Examination of Witnesses (Questions 333
- 339)
WEDNESDAY 19 MAY 2004
MR ELLIOT
MORLEY, MP AND
MR RICHARD
BIRD
Chairman: Minister, you are most welcome.
You are an old friend of the Committee and I am sure we will enjoy
our exchanges with you. You are accompanied by Mr Richard Bird
who I gather regales in the title of Director, Water, of Defra,
which has a Canute-like quality to it. I am sure if you could
do what Canute could not do on behalf of your department it would
be a lot cheaper than some of the things that we may want to talk
to you about. Minister, given that you are the man who carries
the label of the Minister for Floods, I wonder whether Defra has
a long term investment plan in rather bigger waders than you are
used to, to enable you to continue to go out and deal with these
matters. Before you respond to that let me ask David Lepper if
he would be kind enough to commence our more serious inquiry.
Q333 Mr Lepper: I thought that was
a serious point, Chairman. I am interested in the relationship
between Defra and ODPM especially. Defra's written submission
to us talks about the impact of current developments and climate
change on flood risk and water availability, particularly in areas
of large scale house building in the south east.[19]
Obviously, we have discussed this a bit with Barbara Young and
her colleagues earlier this afternoon. What is the rationale for
allowing that large scale house building in areas where there
is already pressure on water resources, where the flood risk is
high? We heard some comment from Baroness Young earlier about
the Environment Agency's anxieties about getting the supply to
some new developments. What is the view of Defra about that? What
conversations take place at a very early stage with ODPM before
they make announcements about these developments?
Mr Morley: Can I start by saying
that it is always nice to come before the committee and follow
these inquiries. I think it is a very relevant inquiry at this
time that you are looking at, Chairman. Of course, it is a cross-cutting
Government issue and you are quite right that there has to be
involvement with Defra, with ODPM and indeed other departments
at a very early stage. That is being done. Water companies of
course do have 25-year plans in relation to forecasting due to
changes in water consumption, and of course we make sure through
Defra that they follow that, through the offices of the regulators.
The regulator has a responsibility for this as well. If you take
the example of the Thames Gateway, which is very pertinent to
London, there is a special Cabinet Committee, MISC 22, which contains
representatives of all Government departments, including Defra,
where there has been a lot of discussion about development (which
we are very interested in) in relation to sustainability. There
has also been a joint group looking at better building regulations
in which Defra has been involved. Their report came out on Monday
and the Government will respond to that in due course. It was
a very good report, very helpful in terms of building standards,
water use, energy use, the kinds of issues that we are very concerned
about. As far as flood risk is concerned there does have to be
careful consideration by the planning authorities in relation
to where new development goes. They are obliged to take into account
flood risk under PPG25 and I understand, looking at some of the
reports around the country, that there has been quite a big change
in terms of the influence of the Environment Agency which it is
proposed should be a statutory consultee, and planners are very
reluctant these days to go against the advice of the Environment
Agency, particularly going back to the 2000 floods, because that
demonstrated that over the dry period of the eighties and nineties
there was quite a lot of inappropriate development. However, it
remains the case that a lot of our urban areas are on flood plains.
Significant areas of London itself are on a flood plain, generally
protected to over a 1-in-1,000 year standard. To go back to the
Thames Gateway, that area is defended to a very high standard.
It is a 1-in-1,000 year standard although it will of course in
due course need to be upgraded and maintained in the normal way.
That includes the Thames Barrier. That part of those defences
defends London now. You have existing defences, so therefore the
development behind it is behind defences that will always have
to be maintained because they are providing an important role
in terms of London's overall defence. You will have to design
in such things as green spaces. ODPM has made an announcement
on its green space policy in terms of new development. You could
use green spaces as buffer zones in relation to flood management,
water management, sustainable drainage. These can be designed
in from the very beginning, particularly in new developments,
which of course these will be. I also think there are opportunities
in new developments to design in from the very beginning water
efficiency measures in terms of the houses, rain catchment systems,
for example, which is a very low-cost issue. There are various
standards that you can put in ranging from very sophisticated
separate grey water systems in houses to more simple ones, but
even the simplest systems will probably give you a 25% saving
in average water consumption, and of course it is to the benefit
of the people who have the houses, whether they are tenants or
home owners. There is a great deal of cross-government working
in strategy, planning and the various standards which are being
applied.
Q334 Mr Lepper: PPG25, which you
have mentioned, is being reviewed later this year?
Mr Morley: Yes.
Q335 Mr Lepper: Are the sorts of
things you have just been listing for us likely to come up in
that review? What would Defra like to see happening to PPG25 or
its successor?
Mr Morley: In terms of PPG25,
we think that it does contain a lot of the main elements that
we want to see, not least that if you have development on flood
plains then there should be an obligation on the developer to
contribute towards measures for flood alleviation. That must take
into account existing communities because you can put measures
in one place that can have an impact on another. The other thing
we would like to see is that again in terms of building standards
and house design there are some fairly simple resilience measures
that could be built in from the very beginning which do not add
particularly to the cost but would help a great deal should a
house suffer flooding in terms of its design, its floors, the
nature of its plaster and so on. That is something which has been
flagged up by the Better Building Regulation Task Group and that
is something we would also like to see.
Q336 Mr Lepper: Is there not a danger
that the drive to get a lot more houses built quickly is going
to overwhelm the perhaps rather slower process of consideration
of some of these issues?
Mr Morley: I hope not. I think
that there is a lot of interest in the idea of some of these new
estates which are being built, which are not quite the new town
movements that followed post-war development but do have similarities.
I think myself that there is a real opportunity here, Chairman,
to design in from the very beginning some really high standards
of sustainable living in terms of the whole liveability of the
housing estates and the design of their houses in relation to
consumption. I feel quite enthusiastic about the opportunities
that that presents. I think we should approach that in two ways.
One is that we will have to raise building standards, and that
includes the planning process, but that will inevitably be to
a certain level, although I am confident that it will be a lot
higher than it is at the present time, but I would like to do
better than that. I would also like to encourage developers to
use imaginative design. I have seen houses on, for example, the
BedZed Project, which is in London, which are designed to have
zero emissions, very low energy, very high efficiency in relation
to water use. We could have some developments like that which
go beyond the minimum and they are something that we want to encourage
developers to do.
Q337 Chairman: That is great. Everybody
looks at the new but there is an awful lot of existing. What is
your message about the existing properties in the context of the
questions that Mr Lepper has been asking?
Mr Morley: Within existing properties
there is a range of water efficiency devices that can be retro-fitted
that will give water saving, and of course there are still a lot
of properties which are not on water meters which could go on
water meters, so there is still an awful lot that could be done
in reducing water consumption generally, not just in the domestic
sector but also in industry and agriculture.
Q338 Chairman: Which of the many
scenarios which currently are around that underpin the predictions
for climate change and the impact that is going to have on water
and sewerage do you believe in?
Mr Morley: In terms of the scenarios
that feature in the Foresight Programme—is that what you
are referring to?
Q339 Chairman: We had in our previous
evidence the Environment Agency saying that Foresight might be
understating the situation by, in worst case flooding scenarios,
up to 20%. Foresight was said to be "a dry scenario".
Mr Morley: Blimey. If that is
the case I am even more worried than I was when I read the report.
Foresight has four scenarios and all but one are pretty worst
case scenarios. Of course, there is a lot of variability in terms
of global growth, action taken on reducing the greenhouse gases,
growth in the economy. Generally speaking there is a link between
growth and flood risk. It is inevitable that we will have continued
growth, although I do think—and I am going off the issue
a bit—that the time has come to try and evaluate what we
mean by growth and not look at it strictly in economic terms.
We have to look at quality of life and sustainable issues in terms
of growth, although this is just a personal thought. I think we
will continue to have growth and therefore we will continue to
have increased flood risk, and we will continue to have increased
pressure on our water resources.
19 Ev 89 Back
|
