on flood
plains,

Who knows what is meant by "flood plain" in this context?

I live 300 yards from a river. A flood bank was built 50 years ago, and
if the river ever reached the top of it, most of South Derbyshire and
the top corner of Leicestershire would be under water, as there's no
flood bank on the opposite side of the river. My house has not been
flooded since the bank was built. Yet we still feature on some crude
flood map, and get ludicrously alarmist letters from some Government
agency or other. Our neighbour has been refused pp for some garden
development because he didn't submit a "flood risk assessment". If he
has this done, and it shows no significant risk despite what the
damnfool map shows, and he gets permission, will this go down as
"development in a flood plain" for shallow-thinkers to get all excited
about?


--
Kevin Poole
**Use current month and year to reply (e.g. )***
Car Transport by Tiltbed Trailer - based near Derby

On 2006-05-11, gort wrote:

Now that a stink appears to be gathering over houses built on flood
plains, if I remember correctly did'nt Pratscott have alot to do with
overturning many of the objections to allow the building to take place.
This must be all the valuable work he will still be able to do by staying
in office.

Dave

It's been going on a lot longer than Prescott could claim credit for.
During the 80's some bright spark got P/P and built a bunch of houses
on a flood plain near Maidenhead (v. desirable, what with the river).
A few years later when it flooded (as flood plains do ...) the
regional TV sent a reporter around to gloat^H^H^H^H^Hinvestigate. I remember
watching one occupant they interviewed wailing "They never told us it would
flood."

Pete

--
.................................................. .........................
.. never trust a man who, when left alone ...... Pete Lynch .
.. in a room with a tea cosy ...... Marlow, England .
.. doesn't try it on (Billy Connolly) .....................................

On Thu, 11 May 2006 18:48:14 GMT someone who may be Peter Lynch
wrote this:-

It's been going on a lot longer than Prescott could claim credit for.
During the 80's some bright spark got P/P and built a bunch of houses
on a flood plain near Maidenhead (v. desirable, what with the river).
A few years later when it flooded (as flood plains do ...) the
regional TV sent a reporter around to gloat^H^H^H^H^Hinvestigate. I remember
watching one occupant they interviewed wailing "They never told us it would
flood."

A member of my family, who is a planner in England, once told me
(after some floods of recently built houses had appeared on the
television) that she had told them not to build on the flood plains
concerned, but had been over ruled by councillors. Of course if the
councillors had not over ruled her then some Prescott in the
Westminster government would have done so. Are party politicians
thick, or are they getting back handers?


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

The message
from David Hansen contains these words:

Are party politicians thick, or are they getting back handers?

How do the "or" slip into that question?

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.