Dominic Grieve: I'll help to find funds for flood defences

Bucks Free Press: Dominic Grieve meets firefighters and volunteers helping with the flood relief effort Dominic Grieve meets firefighters and volunteers helping with the flood relief effort

MARLOW MP Dominic Grieve insists he will do his best to lobby colleagues in the government to bridge the gap in funding to install a multi-million flood defence for Marlow.

Mr Grieve cleared his schedule to visit residents worst affected by the floods and meet firefighters working round the clock to keep properties dry amid near-record river levels.

Wycombe District Council leader Richard Scott yesterday called for the mooted £6.3million Environment Agency Flood Alleviation scheme to be made a top priority.

And the Attorney General supported Cllr Scott’s pleas for the government to fill the estimated £1.25million funding gap that stands in the way of beginning the project, saying he will speak to colleagues in the Department for Farming and Rural Agriculture (Defra).

Mr Grieve said: “I am very conscious of the flood defences issue, and I was discussing it last summer. If there’s anything I can do to get that million or so bridged then I will.

“I will certainly speak to Defra about it, but I also have to recognise that Defra will have a lot of other demands on its funds.

“You cannot escape flooding, it has flooded before and I fear it will flood again even with other things we might to prevent it, but every time it happens you learn a bit and you can do something more to prevent it and mitigate it.”

The Marlow plans include constructing flood walls, bunds, and groundwater pumping wells at Pound Lane, Lower Pound Lane, Gossmore Lane and Firview Close.

The ambitious plan could help protect 300 homes from flooding, many of which have suffered already this year after the wettest January on record.

It received planning permission in 2010, but has been put on hold due to funding problems.

The Enviromnent Agency disagrees with the £1.25m funding gap figure quoted by Richard Scott and see the shortfall at nearer £3m.

It said as well as £2.96m from the Government Grant in Aid funding, the Regional Flood and Costal Committee (RFCC) have pledged to match funding from the county council.

Spokesman Dan Taylor said: “The Council has now indicated they would be able to make a contribution towards the scheme, which would be matched by the RFCC.

"Unfortunately, this still leaves us with a gap in funding of around £3m.

“Without sufficient funding the scheme cannot go ahead, and we are not in a position to progress unless further funds can be made available.”

This comes as Member of European Parliament for the south east Catherine Bearder called on councils in Bucks to apply for EU funding towards flood prevention.

She has written to the leaders of Bucks County Council and Wycombe District Council to encourage them to ask for cash from the EU Regional Development Fund.

Ms Bearder also stressed that £414million is available in 2014 from the EU Solidarity Fund, which can only be applied for by national governments.

But the MEP said she has been told by the Department for Communities and Local Government that the government will not be applying to that fund following the recent flooding.

She said: “Whole swathes of Buckinghamshire, especially Marlow, have been affected by these horrendous floods which have blighted the festive and New Year season for many local residents.

“The Government have decided not to apply for the solidarity funds. I think it is now the local councils’ job to work together and apply for regional funds.

“This funding could prove vital, it could ensure defences are built so people no longer have to worry every time clouds appear overhead.

“I am now offering my full support and assistance to Mr Tett and Mr Scott to apply for funding on a regional basis to aid with building defences for the future.

"The requirements for this funding are less stringent and it can be directed more easily. This will ensure a safer and drier Marlow when future storms hit.”

Comments (28)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:17am Wed 12 Feb 14

MunsterX says...

We should not be subsidising those living in riverside locations - they have a right to be safe and secure like the rest of us but nothing more. The investment decision was made by the individual and rests with that individual, if they are facing financial ruin then that is their problem. Most of these people simply need to take the financial hit and move elsewhere, local and central taxpayers must not get involved in protecting the investment of individuals unless their is an overall cost benefit to the public purse.
We should not be subsidising those living in riverside locations - they have a right to be safe and secure like the rest of us but nothing more. The investment decision was made by the individual and rests with that individual, if they are facing financial ruin then that is their problem. Most of these people simply need to take the financial hit and move elsewhere, local and central taxpayers must not get involved in protecting the investment of individuals unless their is an overall cost benefit to the public purse. MunsterX

9:55am Wed 12 Feb 14

sparky49 says...

MunsterX wrote:
We should not be subsidising those living in riverside locations - they have a right to be safe and secure like the rest of us but nothing more. The investment decision was made by the individual and rests with that individual, if they are facing financial ruin then that is their problem. Most of these people simply need to take the financial hit and move elsewhere, local and central taxpayers must not get involved in protecting the investment of individuals unless their is an overall cost benefit to the public purse.
Here here.
[quote][p][bold]MunsterX[/bold] wrote: We should not be subsidising those living in riverside locations - they have a right to be safe and secure like the rest of us but nothing more. The investment decision was made by the individual and rests with that individual, if they are facing financial ruin then that is their problem. Most of these people simply need to take the financial hit and move elsewhere, local and central taxpayers must not get involved in protecting the investment of individuals unless their is an overall cost benefit to the public purse.[/p][/quote]Here here. sparky49

11:46am Wed 12 Feb 14

laircm says...

MunsterX wrote:
We should not be subsidising those living in riverside locations - they have a right to be safe and secure like the rest of us but nothing more. The investment decision was made by the individual and rests with that individual, if they are facing financial ruin then that is their problem. Most of these people simply need to take the financial hit and move elsewhere, local and central taxpayers must not get involved in protecting the investment of individuals unless their is an overall cost benefit to the public purse.
So you don't think there has been an impact to the public purse?!?! That is laughable. It is not just the homes that need protecting - it is the town infrastructure and that of others like it which have been heavily impacted by flooding. Using your logic - we would also abandon the businesses and farms up and down the country that have been devasted by rising water. The decision to build homes on flood plains was granted not by the individuals who bought them - but by local and national governments. It is these elected officials and those who followed them who must also stomach some of the financial blame. Taking it out on the devastated home owners whose property values will already have been impacted is not the answer - be they from Marlow or elsewhere.
[quote][p][bold]MunsterX[/bold] wrote: We should not be subsidising those living in riverside locations - they have a right to be safe and secure like the rest of us but nothing more. The investment decision was made by the individual and rests with that individual, if they are facing financial ruin then that is their problem. Most of these people simply need to take the financial hit and move elsewhere, local and central taxpayers must not get involved in protecting the investment of individuals unless their is an overall cost benefit to the public purse.[/p][/quote]So you don't think there has been an impact to the public purse?!?! That is laughable. It is not just the homes that need protecting - it is the town infrastructure and that of others like it which have been heavily impacted by flooding. Using your logic - we would also abandon the businesses and farms up and down the country that have been devasted by rising water. The decision to build homes on flood plains was granted not by the individuals who bought them - but by local and national governments. It is these elected officials and those who followed them who must also stomach some of the financial blame. Taking it out on the devastated home owners whose property values will already have been impacted is not the answer - be they from Marlow or elsewhere. laircm

11:48am Wed 12 Feb 14

laircm says...

sparky49 wrote:
MunsterX wrote: We should not be subsidising those living in riverside locations - they have a right to be safe and secure like the rest of us but nothing more. The investment decision was made by the individual and rests with that individual, if they are facing financial ruin then that is their problem. Most of these people simply need to take the financial hit and move elsewhere, local and central taxpayers must not get involved in protecting the investment of individuals unless their is an overall cost benefit to the public purse.
Here here.
Where? Or do you mean hear hear?
[quote][p][bold]sparky49[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MunsterX[/bold] wrote: We should not be subsidising those living in riverside locations - they have a right to be safe and secure like the rest of us but nothing more. The investment decision was made by the individual and rests with that individual, if they are facing financial ruin then that is their problem. Most of these people simply need to take the financial hit and move elsewhere, local and central taxpayers must not get involved in protecting the investment of individuals unless their is an overall cost benefit to the public purse.[/p][/quote]Here here.[/p][/quote]Where? Or do you mean hear hear? laircm

12:11pm Wed 12 Feb 14

MunsterX says...

Laircm,

A property buyer contracts the services of both a solicitor and surveyor at the point of sale and there is ample opportunity at that stage to incorporate flood and other risks into the price; please don't feed us tripe about council planning and housebuilders, a development can fail if no-one buys which is a truth all housebuilders face if they build in a poor location or poorly.

Many farms in the area under discussion here are no longer active agriculturally but home to investment bankers and other city professionals. The farms are managed as a home and provide no service or benefit to any of the surrounding community. I am afraid Laircm that for that reason they deserve no more protection than any other home.

As for businesses, all will have a strategy in place for this type of scenario, including temporary or even permanent relocation depending on the circumstances.

If any of my taxes are used to protect primarily private property interests as is the case here, I shall be very angry indeed.
Laircm, A property buyer contracts the services of both a solicitor and surveyor at the point of sale and there is ample opportunity at that stage to incorporate flood and other risks into the price; please don't feed us tripe about council planning and housebuilders, a development can fail if no-one buys which is a truth all housebuilders face if they build in a poor location or poorly. Many farms in the area under discussion here are no longer active agriculturally but home to investment bankers and other city professionals. The farms are managed as a home and provide no service or benefit to any of the surrounding community. I am afraid Laircm that for that reason they deserve no more protection than any other home. As for businesses, all will have a strategy in place for this type of scenario, including temporary or even permanent relocation depending on the circumstances. If any of my taxes are used to protect primarily private property interests as is the case here, I shall be very angry indeed. MunsterX

12:14pm Wed 12 Feb 14

BucksComment says...

Don't be fooled by the 'extra money' that is promised. What they are actually talking about is using some of the savings the department made this year. Only some mind you....
Don't be fooled by the 'extra money' that is promised. What they are actually talking about is using some of the savings the department made this year. Only some mind you.... BucksComment

12:14pm Wed 12 Feb 14

England must be saved says...

MunsterX wrote:
We should not be subsidising those living in riverside locations - they have a right to be safe and secure like the rest of us but nothing more. The investment decision was made by the individual and rests with that individual, if they are facing financial ruin then that is their problem. Most of these people simply need to take the financial hit and move elsewhere, local and central taxpayers must not get involved in protecting the investment of individuals unless their is an overall cost benefit to the public purse.
Sorry, can't agree with that one. They contribute to the public purse, probably proportionally more and are therefore entitled to the same protection and services had the houses been council or private individuals with lessor means.
[quote][p][bold]MunsterX[/bold] wrote: We should not be subsidising those living in riverside locations - they have a right to be safe and secure like the rest of us but nothing more. The investment decision was made by the individual and rests with that individual, if they are facing financial ruin then that is their problem. Most of these people simply need to take the financial hit and move elsewhere, local and central taxpayers must not get involved in protecting the investment of individuals unless their is an overall cost benefit to the public purse.[/p][/quote]Sorry, can't agree with that one. They contribute to the public purse, probably proportionally more and are therefore entitled to the same protection and services had the houses been council or private individuals with lessor means. England must be saved

12:29pm Wed 12 Feb 14

laircm says...

MunsterX wrote:
Laircm, A property buyer contracts the services of both a solicitor and surveyor at the point of sale and there is ample opportunity at that stage to incorporate flood and other risks into the price; please don't feed us tripe about council planning and housebuilders, a development can fail if no-one buys which is a truth all housebuilders face if they build in a poor location or poorly. Many farms in the area under discussion here are no longer active agriculturally but home to investment bankers and other city professionals. The farms are managed as a home and provide no service or benefit to any of the surrounding community. I am afraid Laircm that for that reason they deserve no more protection than any other home. As for businesses, all will have a strategy in place for this type of scenario, including temporary or even permanent relocation depending on the circumstances. If any of my taxes are used to protect primarily private property interests as is the case here, I shall be very angry indeed.
Ahh so it's a Marlow thing then is it? Never mind the rest of the country - towns along side the Thames, Severn and Colne. Because Marlow is 'home to investment bankers and other city professionals' who can afford to take the hit - they should. News for you Munster - it is also home to people who grew up here and work locally, or bought property years ago in good faith when it was not as economically prosperous as it is now. Whilst you'll tell me you feel exactly the same about flood affected home owners in less affluent areas of the UK - I simply won't believe you. Bottom line - I am fully supportive of the measured expenditure of public money to protect Marlow and all the other towns who have been impacted. The fact that the Government is too delights me - even more so now that I know how angry it will make you feel :-)
[quote][p][bold]MunsterX[/bold] wrote: Laircm, A property buyer contracts the services of both a solicitor and surveyor at the point of sale and there is ample opportunity at that stage to incorporate flood and other risks into the price; please don't feed us tripe about council planning and housebuilders, a development can fail if no-one buys which is a truth all housebuilders face if they build in a poor location or poorly. Many farms in the area under discussion here are no longer active agriculturally but home to investment bankers and other city professionals. The farms are managed as a home and provide no service or benefit to any of the surrounding community. I am afraid Laircm that for that reason they deserve no more protection than any other home. As for businesses, all will have a strategy in place for this type of scenario, including temporary or even permanent relocation depending on the circumstances. If any of my taxes are used to protect primarily private property interests as is the case here, I shall be very angry indeed.[/p][/quote]Ahh so it's a Marlow thing then is it? Never mind the rest of the country - towns along side the Thames, Severn and Colne. Because Marlow is 'home to investment bankers and other city professionals' who can afford to take the hit - they should. News for you Munster - it is also home to people who grew up here and work locally, or bought property years ago in good faith when it was not as economically prosperous as it is now. Whilst you'll tell me you feel exactly the same about flood affected home owners in less affluent areas of the UK - I simply won't believe you. Bottom line - I am fully supportive of the measured expenditure of public money to protect Marlow and all the other towns who have been impacted. The fact that the Government is too delights me - even more so now that I know how angry it will make you feel :-) laircm

12:53pm Wed 12 Feb 14

MunsterX says...

Laircm

It is most unfortunate for you Laircm, but it is now anticipated by some experts that the water levels coming to Marlow over the next few weeks would have rendered the planned flood defences useless anyway even if they had of been in place. Grieves really needs to update his facts a little. The only thing that would save your skanking @ss now Laircm is a full scale extension of the Jubilee river upstream to Marlow and that would cost billions and will never happen.

Turrah Marlovians :-0
Laircm It is most unfortunate for you Laircm, but it is now anticipated by some experts that the water levels coming to Marlow over the next few weeks would have rendered the planned flood defences useless anyway even if they had of been in place. Grieves really needs to update his facts a little. The only thing that would save your skanking @ss now Laircm is a full scale extension of the Jubilee river upstream to Marlow and that would cost billions and will never happen. Turrah Marlovians :-0 MunsterX

1:14pm Wed 12 Feb 14

gpn01 says...

All properties should have mandatory flood insurance. The premiums charged would better reflect an impartial asessment of the real risk. If you can't afford the insurance then you don't buy the property. If new builds can't get the insurance cover in the first place...then it doesn't get built.
All properties should have mandatory flood insurance. The premiums charged would better reflect an impartial asessment of the real risk. If you can't afford the insurance then you don't buy the property. If new builds can't get the insurance cover in the first place...then it doesn't get built. gpn01

1:23pm Wed 12 Feb 14

laircm says...

MunsterX wrote:
Laircm It is most unfortunate for you Laircm, but it is now anticipated by some experts that the water levels coming to Marlow over the next few weeks would have rendered the planned flood defences useless anyway even if they had of been in place. Grieves really needs to update his facts a little. The only thing that would save your skanking @ss now Laircm is a full scale extension of the Jubilee river upstream to Marlow and that would cost billions and will never happen. Turrah Marlovians :-0
Oh you mistook me for someone who lives by the river. I don't. I live on the side of the valley and am completely safe from flooding. You did not however mistake me for someone who cares about those who do live by the river. You are clearly a bitter man with a huge chip on his shoulder. Perhaps when the flooding has gone you could use some of the excess sand from the soddon bags to fill it in?
[quote][p][bold]MunsterX[/bold] wrote: Laircm It is most unfortunate for you Laircm, but it is now anticipated by some experts that the water levels coming to Marlow over the next few weeks would have rendered the planned flood defences useless anyway even if they had of been in place. Grieves really needs to update his facts a little. The only thing that would save your skanking @ss now Laircm is a full scale extension of the Jubilee river upstream to Marlow and that would cost billions and will never happen. Turrah Marlovians :-0[/p][/quote]Oh you mistook me for someone who lives by the river. I don't. I live on the side of the valley and am completely safe from flooding. You did not however mistake me for someone who cares about those who do live by the river. You are clearly a bitter man with a huge chip on his shoulder. Perhaps when the flooding has gone you could use some of the excess sand from the soddon bags to fill it in? laircm

1:42pm Wed 12 Feb 14

MunsterX says...

Laircm

Getting back to debate. When the original plans for flood defences, which can't find funding, turn out to be irrelevant anyway in the wake of a, erm, flood...then time to let nature take its course

A very good post by gpn01, bang on the money!
Laircm Getting back to debate. When the original plans for flood defences, which can't find funding, turn out to be irrelevant anyway in the wake of a, erm, flood...then time to let nature take its course A very good post by gpn01, bang on the money! MunsterX

2:32pm Wed 12 Feb 14

laircm says...

gpn01 wrote:
All properties should have mandatory flood insurance. The premiums charged would better reflect an impartial asessment of the real risk. If you can't afford the insurance then you don't buy the property. If new builds can't get the insurance cover in the first place...then it doesn't get built.
Munster is right. This is an excellent point.
[quote][p][bold]gpn01[/bold] wrote: All properties should have mandatory flood insurance. The premiums charged would better reflect an impartial asessment of the real risk. If you can't afford the insurance then you don't buy the property. If new builds can't get the insurance cover in the first place...then it doesn't get built.[/p][/quote]Munster is right. This is an excellent point. laircm

2:36pm Wed 12 Feb 14

BucksComment says...

Exactly - I chose not to live on a flood plain because of the risk. Why should my premiums go up to cover those who do?
Exactly - I chose not to live on a flood plain because of the risk. Why should my premiums go up to cover those who do? BucksComment

2:56pm Wed 12 Feb 14

big don g the 1st says...

why don't the residents have a bit of a whip round to raise some money rather than moan?

£1.25m shouldn't take a long time with their level of wealth and is surely a good investment for these folk, as well as boosting their property price slightly and lowering insurance premiums?

A while back members of my neighbourhood were asked to invest £175 each to purchase some local land in order to safeguard it, so we did. Had we not, it would have become a NIMBY story.

Dig in those deep pockets and next time floods are on the horizon they can sleep soundly in their beds knowing the only puddle will be in the mother in laws mattress.
why don't the residents have a bit of a whip round to raise some money rather than moan? £1.25m shouldn't take a long time with their level of wealth and is surely a good investment for these folk, as well as boosting their property price slightly and lowering insurance premiums? A while back members of my neighbourhood were asked to invest £175 each to purchase some local land in order to safeguard it, so we did. Had we not, it would have become a NIMBY story. Dig in those deep pockets and next time floods are on the horizon they can sleep soundly in their beds knowing the only puddle will be in the mother in laws mattress. big don g the 1st

4:14pm Wed 12 Feb 14

laircm says...

big don g the 1st wrote:
why don't the residents have a bit of a whip round to raise some money rather than moan? £1.25m shouldn't take a long time with their level of wealth and is surely a good investment for these folk, as well as boosting their property price slightly and lowering insurance premiums? A while back members of my neighbourhood were asked to invest £175 each to purchase some local land in order to safeguard it, so we did. Had we not, it would have become a NIMBY story. Dig in those deep pockets and next time floods are on the horizon they can sleep soundly in their beds knowing the only puddle will be in the mother in laws mattress.
I understand your point. However - is this another case of one rule for Marlow and another for everyone else? If the Government is going to spend whatever it takes to sort this problem (slightly misquoting Cameron - but fairly accurate) - why should the folks who live by the river in Marlow spend their money when residents from other towns won't be expected to cough up themselves?
[quote][p][bold]big don g the 1st[/bold] wrote: why don't the residents have a bit of a whip round to raise some money rather than moan? £1.25m shouldn't take a long time with their level of wealth and is surely a good investment for these folk, as well as boosting their property price slightly and lowering insurance premiums? A while back members of my neighbourhood were asked to invest £175 each to purchase some local land in order to safeguard it, so we did. Had we not, it would have become a NIMBY story. Dig in those deep pockets and next time floods are on the horizon they can sleep soundly in their beds knowing the only puddle will be in the mother in laws mattress.[/p][/quote]I understand your point. However - is this another case of one rule for Marlow and another for everyone else? If the Government is going to spend whatever it takes to sort this problem (slightly misquoting Cameron - but fairly accurate) - why should the folks who live by the river in Marlow spend their money when residents from other towns won't be expected to cough up themselves? laircm

4:56pm Wed 12 Feb 14

big don g the 1st says...

laircm wrote:
big don g the 1st wrote:
why don't the residents have a bit of a whip round to raise some money rather than moan? £1.25m shouldn't take a long time with their level of wealth and is surely a good investment for these folk, as well as boosting their property price slightly and lowering insurance premiums? A while back members of my neighbourhood were asked to invest £175 each to purchase some local land in order to safeguard it, so we did. Had we not, it would have become a NIMBY story. Dig in those deep pockets and next time floods are on the horizon they can sleep soundly in their beds knowing the only puddle will be in the mother in laws mattress.
I understand your point. However - is this another case of one rule for Marlow and another for everyone else? If the Government is going to spend whatever it takes to sort this problem (slightly misquoting Cameron - but fairly accurate) - why should the folks who live by the river in Marlow spend their money when residents from other towns won't be expected to cough up themselves?
just to get things done rather than wait and have their properties and belongings destroyed.

like waiting for an op on the NHS or paying to go private and getting things done sooner.

wait for the Government and Marlow could be the next Atlantis.
[quote][p][bold]laircm[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]big don g the 1st[/bold] wrote: why don't the residents have a bit of a whip round to raise some money rather than moan? £1.25m shouldn't take a long time with their level of wealth and is surely a good investment for these folk, as well as boosting their property price slightly and lowering insurance premiums? A while back members of my neighbourhood were asked to invest £175 each to purchase some local land in order to safeguard it, so we did. Had we not, it would have become a NIMBY story. Dig in those deep pockets and next time floods are on the horizon they can sleep soundly in their beds knowing the only puddle will be in the mother in laws mattress.[/p][/quote]I understand your point. However - is this another case of one rule for Marlow and another for everyone else? If the Government is going to spend whatever it takes to sort this problem (slightly misquoting Cameron - but fairly accurate) - why should the folks who live by the river in Marlow spend their money when residents from other towns won't be expected to cough up themselves?[/p][/quote]just to get things done rather than wait and have their properties and belongings destroyed. like waiting for an op on the NHS or paying to go private and getting things done sooner. wait for the Government and Marlow could be the next Atlantis. big don g the 1st

10:55pm Wed 12 Feb 14

banknote says...

Funny, I thought that Marlow was in the Wycombe constituency, not South Bucks - which Grieve represents?

Over to you BFP.
Funny, I thought that Marlow was in the Wycombe constituency, not South Bucks - which Grieve represents? Over to you BFP. banknote

11:06pm Wed 12 Feb 14

gpn01 says...

banknote wrote:
Funny, I thought that Marlow was in the Wycombe constituency, not South Bucks - which Grieve represents?

Over to you BFP.
Marlow lies within the Wycombe District but the Beaconsfield Parliamentary County Constituency.
[quote][p][bold]banknote[/bold] wrote: Funny, I thought that Marlow was in the Wycombe constituency, not South Bucks - which Grieve represents? Over to you BFP.[/p][/quote]Marlow lies within the Wycombe District but the Beaconsfield Parliamentary County Constituency. gpn01

7:07am Thu 13 Feb 14

MunsterX says...

Laircm

The theme of your posts is "cash for Marlow". I shall comprehend no such theme for any riverside community unless the cash spent saves serious multiples of that amount in flood damage.

You are arrogantly stating that posters here expect Marlovians to foot the bill simply because they are wealthy Marlovians!

No-one gives a monkeys how wealthy Marlow residents are, we simply care that money should not be spent on lost causes as described above.

Are you beginning to get the drift you pompous waste of space?
Laircm The theme of your posts is "cash for Marlow". I shall comprehend no such theme for any riverside community unless the cash spent saves serious multiples of that amount in flood damage. You are arrogantly stating that posters here expect Marlovians to foot the bill simply because they are wealthy Marlovians! No-one gives a monkeys how wealthy Marlow residents are, we simply care that money should not be spent on lost causes as described above. Are you beginning to get the drift you pompous waste of space? MunsterX

9:17am Thu 13 Feb 14

Robert.M says...

Stop giving £1 billion a day to the EU and foreign aid, and start helping out on home soil
Stop giving £1 billion a day to the EU and foreign aid, and start helping out on home soil Robert.M

1:54pm Thu 13 Feb 14

sparky49 says...

laircm wrote:
MunsterX wrote:
Laircm, A property buyer contracts the services of both a solicitor and surveyor at the point of sale and there is ample opportunity at that stage to incorporate flood and other risks into the price; please don't feed us tripe about council planning and housebuilders, a development can fail if no-one buys which is a truth all housebuilders face if they build in a poor location or poorly. Many farms in the area under discussion here are no longer active agriculturally but home to investment bankers and other city professionals. The farms are managed as a home and provide no service or benefit to any of the surrounding community. I am afraid Laircm that for that reason they deserve no more protection than any other home. As for businesses, all will have a strategy in place for this type of scenario, including temporary or even permanent relocation depending on the circumstances. If any of my taxes are used to protect primarily private property interests as is the case here, I shall be very angry indeed.
Ahh so it's a Marlow thing then is it? Never mind the rest of the country - towns along side the Thames, Severn and Colne. Because Marlow is 'home to investment bankers and other city professionals' who can afford to take the hit - they should. News for you Munster - it is also home to people who grew up here and work locally, or bought property years ago in good faith when it was not as economically prosperous as it is now. Whilst you'll tell me you feel exactly the same about flood affected home owners in less affluent areas of the UK - I simply won't believe you. Bottom line - I am fully supportive of the measured expenditure of public money to protect Marlow and all the other towns who have been impacted. The fact that the Government is too delights me - even more so now that I know how angry it will make you feel :-)
You are very childish Laircm. Munster never mentioned or singled out Marlow, as for smiling at being given a government hand out from the taxpayer shows you for what you are.
Selfish me me me attitude.
[quote][p][bold]laircm[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MunsterX[/bold] wrote: Laircm, A property buyer contracts the services of both a solicitor and surveyor at the point of sale and there is ample opportunity at that stage to incorporate flood and other risks into the price; please don't feed us tripe about council planning and housebuilders, a development can fail if no-one buys which is a truth all housebuilders face if they build in a poor location or poorly. Many farms in the area under discussion here are no longer active agriculturally but home to investment bankers and other city professionals. The farms are managed as a home and provide no service or benefit to any of the surrounding community. I am afraid Laircm that for that reason they deserve no more protection than any other home. As for businesses, all will have a strategy in place for this type of scenario, including temporary or even permanent relocation depending on the circumstances. If any of my taxes are used to protect primarily private property interests as is the case here, I shall be very angry indeed.[/p][/quote]Ahh so it's a Marlow thing then is it? Never mind the rest of the country - towns along side the Thames, Severn and Colne. Because Marlow is 'home to investment bankers and other city professionals' who can afford to take the hit - they should. News for you Munster - it is also home to people who grew up here and work locally, or bought property years ago in good faith when it was not as economically prosperous as it is now. Whilst you'll tell me you feel exactly the same about flood affected home owners in less affluent areas of the UK - I simply won't believe you. Bottom line - I am fully supportive of the measured expenditure of public money to protect Marlow and all the other towns who have been impacted. The fact that the Government is too delights me - even more so now that I know how angry it will make you feel :-)[/p][/quote]You are very childish Laircm. Munster never mentioned or singled out Marlow, as for smiling at being given a government hand out from the taxpayer shows you for what you are. Selfish me me me attitude. sparky49

10:44pm Thu 13 Feb 14

DonRockell says...

The problem is that:

A; The only way to stop this type of flooding is to put a dam across the Thames somewhere near Oxford - maybe closing off the Kennet and then putting in a massive pumped culvert to shift the water down stream and even then it will still flood from time to time. It might also upset those up and down stream from Marlow when its done as well. Simply dredging the Thames to make it deeper wont help and sand bagging the banks to keep it in would also be a wait of time and money because he water is a rising water table not run off and it comes mostly from way up stream taking about 3 days after a lot of rain to reach its peek.

B; The only ones that can make a decision on how the money gets spent are the ones who would make the worst job of it - after all they were the idiots that put a pump into Pound Lane - Its Closed due to Flooding and at Gosmore Lane - And that's now under water (You cant pump the river dry with small pumps and that what they are trying to do with ones they've put in)

They would do far better letting trees hold the River Bank together with their roots as was the traditional method, Clear out the small streams and Drainage ditches So that the water can be funneled quickly back into the River as the water levels goes down and Build Houses with proper Tanking, water seals around Doors and issue Drain Plugs to stop rising water coming back up the toilets etc. if they must build in Flood prone areas. But all that costs a lot of Money we just don't have
The problem is that: A; The only way to stop this type of flooding is to put a dam across the Thames somewhere near Oxford - maybe closing off the Kennet and then putting in a massive pumped culvert to shift the water down stream and even then it will still flood from time to time. It might also upset those up and down stream from Marlow when its done as well. Simply dredging the Thames to make it deeper wont help and sand bagging the banks to keep it in would also be a wait of time and money because he water is a rising water table not run off and it comes mostly from way up stream taking about 3 days after a lot of rain to reach its peek. B; The only ones that can make a decision on how the money gets spent are the ones who would make the worst job of it - after all they were the idiots that put a pump into Pound Lane - Its Closed due to Flooding and at Gosmore Lane - And that's now under water (You cant pump the river dry with small pumps and that what they are trying to do with ones they've put in) They would do far better letting trees hold the River Bank together with their roots as was the traditional method, Clear out the small streams and Drainage ditches So that the water can be funneled quickly back into the River as the water levels goes down and Build Houses with proper Tanking, water seals around Doors and issue Drain Plugs to stop rising water coming back up the toilets etc. if they must build in Flood prone areas. But all that costs a lot of Money we just don't have DonRockell

10:47pm Thu 13 Feb 14

DonRockell says...

gpn01 wrote:
All properties should have mandatory flood insurance. The premiums charged would better reflect an impartial asessment of the real risk. If you can't afford the insurance then you don't buy the property. If new builds can't get the insurance cover in the first place...then it doesn't get built.
Sorry but Houses anywhere near the river just cant get Flood insurance - Even normal contents Insurance is hard to get for these houses even if they have never flooded not even in the big floods of 1947 & 49
[quote][p][bold]gpn01[/bold] wrote: All properties should have mandatory flood insurance. The premiums charged would better reflect an impartial asessment of the real risk. If you can't afford the insurance then you don't buy the property. If new builds can't get the insurance cover in the first place...then it doesn't get built.[/p][/quote]Sorry but Houses anywhere near the river just cant get Flood insurance - Even normal contents Insurance is hard to get for these houses even if they have never flooded not even in the big floods of 1947 & 49 DonRockell

11:03pm Thu 13 Feb 14

gpn01 says...

DonRockell wrote:
gpn01 wrote:
All properties should have mandatory flood insurance. The premiums charged would better reflect an impartial asessment of the real risk. If you can't afford the insurance then you don't buy the property. If new builds can't get the insurance cover in the first place...then it doesn't get built.
Sorry but Houses anywhere near the river just cant get Flood insurance - Even normal contents Insurance is hard to get for these houses even if they have never flooded not even in the big floods of 1947 & 49
Is that not an indication that insurers have assessed the properties as being pretty likely to be flooded? Why therefore should those who don't live in properties susceptible to flooding be expected to pay (through taxation) for those who choose to?
[quote][p][bold]DonRockell[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gpn01[/bold] wrote: All properties should have mandatory flood insurance. The premiums charged would better reflect an impartial asessment of the real risk. If you can't afford the insurance then you don't buy the property. If new builds can't get the insurance cover in the first place...then it doesn't get built.[/p][/quote]Sorry but Houses anywhere near the river just cant get Flood insurance - Even normal contents Insurance is hard to get for these houses even if they have never flooded not even in the big floods of 1947 & 49[/p][/quote]Is that not an indication that insurers have assessed the properties as being pretty likely to be flooded? Why therefore should those who don't live in properties susceptible to flooding be expected to pay (through taxation) for those who choose to? gpn01

4:01am Fri 14 Feb 14

buftonp13 says...

If they want all these expensive flood defences let them pay for it themselves. Marlow has survived all these years without them, and in these times of our country, county and towns being flat broke why should our money be spent on such expensive things. Some of the richest people in the country live on that stretch of the river let them have a whip round for "THEIR TOWN". We don't even have an A&E why should we be paying for flood defences for rich towns.
If they want all these expensive flood defences let them pay for it themselves. Marlow has survived all these years without them, and in these times of our country, county and towns being flat broke why should our money be spent on such expensive things. Some of the richest people in the country live on that stretch of the river let them have a whip round for "THEIR TOWN". We don't even have an A&E why should we be paying for flood defences for rich towns. buftonp13

7:24am Fri 14 Feb 14

MunsterX says...

Eactly right gpn01.

If these people want to claim taxpayer cash then let them walk to a benefits office in town and make the claim. Let's get Sky news set up outside the office and see how much they really need it. These gin & jag benefit claimants are no better than the chavs in Castlefield.
Eactly right gpn01. If these people want to claim taxpayer cash then let them walk to a benefits office in town and make the claim. Let's get Sky news set up outside the office and see how much they really need it. These gin & jag benefit claimants are no better than the chavs in Castlefield. MunsterX

2:06pm Sat 15 Feb 14

DonRockell says...

gpn01 wrote:
DonRockell wrote:
gpn01 wrote:
All properties should have mandatory flood insurance. The premiums charged would better reflect an impartial asessment of the real risk. If you can't afford the insurance then you don't buy the property. If new builds can't get the insurance cover in the first place...then it doesn't get built.
Sorry but Houses anywhere near the river just cant get Flood insurance - Even normal contents Insurance is hard to get for these houses even if they have never flooded not even in the big floods of 1947 & 49
Is that not an indication that insurers have assessed the properties as being pretty likely to be flooded? Why therefore should those who don't live in properties susceptible to flooding be expected to pay (through taxation) for those who choose to?
Because those houses that were built with flooding in mind or on raised land that does not flood get affected by this Insurance squeeze as well as those houses that, with a tiny bit of investigation or reduction in greed would not have been built in the first place.

Not only that but most of those houses that are suffering now have had a long history of Flood and if you want to buy such a house then research first and then put into place the proper protection if its needed. Down wait until you are faced with a total loss because you personally are prepared to take the chance of not flooding when it has already happened before.

The ones I feel sorry for are those in places like Datchet where houses that have never flooded before - some as old as 300 years or more have now flooded - possibly as a result of the nice new drainage ditch they put in between Maidenhead and Stains to relieve flooding in those areas.

Several local builders turned down the chance to build Pound Lane - some even had the money readily at hand and turned down the opportunity because of the flood risk and the fact that half of it was built on a marsh. However J M Jones and Lang's (Now part of Jones Lang Laselle or JLL) both who were Marlow builders took the risk - then moved out of the town.

The problem is that insurers cop out when ever they sniff the slightest risk preferring to take as much money as possible without paying out and neglect to offer those who are willing to pay for contents and other house insurance but deliberately excluding flood risk knowing the small risk they are taking.
[quote][p][bold]gpn01[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DonRockell[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]gpn01[/bold] wrote: All properties should have mandatory flood insurance. The premiums charged would better reflect an impartial asessment of the real risk. If you can't afford the insurance then you don't buy the property. If new builds can't get the insurance cover in the first place...then it doesn't get built.[/p][/quote]Sorry but Houses anywhere near the river just cant get Flood insurance - Even normal contents Insurance is hard to get for these houses even if they have never flooded not even in the big floods of 1947 & 49[/p][/quote]Is that not an indication that insurers have assessed the properties as being pretty likely to be flooded? Why therefore should those who don't live in properties susceptible to flooding be expected to pay (through taxation) for those who choose to?[/p][/quote]Because those houses that were built with flooding in mind or on raised land that does not flood get affected by this Insurance squeeze as well as those houses that, with a tiny bit of investigation or reduction in greed would not have been built in the first place. Not only that but most of those houses that are suffering now have had a long history of Flood and if you want to buy such a house then research first and then put into place the proper protection if its needed. Down wait until you are faced with a total loss because you personally are prepared to take the chance of not flooding when it has already happened before. The ones I feel sorry for are those in places like Datchet where houses that have never flooded before - some as old as 300 years or more have now flooded - possibly as a result of the nice new drainage ditch they put in between Maidenhead and Stains to relieve flooding in those areas. Several local builders turned down the chance to build Pound Lane - some even had the money readily at hand and turned down the opportunity because of the flood risk and the fact that half of it was built on a marsh. However J M Jones and Lang's (Now part of Jones Lang Laselle or JLL) both who were Marlow builders took the risk - then moved out of the town. The problem is that insurers cop out when ever they sniff the slightest risk preferring to take as much money as possible without paying out and neglect to offer those who are willing to pay for contents and other house insurance but deliberately excluding flood risk knowing the small risk they are taking. DonRockell

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree