Leaving the homeowners with unsaleable properties, while the developers are quids in.
Rinse and repeat. Literally in most cases.
Call me whatever you like, but with 200 year old houses still standing quite firmly, the idea that modern builds are spoiled with a 10 year "guarantee" says far more than it should.
I think the problem starts further back. Suitable spots for river crossings would have gathered a cluster of businesses/housing for farm labourers etc. and gradually expanded to a village.
1948 comes along and a bunch of *experts* are given a major input as to where additional housing is to be permitted. For some reason they took against new housing being *visible* which, apart from exception 32: social housing, means everything has to fit in the valleys! There is only so much land that *never floods* in a valley.We may see schemes where landowners are compensated for managing river meadow land to permit flooding in order to protect vulnerable developments downstream. The deepening of river channels carried out in the '60's-'70's may now be seen as contributing to the problem.
IF they had thought about all that from the start it *would* have been
Basically you have to allow the gardens to flood. But not the houses or access roads
There is a lot more involved than that, most obviously with the roads.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required