Examination of Witnesses (Questions 294
- 299)
WEDNESDAY 19 MAY 2004
BARONESS YOUNG
OF OLD
SCONE, DR
DAVID KING
AND MR
IAN BARKER
Q294 Chairman: Good afternoon. Can
I welcome our witnesses from the Environment Agency. Baroness
Young, the chief executive, an old friend of the Committee, welcome
to our proceedings. Welcome, Dr David King. We had another David
King last week so we will have to remember not to call you "Professor."
Baroness Young of Old Scone: We
call the other one "Super Dave".
Q295 Chairman: Mr Barker, you do
not feature on my list of forthcoming attractions. What do you
do?
Mr Barker: I am Head of Water
Resources at the Environment Agency.
Q296 Paddy Tipping: Sir David King
was with us last week and we talked about the Foresight Project.
It is early days yet. Clearly, you have seen it. What are the
implications for the Agency?
Baroness Young of Old Scone: We
have been delighted to be part of the Foresight process. Indeed,
we have been beginning to use the sorts of Foresight scenarios
in our water resources work for some considerable time, but this
was a useful addition in that it looked primarily at flooding
issues. Clearly, we are still absorbing what it says. The key
messages for us are that we now need to be sure that our future
longer term planning for flood defence work takes account of the
Foresight propositions, bearing in mind the wide range that they
cover. Also, though we do not absolutely have clarity about the
size of the resource that will be needed to cope with the climate
change impacts on flood risk management, it is clear that there
needs to be an increase of a substantial size in the resource
given to that. We were very pleased that Super Dave, if we can
call him that, endorsed that point.
Dr King: The key message coming
out for us is that, irrespective of what scenario that you take,
risk will increase. Secondly, there is a continuing need for investment.
Thirdly, in terms of flood risk management, it is about a palette
of activities. It is not just about flood defence. We need to
look at land management as well. Clearly, there needs to be more
rigour in terms of development in the flood plain and also consideration
to flood resilient properties etc. Those would be the principal
messages we would take from it.
Q297 Paddy Tipping: Let us stick
with flood defence for now. If there is to be an increase in resources
and I suspect that will be forthcoming over a period of time,
you need to be in a position to make judgments about how best
to use those resources. There is a lot of demand on you from a
lot of communities all over the shop saying, "We need this.
We need that." There are not enough resources around. How
do you make decisions about priorities, to begin with? Secondly,
just talk to me a bit about how you can protect the urban communities
but smaller, rural communities, for example, may be lower down
the list. Finally, people talk to us a lot about hard defence
systems. A lot more could be done with softer approaches, using
the flood plains more effectively. Perhaps you would talk us through
that as well.
Dr King: In terms of setting national
priorities, we have a well established procedure. We have a medium
term plan which looks out ten years. That plan identifies the
need. We overlay on that, depending on the resources that are
made available to the Agency a priority system. Obviously, every
scheme has to be tested as to whether it is environmentally sound,
whether it is economically viable and whether it is technically
acceptable. There is a well tried process and the Agency operates
through a system of committees. Each of the regions of the Agency
has a system of committees, so there is an input locally into
how those priorities are shaped. As far as using different techniques,
rather than just hard engineering, clearly there are opportunities
for soft engineering solutions and, as part of our planning process,
whether we are looking at a catchment management plan for flooding
or whether we are looking at shore line flooding, we look at the
options and where there are opportunities for using more sustainable
soft engineering solutions. There is an expectation that that
will grow as we go forward. Where you have small communities,
it is about looking at the tool kit that you have available. Sometimes
it will be about self-help. Over the last number of years, we
have seen the Flood Forum being very active. That is about promoting
what you can do at an individual household level. It is about
improving our warning system. It is about flood awareness and
of course there may be the option of a scheme but it has to be
accepted that it is not always possible to build a capital scheme.
There is a basket of things we can do.
Q298 Paddy Tipping: There are small
communities down the Severn and the Trent—Gunthorpe, for
example, in Nottinghamshire—that have very small populations
and a risk of flooding. In priority terms, they are pretty low
down and they are pretty desperate about the way forward. What
should we do to try and help communities like that that, in reality,
if we are straight with them, do not have the prospect of any
defence for many years to come?
Dr King: If you look at it in
terms of hard defences, that may well be true. We have also seen—indeed
they were tested in our most recent flooding—the deployment
of temporary defences. These are obviously a much cheaper solution
but nevertheless effective. Each individual case has to be looked
at.
Baroness Young of Old Scone: We
very much sympathise with these smaller communities, many of whom
have identified the need for some time. I think everyone would
accept that we need to spend public money on a prioritised basis,
where it can give the most benefit and where there are the highest
risks. It does reflect on the fact that the overall quantum of
resource needs to increase. Clearly, we would get to those smaller,
less high priority communities quicker if we were building up
the quantum. We were delighted to get additional funding from
government in the last spending review, but we need that sort
of growth, particularly in view of the Foresight Project, to keep
on an upward trajectory.
Q299 Paddy Tipping: Are we saying
the only way of providing flood defence is through the Environment
Agency and your own resources? What about things like planning
gain? What about the proposals that, if you are not going to live
in the flood plain, you ought to make a contribution yourself
and one could develop a notional pot of money so that there is
matching money towards that?
Baroness Young of Old Scone: One
of the issues that is quite important for us is, if we are going
to see an increase in the resource coming into flood risk management,
where is it going to come from. It may be possible through agreements
with developers to build in the real cost of the increased flood
risk management of that development. There was a proposition at
the time that the funding streams were reviewed for a connection
charge which still has not been taken forward, but that raises
comparatively small amounts of funding. I think we need to look
at other ways in which we can get resources into flood risk management
if it is not going to be straight grant aid from the Treasury.
We were delighted that local government, in spite of the fact
that the funding streams were centralised last year, did continue
to top up from local resources. Obviously, if there are particularly
deserving cases that are high priorities for a local authority,
we would be delighted if they felt able, either through agreements
with developers or raising local resources, to contribute. The
one thing we do not want to do is to give developers the impression
that you can buy the right to develop in the flood plain, because
there are some sorts of development in the flood plain that we
would absolutely not want to see, particularly vulnerable households
and vulnerable facilities. There are also developments that we
would not want to see, which is where basically it destroys the
ability of the flood plain to act as a flood plain and protect
other homes and businesses. The idea that if you pay enough money
you get to build we really must resist.
|
