building on flood plains....churchtown moss, rufford road

[Little Londoner]

In your opinion, who should pay for this retro-fit flood defence?

A tax on cycling, a tax on Lib Dems, a tax on woodburners.

[*concerned*]

In your opinion, who should pay for this retro-fit flood defence?

The Government of course (IE: the tax payers)

Instead of wasting £billions on climate change measures, which for the UK will not affect any climate change whatsoever, spend those £billions on flood defence where required, not just barriers but dredging also

[sandGroundZero]

A) And a lot of business opportunities!
B) It's usually down to the owners of properties to make improvements/alterations/upgrades, etc. I guess a tenant could too, with a landlords permission.

I thought perhaps I'd misread:

The technique …involves sliding girders underneath, to enable raising a property on linked hydraulic jacks, then putting in walling to fill the gap.

…but no.

That's a damned costly procedure you've described. Perhaps more than many of the properties involved would justify. Especially in view of your post #15 regarding Martin Mere, your remedy is unrealistic!

[sandGroundZero]

…Instead of wasting £billions on climate change measures, which for the UK will not affect any climate change whatsoever, spend those £billions on flood defence where required, not just barriers but dredging also

…is a little oblique; but I presume you're implying the line: the UK's GHG emissions are not large compared to the likes of China, India, the USA and therefore we need not spend to limit our greenhouse gases.

1. a narrow view given the UK had an extra century, or so of industrial scale emissions; also
2. barriers and dredging have proven (overall) disappointing in preventing river flooding — that tends to divert flood water elsewhere; and finally, if you're not in full-on climate change denial, then
3. in Southport's hinterland (W. Lancs. & Sefton), sea level rise is a serious threat.

[muddyboots]

just seen surveyors on rufford road......how on earth did anyone get planning to build on a flood plain that was once a lake....the land behind rufford road grade 1 agricultural land...2000 homes that may be flooded in the future.....we will loose prime agricultural land and the mugs that buy these homes will be flooded in the future...our planning system is very corrupt...how did the hesketh estate get permission for this...is it their connections in london....a criminal investigation is needed....looking at the news the last few days it seems many housing planners are either brain dead or just bent!

no one here seems very bothered that grade1 farming land is about to be built on??....britain will need all the farming land we can use soon....we cant build on it....southport is gridlocked enough...build elsewhere...the town centre may be a good place instead to build thousands of homes and boost the shops in the proccess....remember no one is making new land....land is a dwindling assett

[Kippax]

Another issue with flooding is our desire to tarmac, concrete, pave, block pave everything in sight.
Retail parks often the size of dozens of football pitches, with massive roof areas as well as car parks so the water can not soak into the ground naturally.
So all the water is channeled into the already overloaded drainage systems.

A current requirement is to install huge attenuation tanks below ground on retail parks and new housing developments, the surface (rain) water runs into these tanks and is released slowly into the drainage system or streams or rivers rather than all at once.

Developers are also using permeable blocks for driveways so that rain water can soak into the ground rather than run off into the drains.
Many new housing developments with houses that typically have 2/3 bathrooms, 2/3 WC’s, washing machines, dishwashers are connected into sewers that were designed and built to handle a fraction of what they actually take.

So all the flooding we are seeing, whilst not saying global warming isn’t the main cause, there other factors that we do have some control over.

[said]

True enough.....Before human intervention, just a line of dunes running North-South, with the biggest lake in England situated behind. The huge lake, Martin Mere, extended North-South and right across the Moss towards Aughton.

Apparently, very long ago Martin Mere was open to and actually part of the sea. It's believed that a huge storm cast up the sand dunes, cutting off the water behind and creating the lake. If in the future, sealevel rises sufficiently to break through that coastal strip it will flood right in, inundating the entire Moss like a tsunami!

The water level in most parts of Southport is very high. If you walk across the grass in Victoria Park in the winter, it is very marshy and muddy even when there has been a good few days of dry, sunny weather. That was the main reason why the old Archery ground was never built on - in addition to contamination under ground. They did raise the land to put the caravans on it, but failed to put in sufficient drainage so the rainwater runs down from the high ground into the childrens park area which is now often almost unusable. It is the same at Kew. The houses have been raised, and the piles that were driven into the ground have forced the water to flow from the high ground to the lower ground, with much flooding on the nearby roads. If the same procedure is to be used for the industrial units about to be built, it will mean severe flooding all along Right Moss Way. But why let such little considerations get in the way of making a profit?

[The PNP]

The water level in most parts of Southport is very high.

Groundwater level in the area varies, but is never very far from the surface, that is true. Dig a decent hole (at any time of the year) and groundwater will seep into it.

We're fortunate in having that big pumping station at Banks, along with its subsidiaries, to keep water levels on the Moss behind town under control....Water has been pumped out to the sea, ever since the commencement of the draining of Martin Mere back in the day. The rich fertile soils this exposed, are composed of organic matter deposited as sediment on the original lakebed.

[sandGroundZero]

…We're fortunate in having that big pumping station at Banks, along with its subsidiaries, to keep water levels on the Moss behind town under control....Water has been pumped out to the sea, ever since the commencement of the draining of Martin Mere back in the day. The rich fertile soils this exposed, are composed of organic matter deposited as sediment on the original lakebed.

Unfortunately, that rich organic material oxidizes on exposure to the air and degrades, over time. The cheap food we've come to expect in this country comes at the cost of rather poor management practices in too many cases.

We are on a declining trajectory on several counts.

[said]

Unfortunately, that rich organic material oxidizes on exposure to the air and degrades, over time. The cheap food we've come to expect in this country comes at the cost of rather poor management practices in too many cases.

We are on a declining trajectory on several counts.

Only if we sit back and let it happen. If you are speaking of fast grown foods, true they are substandard to naturally grown produce. The UK has many excellent farmers and there was talk last year of being able to open up more land to farming so that we can be domestically independent on farm foods. Not much good if the land constantly floods. The fast grown foods also have a short life -there has been much waste that is costly to consumers. Fresh farm produce is expected to cost more, but if enough people choose our home grown products, the prices should stabilise and become more reasonable, perhaps.

[The PNP]

there was talk last year of being able to open up more land to farming so that we can be domestically independent on farm foods.

Cue a new 'dig for victory' campaign....Time to roll up those artificial lawns and get stuck in planting spuds!

[sandGroundZero]

Only if we sit back and let it happen. If you are speaking of fast grown foods, true they are substandard to naturally grown produce.

In fact, I was referring to the quality of the soil in what was until comparatively recent times a vast peat bog.

The UK has many excellent farmers and there was talk last year of being able to open up more land to farming so that we can be domestically independent on farm foods. Not much good if the land constantly floods. …Fresh farm produce is expected to cost more, but if enough people choose our home grown products, the prices should stabilise and become more reasonable, perhaps.

I seriously doubt whether any approximation of UK food self-sufficiency will stabilize at a price most consumers would be comfortable with.

I would appreciate an explanation of your expression 'fast grown foods'. It's not a distinction I recognize (certainly, at first glance).

[Normal]

There are so many geographical and engineering experts in this thread.

Kew and Churchtown developments are not built on flood plains. The accumulation of rain water in a field does not make it a flood. A better description would be a large puddle.

The whole of Southport is on flat low lying ground. Thousands of years ago, those flat ares would have been the coast line and beeches.

The reason why the built up areas don't accumulate large puddles is because they have a drainage system. The new developments have much more modern and advance drainage systems than the Victorian parts of the town. The new developments will be able to cope much better with rain water than the rest of the town with their old drainage systems.

The risk of flooding comes from rivers which carry many millions of gallons of water through them and have catchment areas of many hundreds of square miles, due to the geography the water is then captured through the catchment areas which forces it into a river, when the river can't cope it then floods. However this is on a completely different scale than puddles in fields.

I am sorry for the local residents of Chruchtown who feel aggrieved by the new housing development. I don't know the issues well enough to comment. That said the area is not a flood plain and that alone is not a reason to reject the building of houses. Yes there will be other more salient issues with regards to the suitability of building there, but flooding is not one of them.

[sandGroundZero]

There are so many geographical and engineering experts in this thread.
Kew and Churchtown developments are not built on flood plains. The accumulation of rain water in a field does not make it a flood. A better description would be a large puddle.

…and now we have a lexicographer. The good folks of Churchtown (and other parts roundabout Southport) can rest easy — they're not flooded; they're just in the midst of large puddles.

The whole of Southport is on flat low lying ground. Thousands of years ago, those flat ares would have been the coast line and beeches.
The reason why the built up areas don't accumulate large puddles is because they have a drainage system. The new developments have much more modern and advance drainage systems than the Victorian parts of the town. The new developments will be able to cope much better with rain water than the rest of the town with their old drainage systems.

…or not cope, as often happens.

The risk of flooding comes from rivers which carry many millions of gallons of water through them and have catchment areas of many hundreds of square miles, due to the geography the water is then captured through the catchment areas which forces it into a river, when the river can't cope it then floods. However this is on a completely different scale than puddles in fields.

The Alt-Crossens Catchment area, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, does indeed rely on two large plus a system of smaller automated pumping facilities. The system frequently approaches maximum capacity when persistent, heavy rain coincides with tidal surge resulting in an excess of water with no place to go. The consequence — extensive large puddles!

I am sorry for the local residents of Chruchtown who feel aggrieved by the new housing development. I don't know the issues well enough to comment. That said the area is not a flood plain and that alone is not a reason to reject the building of houses. Yes there will be other more salient issues with regards to the suitability of building there, but flooding is not one of them.

[Normal]

…and now we have a lexicographer. The good folks of Churchtown (and other parts roundabout Southport) can rest easy — they're not flooded; they're just in the midst of large puddles.

…or not cope, as often happens.

The Alt-Crossens Catchment area, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, does indeed rely on two large plus a system of smaller automated pumping facilities. The system frequently approaches maximum capacity when persistent, heavy rain coincides with tidal surge resulting in an excess of water with no place to go. The consequence — extensive large puddles!

Mock all you like, but the developments are not on flood plains any more than the rest of Southport is. Those issues that you have raised are the same issues for the whole of Southport. Therefore that in itself is not a reason not to build. As I alluded to, there maybe other factors arising out of traffic and safety etc which may mean the developments should not go ahead. But the flood plain issue is not a reason to prevent the building.