UK - Insurance Industry Threatens To End Flood Coverage In Some Regions

[hatrack]

"The insurance industry yesterday warned that firms could withdraw flood cover from hundreds of thousands of homes if the government "backslides" on commitments over spending on flood defences.

It has emerged there is growing concern among insurers that the government may cut planned spending on flood-related measures, which is set to reach £564m in 2005-06, as part of the Treasury's spending review due to be published within weeks. The head of the Association of British Insurers has written to Paul Boateng, the chief secretary to the Treasury, voicing its concerns.

Following the floods of 2000, spending on defences was stepped up by the government, and, in response, insurers promised to continue providing cover to about 1.8m of the 2m homes and businesses in at-risk areas.

EDIT

The source said the industry was also concerned that the government may be considering not ringfencing any special funds for flood-related measures but might simply require the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to pay for this out of its overall pot of money."

EDIT

http://money.guardian.co.uk/insurance_/story/0,1456,1245269,00.html

[lil-petunia]

1. Duh

Well, by now we know that certain regions of land are sitting on flood plains.

And we know that on occasion, these little thingies of cloud sweat called "rain drops" fall from the sky.

And we know that on occasion, those thingies fall in large numbers.

And we know that they are social thingies and like to gather in flood plains.

WHO THE HECK WILL KNOWINGLY BUILD ON A FLOOD PLAIN, THEN DEMAND THAT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO INSURANCE COVERAGE TO PROTECT THEM FROM THEIR OWN STUPIDITY?

The answer is simple, DON'T BUILD ON A FLOOD PLAIN!

Sheeesh. Sometimes our own lobotomies make us look worse than freeper mentality.

[Oggy]

2. Available Housing stock in the South East of England

is low compared to the number of people living here. Over the last few decades much housing was built on flood plains as land that can be developed is relatively scarce ( we have strict, but daft, planning laws , doh, you build here where it floods but not here because we have a green belt.). The problem is the people building the houses don't care, they just sell them. It is the people who bought them that are up sh*t creek as without insurance no one will buy. I guess even the original surveyors are probably in the clear now, so there is no one to sue.

[lil-petunia]

3. limited land? Need more?

well, invade Ireland again. You guys did it before.
Just kidding.

really, I was. Seriously, don't go there. Honestly. Please.

If you guys want to stop the problem, then fix your weird legal system. Flood plains, well they happen to flood. It's IN THE BLOODY DAFFY-NITION!

[Nihil]

4. No, it's all down to greed, pride and stupidity (as usual)

> Available Housing stock in the South East of England
> is low compared to the number of people living here.

There are sufficient houses but they are not the type that people
want to buy - the marketing campaigns see to that.

> The problem is the people building the houses don't care,
> they just sell them.

Correct. They also purchase planning permission from the local planning
committee, aided and abetted by the governments dumb "quotas" (as set in
stone by that paragon of intelligent discourse, John Prescott).
All down to greed.

> It is the people who bought them that are up sh*t creek

Also correct. They decided they didn't want brown-field sites - not good
enough for "them" - so they went for green fields, specifically green
fields with rivers running through them. They thought that the names
of the areas were really cute and upmarket - "Riverside Gardens",
"The Meadows", "Kingfisher Crescent", "Ox-Bow Close" - without even a
passing murmur of curiosity as to *WHY* those names existed ...

The people who bought them visited the areas, looked around the homes,
found that if they stretched really hard, they *could* afford this
place ("Wouldn't *that* show the Jones'? *They* haven't got a stream
in their back garden!").

Unfortunately, even though Mr & Ms Purchaser had the money (or virtual
money) to pay for "Pondside Cottage", they didn't have sufficient
brain cells to think about the implications of living there when it
rained. As a result, "Pondside Cottage" becomes "Pond Cottage" for
about six weeks each year (barring droughts). And although the good
old taxpayer has helped them out each year - along with all of the
other compulsory insurance policy holders who pay higher premiums to
cover the losses like this - someone has slowly twigged that this is
not a sustainable situation.

Fuck 'em.
Fuck the developers who ruined Nature's havens for gold.
Fuck the politicians who encourage the rape of the land for votes.
Fuck the insurance companies who lie & cheat to get their money.
Fuck the corporations who chisel taxpayers money to provide the
"Emperor's Clothes" grandly labelled "Flood Defences".

Most of all, fuck the people who are too pissing ignorant to know that
when you live on a flood plain, you WILL get flooded.

Nihil

[Oggy]

5. I especially liked the rant at the end.

Seriously though all of the stuff we have written above is messed up by 50 years of neglect in the country outside the South East, along with changes in the way we live ( smaller households ).

[Nihil]

6. Yeah well ...

... it was one straw too many :-)

I agree that it is partly the result of the short-sighted approach of
the politicians (who spend most of their time in the South East) and
that more people are setting up home as single people than ever used to
happen. On the other hand, the "flying the nest" bit is being cramped
again by financial pressures so maybe that blip is on its way back down?

With regard to the "50 years of neglect outside the South East", were
you meaning the house-building/development issues that have acted as a
magnet to draw businesses (and thus job-seekers) South or was it aimed
at the original thread (flood defences)?

If the latter, I'm not sure I agree.

There are a few places around the country where flood defences are not
only desirable but necessary (on the long-term/big picture side).
Ironically, the Thames approach to London is one of them. So is York
and certain other historic towns built across a river.

On the other hand, most of the sites that *claim* to need handouts are
doing it to support/redeem bad planning and ignorance of the natural
world. This second category should not be granted funds.

Downriver flooding has been aggravated by two activities: the loss of
natural flood plains (to absorb the seasonal excesses) and the loss of
groundwater replenishment (i.e., increased runoff into the flow system
rather than absorption into the ground).

Given that the runoff problem is partly caused by construction in the
very areas that "demands" are being made for flood defences, why not
kill two birds with one stone and remove those developments, enabling
the river to recover an element of balance again?

Let's face it: there have been enough occasions in the past where the
government of the day has decreed that entire villages be evacuated
(e.g., flooded for reservoir creation). Why not allow a much smaller
number of properties to be re-flooded (i.e., let the river reclaim)
in order to save more wastage in this variant of the Canute battle?

[Oggy]

7. In response

I do like your style of writing but anyway I don't want to digress, but as I'm being a bit lazy in my style of reply here I thought you deserved a bit of a pat on the back.

>On the other hand, the "flying the nest" bit is being cramped
>again by financial pressures so maybe that blip is on its way back >down?

From personal experience I think you are right on this. I am mid thirties with a very small child and wife, and we are seriously contemplating moving in with my parents as we can not really afford for both of us not to work. ( my wife would understandably like to look after our daughter until school age.).

>"With regard to the "50 years of neglect outside the South East", >were
>you meaning the house-building/development issues that have acted as >a
>magnet to draw businesses (and thus job-seekers) South or was it >aimed
>at the original thread (flood defenses)?"

Totally the former. Having been brought up in the north but now been in the South East for almost as long I have seen both sides. Down here there is a real draw for investment in business and infrastructure. I do realise it is relative, there has and always will be investment across the country, but the amount of money spent and probably more importantly the status of projects
is greater in the South East. This then draws more people in, putting greater pressure on the environment. I have seen friends move down here for jobs, and worked for companies that would no way locate elsewhere. Flooding is actually IMHO only one part of this problem. Ironically given this threads theme, one of the other issues that will become more of an issue if Prescott etc build more houses, will be lack of water. The South East already has problems with this regard. I have several times in recent years seen talk ( I am not sure but I think nothing much has been implemented ) of a water grid to try and resolve this. The list could go on and on though. One last example on this section, the company I work for will always follow DEFRA, so should they relocate to say Stoke, then 150 people here would also move.


I agree totally about those areas where it is necessary and those where it is not. There are now projects to try and return flood plains in certain areas, back to how they were naturally, which I think will prove that this is the only real way to control flooding for all the reasons you point out to act as both a soak and a temporary reservoir. I am a bit of a pessimist on this, fine if we were just backing out of years of mistakes, but rising sea levels may cause the resources to be taken away from river/flood plain management and concentrated on tidal areas.

I'm just re reading the last two paragraphs of your post, and I agree wholeheartedly. I just hope the experimental areas I mention in the previous paragraph are accepted and used as a best practice model. Then we can take up your view of letting flood plains revert to natural seasonal reservoirs as needed. It certainly would be an improvement for the environment as they are such important areas for natural life, and for humans they would still be very attractive places to farm on rich deposits that would need much less fertilizer.

Anyway that is that for now. I need to go back to work. Thanks for your reply this has taken me back 13 years to my Geography degree....