APPENDIX 31
Memorandum submitted
by the Chief Executive, Northampton Borough Council (F47)
Ms Sally Keeble, MP for Northampton North, has
kept us informed of the recent work of your Agriculture Select
Committee Chaired by Mr Peter Luff MP, and particularly the hearing
with the Environment Agency on Tuesday, 28 April.
Following those various discussions I am writing
on behalf of this Council to offer evidence to the Select Committee
about the flooding which we experienced in Northampton on Good
Friday, 10 April. Although flooding was widespread throughout
the East Midlands and elsewhere, it seems not to have been generally
realised just how seriously Northampton was affected. Although
of course wide acreages of land were inundated, our enquiries
suggest that there were 10 or 12 authorities where the effects
were particularly serious in terms of deep water affecting large
numbers of homes and businesses. To our knowledge, Northampton
was much the most seriously affected of those in terms of numbers—some
2,300 homes were flooded, and large parts of the central area
of the town on either side of the River Nene in St James and Far
Cotton were flooded up to depths of four feet or more.
Many businesses were also seriously affected:
I believe, for instance, that Church's Shoes may have had as much
as £5 million worth of production destroyed or affected,
and the Council's main Depot which lies adjacent to the river
was deeply under water and suffered damage to offices, stores,
vehicles and compounds likely to be well in excess of £2
million.
We have offered evidence to the Environment
Agency's Public Inquiry and will also be holding our own local
inquiries into the lack of alerts or warnings and to the serious
questions which have been raised about flood defences (particularly
since some of the crucial installations cease to be maintained
by the Borough Council since the privatisation of Anglian Water
some five or so years ago).
At this stage it would not be appropriate to
take more time to dwell on the details of Northampton's position,
and I think that our experience would provide valuable additional
information in the context of the surprising revelations that
it was not national policy to warn in the case of Northampton
and its perceived flood risk. Should members of your Committee
wish to visit this area we should of course be pleased for them
to do so: many householders will have evidence of the extent of
the devastation they suffered for many weeks to come although,
of course, a tremendous effort is being made by all concerned
in drying out and reconstructing. This process is particularly
difficult for the many hundreds of local residents who, living
in less affluent parts of the town, had in the majority of cases
no insurance cover.
11 May 1998
|
