If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Building homes in flood plains
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
A case of damned if you do, damned if you don't perhaps...
If we all agree that there is a need to build more homes, where are we to build them if flood plains are out of the question? Brownfields? Areas of outstanding beauty?
Or can we do something to avoid or at least mitigate future floodings? Perhaps there should be a ban on concreting over the front garden... Aparently it makes a big difference.
As nobody in power seems to have the answer, I put the issue forward to the wisdom of this board
If we all agree that there is a need to build more homes, where are we to build them if flood plains are out of the question? Brownfields? Areas of outstanding beauty?
Or can we do something to avoid or at least mitigate future floodings? Perhaps there should be a ban on concreting over the front garden... Aparently it makes a big difference.
As nobody in power seems to have the answer, I put the issue forward to the wisdom of this board
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
Make planned, leafy towns (not like Milton Keynes), well spaced out just outside the cities, decent transport links, decent drainage e.t.c and the problems won't be so bad.
You do probably have to build in them - the best you can do is avoid the worst bits and perhaps take some further measures (eg don't concrete over back gardens, make sure you have plans ready to implement if the banks do burst etc)
Here's your solution :thumb:
If houses are likely to flood, is there anything that can be done inside them to help prevent/lessen the damage of water? Example the King's Arms in York is pretty much waterproof downstairs and the plug sockets are high up, because York floods if you so much as sneeze and the King's Arms is always the first thing to go!
Better drainage systems would also make a difference.
Combine it with a drainage and sewerage system designed over 100 years ago, and you get problems.
The whole flood plain doesn't need to be undeveloped, but leaving more room for wetland barriers would be a good start. It'd also be a fairly good idea to replace the hedgerows and trees farmers have spent a century destroying; they slow the flow of water, and prevent flash-flooding.
Just cos something is old doesn't mean the NEW version will be better - go to brand new towns like Milton Keynes and you'll see the roads in the housing development are well narrow, so narrow that you can't park two car on each side of the road as car won't be able to drive through the middle .. whenever I visit my friend I have to park half up on the pavements - the only reason I can think why the roads are so narrow is some private developer decided to save money on the cost of building a wider road.
Newer isn't better then old UNLESS there is enough laws and regulations to say it should be better. If you go into the brand new Jubilee line extension which is new compared to the 100 year old rest of the system you won't even find a seat to sit on at the platform.
it'll be fine for the swimmers
Yes it makes sense.
Yeah, but the sewerage system in Milton Keynes, etc, has been designed for the number of houses it is supporing. The sewerage system in most older cities isn't.
Houses were built narrowly because people didn't have cars in the 1950s to the extent they do now. Most council estates have narrow roads for the same reason, and our road is only wider because the council took the grassed areas at the front away to build a road (so we have no front garden).