Memorandum submitted by Ms J D Budden
(FL 137)
I am writing to you because although I don't
live in an area that was affected by the floods earlier in the
summer, in Exmouth we were subject to flash flooding after 22mm
of rain fell during 13 May. I live on the side of a hill, well
away from any streams and outside the Environment Agency's flood
map but my property was inundated by a sewer surcharge that came
within a whisker of coming inside. South West Water has now fitted
a non-return valve to my sewer, which should prevent it happening
again. However, I have discovered that there is a general lack
of preparedness in identifying and meeting the urban flooding
risk in the light of the more frequent intense torrential rain
that climate experts attest can be expected. I wanted to write
to you because I consider that the lessons that you uncover about
the areas that flooded so badly will undoubtedly apply to the
rest of the country as well. It is merely a question of where
torrential rain falls.
No one knows or shares information about drainage
It seems to me that knowledge about existing
infrastructure and natural watercourses such as springs or culverts
is patchy, split between lots of organisations or lost in the
archives, if it was ever mapped. So it is impossible for anyone
to know what will happen if there is prolonged intense rain. In
Exmouth, South West Water are intending to start a survey of their
sewers at the end of this year, which will take until 2009 to
complete. But of course they don't deal with surface water, which
although it often goes into their combined sewers is apparently
the responsibility of Highways. The area where I live is predominately
clay. We found a storm drain on our property that had been tarmaced
over and did not show up on the environmental report we received
when we recently moved here—whether it appears in any of
the councils' archives is unknown to me and how would I find out?
Planners cannot assess the impact of redevelopments
in urban drainage
The area was predominately developed in the
early and mid 20th century and now the large houses in their big
gardens are being redeveloped as flats or the gardens subdivided
for infilling. Although the planners now have to take cognisance
of flooding risk how can they do so if they don't have basic information?
If the combined sewers cannot cope with the additional usage on
them, it is the community not the developer who pays the social
costs of this.
While I understand the planners stipulate that
no surface water should go into the sewers from redevelopments
there is nothing to show what will happen in heavy prolonged rain
to surface run off where there is higher density building on what
was previously gardens or with the continued increase in paved
drives. There is also the whole question about the status of the
water companies, which are apparently defined as statutory undertakers
but not statutory consultees so that they cannot be held to any
advice they give on planning matters.
A properly assessed flood risk might require increased
investment unwelcomed by the organisations concerned
I wonder if organisations have been slow to
survey because if they identified the potential flooding risk
for individuals or areas they would then be under pressure to
spend more money?
If it were shown that any water company had
to make a major investment to reduce the potential for urban flooding
their share price would plummet. People believe rightly that any
extra investment will mean that their water bills will increase
yet more. There has been opposition to SW Water taking over private
sewers on the grounds that the costs would be passed onto customers.
According to the Devon County Council representative I was talking
to the Council only has the money to deal with issues where flooding
of property has already occurred.
Although SW Water have denied this, my experience
(and the persistence that others have suggested that you need)
indicates that despite wanting to do a good job the water companies
lack the appropriate resources to do this. (A friend of mine in
a totally different water company area was told that they had
no money to upgrade the sewage system to stop her front garden
flooding from the sewers after heavy rain). As someone else said
to me there is no preventative work in the private sector. It
isn't considered to be cost effective. The local authorities are
generally strapped for cash and so they have no resource or incentive
to do an audit of weaknesses in their surface water run off systems
or to update them in line with current best practice.
There is no attempt to inform or educate the community
At present the community sees the problem as
either the County Council's or the water company's. At community
meetings residents may complain about water pressure or sewer
surcharges but there is no attempt by official representatives
to inform the community as to the issues; to educate them concerning
the part they can play in helping to conserve water or prevent
its immediate run off in times of heavy rain or to encourage them
to report minor problems that may indicate a potential weakness
in the system. When we were nearly inundated I was surprised how
many of the people I spoke to had had occasions when water backed
up their loos or the manholes in the roads leaked or they got
foul water in their front garden. Few had reported these problems.
There may be a number of reasons for this. If it doesn't directly
affect your property why would you bother? You might not know
whom to tell anyhow and people always worry about the impact on
the sale price of their home. Also they consider it is a waste
of time as no one does anything. All the organisations are adept
at saying why they cannot do anything or taking so long that people
give up. This contributes to disenchantment with all public organisations.
There is no government leadership
The government doesn't give a lead on this.
Rain harvesting systems which would alleviate the costly situation
of treating water to drinking quality only to flush down the loo
and treat it again are too expensive for ordinary people to contemplate
(even assuming they know of their existence). I understand there
is no British Standard for semi porous drives and most people
are unaware of them. I wrote to DEFRA about why they weren't promoting
SUDS and they wrote back to tell me that they were concentrating
on reducing water leaks. This is very admirable but I do not see
why the department is not also investigating the efficacy of and
setting standards for SUDS as well. Climate scientists have been
telling successive governments since the 1980s about the likely
effects of climate change, which questions the whole basis of
the risk/cost assessments on which so many infrastructure decisions
are made. Why is the government still only focused on leaks? The
price of SUDS is not going to come down until they are better
known and so become in effect mandatory on all new building, like
double-glazing.
Local Development Frameworks won't be adequate
unless they are underpinned by a flood risk assessment
My understanding is that Local Plans are due
to be replaced by Local Development Frameworks that will last
until 2026. I don't see how such frameworks can be developed unless
the risks for urban flooding are assessed in each area and a local
strategy that applies to all the organisations involved is put
in place to deal with the risks, which can be used in setting
out redevelopment criteria.
How many more people are going to have to suffer?
Flooding is a terrible thing for individuals
to cope with. It undermines your basic security in "home"
and means that you are fearful of going out if there is any prospect
of rain. The government response to the floods this summer was
very much about people getting back to normal. How can people
ever get back to normal if they fear that their homes will be
inundated again? I think that as more and more people experience
the current appalling problems that have happened in the Midlands,
people will start to become very angry that their lives are being
undermined in this way.
What happened in the flood hit areas was predictable
From what I have discovered over the last four
months I am not at all surprised at the level of flooding that
was experienced by those who had the misfortune to live in areas
(even without rivers) where there was prolonged heavy rain this
year. It could have happened anywhere in the country. There is
a plethora of organisations who are concerned with urban drainage,
which don't work together and either don't have or wish to spend
the money necessary to ensure that the risk of urban flooding
is minimised. They don't involve the community who remain blissfully
ignorant of the potential problems or what they could be doing
to help reduce the risks. The government is being slow to react
and failing to give a lead to ensure that matters don't get worse.
At present I am sure that many people saw what
happened during the summer as an act of god—one of those
unfortunate events that could not have been predicted or prevented.
However, as such events become more frequent, the public attitude
will no doubt change. I do hope that the Select Committee report
helps to prevent many more people having to suffer the misery
of their home and possessions being fouled and totally spoiled
by helping to increase pressure for an effective and funded strategy
to deal with urban drainage flood risk.
Ms J D Budden
October 2007
| 
