Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Hectors House

A Small Lesson About About Building Houses And Flooding

Recommended Posts

Why an earth do people live in the flood plain that is the Thames Valley? The Thames is one of the longest rivers in England, it has countless tributaries that are prone to flooding. The water catchment area for the Thames basin is absolutely massive with water entering the Thames from Rivers Cherwell, Mole, Thame, Colne, Lea/Lee to name a few. It was pointed out that London is sat in the middle of a river valley with the hills of the North Downs and Chilterns on either side (will come to the Chilterns in a moment!).

The width of River Thames through London is less than half of what it was originally, due to various land reclamation schemes, so it is hardly surprising that a bottle neck exists upstream, there is literally nowhere for it to go. Should we have any sympathy for people who thought they were being smart and buying into the London property market without realising that Old father Thames has a habit every now and again of flooding!

I saw a comment on here today, someone was having a pop at the green belt and why can't it be built on, well the answer is this, the Chiltern Hills to the north of London are in the green belt, the hills have countless rivers which flow south into the Thames, places like London Colney and Watford flood because the river water has nowhere to go. By building across the green belt you will just make flooding worse, rain water won't be soaked up by the ground but will end up in storm drains very quickly and end up helping to make rivers swollen which will cause flooding downstream.

One of the conclusions about the flooding in Surrey and Berkshire was that the North Downs and Chilterns need to be reforested to help lock in the rainfall, so it doesn't run off quickly into rivers. The both the North Downs and Chilterns are chalk aquifers supplying people with drinking water, when it rains on these hills they normally takes 3 months before the water appears in springs, if you build recklessly across the green belt this water won't reach the aquifer, it will just cause flooding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like nonsense NIMBY logic to me.

There is PLENTY of land perfectly suitable for building houses on that isn't prone to flooding, it's just that we are denied the use of it. That is why people have had to build on flood plains, not all of the sacred 'green belt' is flood plain, not all developments have to be barrett slave box estates covered in concrete.

Last year it was "we can't build houses round my way 'cos of a supposed shortage of water" from the NIMBY anti build anything propaganda.

NO ONE with any sense is suggesting building on pristine countryside / areas of natural beauty / flood plains is a good idea - that's largely an invention of NINBY's to prove how we shouldn't build anything near them - at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no issues if you build the property on stilts like the older homes which flood every year. Problem is that the big building companies don't do this to save costs so new builds are very vulnerable. Not to mention their cheap build quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like nonsense NIMBY logic to me.

There is PLENTY of land perfectly suitable for building houses on that isn't prone to flooding, it's just that we are denied the use of it. That is why people have had to build on flood plains, not all of the sacred 'green belt' is flood plain, not all developments have to be barrett slave box estates covered in concrete.

Last year it was "we can't build houses round my way 'cos of a supposed shortage of water" from the NIMBY anti build anything propaganda.

NO ONE with any sense is suggesting building on pristine countryside / areas of natural beauty / flood plains is a good idea - that's largely an invention of NINBY's to prove how we shouldn't build anything near them - at all.

The East of Luton Housing Scheme proposed by Bloor is on one side of the Mimram Valley, at this point it is a dry valley although in 2000 a combination of wet autumn, wet winter and wet spring meant that the River Mimram was extended by some four miles north (just south of the village of Lilley and the A505), luckily there were no houses in the way. At the same time in a neighbouring valley the River Kym which has its source at the eastern end of Luton Airports runway suddenly came to life after a 100 years since it last flowed, residents in the village of Kimpton woke up one morning to literally find a river flowing through their houses and gardens. Over in the Ver valley at Markyate people were finding that the chalk stream was in flood and that their gardens were under a inch of water and they couldn't flush their toilets as the water table was so high the sewers were literally surrounded by ground water which was leeching into the sewers.

If the Bloor development goes ahead then storm water will not be soaked up by the chalk aquifer but run off into the Mimram Valley, the Mimram is a tributary of the River Lea, this would cause flooding in Welwyn, Hertford, Ware, and the A10 corridor into East London.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are no issues if you build the property on stilts like the older homes which flood every year. Problem is that the big building companies don't do this to save costs so new builds are very vulnerable. Not to mention their cheap build quality.

Do you build the roads and car parks on stilts too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like nonsense NIMBY logic to me.

There is PLENTY of land perfectly suitable for building houses on that isn't prone to flooding, it's just that we are denied the use of it.

It's not a question of siting the properties to avoid getting flooded themselved, it's the urbanisation of the countryside actually causing the flooding, because the water can't drain away into the ground as previously.

Edited by BigPig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a question of siting the properties to avoid getting flooded themselved, it's the urbanisation of the countryside actually causing the flooding, because the water can't drain away into the ground as previously.

pfffft...no one is talking about concreting over the countryside, I'm sure it's perfectly possible to design housing and parking that has a negliable effect on drainage if done properly.

Unfortunately incompetant planners didn't think about that when the rubber stamped sprawling slave box estates and out of town retail parks in the past - but that doesn't make it impossible to do in the future.

I agree we need loads more trees - it would've been simple to insist on this and proper surfacing that allowed much more rain to soak into the ground on these out of town shopping areas for example. But the big corporations wanted to build them as quickly and cheaply as possible and they were allowed to 'cos they're big n powerful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you build the roads and car parks on stilts too?

I don't think anyone minds if roads and car parks flood from time to time. But people do tend to be rather less keen on having their morning cuppa while standing in a foot of water. It's very common the world over to build houses on stilts or to have the lower level given over to a garage (although knowing people in this country, they'd be turned into an extra bedroom anyhow).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the conclusions about the flooding in Surrey and Berkshire was that the North Downs and Chilterns need to be reforested to help lock in the rainfall, so it doesn't run off quickly into rivers.

If you want to argue for reforesting the North Downs and Chilterns then argue for that. No need to drag housing into it, especially as I don't think anybody is proposing covering the hills with estates.

I saw a comment on here today, someone was having a pop at the green belt and why can't it be built on, well the answer is this, the Chiltern Hills to the north of London are in the green belt, the hills have countless rivers which flow south into the Thames, places like London Colney and Watford flood because the river water has nowhere to go. By building across the green belt you will just make flooding worse

This is a classic NIMBY debating tactic, find one small part of the green belt that probably shouldn't be built on and then imply that this proves that advocates of building on any part of the green belt are therefore wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Current building regs mean rain drainage needs to be handled on the development.

Cheapest way is a large tank buried on the site.

Cool, sinkholes of the future

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pfffft...no one is talking about concreting over the countryside, I'm sure it's perfectly possible to design housing and parking that has a negliable effect on drainage if done properly.

.. And if not, the NIMBYs ought to be careful what they ask for, as they are arguing that their own houses should not be there..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the urbanisation of the countryside actually causing the flooding

Dutch engineers managed to drain the fens 300 years ago. It was previously marshy fen. It's as flat as a witches' tit, it is below sea level. It's full of rivers.

It is also full of carefully built dykes, ditches, and drainage canals, and never seems to flood?

So, I think the right conclussion is that it's the lack of proper civil engineering around urban developments that is causing them to become flooded, rather than their mere existance 'in the countryside'

CPRE shills will say otherwise of course - I think they believe some quasi-religious ******** along the lines of there being something holy and special about the countryside that makes it behave differently to 'urban' land when you build on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to argue for reforesting the North Downs and Chilterns then argue for that. No need to drag housing into it, especially as I don't think anybody is proposing covering the hills with estates.

This is a classic NIMBY debating tactic, find one small part of the green belt that probably shouldn't be built on and then imply that this proves that advocates of building on any part of the green belt are therefore wrong.

The population of the UK is too high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The population of the UK is too high.

I assume you'll be doing the decent thing with a bottle of whiskey and a revolver then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want to argue for reforesting the North Downs and Chilterns then argue for that. No need to drag housing into it, especially as I don't think anybody is proposing covering the hills with estates.

Sorry but the East of Luton Project by Bloor is just that! "Covering the hills with houses"!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dutch engineers managed to drain the fens 300 years ago. It was previously marshy fen. It's as flat as a witches' tit, it is below sea level. It's full of rivers.

It is also full of carefully built dykes, ditches, and drainage canals, and never seems to flood?

The River Great Ouse is one of the great Fenland rivers, unfortunately it does flood upstream in Bedford, believe it has done recently again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume you'll be doing the decent thing with a bottle of whiskey and a revolver then.

That's right, a flippant reply rather than serious debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Current building regs mean rain drainage needs to be handled on the development.

Cheapest way is a large tank buried on the site.

yeah yeah yeah.

Mate of mine has a BTL, newbuild ( 2004) in a block of flats....next to a river....not flooded, but just received a bill from the maintenance firm that the top flats are being wrecked by leaks i the flat roof...£10,000 per unit please.

Yeah, they make all these regs but still allow flat rooves....probably the most stupid design for a drain concievable....ie, it doesnt FAIL SAFE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wandon Park is the proposed development of 1000 houses between Cockernhoe, Tea Green and Wandon End and is currently two fields (not large ones) and a small wood, it is just a small part of a grander scheme (around 5000 +)

Do you really expect 1000 homes crammed into such a small area to have have trees and open areas? maybe you should see the Spitfire Road Development at Castle Donington in the East Midlands (Bloor and Miller Homes) for the reality!

Compare the green circle on the Bloor website with the map on the following link, better still compare it with streetmap or googlemaps for a sense of scale

http://www.hitchinpeople.co.uk/news/East-Luton-Green-supporting-North-Herts-stop-development/story-4529968-detail/story.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you say it's "not covering the hills" now. Just a small space.

Please make up your mind.

No what I was meaning was the link you showed is only a small part of the overall scheme, and far from the rural idyll that you think is portrayed from the artists impression it will actually be an estate that will be fairly crammed with houses as per the norm! And as I was pointing the whole scheme covers a substantial area - everything within the red border on the other map.

I do hope the people that will be buying these will appreciate the noise from Luton Airport, especially the night flights, bit of a bummer on a hot summers night when you want the bedroom windows open.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No what I was meaning was the link you showed is only a small part of the overall scheme, and far from the rural idyll that you think is portrayed from the artists impression it will actually be an estate that will be fairly crammed with houses as per the norm! And as I was pointing the whole scheme covers a substantial area - everything within the red border on the other map.

I do hope the people that will be buying these will appreciate the noise from Luton Airport, especially the night flights, bit of a bummer on a hot summers night when you want the bedroom windows open.

Crammedin... with room for allotments, parks, cycleways etc.

Looks like space for 50,000 houses and it would still ~25% green. High amenity area near an airport. What's not to like? Noise hasn't stopped Heathrow buyers. Few flights 11pm-7am anyway.

siteLocation.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   215 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

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.