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?

On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 01:52:25 -0800 (PST), 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?


https://thefloodcompany.co.uk/how-to...in-a-bathroom/
seem to have a range of suggestions. No doubt there are other vendors.

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!




--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

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 ?

You say 'surely', as if it were obvious, but I don't think it is. A
metal plate that slides into a housing will protect your front door and
cost maybe £30. Repeat that around the house, and you can probably do a
decent job for a couple of hundred pounds.

Of course, you also have to drive your car to higher ground, so it's
less convenient than protecting the whole area.

Really, we shouldn't be building on flood plains, but we do.




Clearly the planet can't be that much at risk if we can **** away carbon
on this sort of nonsense.

In article ,
GB 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 ?

You say 'surely', as if it were obvious, but I don't think it is. A
metal plate that slides into a housing will protect your front door and
cost maybe £30. Repeat that around the house, and you can probably do a
decent job for a couple of hundred pounds.

Of course, you also have to drive your car to higher ground, so it's
less convenient than protecting the whole area.

Really, we shouldn't be building on flood plains, but we do.

I wouldn't call Bridgenorth a flood plain

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

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 by dredging.
Bill

On 01/02/2021 11:47, charles wrote:

I wouldn't call Bridgenorth a flood plain


If you mean Bridgnorth, do you mean high town or low town?

Bill

In article ,
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?

In insurance speak, this likely means not increasing your premiums quite
so much if you spend far more than any likely savings in that.

--
*Never kick a cow pat on a hot day *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 01/02/2021 12:27, williamwright wrote:
On 01/02/2021 11:47, charles wrote:

I wouldn't call Bridgenorth a flood plain


If you mean Bridgnorth, do you mean high town or low town?


When in Shropshire my Sat Nav failed to find Bridgenorth

He cannot mean high town with that climb
Any land that is relatively flat next to a river is likely to have been
a flood plain and even with flood defences still likely to be so. Who
builds houses close to a river that is known to rise by 15+ feet during
heavy rain.


--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In message , alan_m
writes
Or save money on flood defences by not building in inappropriate places!


Not quite as simple as that.

Developer builds properties in a safe area, so no flood prevention work
needed.

Later, (possibly decades later) a developer builds properties some
distance away, in a place that was acting as part of the natural flood
defence by soaking up excess rainfall, then releasing it slowly. That
rainfall now has nowhere to go, and the previously safe development now
gets flooded. Which set of buildings were built in the inappropriate
place, the first or second set ?

Adrian
--
To Reply :
replace "diy" with "news" and reverse the domain

If you are reading this from a web interface eg DIY Banter,
DIY Forum or Google Groups, please be aware this is NOT a forum, and
you are merely using a web portal to a USENET group. Many people block
posters coming from web portals due to perceieved SPAM or inaneness.
For a better method of access, please see:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

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?

Organise for the whole house to float
like the Grand Designs one on the Thames.

On Tue, 2 Feb 2021 07:22:54 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH troll****

--
John addressing the senile Australian pest:
"You are a complete idiot. But you make me larf. LOL"
MID:

Also any downstairs drains inside the house where water might come up of
course.
Maybe we all need to have floating homes?
Well since they built on so many flood plains it seems to me that this is
where the issue lies. In very old times there was a reason for flood plains.
Brian

--

This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"fred" wrote in message
...
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?

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 ?

Clearly the planet can't be that much at risk if we can **** away carbon
on this sort of nonsense.

The answer is of course that flood plain builds should be bunded, but
the problem there is where will the water now go? further downstream...



--
€œIt is not the truth of Marxism that explains the willingness of
intellectuals to believe it, but the power that it confers on
intellectuals, in their attempts to control the world. And since...it is
futile to reason someone out of a thing that he was not reasoned into,
we can conclude that Marxism owes its remarkable power to survive every
criticism to the fact that it is not a truth-directed but a
power-directed system of thought.€�
Sir Roger Scruton

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.









--
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Jonathan Swift.

On 02/02/2021 11:24, The Natural Philosopher 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 ?

Clearly the planet can't be that much at risk if we can **** away carbon
on this sort of nonsense.

The answer is of course that flood plain builds should be bunded, but
the problem there is where will the water now go? further downstream...


Is a bund round 1000 homes, their gardens, and all the streets likely to
be cheaper than protecting the weak points in 1000 individual houses?

On 02/02/2021 11:30, GB wrote:
On 02/02/2021 11:24, The Natural Philosopher 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 ?

Clearly the planet can't be that much at risk if we can **** away carbon
on this sort of nonsense.

The answer is of course that flood plain builds should be bunded, but
the problem there is where will the water now go? further downstream...


Is a bund round 1000 homes, their gardens, and all the streets likely to
be cheaper than protecting the weak points in 1000 individual houses?

Probably.

Its just a few days with a big digger or three

If you are digging out foundations, and a communal soakaway. you simply
pile the spoil up as a shallow sloped wall. In fact people may pay you
to absorb subsoil from other building projects. I ended up building up
low bits of my garden when I built the new house and pond.

Plant it with willow and alder and grass and it will be a nice feature
in no time

I lived on the Fens where flooding is an every year event...polders
exist that are essentially bunded, and the water allowed to flood those,
then they are pumped out later on. Cattle are allowed to graze them in
summer.

No one builds on them though except te stupid people who put a station
car park on one.

In East Anglia we *have* to deal with water management, so we do. And we
don't get floods in habitable parts.

I used to live 6 feet *below* the river Cam/Ouse.





--
Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
Mark Twain

On 02/02/2021 12:08, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 02 Feb 2021 11:30:05 +0000, GB wrote:

On 02/02/2021 11:24, The Natural Philosopher 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 ?

Clearly the planet can't be that much at risk if we can **** away
carbon on this sort of nonsense.

The answer is of course that flood plain builds should be bunded, but
the problem there is where will the water now go? further downstream...


Is a bund round 1000 homes, their gardens, and all the streets likely to
be cheaper than protecting the weak points in 1000 individual houses?

Sounds like communism to me.


Communism would simply ban all media reporting of any
natural (or man-made) event that caused harm/expense,
so no-one would hear about it apart from word-of-mouth.

On Tuesday, February 2, 2021 at 3:28:59 PM UTC, Andrew wrote:
On 02/02/2021 12:08, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 02 Feb 2021 11:30:05 +0000, GB wrote:

On 02/02/2021 11:24, The Natural Philosopher 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 ?

Clearly the planet can't be that much at risk if we can **** away
carbon on this sort of nonsense.

The answer is of course that flood plain builds should be bunded, but
the problem there is where will the water now go? further downstream....


Is a bund round 1000 homes, their gardens, and all the streets likely to
be cheaper than protecting the weak points in 1000 individual houses?

Sounds like communism to me.


Communism would simply ban all media reporting of any
natural (or man-made) event that caused harm/expense,
so no-one would hear about it apart from word-of-mouth.


I witnessed new houses being built on 'boggy' ground and wondered at the sense of it. (Land was cheap I suppose) Of course the new houses flooded within a short period of time, Before they were even sold and whilst the estate was still being developed. So they constructed a bund. It wasn't big enough and in short order the houses got flooded again. They then had to go further up back stream and build an enormous bunded area controlled by gates to allow them control the flow. Cheap sites my eye.

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

On 02/02/2021 17:01, fred wrote:
On Tuesday, February 2, 2021 at 3:28:59 PM UTC, Andrew wrote:
On 02/02/2021 12:08, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 02 Feb 2021 11:30:05 +0000, GB wrote:

On 02/02/2021 11:24, The Natural Philosopher 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 ?

Clearly the planet can't be that much at risk if we can
**** away carbon on this sort of nonsense.

The answer is of course that flood plain builds should be
bunded, but the problem there is where will the water now go?
further downstream...


Is a bund round 1000 homes, their gardens, and all the streets
likely to be cheaper than protecting the weak points in 1000
individual houses?

Sounds like communism to me.


Communism would simply ban all media reporting of any natural (or
man-made) event that caused harm/expense, so no-one would hear
about it apart from word-of-mouth.


I witnessed new houses being built on 'boggy' ground and wondered at
the sense of it. (Land was cheap I suppose) Of course the new houses
flooded within a short period of time, Before they were even sold and
whilst the estate was still being developed. So they constructed a
bund. It wasn't big enough and in short order the houses got flooded
again. They then had to go further up back stream and build an
enormous bunded area controlled by gates to allow them control the
flow. Cheap sites my eye.

IF they had thought about all that from the start it *would* have been

Basically you have to allow the gardens to flood. But not the houses or
access roads




--
€œPuritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.€�

H.L. Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 02/02/2021 11:30, GB wrote:
On 02/02/2021 11:24, The Natural Philosopher 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 ?

Clearly the planet can't be that much at risk if we can **** away
carbon
on this sort of nonsense.

The answer is of course that flood plain builds should be bunded, but
the problem there is where will the water now go? further downstream...


Is a bund round 1000 homes, their gardens, and all the streets likely to
be cheaper than protecting the weak points in 1000 individual houses?

Probably.

Its just a few days with a big digger or three

There is a lot more involved than that, most obviously with the roads.

If you are digging out foundations, and a communal soakaway. you simply
pile the spoil up as a shallow sloped wall. In fact people may pay you to
absorb subsoil from other building projects. I ended up building up low
bits of my garden when I built the new house and pond.

Plant it with willow and alder and grass and it will be a nice feature in
no time

I lived on the Fens where flooding is an every year event...polders exist
that are essentially bunded, and the water allowed to flood those, then
they are pumped out later on. Cattle are allowed to graze them in summer.

No one builds on them though except te stupid people who put a station car
park on one.

In East Anglia we *have* to deal with water management, so we do. And we
don't get floods in habitable parts.

I used to live 6 feet *below* the river Cam/Ouse.

"Jethro_uk" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Feb 2021 11:30:05 +0000, GB wrote:

On 02/02/2021 11:24, The Natural Philosopher 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 ?

Clearly the planet can't be that much at risk if we can **** away
carbon on this sort of nonsense.

The answer is of course that flood plain builds should be bunded, but
the problem there is where will the water now go? further downstream...


Is a bund round 1000 homes, their gardens, and all the streets likely to
be cheaper than protecting the weak points in 1000 individual houses?

Sounds like communism to me.

Then you need a new hearing aid, bad.

Lots of the smaller river towns in Australia have them.

On Thu, 4 Feb 2021 06:45:02 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
"Who or What is Rod Speed?
Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod Speed
is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered he can
enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the big, hard
man" on the InterNet."
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Thu, 4 Feb 2021 06:43:50 +1100, Fred, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread


--
The Natural Philosopher about senile Rodent:
"Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole."
Message-ID: