We have had four flood events in the Tyne Valley in five weeks.

(river levels so high that stormdrains cannot discharge into the river so roads and amenity spaces are flooded - one event was so severe that 44 dwellings were inundated and the occupants have moved out - some were rescued by boats having spent the night trapped upstairs)

Our problem is that raising the defences even further (they were raised 18 inches after the last flood ten years ago breached those defences) will result in the loss of the bridge (that survived the great 1771 flood that destroyed all other bridges on the river Tyne).

Loss of this bridge would mean no bus services connecting both sides of the river to the nearby town and the further city. The bridge is also a local crossing point for cars, vans and light trucks as well as pedestrians and cyclists. The shortest detour is ten miles.

Nutty, glad to hear your folks are safe (and Jennings), Mopardave, Theakstones also shows future promise mate. Thelma, our thanks and prayers must be with your relative, on the line, and I for one totally agree with your sentiment that our "lads" will always serve us well, when called on. In many ways, we have a nation to be proud of.

Smudge :ok:

The changes in flood plains & agriculture upstream means bigger faster changes in water level, plus we have had massive amounts of rainfall in the catchment areas in the Pennines when the ground is already saturated.

Preventing flooding in the future isn't just about flood defences (and do you want a 5m wall along the Ouse in York?), it's got to be about slowing down the rate rain runs off at, and part of that is finding ways to increase the amount of rain the ground can absorb.

However if you solve the problem at one place you often move it downstream. :(

Where and how houses etc. are built has to be part of it as well. The butcher with a shop tiled with swimming pool materials has been mentioned, and some of the newer buildings in York have the car park on the ground floor which means flooding doesn't damage the office areas.

Would however suggest that power stations, sub stations, telephone exchanges, water pumping stations and the like should be far better protected than at present.

I have always thought that building flood defences is similar to King Canute trying to hold back the tide.

In general I think you are right, but some vital items outlined above do need protection. And a way of mitigating flooding has to be sought, to do with slowing water leaving the catchment area.

Glad Rag, that reads better, thank you. I had heard about York but given my induced deafness I thought I had misheard.

What do our Dutch friends do? They seem to manage. Granted the PM can't do much about it today, but he could seriously look at the raising the level of intelligent spending on flood defence (been cut year on year by 27% in recent times apparently* source todays Guardian newspaper) and more.
About Yorkshire, in 1988 I easily remember going into Richmond and talking to two old boys about the River Swale (I was getting an angling permit) and they were convinced the whole river system generally flooded up more slowly, when they were young lads. The land absorbed more water and let it go more slowly, they said. Would this be true? Perhaps a reversion of land to other use. Bring back bogs, marsh and natural wetland? Possibly more natural woodland, upland woodland as well?
Massive vested interests (Grouse shooting, for a start) would be against that of course. The pressure on land for commercial worth is immense.
But these events are catching us out more and more frequently.


For my two cents worth further, I don't actually think the average Conservative Govt. minister gives a tuppence halfpenny about what goes on in the red areas, as it were-because politically it doesn't affect them. Politics is a nasty business and as long as the blue areas keep voting them back in, that will do for them.


But I have to say that from afar, reading the online newspapers and watching world news, that on this important issue large parts of Britain at the moment look an utter shambles. Cameron and his ilk should be minded to get a grip, and show some leadership - very quickly.

CMD and commercial advertising
 

CMD playing safe there on the news; shaking hands with the squaddies -silence- and the ever jovial RNLI [they may have been laughing at him but I'm unsure]

Noticed his nice sponsored jacket: can only assume it came from a BBC journalist as TNF appears to be their go to clothing [on expenses of course]

:mad:

Holland is very different to the UK geologically speaking...

cats five, my point was about buildings on flood plains not being flooded. Of course building upstream will increase water run off but the new buildings would not seem to have been affected to the same extent.

That said, we saw tonight new build with the ground floors raised higher. Garages still got flooded.

I'm surprised it took four pages for you to turn this into a lefty rant, hs: "average CONSERVATIVE minister doesn't give tuppence..." While of course their Labour shadows sit gushing tears of real grief -and spent their thirteen years in office building huge flood walls?

...And now it's all the fault of grouse shooters??!

A good read:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/j
an/13/flooding-public-spending-britain-europe-policies-homes?CMP=share_btn_tw

I see someone "oop North" has started bleating about there being more money spent on flood defences in the South than in the North.

If that is the case, how was it that a fair chunk of Somerset looked like an extension of the Bristol Channel for weeks on end not that long ago?

Or doesn't he count Somerset as "down South"?

Oh dear,

This is becoming something of a north/south split, without need gentlemen. I notice our PM correctly quoted today that his government spends more on flood defences in the north than the south. That's as it should be, it rains more the further north you go in our "sceptered isles" as a general rule. He did though duck the direct question about the 20% cuts he has imposed across the board on these very defences. A 20% cut is just that, a matter he will not address. I'm not sure if that makes me a lefty or a right winger, personally I wouldn't vote for any of the parties currently occupying parliament. I see though an element of divide and rule coming in this false wedge being driven about a north/south divide.

Smudge

Apologies for any political inference, I'm bereft of the daft pastime personally.

I watched Cameron being filmed in his wellies walking from a dry road into an inch or two of water to get his photo taken with similar wellie clad troops and I thought what a prat.... No I tell a lie, I thought what a Scum sucking low life politician trying to score kudos points off other people's misery prat.

There are people who have lost everything and here is this cretin splashing around in the water as if he is having a day out at the beach trying to score brownie points via the tabloids being filmed / photographed, as he knows the images of him wellie clad in water will appear in the papers.. :mad::mad::mad:

See what I mean

UK floods: David Cameron defends flood investment - BBC News

NutLoose, what absurd, facile comments.

Yes, the PM has been at the scene and has been sympathising with those affected by the flooding. Why does that raise your ire so?

Nutty,


If he hadn't gone there the tabloids would now be full of "Why hasn't he visited these areas?"


While holding no great love for politicians, in this case they cannot win!

It's not the fact he was there, it's the lets go stand in the water for the photo shoot, to make him look like he is involved in all of this. He could have just as easily shook the troops hands 3 foot to the left on the dry road, but that wouldn't be photogenic and make him appear to be involved.