Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
stormymonday_2011

'no Hosepipe Ban For London' But New Homes Must Wait

Recommended Posts

Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman, meanwhile, signalled the huge housing boost planned for the South-East would only be allowed once water supplies could be guaranteed.

After the first drought area was declared this summer, in the East, she said sustainable development would be put at the "heart of the planning regime", adding that "it's no good building houses" if the water infrastructure is not there.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23959319-no-hosepipe-ban-for-london-but-new-homes-must-wait.do

Edited by stormymonday_2011

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mean to annoy anyone, but she is damned right

The water IS available from resrvoirs up north, they can easily handle the capacity AFAIK at least with minimum expansion

problem lies in getting the water down south and planning permission thru protected areas (Peak District National Park as far as I know) for a large transfer pipe to be laid

maybe they are summoning the political will to annoy the environmentalists and pass a bill thru parliament to allow completion of the national water super-grid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mean to annoy anyone, but she is damned right

The water IS available from resrvoirs up north, they can easily handle the capacity AFAIK at least with minimum expansion

problem lies in getting the water down south and planning permission thru protected areas (Peak District National Park as far as I know) for a large transfer pipe to be laid

maybe they are summoning the political will to annoy the environmentalists and pass a bill thru parliament to allow completion of the national water super-grid?

Pipes from reservoirs can be done with very little long-term impact. The pipeline from Thirlmere to Manchester, gravity all the way, was built in the 19th century and even then the requirement was for it to be buried out of sight in what's now the national park. If they could do it then they should be able to do more now.

The Peak District and Lake District reservoirs probably don't have all that much to spare (they've certainly all got rather low in dry years) but if you go a bit further north I don't think that Kielder has ever got anywhere near empty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mean to annoy anyone, but she is damned right

The water IS available from resrvoirs up north, they can easily handle the capacity AFAIK at least with minimum expansion

problem lies in getting the water down south and planning permission thru protected areas (Peak District National Park as far as I know) for a large transfer pipe to be laid

maybe they are summoning the political will to annoy the environmentalists and pass a bill thru parliament to allow completion of the national water super-grid?

There is no water shortage in the UK

And before you go building mega projects you can reduce the supposed problem greatly by

Reducing leaks

Converting more home to meters ( I know if I had a meter my consumption would drop lots maybe more than 50%)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pipes from reservoirs can be done with very little long-term impact. The pipeline from Thirlmere to Manchester, gravity all the way, was built in the 19th century and even then the requirement was for it to be buried out of sight in what's now the national park. If they could do it then they should be able to do more now.

The Peak District and Lake District reservoirs probably don't have all that much to spare (they've certainly all got rather low in dry years) but if you go a bit further north I don't think that Kielder has ever got anywhere near empty.

yep

there are regional supergrids - the whole of yorkshire from north to south is almost completely connected up for example although I understand the capacity to sheffield is poor;

there are just missing links inbetween regional water companies, so only a few of these missing links need building and then the supergrids are joined into a national supergrid

and yes water pipelines do appear to have low environmental impact once built but (1) these particular pipelines for the supergrid are bigger than typical reservoir pipelines (imagine having to supply a large percentage of London's water down one or 2 pipes from the north in the event of southern water shortages) so I guess would make quite a bit of noise/mess whilst being constructed, and (2) areas of natural beauty are commonly populated with modern crazed nimbys who have both labour (environmental demographic) and tory (middle class recluse demographic) sewn up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no water shortage in the UK

And before you go building mega projects you can reduce the supposed problem greatly by

Reducing leaks

popular myth - all water grids leak and the companies do as much as they can, uk companies are no exception to the rest of the world

(locating all the underground leaks in all the major water mains and repairing them could be a bigger job than completing the national supergrid, for example, they would be a mega-project in their own right)

Converting more home to meters ( I know if I had a meter my consumption would drop lots maybe more than 50%)

true, but politically difficult - maybe the govet will try this too, good idea if they do, hopefully

edit: fwiw, completing the supergrid is not an engineering mega-project anyway; it is easy enough to do, the only objection is political/nimbyism, it is not a big physical project at all, certainly not when balanced against the gains

Edited by Si1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

popular myth - all water grids leak and the companies do as much as they can, uk companies are no exception to the rest of the world

true, but politically difficult - maybe the govet will try this too, good idea if they do, hopefully

Re: leaks, I dunno that they try that hard. Tough job though, granted. Two leaks near me spouted forth for (and I'm not kidding) several months before they were fixed. They were on busy roads too, so they were bleeding obvious, especially in summer when a great wet slick was present. on an otherwise bone dry road. I guess they're not too bothered because water costs nowt to them, more or less. 4p/ metre cubed, a friend once told me, albeit 10 years ago. Compare and contrast with the ~£1/m3 charged, and ~50p /metre cubed for taking it away again.

Any move to push households onto meters will surely have to be accompanied by a free market in water supplies- the current system is a Corporate monopoly by postcode.

Edited by cheeznbreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: leaks, I dunno that they try that hard. Tough job though, granted. Two leaks near me spouted forth for (and I'm not kidding) several months before they were fixed.

strangely enough, even the gushers on the surface are a fraction the size of the sub-surface leaks, in economic terms it is more cost-efficient to fix the underground ones (that can be absolutely enourmous) than the surface ones; the surface ones, even ones you perceive to be very large, are only fixed in order to placate the public's concerns, the proportional amount of water lost is small

They were on busy roads too, so they were bleeding obvious, especially in summer when a great wet slick was present. on an otherwise bone dry road. I guess they're not too bothered because water costs nowt to them, more or less. 4p/ metre cubed, a friend once told me, albeit 10 years ago. Compare and contrast with the ~£1/m3 charged, and ~50p /metre cubed for taking it away again.

Any move to push households onto meters will surely have to be accompanied by a free market in water supplies- the current system is a Corporate monopoly by postcode.

problem is that a typical modern water-works serves a very large part of a major city, same to be said about water distribution and sewage disposal, water companies are already about as granular as you can make them. Since the cost of supplying water is almost entirely borne from the cost of local infrastructure, then it does not follow that you can have competing suppliers as for electricity, where the main cost is the cost of generation and nopt local infrastructure. ie EDF electricity owns its own power stations as does EON and so they compete on generation of electircity and providing that electricity to people through a shared national grid. Water infrastructure cannot be duplicated locally due to space-considerations (for this I mean local water supoplyiong pipes, sewers etc) so there is no way 2 companies could meaningfully compete - someone would have a monopoly on the pipes however you look at it, and the cost would entirely be down to them. Introducing paper-pushing middle men would merely serve to add another layer of admin and costs imho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mean to annoy anyone, but she is damned right

The water IS available from resrvoirs up north, they can easily handle the capacity AFAIK at least with minimum expansion

problem lies in getting the water down south and planning permission thru protected areas (Peak District National Park as far as I know) for a large transfer pipe to be laid

maybe they are summoning the political will to annoy the environmentalists and pass a bill thru parliament to allow completion of the national water super-grid?

move the jobs up north.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd fire her today if I was in charge. Sounds like one of the champaigne socialists, who wants to force everyone else to cut back.

There is plenty of water in this country, in fact it rains almost everyday. Its just a matter of building more dams, upgrading existing ones, and putting in the additional infrastructure to handle the growing population.

And btw building all that will mean lots of actual real jobs. Not the tourism part time workers and bicycle repairmen that the champagne socialists are always raving about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd fire her today if I was in charge. Sounds like one of the champaigne socialists, who wants to force everyone else to cut back.

There is plenty of water in this country, in fact it rains almost everyday. Its just a matter of building more dams, upgrading existing ones, and putting in the additional infrastructure to handle the growing population.

And btw building all that will mean lots of actual real jobs. Not the tourism part time workers and bicycle repairmen that the champagne socialists are always raving about.

Don't you think it's a rather good idea to make sure you've got all the plans to do all of that before you start building the houses though, and to make sure they're ready when the houses are? All she seems to be saying is don't go building houses without providing the necessary infrastructure, which sounds pretty sensible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yep

there are regional supergrids - the whole of yorkshire from north to south is almost completely connected up for example although I understand the capacity to sheffield is poor;

there are just missing links inbetween regional water companies, so only a few of these missing links need building and then the supergrids are joined into a national supergrid

and yes water pipelines do appear to have low environmental impact once built but (1) these particular pipelines for the supergrid are bigger than typical reservoir pipelines (imagine having to supply a large percentage of London's water down one or 2 pipes from the north in the event of southern water shortages) so I guess would make quite a bit of noise/mess whilst being constructed, and (2) areas of natural beauty are commonly populated with modern crazed nimbys who have both labour (environmental demographic) and tory (middle class recluse demographic) sewn up

You wouldn't wait until a draught was confirmed you would continuously pump water from north to south assuming the north has surplus all the time

That way the pipe doesn't need to have the full capacity of demand but a fraction of it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I listened to her and the debate on Radio 4 this morning. The woman is an idiot - she used it as an excuse to ridicule John Prescotts plans he hadback in the day to build 900,000 new homes in the South East of England, rather than saying anything useful.

No mention re limiting commercial builds even though the commentator tried to get her to answer on that. She also admitted that they had zero powers to change policy or enforce anything anyway "oh only the water companies can enforce a hosepipe ban" & "when theres a drought delcared, then we get round the table with water companies & users of water to see if theres anything we can do to help - we dont tell them what they must do, because we cant"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are a bit short here in Yorkshire, the reservoirs look low, but we now have a network of pipes to shift the stuff about more, following the drought disaster mid 90's.

I heard at one time London was going to get a desalination plant on the Thames at Beckton, but Ken Livingstone killed it off. Maybe it should have been built?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't you think it's a rather good idea to make sure you've got all the plans to do all of that before you start building the houses though, and to make sure they're ready when the houses are? All she seems to be saying is don't go building houses without providing the necessary infrastructure, which sounds pretty sensible.

I don't mind that part of the argument. Say she was asking for more money and or approvals to go ahead with water supply expansions. But I got the gut feeling she was trying to resist the idea of building more houses.

Which would have been the politically correct thing to do 2 years ago.. but now is out of date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

strangely enough, even the gushers on the surface are a fraction the size of the sub-surface leaks, in economic terms it is more cost-efficient to fix the underground ones (that can be absolutely enourmous) than the surface ones; the surface ones, even ones you perceive to be very large, are only fixed in order to placate the public's concerns, the proportional amount of water lost is small

problem is that a typical modern water-works serves a very large part of a major city, same to be said about water distribution and sewage disposal, water companies are already about as granular as you can make them. Since the cost of supplying water is almost entirely borne from the cost of local infrastructure, then it does not follow that you can have competing suppliers as for electricity, where the main cost is the cost of generation and nopt local infrastructure. ie EDF electricity owns its own power stations as does EON and so they compete on generation of electircity and providing that electricity to people through a shared national grid. Water infrastructure cannot be duplicated locally due to space-considerations (for this I mean local water supoplyiong pipes, sewers etc) so there is no way 2 companies could meaningfully compete - someone would have a monopoly on the pipes however you look at it, and the cost would entirely be down to them. Introducing paper-pushing middle men would merely serve to add another layer of admin and costs imho.

Interesting, re subsurface leaks.

Regarding competition, the gas network must be analogous, although I guess we're back to a national water grid again.I wonder how difficult it would really be to have minimal water grid use, if rainwater is collected etc. Sewage disposal is the tricky part though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are a bit short here in Yorkshire, the reservoirs look low, but we now have a network of pipes to shift the stuff about more, following the drought disaster mid 90's.

I heard at one time London was going to get a desalination plant on the Thames at Beckton, but Ken Livingstone killed it off. Maybe it should have been built?

Yes that was really sad. Desalination plants are like reserve capacity in a power system. You hope you don't need them, but if a drought comes you can run the desalination plant 24/7 filling up the resevoir.

The cost has come down shockingly far for desalation. Now not far off a rainfed system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You wouldn't wait until a draught was confirmed you would continuously pump water from north to south assuming the north has surplus all the time

That way the pipe doesn't need to have the full capacity of demand but a fraction of it

doh! my argument considered the existibng storage in the South, of course, double-doh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding competition, the gas network must be analogous, although I guess we're back to a national water grid again.I wonder how difficult it would really be to have minimal water grid use, if rainwater is collected etc. Sewage disposal is the tricky part though.

I believe it is a lot more expensive to maintain a water network than gas, and requires much higher spec fixed pipes against hoses for gas. And of course sewage provision doubles the problem. Water erodes more than gas, and sewage blocks and erodes all in the same action, awful stuff.

As to using local rainwater from your house etc - problem is in cities that this stuff is polluted especially if it has runoff from the city, needs a hell of a lot of treatment to modern standards, best done in a large works, so you may as well get runoff from the countryside instead and put thru same water works at lower treatment cost. As to non-drinking water, couldn't agree more, maybe when this stuff gets metered people will use water-butts more, whether they would choose to shower or wash the car in it I don't know, and i suspect private treatment works would be uneconomical.

Edited by Si1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it is a lot more expensive to maintain a water network than gas, and requires much higher spec fixed pipes against hoses for gas. And of course sewage provision doubles the problem.

As to using local rainwater from your house etc - problem is in cities that this stuff is polluted especially if it has runoff from the city, needs a hell of a lot of treatment to modern standards, best done in a large works, so you may as well get runoff from the countryside instead and put thru same water works at lower treatment cost. As to non-drinking water, couldn't agree more, maybe when this stuff gets metered people will use water-butts more, whether they would choose to shower or wash the car in it I don't know, and i suspect private treatment works would be uneconomical.

If it just falls straight into some sort of container you put up ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it just falls straight into some sort of container you put up ?

after having rolled off your roof, yep, full of city grime, bird droppings etc

the stuff in the countryside has filtered thru topsoil and gets cleaned by bacteria within said topsoil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And btw building all that will mean lots of actual real jobs. Not the tourism part time workers and bicycle repairmen that the champagne socialists are always raving about.

The jobs created in the construction of a water super grid would surely only last till the project, How can these positions be made permanent?

With the cost of petrol climbing the cycle industry is going to strenghten.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

after having rolled off your roof, yep, full of city grime, bird droppings etc

the stuff in the countryside has filtered thru topsoil and gets cleaned by bacteria within said topsoil

After rolling off your roof ?! I live in Jockland. No such worries here. Just pop open a clean wheelie bin. Will be full in a jiffy. :D

Sw on some TV show some house that had some system put in. I think it rolled off the roof as you say. However it then filtered through some hom made sort of thing. Different layers of clay adn then silt and soil and who knows what. I imagine it does what nature does for free ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now we are seeing the true cost of uncontrolled immigration.

10's if not 100's of Billions now need to be spent on infrastructure projects

And we just do not have the means to do this.

The country is utterly scr*wed.

This is only the beginning.

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now we are seeing the true cost of uncontrolled immigration.

10's if not 100's of Billions now need to be spent on infrastructure projects

And we just do not have the means to do this.

The country is utterly scr*wed.

This is only the beginning.

:blink:

There is plenty of water in the North, north. No one wants to live there though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 312 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.