Login Register

Man's anger after Longhope home with 'no chance of flooding' floods

By The Citizen  |  Posted: December 10, 2012

devastated:  Peter Roost outside his home and left inset,  with ruined carpets after the property was flooded.

devastated: Peter Roost outside his home and left inset, with ruined carpets after the property was flooded.

Comments (0)

PETER Roost took every precaution to make sure his new home was in no danger of flooding before he bought it in 2000.

But he is now mopping up for the second time in five years.

After 2007, Peter, who lives in The Orchards, Longhope, did some research and discovered it was common knowledge the small estate on which he lives, built in 1999, was on a site that flooded.

"We had advice from our lawyers when we were buying the house to be sure about the flooding risk, as would anyone with a water course running near their house," he said. "We've got all the documentation saying it won't flood, then in July 2007, we flood."

Related content

Having done some digging, Peter, 55, found warnings in the original planning documents from people in the village about the site's susceptibility. The district council commissioned a flood alleviation report for the area after 2007.

Mr Roost said: "One big thing in the flood alleviation report was about a little channel under a small bridge which the water flows through.

"It's too narrow and needs remodelling.

"The owner's given his consent, it would fix all the problems, we just want it done. It needs to be fixed."

Mr Roost, who lives at The Orchards with wife Christine and daughter Samantha, said the damage done in 2007 led to a £50,000 insurance bill and is expecting the cost this time around to hit £10,000.

Martin Quaile, cabinet member for the environment at Forest of Dean District Council, said: "We are giving this matter our immediate attention in an effort to get an early resolution."

Read more from Gloucester Citizen

Do you have something to say? Leave your comment here...

max 4000 characters
  • daveofglos  |  January 04 2013, 8:47AM

    Interesting map Tim - that does suggest flooding is likely I agree - but in 2000 the available internet sources where not nearly as detailed or even there as they are today. However if I had been Mr Roost I wouldn't have left it to the solicitors to check it out. When I bought my house in 1996 I did detailed research as to the level of the property and was reasonably convinced it would be OK - ie above 1947 flood level. After the 2007 floods I was actually even more reassured since the level was some way below my floor level. The basic problem in Mr Roost's case was a builder not willing to pay the extra to elevate the houses slightly - drive along Longford Road and you can see which builders knew there was a problem by the level of the ground floors of the houses...

    Rate 0
    Report
  • TimMessanger  |  December 10 2012, 9:25PM

    Have a look at the EA website and it's all clear! http://tinyurl.com/a22m5vl

    Rate   1
    Report
  • Aletheia  |  December 10 2012, 7:13PM

    Anyone who knows this street would be well aware that the spt they built these houses in floods. It is about time that we had a policy in this country of making builders totally responsible if they build on an area that is either part of the flood plane or has a history of flooding. It is only greed that causes the building industry to carry on building in such areas. Historically, it was necessary to build settlements near to water but because of technology it is now totally unnecessary.

    Rate   7
    Report
  • tishwash  |  December 10 2012, 6:02PM

    ..... I'm really not sure why he's in the paper, why doesn't he just act upon the evidence he has?

    Rate   3
    Report
  • localboy51  |  December 10 2012, 4:12PM

    Wont flood is like saying that a building wont collapse during an earthquake... Until it happens you will never know. What documentation would guarantee that the property would not flood? That is a very strange thing for anyone to put down in writing as unless you are living way above sea level & well away from rivers, canals or streams etc i would have thought that such a guarantee would be al;most impossible to give. If Mr Roost has indeed got that guarantee did he sue whoever gave the guarantee after the 2007 floods? If not why not - he says he has a guarantee that the property would never flood so surely he could have sued form breach of contract or some other reason. I have the utmost sympathy for Mr Roost & anyone else who was flooded - missed us this year & we were within 30 foot of being flooded in 07 so fortunate to have escaped.

    Rate   2
    Report
  • PengiPete  |  December 10 2012, 2:56PM

    No-one can say that a house won't be affected by floods - only that it hasn't been in the past and/or is not expected to be in the future. One seemingly innocuous event can change everything - a tree falling 50 miles away can divert a brook and cause flooding where it hasn't happened previously - even if the effect of that isn't felt for ten years. I previously lived in a house quite near the top of a fairly steep hill - a place that is incredibly unlikely to flood - except that the there was a road at the top of the hill with no drainage and our garden was slightly below the level of the road running down the hill - and the verge between us and the road leaned towards the house - so whenever it rained, the water ran along that road atop the hill - nowhere else for it to go - then down the road on the hill until it got to our gates at which point the whole lot flowed down our path and into our garden like a river. You would never have guessed by looking at that location that there would ever be a problem with flooding - but even a decent sized shower would leave us swamped.

    Rate   5
    Report
  • Lord_Gaga_  |  December 10 2012, 10:20AM

    don't believe any thing you read or hear, and only half of what you see.

    Rate   1
    Report
  • Matt1006  |  December 10 2012, 9:51AM

    So if there were warnings from locals within the planning documents for the development about it's susceptibility, how can he say there there was 'no chance of flooding'? Mr. Roost only found out about this after the 2007 flood - so I'd suggest he needs to tackle whoever did the conveyancing for him when he was buying his home in 2000, as the info within the planning docs was presumably missed (or overlooked / ignored). I wonder if any of the other owners on the estate were privy to this information when they bought their own properties? Have other homes on the development also been flooded, or is it just Mr. Roost's property that has suffered? I sympathize with Mr. Roost for suffering not one but two floods, but it seems the warnings were there before the houses were even built. For some reason he wasn't aware of it before he bought, and is now suffering the consequences.

    Rate   5
    Report
  • Takeaway22  |  December 10 2012, 9:48AM

    If he has had advice and documentation from his lawyers saying it won't flood, then its a pretty clear case. I will be surprised however, if the documentation will be as clear cut as that. For example, "it wont flood" is open to interpretation. Wont flood through nature, or the owner just leaving taps on etc. The lawyers will have their backs covered.

    Rate   9
    Report

      YOUR COMMENTS AWAITING MODERATION

       
       

      MORE NEWS HEADLINES