You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Someone seems to be ready risk the wrath of Joe Public.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51620992
Interesting to see how that debate will pan out. I cant believe that all he can do is advise against building on a flood plain and not force the builders to invest and more importantly disclose information to buyers. Maybe the next PPI scandal.
Surely it's not rocket science... you don't build where it's highly likely to flood.
Is it not county council's, politicians & builders who should be held to account on this?
*I don't really know much about this.
*or just build high rise tower blocks there.
, Sir James Bevan will say new housing should only be allowed if they are resilient to flooding.
So, you can build a "water resilient" home, that will still flood and trash all your possessions... 🤔
I like the idea of a 'safe' upstairs and a designated flood zone below. Sound a solution to me, basically a house on stilts.
So, you can build a “water resilient” home, that will still flood and trash all your possessions… 🤔
Nope, not even close.
I'm impressed he also intends to mention the idea of maving away from certain areas if they cannot be defended. Very hard thing to say as we have discussed it in here in recent days.
Of course he's right but it's not that simple.
Builder/developer acquires floodplain land; submits planning application; council considers - and says 'no'; developer goes to appeal; council cannot afford to contest the appeal; builder/developer wins by default.
Central gov banning developments on floodplains would be a start.
Builders/developers being required to provide insurance cover for properties on floodplains.
Local media actively covering planning applications for floodplains - publicise possible developments, report on status, appeals, final decision; publish in print and online.
Will mortgagors apply more stringent conditions to applications for properties on floodplains?
Weather events described as 1 in 100 years are now more like 1 in 10 in year events and will likely become more frequent.
Gov must take pro-active role and stop treating this as devolved to LAs and county councils.
Builders/developers being required to provide insurance cover for properties on floodplains.
would stop building on floodplains overnight..
sounds like a great idea.
Central gov banning developments on floodplains would be a start.
We're campaigning on this in my area, the problem is you can't build the number of house's 'required' without building on flood plain.
A sensible rule given sea levels would be to ban building on land under 6m above sea level - they rule out vast ares of land and they won't do it for any one area because it sets a precedent for everywhere and without plenty of building land you can't build plenty of houses.
Builder/developer acquires floodplain land; submits planning application; council considers – and says ‘no’; developer goes to appeal; council cannot afford to contest the appeal;
It's not a case of not having the money to contest, it's the fact they know they'd lose. The NPPF makes it very difficult to prevent housing development - that's what it's for.
I like the idea of a ‘safe’ upstairs and a designated flood zone below. Sound a solution to me, basically a house on stilts.
Resiliant housing is expensive, the first thing the developers do is point out they can't provide affordable housing if they have to build resiliant housing, so you end up losing all the affordable housing from the development.
We can't blame central government. The demand for housing comes from 'people'. We're the people they're just providing what we're demanding. If we want less houses we need less people, and that's down to us. OR we do what I've always thought would be a good idea and adopt a sane planning policy. That will create an even greater shortage of housing and *maybe* people will stop breeding and people will stop coming here from elsewhere. In other words use your housing availbility to control population. Truthfully I think building on areas that will flood regularly and then be underwater within 100 years is the least politically difficult and that's what all UK governments will do.
...adopt a sane planning policy. That will create an even greater shortage of housing and *maybe* people will stop breeding and people will stop coming here from elsewhere.
Nah, this wouldn't happen. Individuals aren't that prescient.
It's been a long while since I bought a house. Isn't flood risk one of the 'searches' that's done by solicitors? If not that'd be an effective measure against new builds on flood planes, either no one would purchase, (or lenders wouldn't mortgage) or resilient properties would have to be built to cope.
Terrible problem when new build on flood plain moves flood water to another area which was never impacted in the past - there is no practical comeback - you could be in a two hundred year old house that had never flooded and bingo you are finished.
Terrible problem when new build on flood plain moves flood water to another area which was never impacted in the past
This. The volume of new build (no matter how resilient itself) just displaces the floodwater elsewhere.
The elephant in the room is the sacred Green Belt and the reluctance for successive Governments to touch it. A sensible redraw of most Green Belts around major conurbations would meet housing needs without house-builders overpaying and fighting for housing in Flood Zones.
I think that's the choice this country has to face up to.
I left the Environment Agency in 2002. Even then, we were statutory consultees to planning permissions. Whenever flood plain development was proposed, the official response was 'this is a really bad idea' which was then duly ignored by the local authority.
Go figure.
Nah, this wouldn’t happen. Individuals aren’t that prescient.
I reckon if you were living in a 1 bed flat you wouldn't have 3 kids. I also reckon you wouldn't move areas for work if you couldn't afford to live there on that wage. Or maybe you'd find it made sense to move to a less densely populated area where prices are lower to have kids/work. So I think it would work to a degree. But might be more unpopular than building on flood plains.
It’s been a long while since I bought a house. Isn’t flood risk one of the ‘searches’ that’s done by solicitors? If not that’d be an effective measure against new builds on flood planes, either no one would purchase, (or lenders wouldn’t mortgage) or resilient properties would have to be built to cope.
Yes, flood risk today. So you buy a place and all is well, but in 30 years time it can't be insured or mortgaged.
Also it's done on todays estimates for sea level rise. But we all know these are already out of date will be revised upwards in a year or two - after many thousands of houses have been built.
The other wheeze is that standing water doesn't count as flood water - it's has to be running water. So the rules require councils to give planning permission for developers to build on land which is covered in standing water all winter, because technically it's not a 'flood'. (Drainage doesn't work if the water table is high, which on a coastal flood plain it will be!)
Terrible problem when new build on flood plain moves flood water to another area which was never impacted in the past – there is no practical comeback – you could be in a two hundred year old house that had never flooded and bingo you are finished.
Yeah, that happened on a large scale where I used to live.
Science officer, if what you say is correct Gov should make it mandatory for councils/builders/developers to accept EA recommendation.
Then, develop brownfield sites for houses not apartments.
Many more aspects to this it it's clear change is required.
Science officer, if what you say is correct Gov should make it mandatory for councils/builders/developers to accept EA recommendation.
They can't because then not enough housing would be built.
Then, develop brownfield sites for houses not apartments.
They can't because then not enough housing would be built, and the ones that were built would be too expensive because brownfield is expensive to develop.
I've often thought that there's a fortune to be made by someone who figures out how to retro fit effective flood resilience into existing properties.
I've toyed with the notion of false raft floors with inflatable airbags beneath which inflate when triggered by water sensors and lift the entire floor, contents and all, out of the reach of flood waters.
That’s fine until your sofa squashed against the ceiling perchy.....
I’ve toyed with the notion of false raft floors with inflatable airbags beneath which inflate when triggered by water sensors and lift the entire floor, contents and all, out of the reach of flood waters.
🤣 And woebetide anyone who owns a Grandfather Clock, Welsh Dresser or any other tall furniture. 3/10. Must try harder.
edit - Beaten to it.
I’ve often thought that there’s a fortune to be made by someone who figures out how to retro fit effective flood resilience into existing properties.
I also don't understand why a country that's a) producing too much landfill and b) has too little land can't use the one to mitigate the other! Concrete wall accross The Wash, fill it with landfill and level it off at 15m above sea level. Thirty years time we have the county of OutOfBreathShire. What's not to love?
Hebden Bridge is a good example of this. I'm from the Holme Valley, and that doesn't really flood. Hebden, a few miles away and with a very similar setting (steep sided Yorkshire valley with moors on top of the hills) floods every couple of years. The cost of the Calderdale floods must be huge - £30 million on the flood defences alone.
I suspect that after 50 years, when those flood defences are overwhelmed by ever increasing flood levels due to climate change, it will have been more cost effective to say "right, everybody out, we'll buy you a new house up the hill". And why on earth would you buy a house next to a river anyway? It's not hard not to - I've lived in 9 houses now and none have been by a river. Funnily enough, I've never been flooded.
That’s fine until your sofa squashed against the ceiling perchy…..
Normal room height is 8 feet high
Normal sofa is about three feet high..
I'm pretty sure many people who have had their homes ruined would have appreciated those additional five feet.
And woebetide anyone who owns a Grandfather Clock, Welsh Dresser or any other tall furniture. 3/10. Must try harder.
Only when they're stood upright. It'd be a hell of a lot easier to tip them over onto their back when the water starts pissing in your house rather than trying to carry them out of the house or upstairs.
It's not a complete plan and , I appreciate there are a few technical issues to iron out but I think the principal is sound.
I recall that the EA has planning powers to have planning applications referred to the Secretary of State if the Council goes against their recommendation. They rarely invoke it. Thanks to the swingeing cuts to the EA staff numbers, Unitary Councils/County Councils are now what's known as Lead Local Flood Authorities. They deal with most the day to day planning application consultations and don't have such powers. Go figure. Even if applications are referred the housing need argument often wins out.
By the way, where is our esteemed leader? He managed to get his arse up to Yorkshire, albeit reluctantly. Of course, there were votes to be won then...
I'm in Perchy! We already plan housing in vulnerable locations with electric circuits/sockets at waist height, flood proof doors/seals and flood alarms. I did a job like that on the harbour at Isle of Whithorn once.
You might have to find a way of greasing your skirting board though Perchy*
*not a euphemism
You might have to find a way of greasing your skirting board though Perchy
Hinged flaps round the edges which drop when the floor rises. avoids the door opening / socket / window cill sticking out issues.
Rails in the corners of the room to control the lateral movement,
I have actually thought quite hard about this.
In glorious Peoples Republic you don’t move house, house moves you!
Blimey, this place, you turn up to post a Baba Yaga's Hut picture, and some bastard has beaten you to it! 🙂
Perchy, there was a Grand Designs (or similar polo neck jumper show) with a 'floating' riverside house which worked, IIRC, on similar principles. Why raise the floor when you could raise the entire gaff?
https://www.dezeen.com/2014/10/15/baca-architects-amphibious-house-floating-floodwater/
😁
I recall that Grand Design house has a few teething issues but did work. I think Perchy was talking about something you could retro-fit. His idea does depend on houses being built square though **cough** persimmon **cough**
Why raise the floor when you could raise the entire gaff?
Difficult to retrofit that to a 200 year old stone cottage though.
His idea does depend on houses being built square though
Nope, the hinged edge flaps sort that out as well
Have you been in a persimmon new build?;)
My wife’s ex was head of A&R for a big label. He had a huge study/home office with bench seating round most of the wall. Under the benches were stored over 30 years of vinyl collecting in custom units. The sewers back up due to heavy rains and some dickheads blowing up the drains. Two feet of sewage ruined a priceless collection. Perchy’s 5ft would have been appreciated.
Perchy actually being serious about that? 🤯
Flood dissipates and the floor returns to normal levels to cover up litres of damp stinky mud that you can't clean up because access was blocked by a huge airbag.
Terrible problem when new build on flood plain moves flood water to another area which was never impacted in the past – there is no practical comeback – you could be in a two hundred year old house that had never flooded and bingo you are finished.
Not quite a flood plain issue but a new local authority build housing scheme in our area (galloway) was completed a few years ago and the existing houses which had never experienced issues suffered flooding from drains a few times/year, local authority didn't want to do anything until a few residents collected the flooded water (stinky sewerage stuff) in large 25litre plastic containers and proceeded to pour them over the local council office meeting room. drains were sorted within a month.
because access was blocked by a huge airbag.
Nope.
Because access underneath the floor to cleanup is provided by the still inflated, multiple, tall air bag jacks
Air bag jacks can lift a 40 ton truck without the assistance of bouyancy / water.
I thought we were done with listening to experts?
Perchy actually being serious about that?
Not really, but it's an interesing thought experiment that I keep coming back to to try and pick the holes in.
I don't know what's so expensive about building houses on stilts.
It used to be commonplace in Queensland.
Rather than try and lift the whole floor up why not just use magic carpets?
The house builders will build to make a profit, make these new houses unsalable is the only answer, tighten up on insurers, tighten up on mortgages, tighten up building standards, and make the conveyancing a lot more onerous
I'm surprised that lenders haven't already cottoned on to the increased risk that some of these new builds could quickly become uninsureable and unsellable. How are folk getting mortgages on them?
The house builders will build to make a profit, make these new houses unsalable is the only answer, tighten up on insurers, tighten up on mortgages, tighten up building standards, and make the conveyancing a lot more onerous
Yup, then you stop building on flood plain. But that doesn't help because the demand is still there. If flood plain is currently the least stupid place they can build and they can't build there the planners will have to put slightly more stupid places in Local plans. People aren't building on flood plain for a laugh, we're building on flood plain becuase it's the best available land in those areas. It's not like there will be better land than people are happy to have developed elsewhere - if there was they wouldn't be building on flood plain.
This all comes from demand. Unless you fix the demand you'll need to build houses in dumb places. ...and we don't want to fix demand, so guess what, we're going to carry on building on land that will be under the sea within 100 years.
Would love to see Nick Park do a little promo film for perchypanthers idea. It would be ace!
James Bevan interview just now on Ch4 news was quite good I thought.