Integrating
flood defence requirements within the planning system
86. The lack of integration between flood defence
policy and the planning system is perhaps best illustrated by
the substantial legacy of inappropriate urban and industrial development
on flood plain land in England and Wales. Existing planning policy
advice is provided to local authorities through a number of guidance
notes and circulars, the most important being Circular 30/92 on
Development and Flood Risk and PPG20 on Coastal Planning (in addition,
some reference is made to flood and coastal defence policy in
PPG12 on Development Plans and Regional Planning Guidance). As
well as having permissive powers to provide flood defences, the
Environment Agency is also a statutory consultee on all planning
applications for development on land liable to flooding. However,
the final decision to permit development lies with local authority
planning departments, and the Agency stated to us that there were
"numerous examples" of instances where authorities had
effectively disregarded its advice[116].
On occasions it has to be said that local authorities have acted
in accordance with Environment Agency advice but seen their decisions
overturned on appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.
87. As we have already mentioned (paragraph 58),
part of the reason for this legacy of inappropriate development
arises from the approval process for flood and coastal projects,
laid out under the PAGN procedure. Ernst and Young noted that
under PAGN "...each new [development] initiative adds to
the overall long term obligation for the maintenance and provision
of replacement flood defences"[117].
They pointed out to us that, in most circumstances, local authorities
stood to gain significantly more from permitting flood plain development
than from prohibiting it[118].
We were also told of the dangers of incremental development of
flood plain land, where the granting of planning permission for
a supposedly temporary land use could provide justification for
permanent development[119].
According to the Environment Agency, all too often the result
is the need for "significantly increased flood defence investment
at the taxpayer's expense in future"[120].
From our visit to the Lincshore project, it was clearly evident
that unsuitable development is still being permitted in areas
at great risk from coastal erosion and inundation; indeed, for
the Institution of Civil Engineers, the "biggest single issue"
in current flood defence policy was "the need to take coastal
defence issues fully into account in the development planning
process"[121].
88. Witnesses proposed a range of mechanisms which
might strengthen the Environment Agency's case in opposing planning
proposals for development of flood plain land. These included
regulatory and financial options. The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK
favoured the introduction of powers of veto over inappropriate
development proposals for a single agency with national responsibilities
for flood and coastal defence[122].
In their written evidence to us, the Royal Town Planning Institute
(RTPI) stated that "where there is a risk of flooding planning
permission should be refused"[123]
by making flooding a material consideration for preventing planning
approval under Section 54A of the Town and County Planning Act
(1990). However, the RTPI were reluctant to see the Environment
Agency, or other competent bodies, having a veto over the local
authority planning process. English Nature also believed that
finding solutions within the existing system of planning controls
might be more appropriate than assigning the Agency veto powers,
noting however that existing guidance should be updated, and that,
in future, development of flood plains should only proceed "in
cases of overriding public interest"[124].
Other witnesses advocated the Environment Agency withholding its
permissive powers to provide flood defence mitigation where planning
restrictions or the future economic costs of flood defence for
new development were likely to prove excessive[125].
89. Commenting that the issue of inappropriate development
was "very hard to... address...legislatively", the Environment
Agency identified for us the definitional problems of establishing
a blanket veto on flood plain development[126].
Nonetheless, in the wake of the Easter floods (see paragraphs
106 to112), the Agency has concluded that "a strong presumption
against building in the flood plain and flood balancing for all
development is needed"[127],
and is in favour of developers paying the full costs of flood
mitigation measures[128].
On the strength of the Environment Agency's evidence, and the
robust support given this view from other witnesses[129],
we believe that a clear presumption should be made against
future development in flood plain land where the flooding risk
attached to a particular development, as determined by the Environment
Agency, is deemed to outweigh the benefits. In such cases, the
Agency should intervene at all stages of the planning process
in such a way as to deter inappropriate development, including,
where necessary, referring the matter to the Secretary of State
for his or her determination. Such powers would be more likely
to be exercised in relation to sizeable and significant developments
and the constraints should apply primarily to new development
of land in coastal and inland flood plains, rather than redevelopment
of existing urban or industrial land, undesirable as the latter
may be in some cases. We also urge local authority planning departments
to have regard to both the individual costs of flooding - loss
of lives, property, and assets - and costs to the community, for
example, the expenditure incurred by emergency services, and through
increased insurance premia, that the granting of planning permission
for inappropriate development inevitably brings.
90. Other mechanisms brought to our attention for
effecting environmentally sustainable outcomes through the planning
process were based on financial, rather than regulatory measures.
Noting that "the system is not giving the right economic
signals", Dr Geoff Mance of the Environment Agency continued
that "If it is assumed the defence will always be funded
out of the public purse, then the commercial developer is allowed
to take the profit without making the right contribution [in the]
long term"[130]
to the defence costs of development. Similarly, Ernst and Young
commented to us that often "there is not a close correlation
between the beneficiaries of flood defence schemes and the bearing
of the cost of the defences provided[131]".
We are aware that, in some areas, steps have already been taken
to address this problem, through the developer contributing to
the long term costs of flood defence provision. In future,
in those exceptional circumstances where planning permission on
land liable to flooding is considered, the Environment Agency
should have powers to require developers to set aside sufficient
monies for the provision of the required flood defence works both
at the point of development, and upstream and downstream of it,
before planning permission is granted. This does not mean that
private developers should be able to evade or over-ride national
or regional flood defence strategy.
91. We believe a range of other measures must be
put in place to supplement these changes. Most pressing of all
would appear to be to guarantee that persons and organisations
are fully apprised of information on the possibilities, or probability,
of flooding in particular areas, prior to taking relevant decisions
- for example, to proceed with a development proposal, or to buy
a property situated on flood-prone land. We recognise that the
Environment Agency has a substantial role to play here[132],
most notably in its production for local authorities of maps showing
areas at risk from flooding which can then be used to update local
authority development plans; and in the advice provided to local
authorities on flood risk. In addition, the Association of British
Insurers suggested to us that planning guidance in England and
Wales should be reformulated along the lines of recent advice
introduced by the Scottish Office[133],
whereby the insurance industry is actively involved in individual
planning decisions. Amending English and Welsh planning guidance
in this way might assist in the prevention of inappropriate development
at an earlier stage than is possible under existing arrangements[134].
92. Furthermore, while every effort must be made
to minimise loss and inconvenience to the public from flooding
and coastal erosion through the provision of defensive works and
the timely dissemination of flood warnings, as is acknowledged
in existing policies, our view is that much greater emphasis
must be placed on the dissemination to the public of locally-appropriate
information on the degree of risk to persons and to property presented
by these natural processes[135].
Our belief is that this is a fundamental component in any national
strategy seeking to minimise the hazards posed by flooding and
coastal erosion, and we are surprised that more effort in this
direction has not been made already by relevant agencies. It is
only on this basis that informed judgements can be made by the
public as to the risks of development and the most appropriate
method for managing flood and erosion risks at the individual
level, leading to acceptance of ultimate responsibility for personal
actions. Title deeds of properties at risk of inundation must
be amended to show clearly and unambiguously that this is the
case, and this information must be relayed to potential purchasers
as part of the property conveyancing process. Insurance companies
should be obliged to provide advice to individuals in flood risk
areas as to how to mitigate the effects of flooding, and how to
address property and asset claims afterwards to ensure their rapid
settlement. The Environment Agency and local authorities
should ensure that persons at risk from flooding are made thoroughly
aware of the warning procedures in place and the action to be
taken in the event of emergency.
93. The legacy of development already in flood risk
zones presents other problems. We were told, for example,
of the considerable effects of such development on the hydrological
regime of affected rivers, by increasing runoff and flood risk
further downstream[136];
and of "planning blight" in some rapidly eroding coastal
zones, where insurance availability has become difficult[137].
Specific, long term adaptive policies are needed to address these
issues. In their evidence to the Committee, both the Royal Society
for the Protection of Birds and English Nature hinted at the format
that these long term adaptive policies might take, for example
encouraging the gradual managed abandonment of certain coastal
areas, possibly over the course of many decades, and conferring
'residual life' on defence works currently protecting assets which
are untenable in the long term[138]
[139]. We strongly
urge MAFF to give its fullest possible attention to the formulation
of long term adaptive policies of this sort. Moreover, wherever
possible - and providing the fullest possible consideration has
been given to the safety or defence implications and the consequences
for urban industrial development already there - we believe
there is a need to reduce long term downstream flooding and erosion
risk through the gradual, phased removal of some hard-engineered
constraints on rivers[140]
and flood defences now deemed to be obsolete, and their replacement
with more environmentally sustainable alternatives, for example
washlands and source control measures (see paragraph 104).
Departmental
responsibility for flood and coastal defence
94. We heard a variety of opinions on whether or
not MAFF should retain overall policy responsibility for flood
and coastal defence in England and Wales. Strong arguments were
advanced by the Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK for the Ministry relinquishing
these duties, as this policy area is increasingly peripheral to
MAFF's principal agricultural mandate, and MAFF provides only
a minority of national expenditure for flood and coastal defence[141].
The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
also recommended that MAFF's role be critically examined, "with
a view to moving responsibility [for flood and coastal defence]
from MAFF to DETR"[142].
By contrast, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds commented
that, whilst in the past it had favoured DETR assuming the status
of lead agency, MAFF's recent efforts to reduce the environmentally
damaging impact of these policies were commendable, and that,
consequently, the Society no longer saw the need for a transfer
of administrative responsibilities away from the Ministry[143].
Not only in environmental respects, but also more generally, MAFF's
policy formulations were in general highly praised by many witnesses[144].
We echo the RSPB's sentiments, believing that the issue of
where departmental responsibility should lie to be more superficial
than substantial. Far more important is that the current sound
progress of the last six years is built upon, that organisational
relations and collaboration between MAFF and DETR
are improved and deepened, and that sustainability objectives
are built into all aspects of flood and coastal defence policy.
We also note that, with the publication of the Comprehensive Spending
Review and the allocation to MAFF of increased expenditure for
flood defence, the policy of the Government on this matter has
apparently been settled.
Conclusion
95. Our examination of the existing institutional
arrangements for the delivery of flood and coastal defence policy
has led us to reach a number of conclusions and recommendations
designed to improve the formulation, implementation and financing
of that policy. We would describe our central recommendations
as the following:
(i) the establishment
of a clear distinction between inland and coastal issues, reflected
in the administrative structure;
(ii) integrated management of flooding
issues for main rivers, non-main rivers and in Internal Drainage
Board Areas;
(iii) integrated management of flooding
and erosion issues on the coast;
(iv) strategic direction of policy
at the national level by MAFF, as now, with the Environment Agency
responsible for all flood and coastal defence issues in an advisory
and supervisory role, and implementation of policy executed at
a regional level.
In paragraph 22 we reproduced MAFF's diagram setting
out the current institutional structures of flood and coastal
defence policy. Our preferred structure would be as follows:
Both RFDCs and coastal groups would continue to have
a strong element of democratic accountability, primarily through
the membership of local authorities, and would also reflect the
range of other organisations and interests involved in flood and
coastal defence: IDBs, private land owners, agricultural and industrial
interests and environmental groups. We would also favour a radical
simplification and centralisation of funding arrangements for
flood and coastal defence, with applications for grant-in-aid
funding submitted by RFDCs and coastal groups, with Environment
Agency guidance, to MAFF. RFDCs and coastal groups would liaise
on issues of joint interest: in management of estuaries, for example,
or where coastal and inland policies are interdependent.
107 Appendix 13 Back
108
Ev p 69 Back
109
Appendix 33 Back
110
Ev p 111;see also Q 332 Back
111
Qq 442, 473 Back
112
Ev pp 158-159; Ev p 141; this point is contested by the relevant
LFDC Back
113
Appendix 5 Back
114
Ev p 69 Back
115
Ev p 181 Back
116
Q 5 Back
117
Appendix 20 Back
118
Appendix 20 Back
119
Appendix 52 Back
120
Ev p 5 Back
121
Ev p 179 Back
122
Ev p 117 Back
123
Appendix 52 Back
124
Q 448 Back
125
Appendix 20 Back
126
Q 80 Back
127
Easter Floods 1998: a preliminary assessment by the Environment
Agency: Report to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries
and Food, April 1998 p 30 Back
128
Appendix 43 Back
129
For example Ev p 157 Back
130
Q 82 Back
131
Appendix 20 Back
132
Appendix 52 Back
133
Scottish Office Planning Policy Guidance for Flooding (NPPG
7) Back
134
Appendix 39 Back
135
See Q 501 Back
136
Ev p 182 Back
137
Appendix 6 Back
138
Q 451 Back
139
Ev p 108 Back
140
The Wildlife Trusts and WWF-UK told us that less than 10 per cent
of the river length on 4,500 sites in England and Wales was free
from structural alteration; see Ev p 113 Back
141
Q 323 Back
142
Appendix 8 Back
143
Ev p 101 Back
144
Ev p 52; Ev p 156; Ev p 176 Back
