It is well known that due to climate change and global warming the coastline of the low lying east of England is at greater risk than ever from flooding.
Any visitor to North Norfolk can go to Happisburgh and see the peril many householders feel as each year more and more of their parish falls in to the sea whist the government tell us that they do not have the necessary £30 million needed to protect the whole of the North Norfolk coast. Similarly parts of Suffolk around Southwold have effectively been written off by the government and will be allowed to flood.
This might be acceptable were the government as strapped for cash as they claim.
But today I read that the government is to give £75 million to Bangladesh to help protect their coastline from flooding.
I've always felt the old saying "Charity begins at home" has some meaning. Clearly Labour's priority lies with the people of Bangladesh and not with the people of England.
Showing posts with label flooding. Show all posts
Showing posts with label flooding. Show all posts
9/15/2008
11/09/2007
Fingers crossed for all my friends in North Norfolk
With bad floods expected in the morning along the Norfolk Coast, I am really keeping my fingers crossed for everyone I know in North Norfolk and further afield who may be affected by the imminent high tides.
The government have, at least, given adequate warnings this time. However, the flooding is likely to highlight the inadequacies of the proposed Shoreline Management Plan, which suggests abandoning sea defences along most of the Norfolk Coast, leaving central Norfolk and the Broads much more susceptible to future flooding. We can only imagine what the problems might be tomorrow if the government had had their way and axed coastal defences earlier.
North Norfolk District Council have run a forthright and strong campaign against the government plans, and it may take the events of the flooding sadly to prove them right.
The government have, at least, given adequate warnings this time. However, the flooding is likely to highlight the inadequacies of the proposed Shoreline Management Plan, which suggests abandoning sea defences along most of the Norfolk Coast, leaving central Norfolk and the Broads much more susceptible to future flooding. We can only imagine what the problems might be tomorrow if the government had had their way and axed coastal defences earlier.
North Norfolk District Council have run a forthright and strong campaign against the government plans, and it may take the events of the flooding sadly to prove them right.
7/30/2007
It might just be a gesture but it's one the Environment Agency could do with learning
Today Hull Council, run by the Liberal Democrats, announced a 25% cut in council tax for all those houses that have been flooded. yes, this amounts to only a small amount of money back for people who have lost so much. However, it is a gesture, a sign that the council does care and does sympathise with the residents.
Compare Hull Council with the Environment Agency who it was revealed today had handed out massive bonuses to senior people for hitting targets, including for "work in preventing flooding".
Whilst the people who received these bonuses might be entitles to them, there is a question as to whether the people really ought to be accepting them at this time or whether they ought to be making a gesture of some sort, however small, in donating some to a fund to help victims of the flooding.
Yes, in both cases it might be a matter of being a PR exercise, Hull Council have got it just right whereas the Environment Agency have got it badly wrong.
Compare Hull Council with the Environment Agency who it was revealed today had handed out massive bonuses to senior people for hitting targets, including for "work in preventing flooding".
Whilst the people who received these bonuses might be entitles to them, there is a question as to whether the people really ought to be accepting them at this time or whether they ought to be making a gesture of some sort, however small, in donating some to a fund to help victims of the flooding.
Yes, in both cases it might be a matter of being a PR exercise, Hull Council have got it just right whereas the Environment Agency have got it badly wrong.
7/23/2007
You can almost see the upset in Cameron's eyes on the news
No, the title isn't making reference to his visit to Rwanda. Instead, its the shocking realisation for David Cameron that he has left the UK and his constituency whilst the flooding, the biggest news story of the year, is hitting the UK and he isn't in the country to cash in on the publicity.
Am I the only person who is tired of the "I have not got any house insurance" stories ?
Whilst the flooding is an absolute tragedy for so many people and for virtually everyone involved you feel absolutely enormous sympathy, surely I am not the only person who is slightly tiring of hearing hard luck stories about people who have no insurance ?
If they were people who were refused insurance because of the previous flooding or who could not afford it due to extreme poverty, then I could accept it. But in case after case on TV you see someone who has basically taken a risk, a gamble if you like, that they will not pay the £3.50 a week required to cover the contents of your house with an insurance company.
One couple on one news station stood their moaning about how they had lost everything whilst one of them was smoking a cigarette. I wish the reporter had pointed out that one less packet of fags a week and they could have insured their house properly. And on the BBC news at lunchtime they reported on a pub which had just had a £250,000 refit, but amazingly was not insured !
For me, before having Sky TV, a pet, the latest clothes, a night out, house insurance was an absolute priority, one of the first things on my list of things that I must have. For some people, this simply isn't the case and they see house insurance as something less important than having a cat to feed or having a plasma TV. They have made their choice, so they have to accept the consequences.
Insurance covers you against risk. I pay my insurance every month, as do millions of others, in the hope not of claiming, but hoping that I will never have to claim.
Either way, the people who are not insured have happily been saving themselves about £150 a year when others have been paying out for insurance. So let's not hear more sob stories please from people who could not be bothered. It's sad, but it was their choice.
If they were people who were refused insurance because of the previous flooding or who could not afford it due to extreme poverty, then I could accept it. But in case after case on TV you see someone who has basically taken a risk, a gamble if you like, that they will not pay the £3.50 a week required to cover the contents of your house with an insurance company.
One couple on one news station stood their moaning about how they had lost everything whilst one of them was smoking a cigarette. I wish the reporter had pointed out that one less packet of fags a week and they could have insured their house properly. And on the BBC news at lunchtime they reported on a pub which had just had a £250,000 refit, but amazingly was not insured !
For me, before having Sky TV, a pet, the latest clothes, a night out, house insurance was an absolute priority, one of the first things on my list of things that I must have. For some people, this simply isn't the case and they see house insurance as something less important than having a cat to feed or having a plasma TV. They have made their choice, so they have to accept the consequences.
Insurance covers you against risk. I pay my insurance every month, as do millions of others, in the hope not of claiming, but hoping that I will never have to claim.
Either way, the people who are not insured have happily been saving themselves about £150 a year when others have been paying out for insurance. So let's not hear more sob stories please from people who could not be bothered. It's sad, but it was their choice.
Crazy plan to build on flood plains
The government is maintaining that it will still be okay to build on flood plains " as long as adequate flood defences are in place.
Perhaps the government should look at all the places that were flooded over the weekend that were either ;
a) Already provided with flood defences that were in adequate for that amount of water.
or
b) Thought to be at no risk of flooding because water levels had never ever reached that height before.
I know this government has set ambitious targets for building new houses, but must they be on flood plains ?
Perhaps the government should look at all the places that were flooded over the weekend that were either ;
a) Already provided with flood defences that were in adequate for that amount of water.
or
b) Thought to be at no risk of flooding because water levels had never ever reached that height before.
I know this government has set ambitious targets for building new houses, but must they be on flood plains ?
7/21/2007
Flooding - Time for an enquiry and new powers
Once a year there is a story about some town getting flooded, be it in Cornwall through a flash flood or Hereford because of extreme rain. However, this year's continued and appalling flooding is something completely out of the ordinary, but is also something that this country looks like it may have to put up with year after year.
We need to know the reasons why our rivers and flood defences seem unable to cope with sever rain. It might be due to inaction or incompetence by the agencies with responsibility for flood defences. Equally, it might be that planning regulations have become so weak that authorities are unable to prevent developers building houses in areas that have a history of flooding.
Either way, an inquiry by government is needed to investigate how the risk of future flooding can be eased, to what extent planning laws need to be changed and to also importantly, to have government agencies able to offer technical and financial support to areas affected by flooding, with strategic powers also available to direct military and civil authorities at times of emergency.
The government has done much to ensure that everything is in place to deal with terrorist incidents quickly. A similar focus is now needed with regard to flooding.
We need to know the reasons why our rivers and flood defences seem unable to cope with sever rain. It might be due to inaction or incompetence by the agencies with responsibility for flood defences. Equally, it might be that planning regulations have become so weak that authorities are unable to prevent developers building houses in areas that have a history of flooding.
Either way, an inquiry by government is needed to investigate how the risk of future flooding can be eased, to what extent planning laws need to be changed and to also importantly, to have government agencies able to offer technical and financial support to areas affected by flooding, with strategic powers also available to direct military and civil authorities at times of emergency.
The government has done much to ensure that everything is in place to deal with terrorist incidents quickly. A similar focus is now needed with regard to flooding.
7/05/2007
Hardly the time to cut back on flood defences in Norfolk
The Eastern Daily Press reports that government spending on flood defences in Norfolk is to be cut by £20 million.
It is interesting that this is happening the week after some of the most serious flooding seen in this country for many years.
Luckily on this occasion Norfolk escaped the worst of the rain, but Norfolk's flood protection has never really been a case of protecting the County from rain. Norfolk's problem is the sea.
Norfolk is not as flat as people say, but inland from parts of north Norfolk, the county forms a series of large dips and natural lowlands which would, if the sea broke through in North Norfolk, sea several thousands acres, several villages and a number of towns fully submerged under several metres of sea water, rendering the land useless for farming and the houses uninhabitable (salt water rots things very fast).
So with the government already getting it in the ear for abandoning the people of Hull after the floods there, they seems to have pre-emptively abandoned Norfolk in advance.
It is interesting that this is happening the week after some of the most serious flooding seen in this country for many years.
Luckily on this occasion Norfolk escaped the worst of the rain, but Norfolk's flood protection has never really been a case of protecting the County from rain. Norfolk's problem is the sea.
Norfolk is not as flat as people say, but inland from parts of north Norfolk, the county forms a series of large dips and natural lowlands which would, if the sea broke through in North Norfolk, sea several thousands acres, several villages and a number of towns fully submerged under several metres of sea water, rendering the land useless for farming and the houses uninhabitable (salt water rots things very fast).
So with the government already getting it in the ear for abandoning the people of Hull after the floods there, they seems to have pre-emptively abandoned Norfolk in advance.
6/27/2007
Time for an end to any building on flood plains.
It is interesting to note that of all the flood plains flooded across England at the moment, a number of them have planning permissions on them for building new houses.Isn't it time for a moratorium on ending all building on flood plains ?
11/01/2006
Norfolk floods at high tide - Get used to it !
Overnight, parts of Norfolk and Suffolk suffered the worst flooding for more than 30 years. The EDP reports on it HERE.
Whilst this flooding can be put down in large part to the seasonal and almost one off hight tides coupled with strong winds off the sea, it clearly is something the people of Norfolk will have to get used too if global warming continues to accelerate and the sea levels continue to rise.
I note that the EDP is also running an online poll which asks, in the light of the report published yesterday by Sir Nicholas Stern, "Would you be prepared to pay more tax to save the environment". Sadly, at the time I write this, only 16.2% said are saying "Yes".
I wonder how many people whose houses and properties were damaged in Brundall, or those who had only a narrow escape, answered "No" to this question. It strikes me that Norfolk, one of Britain's flattest counties, has more to lose than most, and it is for that reason we should be doing the most to save the environment.
As a North Norfolk councillor I am also very aware that North Norfolk is particularly at risk from rising tides. Anyone who knows anything about the coastal erosion at Happisburgh will know what a threat this is to all of us. Action really is needed and soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)