happy_renting Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 Pft. just a bit of rain, it shouldn't stop a bus. Unless that is a pic of a double-decker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted December 31, 2015 Author Share Posted December 31, 2015 Skirting boards will be out then, and i suppose electrical sockets 5ft up the walls? Be cables hanging down everywhere. Yep, and plastic doors. Basically making your house cheaper and to hose down. Cr*p way to live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XswampyX Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 Please tell me Wendy's OK. Wendy's OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormymonday_2011 Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 1) The Science on Dredging seems pretty clear: all the people in the know say it's having a negative effect. 2)This idea that the EU have banned it seems to be a relatively recent lie. Actually it's been deregulated in recent years... There has been a coherent and credible narrative on this for years...that letting a river meander and run it's natural course is safer than dredging, and that we need to reforest the uplands. P Edit for Clarity: Don't believe people who say 'the EU banned it'. They're lying. http://www.endsreport.com/article/41237/wildlife-groups-fear-damage-from-dredging-deregulation P Dredging has normally been done to keep rivers and harbours navigable or to extract gravel and sand for industrial uses. Flood prevention was only a by product. It enables rivers to carry a greater mass of water but in process it also increases the potential energy contained in a river system since none is dissipated when a flood occurs. As a consequence while it may make minor flooding less likely in some places when a major flood does occur then the damage may be even more catastrophic particularly downstream from the watershed. Flood plain are huge compared with normal river channels and the amount of dredging required to prevent flooding in extreme rainfall events is potentially enormous since you might need to increase the rivers capacity by over 50%. Moreover when the flood water in a dredged river reaches the nearest pinch point such as a road or rail bridge over a river then it can often simply sweep these away or burst its banks there. Since most pinch points are in urban areas rather than the countryside the results could be even more costly in property and possibly life. It is not the magic bullet some imagine particularly in places like the Somerset levels where the waters are tidal anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 But Sarah, with a little more planning couldn't we have done both? Protected downstream residential properties AND essential farming land? But not pandered to the concerns of farmers who earn their living from subsidised non-farming and want to protect their assets so they can continue to do so? P You could cover ever bit of moorland with trees. You could build 10m high walls along ever inch of every river. But the flood plains that are needed to deal with the water downstream also need protecting - so do you knock down every house built on them, or leave them to rot? Rivers are conduits of water. Should we expect them not to burst their banks in such extreme weather? Yes it's absolutely crap for people but where do you draw the line? And then what do you do the next time we have more catastrophic levels of rain? Because the chances are more horrendous weather is going to come and keep coming. Where do you draw the line? How much do you want to spend on defending areas that flood from flooding? If you told me the govt would remove all tax credits and spend them on flooding I'd be happy with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 Yes, but is the economic impact positive? Public spend on roads and bridges (and employing people), private spend on a big rise in demand for plasterers, carpets and their fitters, furniture etc. This gets money, the economy, and taxes all moving, bringing forward consumption of the next twenty years into one year. IMO the short-term effect on the economy will be hugely positive. No no no! Producing useless tat is good for economy, building horrible new infrastructure is good for the economy, spending money on useful, sensible, necessary repairs is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 I think the insurers are going to insist on no carpets and no plaster. There have been a few on the radio talking about stone tiled floors and plastic, yes, plastic walls. Hope not but it wouldn't surprise me, it entirely fits in with the cheap and nasty instead of doing a job properly approach that we seem to love. Wonder if this means they won't build next to me now? It's near a river marked as a high flood risk - despite it being pretty much confined to its bed on the risk map, and everything else quite a bit higher (if it got that high Manchester would've flooded far, far more), and one of the few places that I wouldn't mind being built on. They're in the middle of demolishing the remains of an old mill there now, although there's no planning permission for doing anything else applied for that I can find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SarahBell Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 Hope not but it wouldn't surprise me, it entirely fits in with the cheap and nasty instead of doing a job properly approach that we seem to love. Wonder if this means they won't build next to me now? It's near a river marked as a high flood risk - despite it being pretty much confined to its bed on the risk map, and everything else quite a bit higher (if it got that high Manchester would've flooded far, far more), and one of the few places that I wouldn't mind being built on. They're in the middle of demolishing the remains of an old mill there now, although there's no planning permission for doing anything else applied for that I can find. There needs to be a proper 'flooding' add-on to the planning process, so that all permissions that are granted will cope with the massive amounts of rain and then some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 There needs to be a proper 'flooding' add-on to the planning process, so that all permissions that are granted will cope with the massive amounts of rain and then some. Well here it would just pour down the river. It opens up a little further down so that area could flood, and the pub a bit upstream did once apparently (although that was due to debris blocking the bridge), but it's a fairly steep-sided valley right here. I had a bit of trouble getting insurance because of it but that was all down to their lack of consideration of vertical differences (about 30' I'd guess). It could get the bridge I suppose (different bridge to the one by the pub), which is rather a worry since it's not in great shape and no-one seems to want to admit responsibility for it, just one of those risks in life you have to occasionally take to get something worthwhile. When some refused due to flooding I assumed they meant the canal I'm right next to, but apparently not. It did flood some of the houses when it was reopened too, although since that's now the only concrete-lined part of the canal it's probably the least likely to leak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hp72 Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 Skirting boards will be out then, and i suppose electrical sockets 5ft up the walls? Be cables hanging down everywhere. Having the sockets that High would contradict electrical installation rules for disabled access. They do say you can't please all the people all the time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 Having the sockets that High would contradict electrical installation rules for disabled access. They do say you can't please all the people all the time! As does apparently having them and light switches at a sensible level for everyone else, which is pretty stupid in a private house IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wherebee Posted December 31, 2015 Share Posted December 31, 2015 I haven't posted on this topic because I am just seething with anger. It brings together a number of elements that explain why I now hate my country...because it hates its people. For info I had three fire engines and two landrovers and two inflatable boats on our property last week to rescue our neighbours under water. Bridges are collapsing all around us. Every town, village and city locally has been devastated which will curtail investment for a decade or more. Parliament will question the 'business case' for protecting other parts of the country, we will be set up to fight between each other, north and 'south' etc. (it's really the central elite and the rest), headlines taken up by so called 'looting' rather than focusing on the true culprits of the piece. The fact is the looting was done by Osborne and the Tories re planned flood protection, by landowners who want sheep and grouse when, with more rain, we need to turn the northern and Scottish uplands into natural forests. As if any number of impressively named 'Cobra' meetings, a few hundred soldiers spread over half the UK and some heavily televised sandbags are somehow supposed to impress us. The people on the ground know different. There is real animosity to the self serving and distant politicos. F*ck 'em. Well said. The only difference that might have an impact is getting red of the blue/yellow/red shitehamsters in the HOC who fail to represent their electorate time and again. Anyone that complains to you locally - say to them, well if you voted in the election for any of the mainstream parties it is your fault Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
workingpoor Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Abergeldie Castle is looking very precarious after losing 25ft of river bank, stood for 450 years, will it topple? it's partially overhanging the eroded river bank. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3382715/Queen-s-neighbour-flees-home-historic-450-year-old-castle-threatened-rising-flood-waters-leaving-teetering-brink.html#comments-3382715 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Hovis Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Abergeldie Castle is looking very precarious after losing 25ft of river bank, stood for 450 years, will it topple? it's partially overhanging the eroded river bank. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3382715/Queen-s-neighbour-flees-home-historic-450-year-old-castle-threatened-rising-flood-waters-leaving-teetering-brink.html#comments-3382715 It looks badly-sited in the older photograph, the lower bit of land is clearly the usual flood plain so it's been built only a few feet back from the river's regular flood point. There have been some trees planted to try to stabilise that bank but it's still a daft place to build such a big house when it could have been twenty yards back IMO; it's not like the Norfolk coast where it's steadily eroded over the years so the house locations did look fine when they were built. You wonder what the insurance premium will be next year if it does survive the floods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winkie Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 ......it is all about gaining ownership, power over and exploitation of the resources in, on and around the earth.......people and their lives are not the priority they are the consumers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Abergeldie Castle is looking very precarious after losing 25ft of river bank, stood for 450 years, will it topple? it's partially overhanging the eroded river bank. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3382715/Queen-s-neighbour-flees-home-historic-450-year-old-castle-threatened-rising-flood-waters-leaving-teetering-brink.html#comments-3382715 A bit like that bridge in Tadcaster, if something's stood that long it's probably time it was replaced anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 A bit like that bridge in Tadcaster, if something's stood that long it's probably time it was replaced anyway. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Hovis Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Why? I assume eight was being sarcastic. Could be wrong though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 I assume eight was being sarcastic. Could be wrong though. Yes and no. What I meant was you can't expect stuff to last forever, and blaming current weather conditions for the collapse of something built centuries ago is a bit of a stretch at times I think. They're welcome to build something similar in the spot, I'm not saying replace it with a Tescos or anything like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Fair enough, although in this particular case I don't think that the age has much to do with it. I tend to think that if something's been good for a hundred years or so it'll be good indefinitely as long as it's properly looked after. If it's going to fall down by itself it would've done before that. If it does fall down then it's likely to be due to something that would've affected anything on that spot no matter its age. However there's sometimes a lack of acceptance that things just go wrong, break, or fall down occasionally (saw some idiot MP calling the damage to the railway between Folkestone and Dover unnacceptable). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
workingpoor Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Fair enough, although in this particular case I don't think that the age has much to do with it. I tend to think that if something's been good for a hundred years or so it'll be good indefinitely as long as it's properly looked after. If it's going to fall down by itself it would've done before that. If it does fall down then it's likely to be due to something that would've affected anything on that spot no matter its age. However there's sometimes a lack of acceptance that things just go wrong, break, or fall down occasionally (saw some idiot MP calling the damage to the railway between Folkestone and Dover unnacceptable). Yes alot of "looking for someone to blame" when it was pretty much just an act of nature. Unnacceptable that the sea got rough etc I've seen alot of bridges where they are still standing but the tarmac road surfaces have all broken up and sunk etc What does this mean? that they just need resurfacing or will the whole bridge have to be rebuilt? Some of them have cut off whole towns & villages entailing 9 mile detours in some cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 It looks badly-sited in the older photograph, the lower bit of land is clearly the usual flood plain so it's been built only a few feet back from the river's regular flood point. There have been some trees planted to try to stabilise that bank but it's still a daft place to build such a big house when it could have been twenty yards back IMO; ... I'll just nip back to 1550 and have a word with the builders... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
workingpoor Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Good video of Abergeldie Castle and the A93 on the oposite side of the river which has been completely swept away. I think that castle is going to go. http://news.sky.com/story/1616554/floods-castle-on-brink-of-collapse-into-river Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sPinwheel Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Good video of Abergeldie Castle and the A93 on the oposite side of the river which has been completely swept away. I think that castle is going to go. http://news.sky.com/story/1616554/floods-castle-on-brink-of-collapse-into-river "The baron - who hit the headlines when he broke a leg after being attacked by his cows in 2009 - took refuge in the home of neighbour George Fraser, then moved into another house on the estate." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted January 4, 2016 Author Share Posted January 4, 2016 Good video of Abergeldie Castle and the A93 on the oposite side of the river which has been completely swept away. I think that castle is going to go. http://news.sky.com/story/1616554/floods-castle-on-brink-of-collapse-into-river In the video, to the left of the house and a bit difficult to see, is an old stone wall attached to the end of the house. It has some shrubbery on it. That wall has since fallen into the river. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.