Irony

Oh the irony? par Kris Lockyear, on ipernity

K.

It does make you wonder who would want to buy one and how expensive the insurance would be...assuming they could find anyone prepared to offer insurance.

Nicely spotted sir! Are they actually 'Waterside' or are they being built on a flood plain?

They persist in building houses in places like this. In our area the old houses are all on rising ground; the new ones on reclaimed marshland.

Right next to the river on the floodplain. Doh.

There could be a new market for "House Liable to Flooding" signs

--

With the downturn in the offshore oil/gas industry there must be lots of barges doing nothing. Perhaps the houses could be built on these and they would rise and fall with the flood water

Am I seeing the illustration on the hoarding correctly?
They appear to be placed on stilts -- probably integral garages (or boat houses)

They are timber frame so will float anyway!

I guess they'll be sub-let

The answer's simple. If you don't want a house that's likely to flood then don't buy it. Unsold houses would soon put an end to this sort of development insanity. Makes you wonder about the mental capacity of planning authorities though.
David

Well spotted Kris.
Like davidwozhere I think they are built on stilts, with car parking or similar underneath. You see that a lot here with new builds.
We also have floating houses (as well ad houseboats of course), which are tethered to a pole and can rise with the water. Only trouble is most banks have stopped giving mortgages on houseboats and floating houses. Only one company left offering them, at a ridiculous interest rate (something like 12%) which means they won't sell, resulting in less being built, which is crazy in a country which is basically one big floodplain.

I believe the ground floor are open garages but that only solves part of the problem.

The big (and sad) issue with Hertfordshire is the pressure on housing. It is very popular with people who work in London and houses prices are astronomically high. Government policy is forcing local councils to allow big new housing developments. This is eroding the Green Belt which, sad to say, is likely to be scrapped. In 1939 Arthur Mee was able to write



but by 1999, only 60 years later, Simon Jenkins wrote

Jenkins, however, is clearly a bit ignorant as there are some lovely rural spots left, but given recent developments the picture he paints is rapidly becoming true.

The developer would have commissioned a flood risk assessment which uses historical data; anything built in a flood plain must allow the water to flow freely underneath. The government is forcing development in rural areas by setting housing targets in each locality, the planning authorities have to work with this. On top of which housing developers employ very expensive planning lawyers which local authorities cannot always afford to challenge at appeal. The government policy is that if the market is flooded (excuse the pun) houses will become more affordable; this is flawed on two counts, houses have fixed construction and land value costs both of which have escalated by energy targets, and developers aren't interested in selling houses cheaper so hold back development to retain the demand. Developers (who happen to be generous party donors) have been pushing hard for green field land access because it's cheaper to build on and supports more expensive houses. So we have extremely gullible politicians having their strings pulled by large developers and we are all suffering as a result. Add to that the roads, community buildings and other infrastructure required as a result plus large swathes of solar and wind farms springing up our green and pleasant land is being destroyed faster than at any time in history. And no I have no allegiance to any political party, just an angry and frustrated Englishman.

Interesting that a single photo can trigger a debate!

Please remember it's no politics on Pentax User...