SUMMARY
38. The main thrust of the Institute's representations
is as follows:
(a) There is no doubt that where there is
a known flood risk, development should not be permitted, unless
it can be absolutely guaranteed that the flood risk can be eliminated
(as part of the development), and the caveat emptor principle
should not apply; however the responsibility for determining planning
applications in flood risk areas should remain with the locally
accountable planning authority.
(b) It should be the responsibility of the
Environment Agency to indicate where land is at risk from flooding.
(This should also have regard for the possible consequences of
a global warming). It should also indicate where new development
may increase flood risks elsewhere (usually down stream);
(c) Such information should be included as
a constraint in local plans and be subject to appropriate policies
which should be respected in accordance with section 54A of the
Town and Country Planning Act 1990. This states:
"where, in making any determination
under the Planning Acts, regard is to be had to the development
plan, a determination should be made in accordance with the plan
unless material considerations indicate otherwise".
This section is at the heart of the
"plan led" approach to the planning system being taken
by the Government. It should help to ensure that planning applications
are determined in accordance with policies to prevent development
in areas subject to flood risks.
(d) Responsibilities for coastal defence
and associated activity should be clearly defined so there is
no room for identification of those responsibilities to other
bodies. The Committee will no doubt consider (as did the Environment
Committee when considering coasts) the responsibilities for protection
and planning and whether arrangements for flood prevention and
coastal defences need to be rationalised.
(e) The Committee should assure itself that
the consultation arrangements as between planning authorities
and those bodies responsible for flood prevention in all its aspects
are unambiguous and are statutorily established so as to be "two-way".
One-way consultation requirements are not an ideal way to achieve
satisfactory liaison arrangements.
CONCLUSION
39. The Institute's wishes to support paragraphs
2.4, 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8 of the Memorandum of Evidence submitted
by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. It particularly
supports the reference to flood and coastal defence needing to
be better integrated with other river and coastal management activities
(paragraph 2.6).
40. The Institute is pleased to have had
the opportunity to give evidence on Flood and Coastal Defence
and will be pleased to elaborate on the points made if the Committee
so wished.
15 May 1998