LIVING ON A FLOODPLAIN

[Shutpa]

Some years ago when house hunting in the north east, I made a decision that there were, for me at least, certain areas that I would never consideration to. Areas bordering rivers and flood plains, were immediately out of the question because some roads were closed at the time due to flooding. For the same reason, houses bordering the river in other local towns, were again discounted. Consequently, I eventually bought a house in a totally flood-free area.

However, and this is my main point, since that time, the town planners have given the go ahead to plans drawn up by architects and submitted by the builders in areas which I, and no doubt many other potential house purchasers, using simple common sense, have deemed to be liable to flooding during periods of very extreme rainfall. Indeed, is it not the case, that the insurance companies often refuse insurance cover to houses built on, or adjacent to flood plains ?

Now that there have been many examples of flooding in such areas, do you think that when considering planning applications in the future, the planners should give much more consideration to possible climatic accidents, such as 6 months rainfall falling in 7 days, before giving the go-ahead to planning applications for houses to be built on, or adjacent to, flood plains?

Consider this situation. A house hunter views and likes a show house because of the lovely flat land stretching from the front of the property and bordered by a slow meandering river 2 or 3 hundred yards away. He puts in an offer and buys one of the houses. Some years on, there is s very heavy snowfall in winter followed by a very rapid snowmelt in spring or even earlier. The river rises, bursts its banks and the guys house is flooded! The contents are ruined. Not only that but, because the house was built on a flood plain, the insurers are refusing to pay out. The question is, where does the fault lie? Certainly not with the house owner. He bought the house designed by architects, built by a national company and passed by town planners all vastly experienced in the pre-requisites of house building. And yet they gave the go-ahead for his and his neighbours houses, to be built on land adjacent to a river which has just burst its bank in a period of very extreme rainfall. Can he sue any, or all of them?

 

[noseall]

Dunno? Does the same thinking apply to people who buy (eroding) cliff top homes or those that have a sink hole appear? Do people who live in forested areas have fire insurance refused?

I'm not sure where the risk/blame lies.

 

[bernardgreen]

and passed by town planners all vastly experienced in the pre-requisites of house building.

I am not sure that is a valid and true statement.

They seem more adept at just getting the requisite number of new homes placed somwhere in the area they "control"

 

[Himaginn]

I think, in some instances and flooding is one of them, houses can be built with the potential problem in mind.
For example, it's more expensive to build a house with a ground floor that is resistant to water damage, but certainly not that much more expensive, and not unattractive or undesirable.

 

[bernardgreen]

houses can be built with the potential problem in mind

Our self build was next to a babbling brook, but with the gound floor about 18 inches above ground level the totally un-expected flood during build caused no problems.

Some houses built on a steep bank overlooking the river in Bedford have a "basement" room designed to survive being flooded. Owners can use them as living space but are advised to not have any valuable items in them. Rear patio doors from these rooms open onto a balcony a few feet above and overlooking the river, the front door is about 12 feet above the river and considered "safe".

 

[EFLImpudence]

Wouldn't - or shouldn't - the survey point out that the house was liable to flooding?
Presumably if it is on a flood plain then it will have flooded before. Are there flood plains which have never flooded?

If it did, then it is surely down to the buyer and unreasonable to expect insurance - us - to foot the bill.
If it didn't, then, surely it is the surveyor's responsibility.

 

[bernardgreen]

Are there flood plains which have never flooded?

Yes there are or were. I think most have been flooded in the recent years of ab-normal rain fall Only they are not called flood plains. They are land which was designated in flow control schemes for use as Water Retention Areas (*) which can be intentional flooded to reduce the rate of flow through towns or villages down stream.

(*) Other posh terms can be used for these areas

 

[EFLImpudence]

Are there flood plains which have never flooded?

Yes there are or were. I think most have been flooded in the recent years of ab-normal rain fall Only they are not called flood plains. They are land which was designated in flow control schemes for use as Water Retention Areas (*) which can be intentional flooded to reduce the rate of flow through towns or villages down stream.

They would probably not build houses there - or stop using it for that purpose.

 

[ellal]

The question is, where does the fault lie? Certainly not with the house owner. He bought the house designed by architects, built by a national company and passed by town planners all vastly experienced in the pre-requisites of house building. And yet they gave the go-ahead for his and his neighbours houses, to be built on land adjacent to a river which has just burst its bank in a period of very extreme rainfall. Can he sue any, or all of them?

Caveat emptor!

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...uilt-on-flood-plains-despite-risks-says-panel

 

[HawkEye244]

Considering this destroys peoples lives I think it's reasonable to force insurance companies to either insure these properties with a slightly higher premium (only slight), or have the government provide some kind of stock insurance. Surely with the money the government drives into the military, weapons and various ways to kill people it can find a small reserve to cover such eventualities. How much damage was caused in the last 6 months? Couple of billion? What is that in the overall scheme of things ?

You can say why should everyone have to bare the cost of this as a taxpayer? Well were it to happen to you or your family, how would you feel? We don't live in an age of donkeys and carts, stone cob building methods and friendly neighbours - where you might club together with a few burly mates from the tavern in town to get back on track. We live in an age where people you don't know and are scared to look at are more likely to stand there filming you walk amongst the remains of your property picking up what's left. The support and community isn't there,.. well maybe in the smallest of towns and villages. For the most part people NEED help because they sure as hell won't get it from their communities, they need more than a £500 cheque from the government which is an insult in itself and says a lot about where we are as a species.

 

[Shutpa]

In periods of excessive rainfall, flood plains can and will, flood. In periods of heavy snowfall, followed by rapid snow melt, rivers can rise and burst their banks and flood adjoining flood plains. Now I know that that is so. The architects and town planners know that that is so. And even the builders know that that is so, but because the plans have been drawn up by architects and passed by the town planners, they, the builders, go ahead and build on areas which can flood in periods of excessive rainfall. And in the north east of Scotland in the past few weeks, that is exactly what has happened. Houses built in the last 20 years or so on land bordering flood plains and liable to flooding in periods of extreme rainfall have now been flooded during such a period.
Again I pose the question, should planners give extra consideration to plans submitted by architects, for houses to be built on land susceptible to flooding. And if they don't give that extra consideration and the houses are built and later flooded, should not they the planners, and the architects, and the builders, be held to account?

 

[^woody^]

I just think it would make a great Bon Jovi song

 

[Shutpa]

I just think it would make a great Bon Jovi song

It already has!!! Released next month, because it's on a a flood plain, "THIS HOUSE IS NOT FOR SALE". Pre orders are flooding in!

 

[PBC_1966]

How far does anyone want to go in saying that homes shouldn't be built anywhere in which there's a risk of something?

In this area there is a flood risk in some areas near the Sacramento River, although we're just far enough back to be out of the designated area (which is good for insurance costs as well as peace of mind). When the neighborhood was developed steps were also taken to minimize the effects if the river did break its banks, with drainage channels strategically located to take the bulk of the run-off into nearby creeks. We are within the area which would likely be flooded in the event of a catastrophic failure of Shasta Dam, about 15 miles north, but the chances of that happening are pretty remote.

More significant in this area of the state is the wildfire risk, given the thousands of acres of forest land and the long, hot summers with months going by without rain. You don't have to go far out of town to be in those areas; in fact before moving to our present home my wife and I were looking at several places a little farther out, but were put off by that very risk. We had previously lived about 25 miles east of here halfway up a mountain surrounded by pine forest. It's beautiful in its own way, but a severe fire risk, and driving through another very rural community up there a few miles away and seeing the devastation a huge fire had done a couple of years previously really brought it home to us - Especially things like seeing somebody in a house which was all of about 200 ft. away from where the fire was finally stopped and realizing how fortunate that person was.

But if nobody ever wanted to take the risk, there would never be any homes built in these places. Even down here in Redding, there are places on the outskirts but still within city limits which are classified as high fire risk areas. Perhaps in a few more decades when more of the land beyond has been developed they won't be, just as some neighborhoods which aren't considered high fire risk areas now would have been so a few decades ago, when they were bordering expanses of wildland and didn't have the appropriate infrastructure in place.

One good thing in this repsect about buying a property in California is the disclosure reports which have to be provided. They sometimes seem excessive (even down to things like the seller being required to disclose for the superstitious if anybody has passed away in the house within the last 2 or 3 years), but they contain all the relevant information about potential flooding, fire risk, earthquake risk, and so on, in considerable detail, so buyers can decide for themselves if they are willing to live with the risk (and pay the extra insurance premium).

 

[securespark]

I just think it would make a great Bon Jovi song

It already has!!! Released next month, because it's on a a flood plain, "THIS HOUSE IS NOT FOR SALE". Pre orders are flooding in!

I thought you were referring to that 80's Bon Jovi classic, "Living on a Floodplain".