The last and rather desperate objection to any form of greenfield housing development is to say ‘it flooded in 1967′ or some such. This week, in the UK with the worst rains for a few years there will be many who will say ‘I told you so’ (im in the Seychelles on the way to Uganda on business with tropical storms abounding but can remember British rain).
One such is from Cllr Keith Kondakor (@greennuneaton) below, the site was approved for a Barrets scheme the week before.
Sorry Cllr ITS JUST A PUDDLE it will bother noone except a few cows feet. Any greenfield anywhere in England will have a rainfall absorption capacity that if exceeded will lead to minor and temporary flooding of lower lying portions. Where then to locate development if not flat areas, steep areas also leads to runoff on other sites and with less opportunity to create settling ponds, SUDS etc. Of course the EA on large sites will insist on its 100% absorption of run off on site policy.
In fact puddles of a few inches only is a good sign as it indicates that the field can absorb water without it flowing into watercourses, if these natural dips are deepened then there can be no technical objection to development. Surface water runoff (as opposed to fluvial flooding) is only in a small number of cases a severe problem, such as steep valleys with denuded forest cover, where natural run off is bottled up by road and railway embankments etc. and where street drainage is antiquated To see it become a universal and rather unscientific objection to anything is sadly a sign of how anti-development reflexes falsely proclaimed as ‘green’ have corrupted localism, which in many cases sadly is simply a synonym for putting emotionalism above evidence.