Flood risk increased with new housing built without defences in vulnerable areas, MPs warn
Experts and MPs warn a lack of resources and time and weak planning rules mean developments are getting the green light despite warnings about flood risk.
New homes are being built on flood plains in England without defences to protect them and in spite of warnings about the risk, MPs have said.
The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) report on flood-proofing England also said an additional 203,000 properties are at risk of flooding because existing defences have not been maintained.
I first became aware of this as an important environmental issue in the early seventies, about 50 years ago. Of course we never bought a house anywhere near a flood plain and neither did anyone else who knew about the entirely obvious risk of flooding. Yet the builders of Tewkesbury Abbey knew what to do about it apparently.
 |
| Tewkesbury - Source |
What I didn't realise at the time was that it would take MPs at least 50 years to catch on, but I was young and believed in the power of reality and reason. Not for long though.
8 comments:
My work took me to Queensland, Rockhampton, for a week and I and the team of Aussies I was working with lived in a rented house built on top of tree trunks. I was told the house was of a type known as a "Queenslander". This in an estate of similar houses.
In that part of Aus the droughts can last for years but when it rains, it pours.
The parched soil cannot absorb the rain and so they get floods.
The space under the house is not wasted. It is cool, so cars get parked. Stuff gets stored.
Maybe all our intelligent house builders immigrated.
In my newly adopted area of Northants there are flood plains aplenty which housing estates are being built upon. Locals of many years standing tell me it's because of the (bribes)_ahem, flow of money passing from the house builders to the local planning authorities.
I seem to recall John Prescott, or some other Labour Party minion, insisting that houses could be built on flood plains, claiming that technology would keep them safe. That turned out well during the next flood, I believe. Water always wins. All you can do is divert it, but then it has to go somewhere else, probably where there are no flood defences. The problems of building houses, and the existence of flood plains always seem to arise when politicians become involved. I don't think the building of Tewkesbury Abbey had any political input. Perhaps that's why it's still there?
Penseivat
Doonhamer - that's too sensible for our decision-makers. Presumably Queenslanders could also store a boat under that type of house, ready for when the rains come.
Tammly - I've often wondered about the brown envelope aspect. I used to know a local councillor who was sure the chief planning officer took bribes but he couldn't prove it.
Penseivat - I remember a flood defence engineer telling me just that, all you can do is divert the water to somewhere else. He said that a major financial aspect of a flood defence project is the possible monetary loss due to flooding now compared to a lesser monetary loss when the water is diverted elsewhere by the project.
I believe our indigenous population's fertility dropped to replacement rate around 50 years ago, too. The only building which should have been needed since then would be replacements, upgrades,and some new builds to cater for increased family fission, and increased life expectancy. But someone has been ushering an elephant into the room, and it's all getting a bit crowded now.
They might like to study the Netherlands … a bit different but not completely. In short, MPs will do nothing for people unless they stand to lose their seats.
Doonhamer … Brisbane itself has houses on stilts too … or used to.
Sam - it certainly is a bit crowded, houses being built all over the place, even near major roads and motorways where the traffic roar must be constant.
James - yes, they have no intention of doing whatever they promise before elections. It's merely promotional hype.
Post a Comment