Examination of witnesses (Questions 475 - 499)
WEDNESDAY 17 JUNE 1998
MR CHRIS
DAVIES, MR
KEITH RIDDELL,
MR JEREMY
MOODY and MR
TOM WHITE
Chairman
475. Gentlemen, thank you very much indeed for your written
evidence, which the Committee has read with great interest, and
thank you for coming along today for this session of the Agriculture
Committee's inquiry. May I begin by inviting you, Mr Davies and
Mr Moody, to introduce yourselves and your colleagues?
(Mr Davies) Thank you, Mr Chairman. My name is
Chris Davies, I am a Director of an international firm of consulting
engineers which undertakes coastal and river defence work, both
in the United Kingdom and overseas. I represent the Maritime Board
in the Institution of Civil Engineers. I am also Chairman of the
Institution's Coastal Engineering Advisory Panel. My colleague,
Mr Keith Riddell, is also a Director of an international firm
of consulting engineers, a different firm, one of my competitors.
He represents the Water Board of the Institution. I will lead
on answers on coastal issues; Mr Riddell will lead on answers
on river issues, but with your permission, Chairman, we both have
experience of both areas so we may add to each other's answers.
(Mr Moody) My name is Jeremy Moody, I am Secretary
and Adviser to the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers,
a professional body which represents agricultural valuers throughout
England and Wales. I have liaised with valuers across England
and Wales in preparation for this evidence but I have also brought
with me Mr Tom White, who is a partner with Brown & Co., a
partnership of agricultural valuers across Eastern England, the
East Midlands and into Yorkshire, for his expertise in valuation
matters and in practical experience from professional work based
in Spalding.
476. Thank you very much. I think you saw the way we
conducted the last session. We will all be directing questions
to one or other of you but we think there are issues of mutual
interest which affect both of you, so please feel free to come
in with a supplementary point, even if the question itself was
not actually directed to you. I would like to begin, if I may,
with the Institution of Civil Engineers, Mr Davies. In your evidence
to us you made a claim which certainly caught my eye, which I
was interested by. You said, like everyone, it seems to us, that
the MAFF policy changes have been "commendable". That
seems to be common ground amongst all our witnesses, but you then
said that MAFF's policies and guidance notes "are accepted
as leading to sustainable flood and coastal defence." That
came as a bit of a surprise to me. That seemed quite a big claim.
I wondered if there was something missing from the sentence such
as "being capable of leading to sustainable flood and coastal
defence". Is it not the case that individual operating authorities
have a far greater impact on what actually is sustainable?
(Mr Davies) I think it was a recognition that
the MAFF's development policies over the last ten years provide
that framework. I agree with you that it is how the individual
promoting authorities instigate the schemes and the attention
they pay to the various issues which I think dictate the success
of those policies.
477. So you think your claim perhaps is a little grand
in the evidence, on reflection?
(Mr Davies) Yes.
478. Thank you. I think that helps. Perhaps you could
define, from your perspective as an engineer, what the word "sustainable"
means in the context of flood and coastal defence? I think this
word means a lot of things to different people.
(Mr Davies) I think there are probably two definitions.
If we did not have the problem of the status quo of existing coastal
defence/flood defence structures, then I think our view would
be that sustainability was something that allowed natural processes
to continue without any detrimental effect. But we are actually
dealing in most cases with situations which are dictated by the
status quo. Where there is an existing development there is a
need to provide correct protection, taking account of the economic
value of an area and the social value of an area. So in that term,
sustainability is a balance between sustaining what is there,
if the decision is to retain what is there, and also trying to
make sure that what we do does not have an adverse impact on other
areas.
479. I am speaking as somebody who thought of becoming
an engineer, so I am very sympathetic towards your profession.
I just have this slight suspicion at the back of my mind that
you will always favour hard engineering solutions because they
make more work for your members.
(Mr Davies) I think if you had asked the same
question about 15 years ago you would have had a different answer
which probably would have been in keeping with your comment.
480. Prejudice!
(Mr Davies) The whole world is changing and civil
engineers are now embracing what other institutions or other views
are. Consultation is the key, so I think most of our profession
have embraced those views and we take account of all issues within
the framework.
481. So you would use the word "sustainability"
in this context broadly in the same way as English Nature would
have used it in their evidence to us?
(Mr Davies) Yes.
482. Just one last point from me: you said two things
in your evidence which we thought were slightly at odds with each
other. Do not get too worried, it is not a huge point, but you
said, first of all, that MAFF's role was necessary and useful
and then you described it as archaic later in the evidence, its
involvement. I wonder whether you think it could perform that
necessary and useful role somewhere else. Is that what you are
saying in your evidence?
(Mr Davies) I think the first statement is a recognition
that there needs to be an organisation that is controlling the
situation. I think the second comment is a comment on the framework
and the legislation within which MAFF operate.
483. But was this a hint that you would actually like
to see the responsibilities transferred to something like, say,
the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions?
(Mr Davies) I think we would like to see a review
of lots of things.
484. You are being very diplomatic. You are not going
to express what your deeply-felt personal conviction is on this
matter?
(Mr Davies) I do not know what the alternative
would be. No, I sincerely think there is a need for a critical
review.
Chairman: We hope that Committee is doing that job
now. Sally Keeble?
Ms Keeble
485. Thank you. To the Civil Engineers, I want to come
back to the point you made about the review, which you mentioned
in your evidence. On page 2 at the bottom you say that you believe
the legislative and financial arrangements need to be reviewed.
Could you say what you would like to see, first legislative and
then financial?
(Mr Davies) If I could comment on the financial
issues first and then pass on to my colleague because I know he
has some views as well, as civil engineers we are working in the
wider construction industry and we work with both private industry
and the public sector. There are lots of opportunities in terms
of financial arrangements available and being used in terms of
general construction which we feel could be applied beneficially
to certainly coastal defence work.
486. Like what?
(Mr Davies) PFI obviously is a major area at the
moment. I know that MAFF and the Environment Agency are looking
at test cases on that. That is one particular issue. Also, we
feel that, looking at the finance and economic arrangements and
benefit cost in terms of looking at coastal and flood defence
schemes, if there were more flexibility there then sometimes the
economic and financial arrangements affect the choice of scheme
and it may be with a different arrangement one would actually
provide a different solution to the problem.
487. Could I come back a bit more on the financial issues
before we move on to the others. I have been putting down a couple
of Parliamentary Questions about the financial arrangements and
they seem to me to be fairly chaotic. You have to live in a sense
with the consequences of that because you actually do building.
Do you see, from your own practical experience, that there is
a problem with all the different funding streams, about four of
them in total, and do you see that that does sometimes mean that
the schemes you might think would be best are not chosen necessarily?
(Mr Davies) Yes, I do. I think the other thing
is that if I reflect back over the last ten to 15 years, looking
at scheme promotion, accepted that there is far more consultation,
and looking at environmental issues, which extends the process
slightly, I think the process or the time now to promote a scheme
has increased significantly, far more than is accountable for
by that process. I think on reflection a lot of that is to do
with the financial issues and the availability of money to build
things, and there seems to be a very long lead-in time now which
to a practitioner is something which appears to be unnecessary.
488. I am not sure if this would necessarily come under
your work, it is probably more the sort of work which in PFI would
be done, say, by the financial advisers, but one of the things
that has also struck me is that there is a pretty flaky approach
to cost-benefit analysis and I wondered what you thought about
that and whether, when you go to do a building project, you actually
see the rigorous cost-benefit analysis of how much in terms of
value would be saved by undertaking this work and preventing flooding,
and if that is applied consistently across the country? It is
true it is applied in some cases.
(Mr Riddell) If I may come in here, the benefit-cost
issue does affect our choice of schemes. In particular the techniques
and methods that are used at present are perhaps not the most
suitable ones for schemes that are inevitably very long-term.
In terms of shoreline management plans, etc. we are looking 75
years into the future and the way benefit-cost methodologies are
applied is such that both costs and benefits disappear to virtually
nothing after 25 years in any case. Therefore, the impacts in
both directions after that period almost have no effect on your
decision-making. Similarly, there is not adequate attention, I
feel, paid to the fact that a lot of the decisions made are irreversible;
you cannot change your mind in five years' time and say, "The
economic situation has changed. We will now change this decision."
You already have land that is under water or lost to the sea.
Therefore, I think a fundamental review of those methods is required.
In my experience of real projects, then I do not think that benefit-cost
is applied in what you describe as a flaky fashion. I think it
is applied nationally and regionally in a very rigorous fashion
and consistent fashion and this has been achieved over recent
years and achieved by the more proactive role that MAFF have been
adopting in delivering guidance in applying the rules for grant-aid.
489. Would you like to comment now on what you were going
to say about the legislative changes?
(Mr Riddell) I am not sure I am particularly going
to add anything on the legislative side per se because
I think the two things are tied up together, but I would like
to reinforce the point, because it does perhaps overlap into both
fields, about legislation and financial arrangements together,
because I firmly believe that some of the most beneficial projects
or opportunities, let us say, for the nation are perhaps being
missed due to the perils of the multiple funding route and, in
fact, schemes, projects, strategies, plans for particular areas
that have a multitude of potential benefits and, therefore, could
attract partial funding, let us say, from various corners, do
not achieve that; they just do not get off the ground.
490. You implied in what you said earlier that you were
cautious about the decision-making structure at present. Would
you prefer to see more strategic decision-making rather than so
much local and, therefore, almost inherently fragmented decision-making?
(Mr Riddell) I do not think strategic decision-making
necessarily is at odds with regional and local issues. I think
one can have a strategic framework that embraces regional and
local concerns.
491. I quite take your point. So you are happy with the
present arrangement where you have the Environment Agency, the
regional committees and the local committees, are you?
(Mr Riddell) I think if anything, as a trend,
I would see a swing more towards regional issues being taken fuller
account of.
(Mr Davies) Could I come back to the legislation
issue, because I changed the order, just to add that our view
is that appropriate legislation is in place. There is lots of
legislation, probably too much. I think it is how that legislation
is interpreted and where the emphasis is put, but one key area
that we feel needs to be looked at is to get away from this difference
between the way sea defence and coastal defence are treated in
the legislation. I think there needs to be an integration of the
treatment of those two issues.
492. You have also suggested that there should be links
with the DETR on certain issues. On page 4, the second paragraph,
you say: "Stronger links with the development-related issues
dealt with by the DETR could therefore be beneficial." Do
you want to expand on that?
(Mr Davies) I think this is a recognition that
the whole scenario in terms of coastal defence and flood defence
has changed dramatically in recent years. There was some comment
before about the planning process. We have the shoreline management
plans, coastal zone management plans, feeding into the strategy
plans. I think our comments on that are that the planning process
is in position. We are very pleased to see that shoreline management
plans and coastal zone management plans are going to feed into
each other. I think there should be a check on how effectively
they feed into each other in future. Our concern in the past,
looking on a project-by-project basis, is that there has been
some development in areas where maybe there should not have been.
That is one issue in terms of the DETR. The other is a recognition
that the development pressure we perceive in future years, the
need to build a lot more houses, people wanting to live near the
coast and near rivers, will increase in the future. So we feel
there needs to be a positive link with that process.
493. To the agricultural valuers, because you also make
quite a number of comments about the need for more integration:
do you have any comments on what has just been said?
(Mr Moody) I think our concern would rest on not
losing some of the benefits that we now have from particularly
the local work, which is much appreciated, of the Internal Drainage
Boards, a concern that it is too easy to confuse institutional
re-organisation with progress and that something may be lost.
What we have, drawing from experience of the individual specific
on the ground, is the sense that the further you move away from
the local the more it appears to be subject to confusion, and
I think in part that may be confusion as to policy objective,
that there may be very genuine reasons for dispute which may then
take a long time to resolve, but that you then lose, if you like,
the simple goal which we see with the IDBs, and it is looking
at the system from very much the under-side. That is the concern,
that if decision-making were removed to a level remote from the
locality, you would then lose the ability to handle the very specific
problems that individual areas have, at the expense of protracted
decision-making which may be very confused as to its objectives.
Co-ordination is doubtless worthy; integration may be, but we
will test it by its results.
Chairman
494. There is one question which I thought Sally Keeble
was going to deal with which I would like to ask the valuers about
in particular, because it is an issue which is quite live, certainly
in my constituency, and it is this main river/non-main river division,
the responsibility of the Environment Agency for main rivers and
local district councils for the non-main rivers. Are you satisfied
with the distinction between main rivers and non-main rivers,
how it actually works in practice? You seem to say it has adverse
effects on flood defence. Perhaps you could give us some examples
of how that has been the case?
(Mr Moody) We have not brought you particular
evidence on that.
495. Sorry, I misread my brief. In fact, it is the ICE
who said that, not you. So I withdraw. Mr Davies, the same question?
(Mr Davies) Just a very quick comment. Yes, we
did comment on this but I think the concern is that there is a
potential for a different level of service. There will be the
same problems but, in fact, they will be treated differently.
I certainly know of instances where the EA has been responsible
for a main river. They have carried out works and adjacent non-main
river works that have been very urgent, of the same urgency, have
not been carried out.
496. Through a lack of resource at district council or
a lack of understanding?
(Mr Davies) Probably a combination of both.
(Mr Moody) I think from such practical experience
as we have that would be the reaction as to separation of responsibility
and then further upstream being uncertain as to the divide between
those watercourses for which anybody has the responsibility other
than the land owners themselves, which quite often in steep-sided
Cotswold valleys or whatever can lead to confusion as to where
responsibility lies.
497. But the enforcement function would rest with the
district council even for those, would it not?
(Mr Moody) Probably, but it could take a while
for that to be made clear.
(Mr Riddell) One point we would like to make in
relation to that is that we are not necessarily against the concept
of a division between main river and non-main river, but that
we have observed in practice that these divisions have been built
up over a long period of time. They are historical divisions more
than anything else and there is scope for a review of where main
river stops and where non-main river starts and that might relieve
a lot of the problems that are observed at present.
498. I may be pushing you here beyond your level of knowledge,
I am not sure, but would you say that, given increased storm run-off
and so on, there is a case for making that something of a priority,
that the issues that it raises are becoming more acute because
failure of management of non-main rivers could have severe implications
for local flooding?
(Mr Riddell) I think that has some effect but
I think it is a minor effect. I think the review of the division
is necessary in any case, regardless of increased storm run-off.
(Mr White) May I add something here, in the sense
that the situation has changed in the speed of the run-off due
to ploughing-up of grassland, artificial drainage, increased area
of concrete. For example, in Spalding, my town, there used to
be an 80-hour period before the high-level water came down to
Spalding. It has now been reduced to 58 hours. Eighty was the
traditional period of time and it has now been reduced to 58 as
a result of a combination of ploughing-up the Welland Valley grassland,
artificial drainage and run-off from obviously urban areas, and
that has consequences for the need to be more efficient in the
water management.
Chairman: Despite my asking the question of the wrong
people, you had some very interesting views to give us, so I am
grateful for that. It leads neatly on to Mr Todd's questions.
Mr Todd
499. Mr Davies, you referred to some inappropriate developments
being permitted in areas at risk. Obviously guidance does exist
at the moment to local authorities. Does it work?
(Mr Davies) Certainly, if you look on a case-by-case
basis in the past, then you can cite many cases where it has not
worked, but I do believe in the last ten years there has been
a change in the integration between the engineers' view and the
planners' view, etc., so I would hope that the policies may result
in either non-appropriate development not taking place or, if
it is deemed necessary in an area that development has to take
place in that area, then there are some compensatory measures,
proper measures, taken in response to the loss of the flood plain.
I have in mind the creation of storage areas rather than flood
plain, which, in fact, could be beneficial in terms of provision
of water, provision of recreational areas. So it is an indication
that one has to look at the overall picture, not just purely to
that held as the flood plain.
|
