Terrible times for residents in Fishlake, and it stands to reason someone will get the blame. To imagine what those families are now facing is impossible.

We are lucky in Wirral, but would we be so lucky if the intended developments on green belt land actually came to pass ? I think not.

The companies building houses look for prime unspoilt land close to pretty villages, and that is exactly what has happened in Fishlake.

Is it really down to climate change or is that just an excuse considering the EU don't allow or restrict dredging of river beds that are built up with silt and weeds on which the governments have to abide. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1...ire-flooding-East-Midlands-latest-update

.. and whilst BBC give their accounts, and Corbyn and Swinson use it as an election stunt, a clue could be in the name 'Fishlake' here is a comment from someone who lives in the vicinity :

I have lived here for all of my 69 years. I heard someone on the news say that it hasn't flooded in Fishlake for over 100 years, and that's not true. At the school I attended everyone walked or cycled to school except the farm boys from the other side of the river Don, they were bussed into school. There were about half a dozen of them and they all came from farms in Fishlake, Sykehouse and Wormley Hill.

Occasionally at this time of year they would be absent due to flooding or deep snow on Fishlake Nab and the bus was unable to get through. Going further back, My Dad told me stories of the times when he fished and swam in the great lake in Fishlake...I don't know what happened to the lake because it's not there now...

There has always been a church, a couple of pubs, a Windmill and several farms in Fishlake, I believe it goes back to the 13th century, but more recently (last 50 years) it has become a desirable place to live, and gradually with the demise of farming there have been many new houses and barn conversions constructed, it's only been quite recently that sewers have been installed under the roads (amazing what the affluent can achieve) and I would suspect that planning permission has been achieved because many important people live there, councilors included...

I have little sympathy for self-appointed protectors of the 'green belt'. They are usually those who live in it or next to it, and the whole idea of it is, in my opinion, to do with preserving nice areas for the wealthy to enjoy whilst cramming the less wealthy folk into tiny houses crammed as close to each other as possible.

The current policy of building on every patch of unused land along the east coast of the Wirral is removing the few odd patches of green land that the poor people who live there have left to them and is typical of the effect of this widely missold policy.

Poor people need open land too! I am all for opening up more green land in built-up areas and to have 'green corridors' connecting them.

I am all for as much building as is needed on the 'green belt' balanced by the opening up of green spaces in the currently overbuilt areas of the Wirral!

The sad fact is that the current curators of the green-belt - farmers - ruthlessly exploit their land, killing off any animal they take a dislike to, spraying huge areas with insecticide and - by growing huge areas of Maize whilst ignoring regulations to plant protective cover between them, allow vast amounts of soil to be washed into the local water courses which get choked and cause flooding.

They then call for the rivers to be dredged, being careful to refer to what is being dredged out as 'silt' rather than the soil they should have been caring for and protecting from erosion! You don't get erosion or destruction of wildlife on any scale in patches of urban greenery.

I'm not a great green-belt fan either but I think agricultural land should be preserved and population densities limited.

I don't think what you mention in your first paragraph is entirely true. Everyone needs a roof, that is a foregone conclusion, and housing developments can be suitably located, but considering most of these developments consist of houses of 4/5 beds and upwards of £300,000 , they are not the properties affordable for the homes needed . The point I am asking, is about flooding and whether or not the use of green belt land of which there low lying spots, rivers and ponds , and NOT always referring to Wirral, is it likely to contribute to flooding in the future ?
If I remember rightly, the Wimpey estate in Irby was built on marshland, and I remember my friends garage being completely flooded . Don't know if anyone else had similar problems there.

The new estate near Fender Farm was built on land mounded up by several feet before building commenced. No idea where the water went, once the houses were finished - it will always find a way! Onto the already soggy fields, I suspect. I have a friend living just outside Bewdley. Before movable flood barriers were arranged on the town side, there was a row of town houses bult on the riverside. They got round the flooding problem by making the ground floor an open parking bay, with steps up to living space at first and second floor level. It's easy to work out when Severn will flood, and roughly how much, so all they have to do is move cars to the car park at the top of the hill and moor the bins so they don't float away. Building conventionally on flood plains is a bad idea; building innovatively is certainly worth a go.

The Fender Farm area mostly has a situation with poor land drainage, its right beside the River Fender which doesn't normally have a flood problem - there isn't even a river level gauge anywhere on the Fender.

However in September 2015 the Fender well and truly overflowed in the vicinity of the Fender Farm Estate.

One of the major problems of floods is not the water, its the sewage systems which also overflow, putting buildings on stilts doesn't stop the potential contamination and health risks associated with sewage.

The Daily Mail were sticking the boot in to Fishlake the other day, mocking the name and blaming all the new houses in the area.

Except there aren't that many. Look on Google and there aren't massive estates like you normally see creeping away from towns.

Something I noticed on NLS maps are raised "barrier banks" in the fields protecting the village from the river on the 1800 maps:

https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/sid...n=-1.0070&layers=6&right=BingHyb

and lots of drains for the fields.

There have been huge amounts of mismanagement of land water control everywhere. Many fields that used to flood have either been raised or have open drainage installed. Neither of those solutions work, they just divert the water to another area and worse still increase the peak flow at other locations.

You need store store the water either in bulk or by spreading it over large areas to reduce the peak flow.

Bulk storage is very costly whether in dedicated tanks, reservoirs or increased river capacity.

We need to go back to the point where areas were very boggy during some points of the year. Look at Delamere Forest as an example, whilst there are large lakes in the area, the surround land also stores an enormous amount of water and releases it slower than it arrives.

Its all about reducing peak flow, not just trying to battle floods.

In 2011 : https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/doncatchment/work/projects


Methods


•Lowering of flood banks to allow more frequent inundations of tidal water
•Ground engineering to generate variation in relief, leading to areas of varying water coverage
•Reed planting to create in-channel fish shelters
•Creation of off-channel fish habitat open to the river

Its a bit late to do water catchment by the time it arrives at Fishlake, the problem starts in Sheffield, Rotherham, Doncaster etc where some of the the River Don's flood plains are now industrial estates.