Select Committee on Agriculture Sixth Report

APPENDIX 18

Memorandum submitted by Professor J B Joseph (F29)

  I refer to your press notice number 19 of the 1997-98 session, dated 6 March 1998. Please find attached a series of comments concerning the effectiveness of current expenditure and policy on flood defence.

  I am a professional hydrogeologist and a Chartered Geologist, and have spent most of my career in the water industry—in this country and abroad—working variously in the public, private and research sectors. I have been a member of the Thames Regional Flood Defence Committee, as a MAFF nominee, for about seven years.

  In general the current system of policies and expenditures on flood defence works well. I do not believe that it is in need of major change, there is no value in change for the sake of it. There are, nonetheless, some matters and areas which could do with consideration and review.

1.  MAFF GRANT AID AND FINANCIAL MEMORANDA

  MAFF, through the use of grant aid and financial memoranda, have the power to prevent schemes from going ahead. Because they do not carry any responsibility with their power they seem happy to apply rigid formulae to proposals. If the formulae had any foundation in science or engineering such application might be reasonable—they do not so it is often unreasonable.

  Privately, senior MAFF staff seem to be well aware of the problem and to understand the difficulties that it causes. They know, for instance, that it is non-sensical to try to measure the residual life of a protection system with any sort of accuracy, let alone the one to two years that is sometimes demanded. Despite such understanding and awareness they seem unable to offer assistance or support when a review is under way, or to attempt to modify the system.

2.  LOCAL FLOOD DEFENCE COMMITTEES, ETC

  It has been suggested that local flood defence committees might be set up to act either on their own or as subordinates to regional committees. At times it may be sensible to appoint a sub-committee with one or more remits relating to a particular area over a particular time. In general, however, I believe that the breadth of view and robustness of responsibility for finance, etc, that are necessary can only be offered by regional bodies. Local finance can often cause problems and benefits are unlikely to arise from the inefficiencies of servicing large numbers of small committees.

  In some regions—not including Thames—a number of internal drainage boards exist. These seem to operate independently of the Environment Agency's policies and statutory committees, and can be a cause of considerable confusion and difficulty. There would be an advantage if the roles and responsibilities of such bodies were rationalised, to ensure that full coverage is provided while the potential for conflict is minimised. It is extremely unhelpful, when dealing with such bodies, to find that their local requirements are in conflict with those of other regulators handling the same issue.

  Some rationalisation would be beneficial, too, between the roles of local authorities and others involved in flood defence and drainage. There is considerable potential for conflict because of the different treatments and responsibilities for main and non-main rivers, and the junctions between these two categories.

3.  CENTRALISED BUDGETING

  It has recently been suggested—perhaps without thought—that flood defence budgeting for England and Wales should be carried out centrally. It is noted above that flood defence is a regional issue. There is a need at times for local committees to handle local matters but, in general, the strength and breadth of vision of a regional body and structure are important. By the same token, issues of flood defence cannot be handled centrally—they are very much regional matters because they relate to individual river catchments. It is difficult to see how any adequate inter-regional balance could be achieved centrally between projects that are essentially regional in nature. The balances that are struck within regions by regional committees are not always seen as beneficial by all of those affected but they do, at least, have some validity.

4.  FLOOD DEFENCE COMMITTEE STRUCTURE

  At first sight the current structure of the regional flood defence committees appears awkward. In practice it works well, with a useful balance between local representation and a wide range of technical input. It is of great value that technical matters can be tempered by discussion of local democratic views in the committee, and vice versa.

  The strength and consistency of "local" input is maintained by the system of rolling funding. Again, this appears awkward but is actually a very practical means of ensuring that full weight is given to local views and discussion.

5.  BUILDING ON FLOOD PLAINS

  The Agency is a statutory consultee with respect to planning applications for building on flood plains, as far as local authorities are concerned. That is a benefit. It has, however, no powers in this respect and it is not uncommon for its views to be disregarded. Further, some local authorities seem to ignore the role of the Agency all together at times, if not consistently. As a result, structures may be permitted on some flood plains even though they are likely to cause or enhance flooding in the same area to the detriment of others.

  It might be helpful if planning applications were required to carry a stamp or certificate from the Agency, showing that they had been consulted and carrying their comments, before approval could legally be given. It would also be of considerable benefit if the same rules applied to other government bodies and departments. Some of the government's agencies are known for failing even to seek the views of their own experts on issues such as flood plain protection, let alone consulting bodies such as the Agency which have responsibilities in the area.

6.  COASTAL PROCESSES

  It is not clear whether, under current legislation, the Agency will be able to take due account of all the factors arising from coastal protection or managed retreat. However uncomfortable it may be, the principle of managed retreat is logical. It appears that it may be restricted to areas in agricultural or similar use. This could result in the interesting spectacle of all coastal towns protected from the tides and storms almost regardless of cost or difficulty while the surrounding land is reclaimed by the sea. If current policies are pursued to their extreme conclusion, such towns might well become heavily protected, low level, islands at the end of long spine roads on causeways cutting across huge, shallow, wetlands. The benefits of such an outcome are barely worth debating.

7.  ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

  This is another important area where MAFF, the Agency and others seems to have got things just about right. There is no doubt that views and policies concerning appropriate methods of dealing with the environment and environmental issues will change with time. The system of guidelines, codes of practice, regulation, etc, and of discussion between the various parties is flexible, works well and seems to be very helpful. It will allow adjustment over time to take account of changing views, needs and understanding of the environment. It should be allowed to continue in its own way, guided by those with the relevant expertise and knowledge.

  The views expressed above are my own. I remain ready to respond to any request by the Agriculture Committee, or any body or group that it may set up, to provide additional oral or written evidence.

17 April 1998

---

---

Prepared 5 August 1998