Minister overturns Caravan Club move plan because of 'risk to life'

[2bob]

Minister overturns Caravan Club move plan because of 'risk to life​

/www.bristolpost.co.uk/

 

[AndyPK]

??

edit: see below…..

 

[AndyPK]

Minister overturns Caravan Club move because of 'risk to life'

"There would be disastrous consequences that could lead to loss of life"

www.bristolpost.co.uk

 

[pappajohn]

Link not working but anyone overturning a caravan is driving too fast.

 

[Clivefog]

Minister overturns Caravan Club move because of 'risk to life'

"There would be disastrous consequences that could lead to loss of life"

www.bristolpost.co.uk

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Sapper520]

Interesting. Can never recall the Police horses and dogs being flooded out.

 

[AndyPK]

Ah, but this is ‘climate change’……….

 

[AndyPK]

Any thoughts, Riverbankannie …….?

 

[phase3begins]

If they went ahead and 62 caravans / motorhomes got destroyed by floods would the owners all say ‘well we knew the risk so we will accept the losses’

 

[AndyPK]

If they went ahead and 62 caravans / motorhomes got destroyed by floods would the owners all say ‘well we knew the risk so we will accept the losses’

There are other sites prone to flooding too - should the same criteria be applied there?

Isn’t that why we have insurance?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[phase3begins]

being cynical I bet insurance companies would say the environment agency told you this would happen. Tough luck

 

[Scotch mist]

Isn’t that why we have insurance?

insurance is for unforeseen problems not ones that are likely to happen
I think there are houses in known flood areas that insurance companies won’t insure

 

[AndyPK]

insurance is for unforeseen problems not ones that are likely to happen
I think there are houses in known flood areas that insurance companies won’t insure

Not necessarily - the premiums would be higher though!

 

[Coastal Cruiser.]

Probably looking at building houses there so need an excuse, more money for the council in houses!!
In Emsworth Barrett Homes built on a well known flood plane and apparently have a department that specialises in it…

 

[maison]

If they went ahead and 62 caravans / motorhomes got destroyed by floods would the owners all say ‘well we knew the risk so we will accept the losses’

The Club Site at Keswick regularly floods and has to be evacuated. All electrical sockets for EHU are on raised pillars, the Office is on an artificial mound and the wardens are well practised in evacuation procedures. There is little reason why the Bristol Site should operate differently.

The reaction of the Environment Agency reminds me of one Insurance company who refused to insure our previous house as, according to their computer software, ”we were on a flood plain”. This despite the fact that we lived near the top of a hill, three-quarters of a mile from the sea and two miles from the nearest river/open water. No other insurance company had a problem with our location.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Gellyneck]

The Club Site at Keswick regularly floods and has to be evacuated. All electrical sockets for EHU are on raised pillars, the Office is on an artificial mound and the wardens are well practised in evacuation procedures. There is little reason why the Bristol Site should operate differently.

The C&MC sites at Garlieston, Maragowan and Tewkesbury, along with some others, have raised bollards.
Tewkesbury has elevated reception and toilet buildings and even has an "evacuation gate" that is opened when the site has to be cleared quickly.
The wardens are still clearing seaweed off some pitches at Garlieston after winter closure.

 

[Tigger-Tim]

Worcester uses it's flood plain creatively - the racecourse and cricket ground both become submerged.

A caravan site strikes me as being a sensible use of flood plain land. I guess it is simply a matter of how quickly it floods and how much warning can be given. I'm not an expert, but quite willing to believe the Bristol site is unlike a typical riverside flood plain.

 

[Sapper520]

Worcester uses it's flood plain creatively - the racecourse and cricket ground both become submerged.

A caravan site strikes me as being a sensible use of flood plain land. I guess it is simply a matter of how quickly it floods and how much warning can be given. I'm not an expert, but quite willing to believe the Bristol site is unlike a typical riverside flood plain.

It’s tidal, so you can usually predict the high tides.

 

[Riverbankannie]

Any thoughts, Riverbankannie …….?

I think there has been some behind the scenes goings on. The land there is not known to flood, it is already built upon, it is shielded from the river by a railway line, which is slightly raised.
Of course none of us can predict the future and floods do seem to be getting more severe, however, I would think in that case, there are places in Bristol upstream, including the proposed new build on the old site, that also ought to be refused permission.
The road alongside the site rises steeply so I am pretty sure the plot is not low lying compared to the river. But I am not an expert.
The current site now looking a mess and it is a great shame that permission has been refused.

 

[ctc]

Follow the money or ask Hancocks mate down the pub.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[SpeedyDux]

One wonders if that site is possibly earmarked for some other kind of development notwithstanding that it is in the green belt. I would not be surprised if it eventually becomes an authorised Traveller site. Statistically, Travellers have a better chance of getting planning consent for development in the green belt.

As for the flood risk that is such a weak reason that you have to think it is a load of tosh.

 

[Sapper520]

I think there has been some behind the scenes goings on. The land there is not known to flood, it is already built upon, it is shielded from the river by a railway line, which is slightly raised.
Of course none of us can predict the future and floods do seem to be getting more severe, however, I would think in that case, there are places in Bristol upstream, including the proposed new build on the old site, that also ought to be refused permission.
The road alongside the site rises steeply so I am pretty sure the plot is not low lying compared to the river. But I am not an expert.
The current site now looking a mess and it is a great shame that permission has been refused.
View attachment 596950View attachment 596948

Having worked in the area, I can never remember the Police Horse and Dog Sections being put out of action due to flooding. I thought they were reopening the Portishead railway link…..or that’s what was proposed. In that case, the railway line will need flood proofing as well, and in doing so the proposed area for the Caravan site will get the protection as well.

But as you say Annie, I’m no expert either..….greased palms comes to mind.

 

[Quackers]

Having worked in the area, I can never remember the Police Horse and Dog Sections being put out of action due to flooding. I thought they were reopening the Portishead railway link…..or that’s what was proposed. In that case, the railway line will need flood proofing as well, and in doing so the proposed area for the Caravan site will get the protection as well.

But as you say Annie, I’m no expert either..….greased palms comes to mind.

Ditto
Is there any history of flooding at that location? I cant ever remember seeing pictures of police dogs or horses swimming in the local press.

 

[Riverbankannie]

Having worked in the area, I can never remember the Police Horse and Dog Sections being put out of action due to flooding. I thought they were reopening the Portishead railway link…..or that’s what was proposed. In that case, the railway line will need flood proofing as well, and in doing so the proposed area for the Caravan site will get the protection as well.

But as you say Annie, I’m no expert either..….greased palms comes to mind.

They are opening the Portishead link as part of the Metro system. However that extra bit is just the branch at Pill junction, off the existing goods line to Portbury Dock, which has been in operation since 2002 when the line was reopened. I don’t know how many trains a day use it but it is well used so presumably monitored for flooding.

 

[mikebeaches]

As another local, I've never seen or heard of previous flooding at the site.

And as others have mentioned, there are various club sites that ARE known to be at risk of flooding - but doesn't seem to cause serious issues with evacuation plans always at the ready.

It's a puzzle to me why the Environment Agency is taking such a stance?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[AndyPK]

It's a puzzle to me why the Environment Agency is taking such a stance?

…and why they ‘ok’d’ the development at Baltic Wharf for residential use……..?!?

 

[cyberyacht]

Money, money, money. It's a rich mans world. If you want site flooding try York Rowntree Park. Much more likely than the proposed new site.

 

[Solwaybuggier]

I’m gutted by this decision - (son lives about a mile away, brilliant location for us for visiting.)

And I have no trust at all in this “government“ of lying charlatans. Wonder if CMC should have donated to party funds?

But in all honesty I’m not sure that comparisons with other sites prone to flooding (Tewkesbury, Rowntree Park, Keswick etc) are very relevant. If they were applying for planning permission now, I suspect they would be refused on flood risk. But they were presumably approved under very different criteria at the time.

 

[Rudski01]

Environment Agency are v lazy, if the river has been crudely computer modelled, then they aren’t interested, it’s a computer says NO scenario, I’ve had to pay thousands to prove where I want to build has never flooded, but they had it ask flood risk zone 3 area, even the engineers couldn’t believe it.
After disproving the computer modelling, they admitted it was very crude and would be carrying out more detailed evaluations in five years time, refused to refund my money though, shiesters