It is called a floodplain because ...?

About the author

hypocentre's picture

hypocentre

Tue, 07/24/2007 - 22:43



... it floods!

I am getting increasingly annoyed about the bleating that is currently going on in the flooding in the UK. There is a reason it is called a floodplain and people who choose to live on them should expect it. It is very easy to find out if a property is at risk - the environment agency has a very good website with interactive maps. I've recently bought a new house, and it is close to a river but I've made damn sure it is not a risk of flooding (OK, I've got some specialist knowledge but it really isn't that difficult). I deleted many from my shortlist of suitable houses precisely because of the likelihood of flooding. The general public in these areas if flooded blame failure of 'flood defences' yet those that are not flooded claim that they are 'lucky', not saved by flood defences. The weather, like terrorists, only has to be 'lucky' once. It is simply not possible to protect all of the people, all of the time - unless we stop building on floodplains.

But what really gets my goat is the local government politicians trying to pass the buck on to national government. Sure national government has some failings (I'll come on to them in a moment) but for the likes of councillors in Hull to claim "whenever we have needed help from central government to improve things, we have been neglected" [The Guardian] is a bit rich. The response surely has to be "who the hell gave the planning permission to build there in the first place?" More than 90% of Hull is built below sea level with large housing estates on marsh land. It has to be the planning authorities that are largely to blame for the consequences. In most of the flooding TV footage I've seen the houses have been new builds (and those that haven't been like in Stratford-upon-Avon are the 'usual suspects' and have been flooded many times).

OK, national government is not blameless either and we are finding out that the government is offering £14m of aid to flood-hit areas while drawing up plans to axe hundreds of jobs at the Environment Agency, which is responsible for flood defences [The Guardian]. Government ministers were warned three years ago about failing flood defences [The Guardian].

Is there a solution? Well the simple one is to stop building on floodplains and if it means that we have to rethink our attitudes to building on 'greenbelt' and redesignating floodplains as 'bluebelt', so be it. Yet government ministers insist that they will continue to build on floodplains [The Guardian]
- it hardly inspires confidence.

I'll end this rant on the delicious irony that those of us with four-by-fours have been able to get a lot of places that those with eco-friendly cars haven't in this 'global climate change' induced event.

Comments

Jon's picture

Another thought provoking

Another thought provoking piece! I agree with just about all of it too - just the last few words (which I realise are nicely ironic), but unfortunately people do think the floods have something to do with climate change. They don't. They are predicted to become more common in the future due to climate change, but the flood is not caused by climate chnage itself - just wanted to point that out Winking

hypocentre wrote: The

hypocentre wrote:

The response surely has to be "who the hell gave the planning permission to build there in the first place?" More than 90% of Hull is built below sea level with large housing estates on marsh land. It has to be the planning authorities that are largely to blame for the consequences. In most of the flooding TV footage I've seen the houses have been new builds (and those that haven't been like in Stratford-upon-Avon are the 'usual suspects' and have been flooded many times).

As a Hull resident whose street was underwater a couple of weeks ago I feel I should point a couple of things out here. Historically, Hull has flooded because of the tides. It is on the north bank of the Humber, with a tidal tributary, the Hull, flowing through its centre. I am not aware of a flood in the city's history that wasn't caused by high tides breaking levees, and we have not had one of these since before the completion of the tidal surge barrier. The floods we experienced were not because of tides, or the river breaking its banks, but by sheer volume of rainwater overwhelming the drains and beginning to pond. Many of the areas that flooded were neither new developments, nor the 'usual suspects'. Areas of victorian housing (built around earlier settlements) were as badly affected as some of the new areas, as far as I know for the first time in their history. Bearing in mind just how infrequent flooding is in some of the areas that were badly hit I do not think it was unreasonable to allow building there.

I'm a little suspicious of the 90% below sea level statistic I must say. 90% below the level of the highest recorded tide I think is closer to the mark, but as I say, the tides were not the cause and are rarely a threat.

Also, please ignore our councillors as they are idiots.

hypocentre's picture

climate change

Quote:

unfortunately people do think the floods have something to do with climate change. They don't. They are predicted to become more common in the future due to climate change, but the flood is not caused by climate change itself - just wanted to point that out

This is why I put 'global climate change' in quote marks in the original article - I don't believe it either - what we have just had is weather. Also, climate change flooding has been predicted to become more common in the winters! As George Monbiot writes in The Guardian

Quote:

“It wasn't meant to happen like this. The climate scientists told us that our winters would become wetter and our summers drier. So I can't claim that these floods were caused by climate change, or are even consistent with the models. ”

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.