Government plans new Atlantis

[PAH]

Oh yes, that's why, IIRC, most air-taxis are amphibious.

Well remembered.

On a similar note, I think they should chuck those slow barges off the canal network and use speedboats instead, for inter-town taxi services.

Alternatively, use the canals to transport goods like they used to, instead of clogging up our roads.

[threaded]

But convenience has a price that some will always be willing to pay.

Oh yes, that's why, IIRC, most air-taxis are amphibious.

[PAH]

The weight will make them uncompetitive when compared to land based aeroplanes.

International travel used to be by seaplanes, but after WWII, there being lots of available landing fields...

But convenience has a price that some will always be willing to pay.

[threaded]

What's weight got to do with it? They can still fly can't they?

Or are you saying they don't make them to be able to land on both land and water, so my idea is flawed?

The weight will make them uncompetitive when compared to land based aeroplanes.

International travel used to be by seaplanes, but after WWII, there being lots of available landing fields...

[NoddY]

Why the heck don't they build a floating airport (or better perhaps, an airport on stilts) in the Thames estuary, with fast links into London and even round the Kent coast to Calais and beyond?

There'd be no planning issues, less aircraft noise over built-up areas, and any aircraft in trouble could ditch in the sea instead of ploughing into a housing estate or a crowded motorway. Also, it could double as a giant tidal energy collector.

Southend (or rather the mudflats in the area) was considered a suitable location for London's 'third' airport. However, it was decided that Stansted was a better site. All future expansion was to be located at Stansted. It was decided that Heathrow was physically restricted by the urban area and the lakes and Gatwick would only ever have one runway - so New Labour go ahead with expansion at Heathrow.

[PAH]

A seaplane is much heavier than a normal aeroplane due to having to be built stronger to withstand landing on water.

threaded in "incompressible liquids" mode

What's weight got to do with it? They can still fly can't they?

Or are you saying they don't make them to be able to land on both land and water, so my idea is flawed?

[threaded]

Even simpler, use seaplanes that can land on the thames and other rivers. I'm sure some even have undercarriages so they can land on normal airstrips too.

A seaplane is much heavier than a normal aeroplane due to having to be built stronger to withstand landing on water.

threaded in "incompressible liquids" mode

[PAH]

Why the heck don't they build a floating airport (or better perhaps, an airport on stilts) in the Thames estuary, with fast links into London and even round the Kent coast to Calais and beyond?

There'd be no planning issues, less aircraft noise over built-up areas, and any aircraft in trouble could ditch in the sea instead of ploughing into a housing estate or a crowded motorway. Also, it could double as a giant tidal energy collector.

Even simpler, use seaplanes that can land on the thames and other rivers. I'm sure some even have undercarriages so they can land on normal airstrips too.

[chicane]

instead of ploughing into a housing estate

Don't know about you, but I live in hope of a plane on landing approach ploughing into some of the housing estates around here.

[Marina]

Why the heck don't they build a floating airport (or better perhaps, an airport on stilts) in the Thames estuary, with fast links into London and even round the Kent coast to Calais and beyond?

There'd be no planning issues, less aircraft noise over built-up areas, and any aircraft in trouble could ditch in the sea instead of ploughing into a housing estate or a crowded motorway. Also, it could double as a giant tidal energy collector.

[threaded]

Is it too cynical to suggest corruption at the local council level? It's not what you know, it's who you know.

Well, I didn't want to bring Donnygate up, but now you mention it...

[PAH]

The planning system in the UK is farcical. They want to knock a farmers house down that's been up for 4+ years with no complaints, yet they allow people to build houses in the middle of dry river beds where complaints have been received.

Is it too cynical to suggest corruption at the local council level? It's not what you know, it's who you know.

[threaded]

The planning system in the UK is farcical. They want to knock a farmers house down that's been up for 4+ years with no complaints, yet they allow people to build houses in the middle of dry river beds where complaints have been received.

[PAH]

A third of the three million new homes the government wants to see built by 2020 will be on flood plains, and the insurers are saying they may be uninsurable, uninhabitable, and unsaleable.

This government just cracks me up, and they still want me to pay them tax to fund this mad-house. Where's the door to a saner world FFS!?



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7244013.stm

Hundreds of thousands of homes could be uninsurable and uninhabitable unless stricter planning controls are introduced, insurers have warned.
The Association of British Insurers (ABI) said a third of the three million new homes the government wants to see by 2020 will be built on flood plains.

The ABI says last summer's floods cost the industry more than £3bn.

It said 13 major developments have been passed, despite Environment Agency advice on flood risk in the past year.

'In jeopardy'

Seven of the sites, including a new caravan park and a development of bungalows, are deemed to be at high risk from flooding.

The association said where a local authority plans to ignore flood risk advice, the government should step in and review the proposals and be compelled to publish their decision.

"The government's ambitious housing plans are in jeopardy unless we reduce the flood risk," said the ABI's assistant director of property, Justin Jacobs.

"Insurers want to continue to provide flood cover, but poor planning decisions will lead to more homes becoming unsaleable, uninsurable and uninhabitable."

'Poor planning'

Despite the Environment Agency being consulted on new developments, as a statutory requirement, planning permission was still being given despite the agency highlighting flood risks, the group said.

Responding to allegations that builders had built too many homes on flood plains, John Slaughter of the Homebuilders' Federation said his members were not ignoring advice about flooding.

"We want to build homes to meet the housing crisis, but not just wherever... because it's not in the industry's interests to do that. We have to think of our members' reputations long-term.

"If they're building unsound products in unsound areas that's going to come back and haunt the industry pretty quickly," Mr Slaughter told the BBC.

'Worst year'

The 2007 floods in Yorkshire, Gloucestershire and Worcestershire will cost the insurance industry more than £3 billion, and, combined with other events, they helped make 2007 the worst year ever for weather-related claims.

The ABI said insurers had so far paid out £1 billion of claims as a result of last summer's floods.

More than half of the 15,000 households that were in temporary accommodation have now been able to return home, while three-quarters of people are expected to be back in their own homes before Easter, it added.

Insurers have pledged to continue offering flood insurance to existing policyholders where the risk of floods is being managed.

But after the 2007 floods and in the light of the increasing number and extent of floods linked to climate change, the industry is reviewing the issue.