Suggestions regarding how to reduce effects of flooding

[GRALISTAIR]

It's pure bollocks.

So you don't think we will eventually run out of land then?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

And as population increases it can only get worse. Uncontrolled immigration will make this so whether we like it or not. That is not being racist it is pure commonsense. If we build houses even on non-flood plains that water from rain has to go somewhere. UK is a wet climate. At one time, farmers fields etc took up the rain.

Far from being commonsense, it is flatly contradicted by the facts. The 'uncontrolled immigration' of the last 20 years has added - typically about 0.3% per year to UK population growth. The proportion of the UK land occupied by houses and urban development is well below 10%. Do you seriously think that, with those figures, it's impossible to find land to house a 0.3%/year increase in population without harming flood protection. Consider too that technology and our understanding of flooding is improving all the time. For example, we now know how to build paving and driveways etc. that allows water to drain, thereby avoiding contributing to potential flooding - it's just that we've never bothered to do that on a large scale.

No, the problem is primarily homes in poor locations, inadequate flood defences, failure to protect the environment adequately, compounded by climate change. While I don't doubt that population growth will put extra pressure on land, it's not correct to primarily blame population growth, or to assume that population growth makes the problem of flooding impossible to solve.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

You would also need new schools, new doctors surgeries, new hospitals etc. They all take land. Immigrants tend to like to live together not spread out and all those empty houses you estimate are spread out over the whole UK.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom#Population

8 million in 20 years and to use round numbers I will say 2.7 per household so would need 3 million new houses in that time plus hospitals, doctors surgeries, schools etc.

It cant go on forever surely?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You would also need new schools, new doctors surgeries, new hospitals etc. They all take land. Immigrants tend to like to live together not spread out and all those empty houses you estimate are spread out over the whole UK.

It's still population growth due to net migration of about 0.3% per year, from which you can deduce that the extra land required per year to house and provide services to all these people is 0.3% of land already taken by the current population. I just checked the exact figure and it's about 5.9% of land in the UK is built on. So ideally, you need to take about an extra 0.018% of the UK's land each year because of migration. In fact it'd be less than that because greater population density tends to mean more efficient use of land. (And obviously at the moment it's a lot less than that because the Conservative Government has not made any serious attempt to improve infrastructure and housing - but that obviously needs to change).

Do you still think, with those figures, that migration poses a serious problem in terms of increasing flooding?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Do you seriously think that, with those figures, it's impossible to find land to house a 0.3%/year increase in population without harming flood protection.

One of my favourite sayings which I live by is - nothing is impossible with enough time, money and political will.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Do you still think, with those figures, that migration poses a serious problem in terms of increasing flooding?

Look at all history - where have all civilizations built up. Around the Euphrates and Tigris; Around London; Around Alexandria Egypt; Around the fertile plain; etc. They grow up around water sources. The Thames Valley, the Severn Valley etc. You surely are not blaming property developers?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom#Population

8 million in 20 years and to use round numbers I will say 2.7 per household so would need 3 million new houses in that time plus hospitals, doctors surgeries, schools etc.

It cant go on forever surely?

Sure, in fact, the figures in that article say that the popualation grew from 58.5M to 68.5M between 1998 and 2008, so I make that 10M. But that's not all caused by immigration. That's going to be a mixture of natural population increase, plus immigration, minus emigration.

And obviously, it can't go on forever. But on a timescale of 10-20 years, if migration carries on at the same rate, then you're looking at a 3-6% population increase because of migration - that doesn't seem to me beyond the ability of a sensible Government to cope with. Beyond a timescale of 10-20 years or so, current immigration policy becomes irrelevant: 20 years is long enough for the political situation in the World to change out of all recognition, so it's impossible to say today what immigration policies might or might not be appropriate that far into the future.

 

[Tetchytyke]

So you don't think we will eventually run out of land then?

Not for a millennium or two.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Agreed. My cousin, brother, brother-in-law are all builders and they admit building on green field sites is what they prefer it easier and they make more money, brown field sites not so much. ALL GOVERNMENTS of whatever persuasion like house building - it produces a lot of revenue and a economy growth.

If you build in low population density areas away from flood plains etc you need - CARS - cars produce particulates and all that other good stuff. No government of whatever political colour is without blame on this.

I also don't want to take the discussion too much OT - but the population also needs electrical power - electric buses cars - whatever I don't care. Because of power density considerations you would need an awful lot of land to generate enough by wind power - it can not all go offshore. Same for solar. So what you would then need is a lot of nukes - nuclear powered stations - and of course you don't want those sited where there is a risk of flooding. Of course people don't generally like living near nukes either - so it really is not as simple as people think.

Back to my favourite subject of railways, one complaint is we need HS2 because other options are too disruptive. Well it is the same with housing - we are where we are. Just as it is cheaper and less disruptive to build HS2 than rebuild Victorian infrastructure, it is the same with housing. A lot is already built in areas prone to flooding. If they were to be moved, boy oh boy that would be the mother of disruptions.

Sorry if I sound like I am waffling - I am trying to illustrate there are a lot of factors and it is just not as easy as people think. Population growth/immigration is a factor - I will accept I am talking partial bollocks but not TOTAL as was suggested upthread.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Not for a millennium or two.

Wowsers I just love a challenge like this and just done the mathematics. I just love compound growth rate. In 1000 years (so 1 millienium not two) at just 0.3% growth rate - that is growth rate not NET migration, in 1000 years there will be 1360 million people (greater than India's population) crammed into the UK - so at lets say 4 people per house that will need 340 million new homes plus schools, plus doctors surgeries plus factories or places to work plus local government offices - no recreation space and all the energy generation - clean nukes? Now I am sure - and I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you were using hyperbole but I respectfully suggest you are wrong sir!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

2 millennium would need at 5 people per home occupancy 5.9 billion new homes plus doctors surgeries, plus hospitals, plus schools, plus places to work plus plus plus

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Look at all history - where have all civilizations built up. Around the Euphrates and Tigris; Around London; Around Alexandria Egypt; Around the fertile plain; etc. They grow up around water sources. The Thames Valley, the Severn Valley etc. You surely are not blaming property developers?

Yep, and historically there were very good reasons for towns developing around water sources: Through most of human history, if you wanted to travel, you went by boat, or you walked, and we had little in the way of means to move large quantities of water. So having large settlements away from water was not really an option. That of course is no longer true, and there is now no excuse to be building houses either on flood plains, or in locations where they will contribute significantly to flooding. Personally I don't particularly blame developers - they are basically doing what all companies do: Trying to make a profit by providing things (in this case, homes) for their customers in the current regulatory environment. I do blame successive Governments for not acting to sort out house-building, so that we (a) build enough homes and associated infrastructure for people to live, and (b) take account of environmental considerations in deciding where to allow houses to be built etc.

 

[Meerkat]

When trying to solve a problem, it is best to look at the experts and see how they do it. Clearly, the experts in flood defences are the Dutch.

http://davidhembrow.blogspot.com/2014/02/why-does-britain-flood-more-readily.html

i don’t think the Dutch method is going to work here! Building massive great dykes along all the big rivers might be a bit unpopular.....

the number of empty houses is in itself not a helpful stat. They maybe empty for a good reason - sub-standard homes somewhere there is no demand to live. Rows of empty terrace houses in Burnley are no use unless you begin forced migration of the economically inactive (now that would be an incentive to get a job!)

 

[radamfi]

The birth rate on our continent is well below replacement level. According to

http://worldpopulationreview.com/continents/europe-population/

population has effectively peaked.



Many countries have already started to see falling or stagnant populations and the ones that still have increasing population only do so through immigration. This is of great concern to white supremacists.

i don’t think the Dutch method is going to work here! Building massive great dykes along all the big rivers might be a bit unpopular.....

It is either that or be willing to accept flooding every few years.

 

[Meerkat]

Actually the Dutch example isn’t relevant is it? Their problem is sea level, I don’t reckon they have a big problem with fast runoff from big hills!
For the River Don problems the engineering solutions might include some dykes (but they become impractical due to lack of space and the impact on road and rail in urban areas), storage upstream, and flood relief channels to get the water to the sea quicker.

 

[Tetchytyke]

They maybe empty for a good reason - sub-standard homes somewhere there is no demand to live.

Then you bring them back up to standard. Or pull them down and use the land for a new development.

There is demand in all areas- you wish to mock Burnley, but the new housing market in east Lancashire is buoyant.

There should be no building on greenfield land until brownfield land has been utilised first.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I just love compound growth rate.

I believe our population has pretty much plateaued. The current growth is due to ageing and prolonged life expectancy, but life expectancy has plateaued and the birth rate is too low to replace the population (average children per household is about 1.7 now). Population density will settle down when the boomers- who have been a statistical outlier for their whole lives- die off. So glib compound calculations are meaningless.

My cousin, brother, brother-in-law are all builders and they admit building on green field sites is what they prefer it easier and they make more money, brown field sites not so much. ALL GOVERNMENTS of whatever persuasion like house building - it produces a lot of revenue and a economy growth.

And this is the issue. The incentives are to build on greenfield land, and so the greenfield land is being built on. In my borough the last two significant patches of green space are going to be built on for housing, which is going to have a massive impact ecologically. Nobody cares, not the house builders who like to throw them up cheaply and charge top dollar, and certainly not the corrupt local politicians getting significant "incentives" from Bellway and the like. Apparently we "need" all these new houses and tarmacing all the green space will make North Tyneside a "great place to live". I'm just glad I'm leaving.

It needs to stop.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

the number of empty houses is in itself not a helpful stat. They maybe empty for a good reason - sub-standard homes somewhere there is no demand to live. Rows of empty terrace houses in Burnley are no use unless you begin forced migration of the economically inactive (now that would be an incentive to get a job!)

Exactly

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I believe

So glib compound calculations are meaningless.

Not for a millennium or two.

I tend to make “glib” calculations in response to glib hyperbole.

 

[edwin_m]

Look at all history - where have all civilizations built up. Around the Euphrates and Tigris; Around London; Around Alexandria Egypt; Around the fertile plain; etc. They grow up around water sources. The Thames Valley, the Severn Valley etc. You surely are not blaming property developers?

Yep, and historically there were very good reasons for towns developing around water sources: Through most of human history, if you wanted to travel, you went by boat, or you walked, and we had little in the way of means to move large quantities of water. So having large settlements away from water was not really an option. That of co urse is no longer true, and there is now no excuse to be building houses either on flood plains, or in locations where they will contribute significantly to flooding. Personally I don't particularly blame developers - they are basically doing what all companies do: Trying to make a profit by providing things (in this case, homes) for their customers in the current regulatory environment. I do blame successive Governments for not acting to sort out house-building, so that we (a) build enough homes and associated infrastructure for people to live, and (b) take account of environmental considerations in deciding where to allow houses to be built etc.

Existing low-lying urban areas are generally protected by flood defences because there is enough development to make it worthwhile to do so. Often part of those defences is to allow undeveloped areas upstream to flood, so that the water pools here and is released more gradually. One example is the area you see from the train just north of East Midlands Parkway, where three major rivers meet, which anyone passing on the train today will see has become a lake. This is protecting Nottingham. If those areas are built on, either the development floods and people complain, or they get defences that reduce the protection for others downstream. Even when a flood plain doesn't serve this purpose the developer is probably expecting government to foot the bill for flood defences while they walk away with the profit.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Existing low-lying urban areas are generally protected by flood defences because there is enough development to make it worthwhile to do so. Often part of those defences is to allow undeveloped areas upstream to flood, so that the water pools here and is released more gradually. One example is the area you see from the train just north of East Midlands Parkway, where three major rivers meet, which anyone passing on the train today will see has become a lake. This is protecting Nottingham. If those areas are built on, either the development floods and people complain, or they get defences that reduce the protection for others downstream. Even when a flood plain doesn't serve this purpose the developer is probably expecting government to foot the bill for flood defences while they walk away with the profit.

What is a potential answer then? Stronger planning laws - or get the developer to include costings for measures such as these?

 

[underbank]

There should be no building on greenfield land until brownfield land has been utilised first.

Yes, and it needs stronger planning laws to make it happen, i.e. make it more costly/harder for builders to build on green field sites so that it tips the balance back towards them having to build on brownfield.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I tend to make “glib” calculations in response to glib hyperbole.

Hyperbole? You asked when GB- with about 10% of land built on- would "run out of land". The answer is not for thousands of years. Literally.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Hyperbole? You asked when GB- with about 10% of land built on- would "run out of land". The answer is not for thousands of years. Literally.

And I gave you answers - showing how it was possible - which you called glib and you answered with this. I suggest respectfully, we have nowhere else to go with this so I will withdraw from the debate. It is futile. My favourite quote from myself 'When you bang your head against a brick wall, stop, because it is not he brick wall that gets hurt". Peace. And BTW I also refuse to engage in ad hominem attacks or strawmen or logical fallacies.

 

[underbank]

Hyperbole? You asked when GB- with about 10% of land built on- would "run out of land". The answer is not for thousands of years. Literally.

There's a difference between "land" and realistically build-able land. A huge amount of land is simply "out of bounds" for building upon, such as national parks, mountains, steep slopes, bogs, city centre parks, etc. Then you have land which could theoretically be built on, but impractical, such as where there is no/poor infrastructure, such as Yorkshire Moors. Then of course, all the flood plains. Not to mention woodlands and forests. And after all that, people want to live where their friends/family/work is located. So, realistically, that means new homes will be built in and around already well populated areas, so that will massively reduce the amount of land realistically available for building upon. Good luck trying to get planning permission for a new housing estate of a few hundred houses in Snowdonia or the Lake District or Saddleworth Moor or London's Hyde Park!

 

[HSTEd]

If you build in low population density areas away from flood plains etc you need - CARS - cars produce particulates and all that other good stuff. No government of whatever political colour is without blame on this.

The idea that suburbia requires cars is a bit of a fiction.
Suburbia first developed in places like Metroland and in bits of Australia supported by public transport.

You just have to be willing to pay for it.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The idea that suburbia requires cars is a bit of a fiction.
Suburbia first developed in places like Metroland and in bits of Australia supported by public transport.

You just have to be willing to pay for it.

I hear you and I think we are in agreement in the main. Yes need buses and trains or trams. I don't think trams would cut it in low population density areas.

 

[HSTEd]

I hear you and I think we are in agreement in the main. Yes need buses and trains or trams. I don't think trams would cut it in low population density areas.

Trams are more likely to be affordable than heavy rail, but it would look like a more modern version of the Silesian Interurbans than the tramways we have in Britain today.

A tram line in open terrain will cost less than a heavy rail line, as we can have level crossings, no safety grade signalling system and things like that.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Lower voltage and all that good stuff too.