Flooding - building on flood plains

D

DeeFox

Registered User
Messages
296
What sort of collective madness took hold of this country and allowed planning permission to be granted for estates of houses, shopping centres, etc. to be built on areas that were known in the past to flood?

Take the example of the Glucksman Building on the UCC Campus - this is a stunning piece of architecture and surely some very bright minds were behind its construction. And yet it is built within yards of a river and on an area that has flooded in the past. How could those behind its construction have overlooked something so basic?

On the Frontline last night Pat Kenny pointed out that perhaps people should have been more wary about buying in places with names like "Waterways", "Riverside", etc. But those in the audience claimed that they had no way of knowing the areas were in flood plains - (I'm thinking particularly here of the lady from Sallins). Should the responsibility lie with the purchaser for not checking the history of an area?? What do others think?
 
The taxpayer should not be picking up the tab for this. If people bought a house that is not fit for purpose because its built on a flood plain, they should sue the developer for a refund if they believe that the developer mislead them. Otherwise, I've little sympathy for those who failed to do due diligence on the most expensive purchase of their lives. People often go on about climate change, flood defences etc trying to blame everyone else, but in the end of the day, it rains a lot in Ireland even at the best of times and if you live in a flood plain, you are going to get flooded.
 
csirl said:
The taxpayer should not be picking up the tab for this. If people bought a house that is not fit for purpose because its built on a flood plain, they should sue the developer for a refund if they believe that the developer mislead them.
Click to expand...

And if the developer is bust ..

Anyhow, does a surveyor not need to sign off on the property and site as part fo the mortgage agreement ? If the professional is not highlighting the risk, what hope does the buyer have ?
 
TarfHead said:
And if the developer is bust ..

Anyhow, does a surveyor not need to sign off on the property and site as part fo the mortgage agreement ? If the professional is not highlighting the risk, what hope does the buyer have ?
Click to expand...

Should have insurance.

Too often the professionals point out the risks, but people chose to ignore them.
 
DeeFox said:
What sort of collective madness took hold of this country and allowed planning permission to be granted for estates of houses, shopping centres, etc. to be built on areas that were known in the past to flood?
Click to expand...

Its very simple, we put the very important issue of planning into the hands of very unqualified people, i.e. councillors and kept re-electing the same crowd for most of the last fifty years. They were unqualified and corrupt. The European Environmental Agency now cite Dublin to developing Eastern European Countries as a model in bad planning.
 
A successful class action by a group of residents, who have bought housing in an area that was unsuitable, against the relevant council who gave planning permission would sort out a lot of the carry on re planning in this country. I think ordinary citizens have enough to do when buying their houses without having to do due diligence on flooding histories. If I buy a television, I expect it to be fit for purpose, surely if I buy a house I should reasonably expect that it will shelter me from the elements.
 
When buying a house, isn't your solicitor meant to do such checks?
 

A lot of this is common knowledge, at least local knowledge

My own local town in Tipp suffers from flooding though not nearly as badly as Clonmel.
The wasters in the council allowed multiple estates to be built on a floodplain, every local and their dog knew this flooded every few years.

And what's worse is the town sewage treatment works is directly above the estate so when the river floods, sewage will flow down into the estates. Locals knew this would be an issue someday and so it was

Yes, it happened last week but it wasn't all that serious, far worse happened years ago
How did they places get planning permission?
And realy, I don't believe home buyers should be able to bring lawsuits and seek compensation! They bought a home on a floodplain beside a sewage plant, every local and every barman could have told them this for the price of a pint. You spent hundreds of thousands to buy a house on a floodplain and seeks compensation when it floods? Come on......

So you think ratepayers who fund the council and taxpayers who indirectly fund the council should compensate some reckless person who buys a home in an unsuitable area and their solicitor and their surveyor did not once reveal this issue. And they did no research on the most expensive purchase of their life? What happened personal responsibility, is it compo for everyone Brianne?
Fair enough if their home was flooded due to excessive development around them. Or fair enough if they are farming and argicultural land gets flooded so no fault of theirs. If you buy a house on a floodplain though, you're taking a gamble so take out insurance if you can
 
micmclo said:
The wasters in the council allowed multiple estates to be built on a floodplain, every local and their dog knew this flooded every few years.
Click to expand...

When you say wasters who do you mean, official or elected councillors?
 
Brianne said:
A successful class action by a group of residents, who have bought housing in an area that was unsuitable, against the relevant council who gave planning permission would sort out a lot of the carry on re planning in this country.
Click to expand...

I disagree, I think the long term solution is to take planning out of the hands of councillors. Not all residents can mount class actions but changes in planning codes and decisions can gaurd against this happening in the future.
 
YOBR said:
When you say wasters who do you mean, official or elected councillors?
Click to expand...

I suppose I meant whoever approved to decision to build estates on floodplains when it was clear to see what could happen. No shortage of land around, I'm not sure why unsuitable land was selected

I don't know the procedures on how planning is approved. It may have been elected councillors that we all voted for or maybe the county manager.
Either way, it was a poor decision.

I wasn't having a go at council staff, I believe there is a truce in place at the moment on this site
 
Absolutely homeowners should receive compensation.

It was not unreasonable to expect that where councils gave planning permission for houses to be built on or near floodplains, then remedial works would have been carried out by those same councils to ensure that the houses weren't going to flood.

I fail to see how it is the homeowner who can be regarded as reckless in this situation.
 

Where is this compensation to come from? Are we not virtually bankrupt?
And remember permission is just permission, its no guarantee on anything including flooding. And the builders gave no guarantee that the area would not flood.

And NO - the solicitor does not give an anti-flood guarantee

For me, its all part of the collective madness of the Boom Years. The "what could possibly go wrong?" mentality. And if it does, sure can't we blame someone else?

If I was buying a house, I would ask questions. I would want to satisfy myself on issues like flooding. Particularly on an estate called "The Waterways".

And I have the most enormous sympathy for anyone in trouble- having rebuilt a home for my aunt in Drumcondra after the Tolka flooded the area.

mf
 
It is my (limited) understanding that, under contract law, anything which is sold must be fit for the purpose for which it is sold.

So, IMO, under contract law, the land which was sold to homeowners was NOT fit for the purpose for which it was sold and therefore under contract law, the homeowners should be entitled to compensation.

The compensation should come from the builders or their insurers or, see below, the person who sold them the land.

An interesting point here is that in some cases, the land was owned by a partnership or sole trader before being sold to the homeowners while the house itself was built by a limited company before being sold to the homeowner.

This was to ensure maximum profits on the sale of the land as these profits were taxed at a special 20% rate of tax unlike the sale of the houses which were taxed at the 12.5% CT rate before being taxed at the director's/builder's top rate when the remainder was taken out as remuneration.

And, as we know, sole traders or partnerships do not have limited liability protection which means, in theory, that even if the building company which built the houses were to go bankrupt, the homeowners could still sue the original landowners for breach of contract.
 
i believe the blame lies in the hands of councils who granted the planning permissions and developers who did not give a damn about where they were building ...
there is way too much buyers have to think about and organize when buying a house, it might easily happen the flooding is not on the top of their list when looking for a property ...
as for "asking the locals" - nice logic but the building boom changed the face of most localities so much that it is rather difficult to find a true "native" most of the time ...
in some of the new estates people are locals if they've been living there for the last 8 years and don't remember any flooding ...
blaming the buyers only takes the blame away from the authorities who made building on floodplains possible ...
that said, when we were buying a house, we went for an established estate /houses cca 30 years old/, on a hill, away from any river, pond or canal and made our research on flooding as well - but we always consider ourselves a bit paranoid ...
 

I disagree. Just because land is zoned, it doesnt mean you have carte blanche to build unsuitable buildings on it. You argument is no different than someone building a house with a paper roof and saying that its the councils fault that the rain disintegrated the roof. Buildings must be suitable to the site and environment they are built on. It is possible to build suitable buildings on flood plains or flooded land e.g. built on platforms/stilts - may be prohibitively expensive but it is possible.
 
I was referring more to people who bought estate houses from a builder.
 
micmclo said:
I don't know the procedures on how planning is approved. It may have been elected councillors that we all voted for or maybe the county manager.
Either way, it was a poor decision.
Click to expand...

Ultimately I believe the councillors through individual applications and local development plans have a huge influence on planning. We need to get these people out of this practise. To give a specifc Tipperary example those who were very heavily criticised in the McCracken Report should not have been reelected in Tipperary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register