We all know that HMG will build on floodplain areas, regardless...?

...of what's happening now. Will members here take the time to insist in writing to their MPs that the new properties are constructed on pillar supports to keep them above the highest water levels as measured today?

This is, I believe, a simple application of the old "prevention is better than cure" adage and could save the need for future 拢multi-million拢 aid payouts to help people back into their homes, as have been necessary this time around. It's a pretty safe bet that these new homes will not be able to get flood insurance - at least not at any sensible rate, but why should the taxpayer be asked to foot the bill in the years to come when it all goes pear-shaped?

Under-pillar areas could be enclosed and used as off-road parking bays for residents.

Many MPs have email. To check if yours does, please go here: http://www.upmystreet.com/commons/email/... and if you agree with this suggestion please take a moment to drop your MP a quick line asking them to promote it.

I like that idea, in principle. I don't know enough about your idea to back it up/criticise it, I can only meekly offer the reply that it's probably been investigated and ruled out. But it wouldn't shock me that the government ruled out something which in principle seems like a good idea! The space under the pillars could be put to good use, storage wise etc as you say. I really do like the prevention approach! The problem maybe to do with structural integrity in extremely high winds/flood conditions as experienced?

I think this problem all stems from the lack of housing stock in the UK. We have too many people seeking to buy property and not enough houses. As such, local authorities jump upon any developer willing to build houses in an area, regardless that they may be located in a flood plains - local authorities have per annum housebuilding targets to meet in their areas!

Not that I see this as a completely bad thing - I'd rather have someone in a house which subsequently floods that on the streets. But I admit it's not much of a better solution. We really need to investigate better locations for housing, but it's got to be part of a better overhaul of housing strategy.

I wish everyone in the flooded areas well. We do have to remember that these were once in 400 year floods - local authorities and housebuilders accept that a once in 400 year flood will destroy houses, as it's almost too difficult to mitigate such a destructive flood. But lesser floods need to be mitigated by a change in housing policy.

Good suggestion however there are too many areas already affected and blighted by this problem now for the gov to get involved financially, however its certain they will use this as an excuse for more punitive taxes on us all and insurance premiums will go up. Greedy builders will find anywhere cheap to stick housing on even if its dangerous, but I bet there are no gov buildings of importance on these flood plains.

I take your point that building on a flood plane is not sensible for a number of reasons, but if a developer is going to be able to make money from a construction....AND HE WILL, however, stupid and inadequate as it may be---then he is going to do the utmost to obtain permission to build there.
It would be better if the rules for building almost anything habitable, made it a requirement that they would be able to withstand higher levels of flooding, and easier restoration, and only licensed builders, working to a higher standard of workmanship would be allowed to participate.

Maybe we could see architects locating living spaces at the second storey level, and service areas and car parking at ground level, and your suggestion of communal areas under pillars is entirely appropriate.

Obviously, large scale flooding, whether the buildings are insured or not, is expensive for the entire community, as the people affected, still need to be able to access sources of power, food and water, in order to make the buildings habitable. Consequently, building without regard for flooding, is quite unacceptable.

unfortunately America does that also home buyers should consult a geologist to check the flood plains before buying there houses , and we should also not have to repeatedly have to bail out people in Florida and new Orleans each time the hurricanes hits move to safer areas u twits , plus the insurance corporations should be made to honer the policy's they took money on all these years that's one of the biggest crimes and scams done to Americans in decades , and yet the legislators keep passing laws that insurance is mandatory for every thing we do , what better proof that they are in the pockets of the corporations isn't it a shame u only have 3 answers people would rather rant and insult instead of becoming informed

adam not critisizing but just because they say its a 400 year flood , doesnt mean its a 1 in 400 chance of flooding the average is mutch greater