Flood defence objection

[Over The Hill]

In Nottingham they are trying to spend £51 million building a flood defence.

Some bloke who lives in the threatened meadows area is objecting to this because the Environment Agency did not turn up one day at the local roadshow publicising the project.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-11340632

You really could not make it up.

 

[Brains]

To be fair you need to watch the E.A.

They are well known for saying they will do one thing and then do another.

The 'proposal' and 'architechts impression' for the flood defence may well be a nice grassy berm with trees and ducks on it.
The reality may be a concrete wall that would not look out of place in East Germany or Palistine

The also don't care (really don't care) about the people living nearby these schemes, you will find may tales of river widening over peoples gardens, schemes that result in homes hundreds of years old with no history of flooding being flooded, and senic proposed rivers being made into concrete storm drains

They also sub out all their constuction. So people are building for a price not a look, and will cut every corner they can. No one is going to award a flood scheme on it's architectual merit.

 

[Norm]

No one is going to award a flood scheme on it's architectual merit.

I'd counter that with the rather delightful Jubilee River. At least that attracts a fair number of leisure activity along its banks, leaving the Thames Path slightly less congested for me.

Back to the article in the OP...

"They were supposed to be at the library for two weeks but were late. This scheme will cut across extremely valuable and vital recreational land, land which has been there since 1906."

Now, my early 20th century history isn't that good, and it's a while since I cared much about Nottingham, but I'm not aware of any major upheaval 104 years ago which created a new area of land, so what exactly does the blathering gentleman mean by "land which has been there since 1906".

 

[Headgardener]

IMHO if a flood defense is built all it will do is move the flood problem back up river to where the water can expand out which may be an area which has never flooded before. Best leave well alone and not live on a floodplain in the first place (Says he who's front door is 26ft above sea level).

 

[slowmotion]

Ahem....is there a "Climate Change raison-d'etre" for this "flood defence"?

Just curious....

 

[dellzeqq]

there most certainly will be. The EA work on a 200 year horizon. Anything that gets built next to the coast or by a tidal river has to be risk-assessed over that period of time. That effectively blights development in towns like Whitstable or Southend, although town councils are getting around to calling their bluff...

I'm afraid, OTH, that this is a lot more complicated than you think, and Headgardener has a point, although I think that the more likely consequence is that water will go through the defended area and increase the risk of flooding downstream (which may, in this particular case, be entirely sensible).

The trouble is that the EA looks at particular areas, sometimes adjoining areas, in isolation, and they show no sign of thinking these things through. They are piss-poor at communicating, and completely averse to any kind of discussion. They demand huge amounts of money for data that they then take two weeks to send you. You never get to speak to anybody capable of making a decision. All of this means that your average Joe has no means of working out how they might be affected by flood defence works. For that reason, if for no other, I wish the objectors well. It's up to the EA to make a decent case - if they can.

 

[Over The Hill]

Fair enough. It just amused me that the objection was on such trivial grounds rather than the points raised above.

 

[Black Sheep]

I'd counter that with the rather delightful Jubilee River. At least that attracts a fair number of leisure activity along its banks, leaving the Thames Path slightly less congested for me.

Back to the article in the OP...

Now, my early 20th century history isn't that good, and it's a while since I cared much about Nottingham, but I'm not aware of any major upheaval 104 years ago which created a new area of land, so what exactly does the blathering gentleman mean by "land which has been there since 1906".

the land will still be there even if the plans go ahead, no?

"It is a tremendous waste of land and space and I can't imagine why they are doing it."

if the area is recreational and does flood - as a boat owner I also have no idea why they are doing it.

 

[fossyant]

Best leave well alone and not live on a floodplain in the first place (Says he who's front door is 26ft above sea level).

+1 - And I live on top of a hill...heh heh.

 

[guitarpete247]

I remember a story years ago about a flood and cutting one's nose of to spite one's face from Stanley Holloway .

Flood defences have been a feature of landscapes in the Fens and the Isle of Axholme and as such are an accepted neccessity. The flood defence "Wash Lands" in Burton and flood defences were improved a few years ago (A mate worked for the firm that constructed them). If they don't mind the results of flooded houses it's up to them but they won't get house insurance the second time it happens and they are trying to dig out the mud and sewage from their kitchen cupboards and living room carpets .