I was listening yesterday to a discussion on R4 about the
difficulties of getting insurance fro properties susceptible to
flooding. One woman said she had been able to get insuarnce
because of a government scheme, but only with an excess of
£10,000. Others had been unable to get any cover at all, or to
seel their houses because prospective buyers cannot get a
mortgage.

There was a proposal to spread the risk by treating all
properties the same and spread the risk, so that the 2% who
regularly suffer from flooding would be able to get cover.

So, for example, someone who is buying contents insurance for a
tenth-floor flat in a block built half-way up a hill would have
to pay £3 extra on their premium to cover the flood risk for
people in houses that get flooded.

(OT - if they can agree to pool the risk of flooding over all
properties over the whole country, the logical next step would
be to pool the risk of car insurance over all drivers, so that
careful and responsible drivers who live in quite country areas
and keep a modest saloon in a garage would pay the same as
careless and irresponsible boy racers who keep expensive models
parked on the street; or to pool health risks so that people
with heart problems would pay the same for travel insurance as
young healthy people.)

It seems to me that the people who should be paying for the
flood damage are the developers who build on flood plains,
haughs, watermeadows, inches, whatever you like to call them,
and the local authorities who give planning permission for such
developments.

That would not help people in older properties that get flooded,
but at least it would place the blame squarely where it belongs
as far as new building is concerned. It would also be a powerful
disincentive to future building on flood-prone land.

Anne
Several metres above the floodplain of the River Spey

On Thursday, 28 February 2013 12:33:50 UTC, Anne Burgess wrote:

It seems to me that the people who should be paying for the
flood damage are the developers who build on flood plains,
haughs, watermeadows, inches, whatever you like to call them,
and the local authorities who give planning permission for such
developments.

The other issue are the guidelines to which development is restricted. In these shifting times where (through anthropogenic means or otherwise) the climate is changing, if you don't allow construction, say, anywhere near the 50-year flood return period floodplain, then what exactly does this floodplain look like given that extreme rainfall seems to be one of the more likely bi-products of a broadly warming atmosphere.

The sensitivity of extremes (e.g. 50-year rainfall) in a changing climate can be much more volatile than numbers such as the average annual rainfall. Do we build outside the current floodplain or build outside the floodplain based on a future climate where flooding would be more likely?

I was at a research meeting recently that has been started by the Natural Environment Research Council that is trying to understand the uncertainties around such numbers. Very interesting it was, too!

Richard

On 28/02/2013 12:55, Richard Dixon wrote:
On Thursday, 28 February 2013 12:33:50 UTC, Anne Burgess wrote:

It seems to me that the people who should be paying for the
flood damage are the developers who build on flood plains,
haughs, watermeadows, inches, whatever you like to call them,
and the local authorities who give planning permission for such
developments.

Plenty of development seems to be on land that no local would dream of
buying a house on because they know it is prone to winter flooding.
Incomers stand no chance in this game and only find out that their nice
new home in a development on the edge of town is built on a dish of clay
that has flooded in wet winters ever since anyone can remember.

2012 has been particularly bad for excessive summer rain.

The other issue are the guidelines to which development is restricted. In these shifting times where (through anthropogenic means or otherwise) the climate is changing, if you don't allow construction, say, anywhere near the 50-year flood return period floodplain, then what exactly does this floodplain look like given that extreme rainfall seems to be one of the more likely bi-products of a broadly warming atmosphere.

The sensitivity of extremes (e.g. 50-year rainfall) in a changing climate can be much more volatile than numbers such as the average annual rainfall. Do we build outside the current floodplain or build outside the floodplain based on a future climate where flooding would be more likely?

You also have to do something about everybody concreting over their
garden so that when there is a sudden rain squall it doesn't all
immediately go down the drains as instant flash flood run off.

Countries that are used to monsoon rains tend to have large storm drains
for rainwater that are almost dry when not in use.

Even being on a hill is no defence. When the Newcastle storms occurred
last year my wife's works buildings took a direct hit when the metro
line flooded then its embankment breached and dumped many thousands of
gallons of mud down the hill and straight through their building.

I was at a research meeting recently that has been started by the Natural Environment Research Council that is trying to understand the uncertainties around such numbers. Very interesting it was, too!

I think the builders and planners should carry the can for some of the
more stupid new builds that are smack bang in line for flooding. It is
much harder where some flood management scheme has made a new problem
for another existing community up or down stream. Basically water will
find its own level and if there is enough of it you are in trouble.

Flood plains developed for a purpose - to hold large volumes of excess
river water during winter storms.

Help to ameliorate flooding should be offered to those in bad positions
to try and mitigate their flood risk, but some locations are untenable.
Maybe 3 strikes and you are out policy should apply to flooded houses...

I am no fan of the idea that everybody should have to contribute to a
fund so that people who live in locations with insane levels of risk can
get subsidised insurance. Market forces should operate on this.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 13:32:46 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:

I am no fan of the idea that everybody should have to contribute to a
fund so that people who live in locations with insane levels of risk
can get subsidised insurance. Market forces should operate on this.

+1

For people moving in it's their choice, they take the risk. If there aren't
any insurance companies prepared to share that risk with them perhaps that
ought to be a bit of a hint. In this day and age there is no excuse for
anyone saying they didn't know their property was in a flood risk area.
Fairly detailed maps are available on the EA's website.

Those that have been living in a flood area for a while and are now caught by
the insurance companies reassessing the risks could do with some support.
Perhaps the premiums on policies that have been held for more than 5 years(*)
are only allowed to increase in line with general buildings premium
increases. Some may well end up stuck being unable to sell. Not sure what can
be done about that. There ought to be some come back on the developers and
the councils for allowing the development.

(*) Or the owner can show that there has been continuos insurance in place
for 5 years and the premiums paid.

--
Cheers Dave.
Nr Garrigill, Cumbria. 421m ASL.

On Feb 28, 4:51*pm, "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 13:32:46 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:
I am no fan of the idea that everybody should have to contribute to a
fund so that people who live in locations with insane levels of risk
can get subsidised insurance. Market forces should operate on this.

+1

For people moving in it's their choice, they take the risk. If there aren't
any insurance companies prepared to share that risk with them perhaps that
ought to be a bit of a hint. In this day and age there is no excuse for
anyone saying they didn't know their property was in a flood risk area.
Fairly detailed maps are available on the EA's website.

Those that have been living in a flood area for a while and are now caught by
the insurance companies reassessing the risks could do with some support.
Perhaps the premiums on policies that have been held for more than 5 years(*)
are only allowed to increase in line with general buildings premium
increases. Some may well end up stuck being unable to sell. Not sure what can
be done about that. There ought to be some come back on the developers and
the councils for allowing the development.

(*) Or the owner can show that there has been continuos insurance in place
for 5 years and the premiums paid.

So what exactly do we elect local councils for and why do people
willing to risk a millstone around their necks for 20 to 30 years HAVE
to get a solicitor to do their search for them?

Wouldn't one suppose such ardently local and well respecteds "know
what is going on". Or should we take laws into our own hands as the
Afghanis and Iraqis are finding that they have to do, in order that in
seeking revenge, they provide a prophylactic against such strains of
humanity?

On Thursday, February 28, 2013 12:55:33 PM UTC, Richard Dixon wrote:
On Thursday, 28 February 2013 12:33:50 UTC, Anne Burgess wrote:



It seems to me that the people who should be paying for the

flood damage are the developers who build on flood plains,

haughs, watermeadows, inches, whatever you like to call them,

and the local authorities who give planning permission for such

developments.



The other issue are the guidelines to which development is restricted. In these shifting times where (through anthropogenic means or otherwise) the climate is changing, if you don't allow construction, say, anywhere near the 50-year flood return period floodplain, then what exactly does this floodplain look like given that extreme rainfall seems to be one of the more likely bi-products of a broadly warming atmosphere.



The sensitivity of extremes (e.g. 50-year rainfall) in a changing climate can be much more volatile than numbers such as the average annual rainfall.. Do we build outside the current floodplain or build outside the floodplain based on a future climate where flooding would be more likely?



I was at a research meeting recently that has been started by the Natural Environment Research Council that is trying to understand the uncertainties around such numbers. Very interesting it was, too!

How far back did the research go, Richard?

From the point of view of my locality here in east London I've often wondered how much consideration local Victorian and Edwardian developers gave to the observations of Luke Howard in The Climate of London. On February 26th 1809, he mentions that the river Lea (which flows into the Thames) was "above a mile in width". If that were to happen today it would inundate a lot of east Bow, west Stratford and the Olympic Park. And this happened after a fairly average year rainfall wise.

In article ,
Anne Burgess writes:
snip
There was a proposal to spread the risk by treating all properties
the same and spread the risk, so that the 2% who regularly suffer
from flooding would be able to get cover.

So, for example, someone who is buying contents insurance for a
tenth-floor flat in a block built half-way up a hill would have to
pay £3 extra on their premium to cover the flood risk for people in
houses that get flooded.

That seems to go against the whole principle of insurance. Surely
insurance companies shouldn't be expected to become an agent of the DSS.
--
John Hall

"Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong."
Oscar Wilde

On 28/02/2013 12:33, Anne Burgess wrote:
It seems to me that the people who should be paying for the
flood damage are the developers who build on flood plains,
haughs, watermeadows, inches, whatever you like to call them,
and the local authorities who give planning permission for such
developments.

That would not help people in older properties that get flooded,
but at least it would place the blame squarely where it belongs
as far as new building is concerned. It would also be a powerful
disincentive to future building on flood-prone land.

You are assuming that the houses that have been flooded recently were
built on a flood plain.

Around here, that has not been true. The house I live in now is on the
flood plain of the River Otter but has never been flooded.

What changed with the rainfall events of July, November & December 2012
was that houses which had never previously flooded were inundated by
surface water.

The village of Feniton was badly flooded and yet it is nowhere near a
river, and is on a slight hill well above any watercourses. The reason
for it flooding was run-off from nearby fields due to soils being
waterlogged.

Intensive farming methods and soil compaction are likely to be behind
the reasons why.

It also proved that many houses are more at risk of flooding than you
would have originally believed, and that the reasons are often more
complicated than just 'being on the flood plain'.

--
Nick G
Otter Valley, Devon
20 m amsl
http://www.ottervalley.co.uk

That would not help people in older properties that get
flooded,
but at least it would place the blame squarely where it
belongs
as far as new building is concerned. It would also be a
powerful
disincentive to future building on flood-prone land.

You are assuming that the houses that have been flooded
recently were built on a flood plain.

No. Read what I said in the above paragraph: "That would not
help people in older properties that get flooded". You can
substitute 'th' for 'ld' if it makes it clearer.

Anne

On 28/02/2013 12:33, Anne Burgess wrote:
I was listening yesterday to a discussion on R4 about the
difficulties of getting insurance fro properties susceptible to
flooding. One woman said she had been able to get insuarnce
because of a government scheme, but only with an excess of
£10,000. Others had been unable to get any cover at all, or to
seel their houses because prospective buyers cannot get a
mortgage.

There was a proposal to spread the risk by treating all
properties the same and spread the risk, so that the 2% who
regularly suffer from flooding would be able to get cover.

So, for example, someone who is buying contents insurance for a
tenth-floor flat in a block built half-way up a hill would have
to pay £3 extra on their premium to cover the flood risk for
people in houses that get flooded.

(OT - if they can agree to pool the risk of flooding over all
properties over the whole country, the logical next step would
be to pool the risk of car insurance over all drivers, so that
careful and responsible drivers who live in quite country areas
and keep a modest saloon in a garage would pay the same as
careless and irresponsible boy racers who keep expensive models
parked on the street; or to pool health risks so that people
with heart problems would pay the same for travel insurance as
young healthy people.)

It seems to me that the people who should be paying for the
flood damage are the developers who build on flood plains,
haughs, watermeadows, inches, whatever you like to call them,
and the local authorities who give planning permission for such
developments.

That would not help people in older properties that get flooded,
but at least it would place the blame squarely where it belongs
as far as new building is concerned. It would also be a powerful
disincentive to future building on flood-prone land.

Anne
Several metres above the floodplain of the River Spey




It's not only flood planes that suffer. The flash flood in Boscastle in
2004 really showed what was possible elsewhere. The trouble is, once a
property has been flooded, either due to weather or accident, the
property is flagged by the insurance companies and will be classed "at
risk" regardless of the cause or its position.

I came very close to that situation in 1997 (a year before the notorious
Easter Floods), a couple of years after buying this house, through no
fault of my own, or the position of my house, but due to the abject
stupidity of a new neighbour. I live on top of a hill, on relatively
flat land, but my neighbours garden had been built up to a couple of
inches higher than mine. Previous occupants of my house hadn't done the
situation any favours by building up their (my) garden to almost level
with the damp proof course. The neighbours then decided to pave the
whole of their back garden, laying the slabs on top of the existing
garden, making no provision for drainage whatsoever. One afternoon in
August 1997 Northampton suffered one of the worst thunder storms it had
ever experienced, and due to flooding at work, we finished early and I
drove home during the worst of it. On opening the back door, I found
water pouring off their garden onto mine, and the level was already up
to the top of the door plate. Another eight of an inch and water would
have been in the house. I went out immediately and smashed a hole into
the down pipe off the roof, which allowed the water to start escaping
down into the surface drainage system. Took a long time because the two
houses further down the block were also at risk.

The following year I remodelled my garden, dropping the first 12 feet
from the house down 6 inches, and working with the neighbours on the
other side, I installed a land drain across the back of all three
properties, feeding it into the down pipe, the only one on the block and
thankfully in my garden. (Confronting the other neighbour about their
lack of drainage, I was told to F.O. Nice. They obviously didn't get
included in the new drainage system.) Since then, despite water pouring
off their garden on a regular basis, the rest of us have had no further
problems. But if that water had entered my house, there would have been
nothing I could have done, but my insurance would have suffered by my
house being flagged "at risk". My insurance company asks if my house is
more than 400 metres from any water course such as a river. I can
honestly answer "Yes". In addition to that it is some 30 metres above
the Billing Brook, nearly a kilometre away. Why should I be permanently
penalised if my house had been flooded that day? The people of Boscastle
are probably already asking themselves that question.

Something needs to be done about flood insurance. What, I don't know.
But I do think Central Government have to shoulder some of the blame and
cost. Currently, Northamptonshire is under government orders to build
over 50,000 new properties by 2026. But the majority of land specified
for this development is on flood planes, inevitable since so much of the
county is in the vicinity of the River Nene, a river that is already
notorious for flooding. And having already covered the whole of Upton
Flats on the outskirts of Northampton with houses, a large swathe of
natural flood plane no longer exists, putting properties further up- and
down-stream at risk. And Northamptonshire is not the only county under
this obligation. Government policy on house provision HAS to change, not
only to protect new developments from flooding, but existing properties too.

And as a foot note to this lot, most of the land either side of the
River Nene from Weedon west of Northampton down to Peterborough in the
east, a distance of over 55 miles, is still under water from the deluge
just before Christmas.

jim, Northampton