Memorandum by the House Builders Federation
(EA 82)
THE ROLE OF THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY IN RELATION
TO DEVELOPMENT AND THE RISK OF FLOODING
INTRODUCTION
1. The House Builders Federation represents
800 house building companies who together built 80 per cent of
new housing in England and Wales in 1997.
2. We understand that the DETR are currently
working on a revision to Circular 30/92—Development and
Flood Risk. We are concerned at the apparent pressure for the
Government to adopt extreme solutions to the problems associated
with development in areas of flood risk. The introduction of a
presumption against development in such areas is likely to have
political appeal but would be inappropriate and unnecessary with
damaging consequences.
3. There is at present great pressure to
introduce a variety of measures to prevent development on greenfield
sites. We consider that such pressure often distracts attention
from the framework that is necessary for local authorities to
plan positively for development that is safe, beneficial and sustainable.
Any presumption against development tends to deny the whole principle
that development can occur without detriment and with significant
social, economic and environmental benefits. This can be achieved
through a planning framework that allows for creativity as well
as restriction pursued through public/private partnership and
proper regulation.
4. This is the background to our conclusion
that, in respect of flood risk, the existing regulatory and financial
controls are, in the main, sufficient if they are exercised to
their full potential.
5. The Federation recognises the current
concern about new development and flood risk. That is, new development
which is itself at risk from coastal or inland flooding or from
coastal erosion or which may cause or exacerbate flooding elsewhere
by reducing flood plain storage, obstructing flood plain flows
or by increasing surface water run-off.
6. The Federation is a major stakeholder
in this area and wishes to work with policy makers and regulators
towards a positive solution that is both safe and sustainable.
SAFE AND
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
7. We consider that regulatory and financial
measures are available to limit the flood risk problems that may
arise from new development in certain circumstances. The role
of the Environment Agency is crucial in the provision of information
on flood risks in relation to land and property, the indication
of constraints on development, and the specification of how these
can be overcome (paragraph 5 Circular 30/92). These EA functions
are essential to enable developers to make appropriate financial
provisions and invest wisely in land.
8. The invitation for the HBF to submit
a memorandum to this inquiry refers to the possibility of a veto
on development in flood plains if the EA considers this necessary
to ensure proper protection from flooding. We consider that a
presumption against the use of land for development (a negative
presumption) is contrary to normal planning policy and practice.
If approved it would set a precedent for the introduction of other
negative presumptions.
9. The existing Circular 30/92 indicates
that development decisions should pay regard to flood defence
considerations and that development is permissible in principle
provided:
— the development is made safe from
flooding;
— it does not increase flood risks
elsewhere and;
— provision is made for the future
maintenance of any flood defence works built to facilitate the
development.
10. The satisfaction of these conditions
removes any need for a presumption against, or veto, on development
in flood plains. We refer to this as "the objective for safe
development". It is also understood that it is the responsibility
of planning authorities to ensure that this objective is met with
the benefit of advice from the Environment Agency on flood risk
matters and from English Nature on associated nature conservation
matters (paragraph 11 Circular 30/92).
11. This objective has been in place since
1992 and is a reflection of the objective contained in Circular
17/82 which it replaced. Development patterns and investment in
land have been influenced by government guidance based upon this
objective for well over 25 years.
12. To change from this objective for safe
development at the developers' expense, to a presumption against
flood plain development would be a major shift in principle. We
believe that such a shift is beyond the action necessary to allay
current public concern. It would have a detrimental effect on
the capacity to meet housing needs and could conflict with government
policy to maximise the housing potential of previously used and
urban land, much of which is subject to flood risk.
AVAILABILITY OF
LAND
13. We are concerned about the general availability
of land for development. Restrictions on greenfield development,
additional to those set out in draft PPG 3 (including the sequential
approach to housing allocations) could unnecessarily constrain
remaining options for sustainable development. If development
in flood plains, which meets the objective for safe development,
is to be resisted then the impact of this on the availability
of housing land needs to be thoroughly investigated. For example
alternative land that is free from flooding, but subject to other
constraints, may need to be released for development.
14. The supply and location of housing land
is subject to a high degree of planning control and any additional
restrictions must be considered in this wider context.
FLOOD PLAIN
MAPPING
15. Currently flood plain mapping as carried
out by the Environment Agency for planning authorities has a range
of accuracy in relation to risk. Maps range from definitive (ie
with a high level of confidence in the location of the flood plain
boundary "on the ground" for a flood of a given period)
to indicative, where the level of confidence is low. This range
of confidence arises as a result of the quality and quantity of
hydrological, hydraulic and photographic data of floods that is
available for flood recording and flood prediction. It also depends
upon the sophistication of flood prediction models used in each
location.
16. As the data varies in quality and quantity
throughout the country so too does the level of confidence in
the location of flood plain boundaries for floods of given return
periods. We consider that if flood plain maps were to be the basis
for any presumption against development, they would need to be
definitive with a minimum level of confidence and a consistent
standard across the country. We also believe that the data, the
maps and the methods used to produce them would need to be available
for public examination. Because of the planning blight they would
generate, we consider that there should be some form of arbitration.
FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS
ON DEVELOPERS
17. It is important to recognise the existing
planning arrangements and powers that can be used to require developers
to provide appropriate flood defence works at the point of development
(and/or upstream and downstream) as necessary. We cannot emphasise
too strongly that to succeed, these rely on the Environment Agency
providing flood risk surveys and identifying constraints on development
and ways in which these may be overcome. Provided the existing
arrangements and powers are used properly to ensure that flooding
problems do not arise, either on the development site or elsewhere,
we see no requirement for the Environment Agency to be given additional
powers.
18. We do see that there is a case for empowering
the Environment Agency or other appropriate public bodies to carry
out on or off-site flood defence works on behalf of developers
at their expense.
EXISTING PLANNING
ARRANGEMENTS
19. Paragraph 5 of circular 30/92 generally
requires that through the development plan and development control,
developers be made aware of the risks in specific areas, the consequent
constraints on development and any ways in which these can be
overcome. We feel that the detail, quality and extent of this
information should be sufficient to enable developers to assess
the economic viability of particular sites.
20. The cost of flood defences (including
on or off-site measures to deal safely with development run-off)
associated with the development should, like any other development
infrastructure requirement, be reflected in the value of development
land. This cost should not be passed on to house buyers or avoided
and picked up later by flood defence bodies when problems arise
and flood alleviation measures are called for at public expense.
21. It is therefore vital that information
on the requirements for safe development be available at an early
stage in the planning process so that both developers and landowners
can make financial provision for appropriate flood defences and
surface water disposal. We believe that the provision of this
information is critical and request that it be given high priority
in the Committee's recommendations.
22. The existing Circular gives clear guidance
on how potential flood risk problems should be identified, how
solutions should be sought, how agreed solutions should be negotiated
as planning agreements and how the solutions should be provided.
OFF SITE
WORKS
23. Access to off-site land, not in the
developers ownership, to carry out works is a major problem. We
would like to see consideration being given to the Environment
Agency or other public bodies being empowered to carry out off-site
flood defence works on behalf of developers. Also that consideration
be given to the use of local authority powers for land assembly
to facilitate off site works, especially in connection with major
development.
MULTIPLE AND
PHASED DEVELOPMENT
24. It is often the case that large areas
are developed by different companies at different times. Clearly
the provision of piecemeal flood defence infrastructure is not
sensible. There is a case for local authorities or the Environment
Agency being empowered to provide the overall infrastructure,
if necessary in a phased way, with the benefit of contributions
from developers.
ADOPTION OF
SURFACE WATER
RUN-OFF
CONTROLS
25. Attenuation: We consider that surface
attenuation systems aimed at limiting the rate of discharge at
the point of disposal back to the natural environment (ie a watercourse
or the ground) are part of the drainage system. Whilst water companies
are prepared to consider adopting attenuation tanks or oversized
sewers they are reluctant to adopt surface balancing ponds which
provide attenuation as part of the drainage system. As flow attenuation
is often used to avoid increasing downstream flood risks on the
receiving watercourse we consider that the adoption of only selected
forms of attenuation by water companies should be reviewed.
26. Source control: The disposal of run-offs
by infiltration into the ground, source control methods (soakaways,
porous pavements, infiltration trenches/swales) are seen as a
good way of maintaining the natural water cycle (ie avoiding overloading
rivers and helping to recharge aquifers) provided ground water
pollution is avoided. Increasingly, house builders will be willing
to provide these sustainable, environmentally beneficial solutions,
but there is a reluctance by water companies and highway authorities
to adopt these facilities. We would like to see more research
into these methods and an improvement in the options available
for their maintenance.
SURFACE WATER
RUN-OFF
STRATEGIES
27. The safe disposal of surface water run-off
from new development is clearly growing in importance. We are
aware that in one region the Environment Agency proposed Catchment
Drainage Plans which study the impact of run-off from new development
on flood risks by computer modelling. These plans consider the
best options for surface water disposal (attenuation, infiltration
or river works) where downstream flooding is a problem, at a local
and at a catchment wide level. The results of these studies can
then be fed into development plans with recommendations on the
most appropriate means of surface water disposal for land allocated
for development in the plan. This strategic and public approach
to surface water disposal is welcomed and we would like to see
it brought into wider use.
FLOOD PROTECTION
STANDARDS FOR
NEW DEVELOPMENT
28. Currently the Government provides indicative
standards of flood protection for existing property. This is given
in connection with the design and approval of flood alleviation
schemes. No such standards are provided for new development. We
feel that minimum standards of flood protection for new development
should be specified. Standards may well vary in relation to the
type of development and the value of what is at risk.
29. This would be particularly important
if it was decided that potential purchasers of property should
be informed of the flood risk to the property. This would not
be necessary if new homes were protected to the minimum standard.
Without a minimum standard all development, both existing and
new, which is protected by flood defences would have to have a
flood risk value attached.
STRATEGIC FLOOD
DEFENCE PLANNING—LAND
USE AND
FLOOD RISK
30. There is concern that run-off from new
development could increase flood risks. However, there are many
other changes in land use and land use management which can have
a similar effect. These include deforestation, ploughing across
contours rather than parallel to them, cropping regimes, the raising
of water levels in rural areas for conservation and the creation
of wetlands. To avoid increasing flooding risks as a result of
increased run-off from all land, we feel that the Environment
Agency has a vital role to play in modelling how all changes in
land use or land use management can affect flood risks. The EA
can then formulate catchment wide strategies that will help to
address the overall problem.
CONSISTENCY
31. We are concerned about inconsistency
in Environment Agency practice both between and within regions
in dealing with development and flood risk. In the Southern region
our members have been concerned at EA's advice to reject development
if it occurs below the flood defence level even when it is behind
a flood wall. There is no such requirement in the Thames Region.
32. We have also found that advice given
to our members in connection with individual developments indicates
disagreement between EA officers about the most appropriate and
acceptable design solutions. This has led to designs based on
EA advice being rejected, with different requirements substituted.
In one case, EA's original advice was contradicted and the developer
asked to adopt an alternative solution, only for that in turn
to be rejected in favour of the original solution. Apart from
the need for consistency within the Agency there is a need for
the primary contact engineer to have the necessary authority to
recommend sound design solutions.
33. There are also instances where EA officials
make judgements that conflict with the Agency's own best practice
notes. There is a tendency for advice and requirements to be given
on an ad hoc basis, contrary to the certainty and predictability
required within the planning system. The Agency also tends on
occasions to make general objections without any proper indication
of what it requires to address or overcome them.
34. We consider that these practices are
wasteful and confusing and should be addressed in any review of
EA performance. We question whether the Agency has the resources
and staff expertise necessary to provide advice on complex problems
and required technical solutions.
THE EA'S
ROLE IN
THE PLAN-LED
SYSTEM
35. The Government is committed to a planning
system that is led by development plans. This means that the principle
of the development is established via a development plan allocation
and not at the stage when a planning application is submitted.
We are concerned that the EA does not fully support this system
and often fails to make its views known during the preparation
of the development plan. As a result, it has to resort to "in-principle"
objections to planning applications on allocated sites that undermine
the development plan.
36. It should be appreciated that many of
our members' proposals involve regeneration of dilapidated and
previously used industrial land. The ability of our members to
pursue these more demanding development proposals in accordance
with Government policy is sometimes compromised by additional
costs, delay and uncertainty caused by EA's actions as detailed
above.
CONCLUSION
37. We are aware that we have discussed
safe development in this response and that sustainable development
is also the Government's objective.
38. We consider that safe development is
an immediate and ongoing objective and that sustainable development
is a longer term objective which needs to be phased in overtime.
We do not consider that sustainable development means that new
development with appropriate flood defences should be prevented.
39. We understand the pressure to constrain
development in areas of flood risk but this would be an extreme
and unnecessary solution, neglecting the considerable potential
to make development safe and beneficial. We therefore wish to
restate our desire to work with Government and regulatory bodies
to promote safe development (with the cost of achieving this reflected
in land values) and towards sustainable development. To a very
large extent, the existing regulatory framework is sufficient
to achieve this.
| 
