I1L2T3 Posted July 15, 2012 Share Posted July 15, 2012 No but the householders in an area that is prone to flooding could pay for the flood defences themselves, there isn’t a rainbow with a pot of gold for the government to keep dipping into. One wonders why all these flood defences weren’t build over the past decade when government had plenty of money coming in. Not necessarily. Not if the conditions for flooding have been created by circumstances beyond the control of the householder. i.e. through government agencies and councils neglecting maintenance. Back to the example I gave above - a house that was not previously at risk becoming at risk due to neglect beyond the householder's control. The thing to remember is that we are now paying the consequences of the funding cut. Everybody will now suffer most likely increased home insurance premiums to pay for the insured flood damage. Would you rather have an increase in tax of say £10 a year to pay for defences or the 10% increase in house insurance premiums that Spelman is currently negotiating with insurers. A 10% levy we will all have to pay regardless of whether we live in a flood-prone area or not. That's right, the Tories would rather us all to pay more for cleaning up the mess caused by floods than spending anything in preventing floods in the first place. Like I said Spelman is an idiot. Not up to the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted July 16, 2012 Share Posted July 16, 2012 In Sheffield in 2007 it was found afterwards that 50 water channels had become blocked or restricted, a major contibutor to the floods that happened. If these blockages were in channels that were well-maintained when somebody in the locality bought a house, but the channels were subsequently poorly maintained causing that house to flood, then how do you blame that on the householder? I'd be interested to know how much extra surface water there now is because of people converting their front gardens to driveways. You could argue that there is indeed some level of responsibility on the householder then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 I'd be interested to know how much extra surface water there now is because of people converting their front gardens to driveways. You could argue that there is indeed some level of responsibility on the householder then. how does that work if the house he bought came included with a drive that had nothing to do with him being responsibile ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 I'd be interested to know how much extra surface water there now is because of people converting their front gardens to driveways. You could argue that there is indeed some level of responsibility on the householder then. It would be interesting to know. I can't imagine that it helps and if a neighbourhood had been put at risk by it I would agree the householders should be protected from themselves and forced to pay to return their gardens back into gardens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greengeek Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 The OP is rubbish. Let's be honest. Some people got a bit wetter than expected and now you're all mardy. It's actually a benefit because some filthy Guardian reading hippies finally got a wash. I may find your choice of computer questionable, but I doff my cap sir! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.