copycat Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 I just got in and was listening to MR Mandate prog with a piece by Jason Roberts interviewing some couple living on that estate down at Sulby where it was all flooded out several years ago. The bloke and hios wife were describing the Welsh slate faced flood barrier/wall they and all the other residents now have to protect their homes against further flooding. Thing is...now its finished what has it cost? Its been paid for by taxpayers. How many homes are there it protects? And I didn't hear any gratitude from the couple towards all the other Island residents who through their taxes have paid fopr their peace of mind..some people just don't know when they are receiving special treatement... Surely those houses should have their rates adjusted so that at least there is some token claw back of the cost over the next 50 years say.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Coming from Douglas, I don't know my way around there. Are many of them relatively new houses? If so, the real question, surely, is who gave planning permission to build on a flood plain, when there are other places available to build? Houses built on flood plains cost every Joe Public extra money in taxes and hikes in insurance and should be a no-no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Kerr Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 I just got in and was listening to MR Mandate prog with a piece by Jason Roberts interviewing some couple living on that estate down at Sulby where it was all flooded out several years ago. The bloke and hios wife were describing the Welsh slate faced flood barrier/wall they and all the other residents now have to protect their homes against further flooding. Thing is...now its finished what has it cost? Its been paid for by taxpayers. How many homes are there it protects? And I didn't hear any gratitude from the couple towards all the other Island residents who through their taxes have paid fopr their peace of mind..some people just don't know when they are receiving special treatement... Surely those houses should have their rates adjusted so that at least there is some token claw back of the cost over the next 50 years say.... Ignoring of course - for those who remember - that this was the estate that should not have been built, and should never have got planning, because the land always flooded and planning was turned down consistently on that basis. Then miraculously planning got granted, but the place still flooded (funny that). My guess its the taxpayer was we always pick up the tab for this sort of shite that should never have happened in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 The wall was only built due to political pressure - the developers who somehow obtained planning permission on a known and obvious flood plain should have picked up the tab, not the rest of the taxpayers but then funny things happen at Sulby when it comes to planning decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juan Kerr Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 The wall was only built due to political pressure - the developers who somehow obtained planning permission on a known and obvious flood plain should have picked up the tab, not the rest of the taxpayers but then funny things happen at Sulby when it comes to planning decisions. Funny things happen when it comes to planning anywhere on this bloody Island. The whole system is a joke - I think that they have even stopped pretending that the system is fair here now - that's just how it is - and tough shit that your not a developer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 It's the weekly slag off planning thread. Not quite as common as the anti-smoking thread but getting there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
copycat Posted December 12, 2006 Author Share Posted December 12, 2006 the most 'upsetting' thing though was the people being interviewed didn't offer any thanks for being protected....in fact the impression I got was it was that they expected to be protected... God only knows what the development down the river next to Ramsey will cost to protect against floods...hopefully its the developers cost? (then again....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iom_cb Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 there should be no* anamosity towards the residents, they have a right not to be flooded. THE BILL SHOULD BE PASSED ONTO THE DEVELOPER. *corrected - thanks to those who pointed it out. guess that's what happens when you mix forums with beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jagman Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 there should be anamosity towards the residents, they have a right not to be flooded. THE BILL SHOULD BE PASSED ONTO THE DEVELOPER. No animosity, surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 There should be no animosity towards the residents, they have a right not to be flooded. THE BILL SHOULD BE PASSED ONTO THE DEVELOPER. Corrected, I'm not normally a pedant but the post originally contradicted itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 AFAIK the flood defence at Sulby is also designed to help to protect properties not directly adjacent and which existed long before the new row of houses was built. And actually - isn't it about controlling water to everywhere in the path of the Sulby River? Some said at the time that the very sudden flooding at Sulby was due to an exceptional release of water at the reservoir. I have an idea that there was some sort of inquiry which came to rather vague conclusions. Certainly it seems sensible to me to assume that if the water level in the reservoir had been much lower then all flow from the reservoir could have been monitored and halted, if necessary, for the duration of exceptional rains. It might have been interesting to read the duty log for the Sulby reservoir over the few days either side of the flooding. It's also important that the DOT should continue to clean out the trenches and drainage ditches in the north. Better to get them doing that all winter - rather than them Zzzzing away the afternoons parked up in their wagons at Blue Point and other out of the way car parks. The proposed new housing at the old tip in Ramsey are at a point of the river seaside of the White Bridge and which is tidal. That's a different but related issue. It would obviously be a very related issue if someone suddenly decided to empty gallons of water from the Sulby reservoir during an exceptionally high tide and surge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celt Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Whilst my opinion is that the Planning Dept is full off very educated people who lack the very basic common sense, and are prepared to bow down to above pressure and pass crap to save their job, I think Simon could have a good point. Whether the houses should or shouldn't have been built there, it was on a known flood plain and therefore in my opinion the developer should pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Gribbon Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 My first week at University (what was Sheffield City Polytechnic - Pond Street, Sheffield) . Preliminary site investigations: Building studies Lesson 1 Day 1 Why is Pond Street called Pond Street? Because there used to be a fucken pond there. The lesson went on. Stating the obvious I thought. Except it can't be obvious can it? Unless you really want to have problems getting flooded don't build/buy a house on a road called "The Millrace". Sounds quaint, probably looks quaint too. Usually has a big old building nearby with a waterwheel and lots and lots of running water nearby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Smelly Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Right here goes. The Mill Race estate was built on a flood plain as we all know. The permission was granted by the then Minister of planning former ramsey MHK Terry Groves, what is it with Ramsey MHK's and building sites The property's were then built and sold through a certain estate agents. I was also told that a certain MHK was a silent partner off the company that built the houses. This is what i was told from a certain sulby rate payer. make of it what you will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5-demerits Posted December 13, 2006 Share Posted December 13, 2006 Its the purchaser who should be aware. When I chose to buy a house two of my criteria were Dont buy a house on a shore line Dont buy a house near a river. If you choose to buy a house in any of the foregoing areas and you have a flood, what did you honestly expect !! Any survey of the property before you purchased should have pointed out any risks of flooding, if it didnt you could sue your surveyor. If you didn't have a survey, tuff. The developer should pay seems a bit unfair, he only builds houses. Planning permision for development could be questioned as being iresponsible (people still bought the houses in the erosion zone at kirk Michael). But ultimatley Caveat_emptor should prevail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.