Home› Archived Forums› General Discussion
Options

How Home Owners Are Protecting Themselves From Flooding

occyoccy Posts: 65,185
Forum Member
✭✭
in General Discussion #1
A family in Berkshire have spent £70K lifting their house to help prevent them from flooding which cost millions for thousands of home owners across the country during the storms. Many others are spending money on defences. My guessing some might have come from there insurances claims. It's a great idea, but environmental agency should be doing more to help.

http://news.sky.com/story/1323717/house-lifted-1-5m-to-avoid-more-flood-misery

We saw this happen in New Orleans and other countries when they have flooding.

Comments

  • Options
    Ethel_FredEthel_Fred Posts: 34,127
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #2
    Surprised they only went for 4' - I would have gone for at least 8' and voilà, instant extra floor
  • Options
    *Sparkle**Sparkle* Posts: 10,957
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #3
    The most sensible thing is to avoid building on the flood plains, or if you insist, to make sure flood defences are built in. Unfortunately, a lot of planning authorities have bowed to pressure (some from Central Government) to build loads of new houses, never mind where.

    This has the knock on effect of increasing the risk of problem flooding for the older properties in the area, as water that used to sit on an empty flood plain is diverted to areas that didn't used to flood.

    The Environment Agency has objected to a number of developments in areas at risk of flooding, but they are often over-ruled, then take the blame when their predictions come true.
  • Options
    valkayvalkay Posts: 15,726
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #4
    Nottingham had bad floods in 1947 and have been building defences ever since.However one house which was built after the 47 floods is built up on stilts or concrete columns .
  • Options
    varialectiovarialectio Posts: 2,377
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #5
    Ethel_Fred wrote: »
    Surprised they only went for 4' - I would have gone for at least 8' and voilà, instant extra floor

    Which then needs lifting 4' to keep it out of the floods
    Why not go for at least 8' and voilà, instant extra floor
    GOTO 1

    :D:D:D:D:D

    Or rather

    :D
    :D
    :D
    :D
    :D
  • Options
    bobcarbobcar Posts: 19,424
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #6
    *Sparkle* wrote: »
    The most sensible thing is to avoid building on the flood plains, or if you insist, to make sure flood defences are built in. Unfortunately, a lot of planning authorities have bowed to pressure (some from Central Government) to build loads of new houses, never mind where.

    You just have to build the houses correctly, you can either build them on stilts or have the bottom floor as a garage that doesn't matter if it floods.
  • Options
    varialectiovarialectio Posts: 2,377
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #7
    bobcar wrote: »
    You just have to build the houses correctly, you can either build them on stilts or have the bottom floor as a garage that doesn't matter if it floods.

    It's nowhere near that simple. What about the roads, how do you get in and out? What happens when the sewers are full of floodwater and backing sewage up into the streets? All your services like electricity junctions, phone and cable boxes need to be elevated.
  • Options
    d'@ved'@ve Posts: 45,531
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #8
    occy wrote: »
    A family in Berkshire have spent £70K lifting their house to help prevent them from flooding which cost millions for thousands of home owners across the country during the storms. Many others are spending money on defences. My guessing some might have come from there insurances claims. It's a great idea, but environmental agency should be doing more to help.

    http://news.sky.com/story/1323717/house-lifted-1-5m-to-avoid-more-flood-misery

    We saw this happen in New Orleans and other countries when they have flooding.

    Much simpler to buy a house somewhere that's not subject to flooding. Even 25 years ago, that was high on my list of priorities. If everyone thought like that, builders would soon stop building on flood plains etc. Not even the footpath/pavements have flooded around here, not ever. Running water in torrential downpours stays in the road where it belongs.
  • Options
    bobcarbobcar Posts: 19,424
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #9
    varialectio wrote: »
    It's nowhere near that simple. What about the roads, how do you get in and out? What happens when the sewers are full of floodwater and backing sewage up into the streets? All your services like electricity junctions, phone and cable boxes need to be elevated.

    You clean up afterwards, the real problem of flooding and what causes most of the expense is flooded homes and businesses. Elevated services is not a problem, remember this is designed in from the start.

    The alternative is to not build on land that would otherwise be suitable, this is a very expensive solution considering our extreme housing shortage.
Sign In or Register to comment.