Further thoughts to my previous article on this entitled 12 Months Caravans And Flooding. East Coast. That article brought forward several comments relating to the fact that there is a petition in existence regarding the lengthening of the caravan site season but not relating to the desire to have them open for 12 months of the year. I was aware of the petition but was actually commenting on the desire of some caravan owners to see 12 month opening as they were on sites which only close for a short period in the depths of winter.
Given that, I thought I would put forward some information that may be of assistance for those looking not to have their site open for 12 months but to extend the season from the beginning of March to the End of October from the present opening dates.
Firstly a little explanation. The reason that there are different opening dates on different caravan sites is that the understanding of the flood risk by the Environment Agency (EA) has changed over the years. This is important as the EA have, for all intents and purposes, the final say on opening dates and have changed those dates as their understanding has changed. This is important as the opening dates are laid down in planning conditions when the original planning application has been successful when it has appeared before East Lindsey District Council (ELDC), the Local Planning Authority (LPA).
So back to the petition. As I understand it the petition set up by caravan owners has been worded to encourage ELDC to make all caravan sites opening dates the same, beginning of March to the end of October. That is a sensible request in my view and one which I investigated with the Planning Department at ELDC when I was a District Councillor. It is unfortunate that due to planning regulations the District Council cannot do that. My understanding is that the only way that the required changes can be achieved is for the caravan site owners to apply to the LPA to have the planning conditions changed for their individual caravan sites, which means basically that they would ask that their individual site could be open from the beginning of March to the end of October. It would then be up to the LPA to decide on whether the request would be granted and for the EA not to object to any change. So in effect the present petition has very little chance to get the changes that are wanted by the authors.
For what it is worth, my advice is for those caravan owners that want to see a change to the opening dates of the sites on which they are situated to approach their site owners and request that they approach the LPA with a planning application to vary the dates. That may or may not be more effective than the present petition depending on whether the site owners wish to see a change.
The present situation whereby one site is allowed to be open for 11 months of the year and the site next door to it can only open for 7 or 8 months of the year is ludicrous. Even more ludicrous is the situation where one part of a site is allowed to open for longer than another part of the same site. Believe me this is the case.
I hope that the present situation can be resolved but I fear that it may be a long haul. Good luck to those trying!
Showing posts with label Environment Agency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environment Agency. Show all posts
Thursday, 11 February 2016
Monday, 1 February 2016
12 Month Caravans And Flooding. East Coast.
Today is the anniversary of the East Coast Floods that devastated our area in 1953 during which over 300 people lost their lives. This disaster alone should tell us that there is a need for flood protection in our area both physically and through legislation. Over the last few years there have been many "near misses" when the sea threatened to inundate the land once again, with December 2013 being the one that came the closest to being another disaster. It caused much damage along the coast but thankfully, in the main, the flood defences held and no lives were lost.
I raise this issue not only because today is the anniversary of the 1953 disaster but also because there is now a push to allow caravan parks to be open and occupied 12 months of the year. I can fully understand why people who own caravans and also the caravan parks would wish to see this happen. I also understand the economic arguments for allowing it to happen. The wishes and the arguments need to be set against the issue of safety of the caravan occupants.
In the event of a serious inundation, caravans become flotsam and jetsam. Large metal boxes that are at the mercy of the onrushing waters. A flooding tide moves at incredible speed and caravans stand little to no chance of being stable even if chained down.
The caravan parks we have are not residential, they are holiday parks. Any residential park would already be allowed to have people on them 12 months of the year. None of the holiday parks would have received planning permission if they had originally applied for residential status. Why? It was not deemed safe to do so and still isn't under planning legislation.
It is for that reason that those wanting to see caravan parks open for 12 months of the year in the flood zone have a forlorn hope. The Environment Agency will not let it happen and would oppose any move for it to do so.
It is a real pity that is the case but in my view there is not good enough reasons to put people at risk.
I raise this issue not only because today is the anniversary of the 1953 disaster but also because there is now a push to allow caravan parks to be open and occupied 12 months of the year. I can fully understand why people who own caravans and also the caravan parks would wish to see this happen. I also understand the economic arguments for allowing it to happen. The wishes and the arguments need to be set against the issue of safety of the caravan occupants.
 |
| Caravans during the 1953 flood. |
In the event of a serious inundation, caravans become flotsam and jetsam. Large metal boxes that are at the mercy of the onrushing waters. A flooding tide moves at incredible speed and caravans stand little to no chance of being stable even if chained down.
The caravan parks we have are not residential, they are holiday parks. Any residential park would already be allowed to have people on them 12 months of the year. None of the holiday parks would have received planning permission if they had originally applied for residential status. Why? It was not deemed safe to do so and still isn't under planning legislation.
It is for that reason that those wanting to see caravan parks open for 12 months of the year in the flood zone have a forlorn hope. The Environment Agency will not let it happen and would oppose any move for it to do so.
It is a real pity that is the case but in my view there is not good enough reasons to put people at risk.
Thursday, 31 December 2015
Flooding Is Here To Stay!
The floods we have been seeing in large parts of the country are awful. Nobody can deny that. Those experiencing them deserve our sympathy and our help but what can be done to ensure that it doesn't happen again? In my view there is not a lot that can be done.
The water has to go somewhere. There are millions of cubic feet of water now on the ground that could not have been stopped from falling from the skies. That is an absolute fact. Flooding will never be stopped unless control of nature can be had. That is never going to happen. The only thing that we can actually do is to allow the water to flow as it always has onto the flood plains that have been created over millenia by previous floods waers. That is going to be very difficult in some cases as a lot of the flood plains have been built on.
Hundreds of years ago, in some cases thousands of years ago, towns and cities were built on the banks of rivers for good reasons. Firstly, the need to provide water and secondly because the rivers were the motorways of the day allowing easy transportation of people and goods. Those towns and cities have now expanded and are infringing on the floodplains. So should we be surprised that some of our dwellings are subject to flooding? I think not.
I have heard and read an awful lot of comment regarding this issue. One of the main topics appears to be that we are not dredging enough rivers. My view is that the dredging of rivers is really small beer in the scheme of things. Why do I say that? Simply because we are talking about an excess of millions of cubic feet of excess water. Dredging rivers would only allow a small percentage of that excess to remain in the watercourses whilst at the same time allowing the water to move downstream at a much higher rate than it would on a river that has not been dredged. It would carry the water downstream towards our urban areas more quickly and would still require to overspill the banks of the rivers at the same places as now.
What we really need to do is to allow the excess water to drain into floodplains as soon as possible and for those floodplains to be in rural localities. This brings us onto farmland. I hear the cry that if the farmland floods then where are the crops going to come from? This is a bit of a red-herring in the scheme of things for two reasons. Flooding does not necessarily wipe out crops simply because of the reasonably short nature of the flooding events and because of the time of year when floods normally occur, namely the winter months. Secondly, there normally is a surplus of crops worldwide which would allow any shortfall in yield in this country to effectively be made up. Yes that may make foodstuffs more expensive in the short term but we cannot have everything. Rural flooding is the way to go. It is far less damaging and dangerous than allowing built up areas to flood. That is something that needs to be considered and put into place. We need to accept, as I have said previously in this article that the millions of cubic feet of water needs to go somewhere. Fields and open countryside are the best options.
Now let's look at funding of flood defences. I keep seeing and hearing the call for the monies needed to reduce the flooding problem, because we are never going to be able to eliminate it, to come from the overseas aid budget. Why? I have heard the statement that we spend more on flooding overseas than we do in this country. Basically, that is correct but we need to put that into perspective. In other parts of the world, mostly in Asia, flooding is a catastrophe. Unlike in this country where flooding is very rarely the cause of people dying, in other parts of the world flooding takes thousands or lives and causes the loss of tens of thousands of dwellings, dwellings that are not only inundated by water but which are completely destroyed and washed away. Should we be ignoring that? Our overseas aid budget amounts to something like 15 to 17 billion pounds which sounds a huge amount of money but it is only 0.7% of our Gross Domestic Product i.e. the money that is generated in this country annually. Surely if we need to increase our spending on domestic flooding then it will be far easier and more morally correct to find that extra from the £1,500 billion that is allocated to being spent within our shores than the 15/17 billion sent abroad? I think so anyway.
So in summary. Nature sends the water down onto the earth and has done for thousands of years. Nature has found a way for that water to be accommodated on the floodplains of this country. Work with nature to reduce the effects of this flooding in the present day by using those floodplains that are not heavily populated to preserve those that are. Find the money to do what is necessary from the huge amount of money spent within our own borders; there are definitely contingency funds available.
We need to accept flooding as a part of the natural cycle of life and work with the causes of the problem and the natural solutions.
Please note. This article is only addressing my views on fluvial flooding i.e. that flooding from rivers and rainwater standing on the ground. There is also the concern regarding coastal flooding but that brings a whole different raft of problems and solutions.
The water has to go somewhere. There are millions of cubic feet of water now on the ground that could not have been stopped from falling from the skies. That is an absolute fact. Flooding will never be stopped unless control of nature can be had. That is never going to happen. The only thing that we can actually do is to allow the water to flow as it always has onto the flood plains that have been created over millenia by previous floods waers. That is going to be very difficult in some cases as a lot of the flood plains have been built on.
Hundreds of years ago, in some cases thousands of years ago, towns and cities were built on the banks of rivers for good reasons. Firstly, the need to provide water and secondly because the rivers were the motorways of the day allowing easy transportation of people and goods. Those towns and cities have now expanded and are infringing on the floodplains. So should we be surprised that some of our dwellings are subject to flooding? I think not.
I have heard and read an awful lot of comment regarding this issue. One of the main topics appears to be that we are not dredging enough rivers. My view is that the dredging of rivers is really small beer in the scheme of things. Why do I say that? Simply because we are talking about an excess of millions of cubic feet of excess water. Dredging rivers would only allow a small percentage of that excess to remain in the watercourses whilst at the same time allowing the water to move downstream at a much higher rate than it would on a river that has not been dredged. It would carry the water downstream towards our urban areas more quickly and would still require to overspill the banks of the rivers at the same places as now.
What we really need to do is to allow the excess water to drain into floodplains as soon as possible and for those floodplains to be in rural localities. This brings us onto farmland. I hear the cry that if the farmland floods then where are the crops going to come from? This is a bit of a red-herring in the scheme of things for two reasons. Flooding does not necessarily wipe out crops simply because of the reasonably short nature of the flooding events and because of the time of year when floods normally occur, namely the winter months. Secondly, there normally is a surplus of crops worldwide which would allow any shortfall in yield in this country to effectively be made up. Yes that may make foodstuffs more expensive in the short term but we cannot have everything. Rural flooding is the way to go. It is far less damaging and dangerous than allowing built up areas to flood. That is something that needs to be considered and put into place. We need to accept, as I have said previously in this article that the millions of cubic feet of water needs to go somewhere. Fields and open countryside are the best options.
Now let's look at funding of flood defences. I keep seeing and hearing the call for the monies needed to reduce the flooding problem, because we are never going to be able to eliminate it, to come from the overseas aid budget. Why? I have heard the statement that we spend more on flooding overseas than we do in this country. Basically, that is correct but we need to put that into perspective. In other parts of the world, mostly in Asia, flooding is a catastrophe. Unlike in this country where flooding is very rarely the cause of people dying, in other parts of the world flooding takes thousands or lives and causes the loss of tens of thousands of dwellings, dwellings that are not only inundated by water but which are completely destroyed and washed away. Should we be ignoring that? Our overseas aid budget amounts to something like 15 to 17 billion pounds which sounds a huge amount of money but it is only 0.7% of our Gross Domestic Product i.e. the money that is generated in this country annually. Surely if we need to increase our spending on domestic flooding then it will be far easier and more morally correct to find that extra from the £1,500 billion that is allocated to being spent within our shores than the 15/17 billion sent abroad? I think so anyway.
So in summary. Nature sends the water down onto the earth and has done for thousands of years. Nature has found a way for that water to be accommodated on the floodplains of this country. Work with nature to reduce the effects of this flooding in the present day by using those floodplains that are not heavily populated to preserve those that are. Find the money to do what is necessary from the huge amount of money spent within our own borders; there are definitely contingency funds available.
We need to accept flooding as a part of the natural cycle of life and work with the causes of the problem and the natural solutions.
Please note. This article is only addressing my views on fluvial flooding i.e. that flooding from rivers and rainwater standing on the ground. There is also the concern regarding coastal flooding but that brings a whole different raft of problems and solutions.
Tuesday, 4 October 2011
Coastal Flooding - 1 in 200 Years
As some of you may know I am the Chairman of Skegness Area Committee, which is a liaison committee between East Lindsey District Councils, the local parish councils and those people that live within the boundaries of them. We had a meeting last night in Anderby Village Hall and on the agenda was a presentation from the Environment Agency entitled Flood Risk Plans. Very informative and interesting it was.
The one thing that struck me was the amount of ifs and buts that the whole of the flooding risk seemed to be based upon. Models are run fairly regularly, as I understand it, but there are always many assumptions put into them. Apparently we run the risk of a major flood once in every 200 years.
Given that, how much credence should be placed on the flooding when looking at the development of the coast? Should flooding be one of the first things that is considered when looking at plans, and if so how much weight or credence should be given to the risk.
Of course we need to look at the risk and it is beholden on the authorities to have plans for a major flood, or any other natural or manmade disaster for that matter, but I ask myself "How worried am I that there maybe a flood tomorrow, the day after, next month, next year of sometime in my lifetime". Would I let that colour my judgement about buying a house or a business in Skegness? Do I think that I need to have measures in place just in case? I live a couple of hundred yards from the beach, so should I do that as I must be one of the most vulnerable?
All very confusing really. Should flooding be right up there in my thoughts? Should if be right up there as a probability or a possibility? Should it be the major consideration when looking at development on the coast. All interesting questions. Wonder what you think?
The one thing that struck me was the amount of ifs and buts that the whole of the flooding risk seemed to be based upon. Models are run fairly regularly, as I understand it, but there are always many assumptions put into them. Apparently we run the risk of a major flood once in every 200 years.
Given that, how much credence should be placed on the flooding when looking at the development of the coast? Should flooding be one of the first things that is considered when looking at plans, and if so how much weight or credence should be given to the risk.
Of course we need to look at the risk and it is beholden on the authorities to have plans for a major flood, or any other natural or manmade disaster for that matter, but I ask myself "How worried am I that there maybe a flood tomorrow, the day after, next month, next year of sometime in my lifetime". Would I let that colour my judgement about buying a house or a business in Skegness? Do I think that I need to have measures in place just in case? I live a couple of hundred yards from the beach, so should I do that as I must be one of the most vulnerable?
All very confusing really. Should flooding be right up there in my thoughts? Should if be right up there as a probability or a possibility? Should it be the major consideration when looking at development on the coast. All interesting questions. Wonder what you think?
Thursday, 7 April 2011
Flooding - Is The Risk Exaggerated? No New Homes In Skegness?
Have a think about this. How many of you actually believe that we on the East Coast are at a high risk of flooding? The last time it happened was 1953. When was the time before that?
Should we not put the possible risk, depending on what you believe it is, in perspective? Should we really be held to ransom by the fear of flooding, because that is the situation we are in at the moment.
No new houses to be built in the town for several kilometers from the shore-line. The Environment Agency have made it totally clear that they will oppose any new developments. Where will the growing population of the area live? Is this decision making investment into our area, both domestic housing and commercial/business investment more or less likely? I think that is pretty much a silly question. Of course it is going to put investors off. Where does that leave us?
There is light at the end of the tunnel however. A planning decision has been made in the South of the county, within the apparent flood-blighted area, has gone in favour of the applicant and against the wishes of the Environment Agency. This is excellent news as it gives hope to any other planning applicant to get a positive outcome.
In addition the MP for Boston and Skegnss, Mark Simmonds, is firmly on the side of those of us that believe that the Environment Agency are being far too cautious regarding the risks. It would also appear that the government is also viewing this risk-assessment by the Environment Agency with some scepticism.
Hopefully then, we will be able to climb out from under the Environment Agencies risk assessment which has the potenial to damage our town and make our town a more vibrant place that investors can view as being a worthwhile and viable place to be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)