Memorandum submitted by the River Dene
Action Group—Wellesbourne (FL 153)
SUMMARY
The River Dene Action Group—Wellesbourne
represents a group of people in Warwickshire who have suffered
major flooding twice in the last nine years.
This note assumes that many other submissions
will have covered the topics of increasing frequency of flooding,
and the need for higher budgets to cope with this. We want to
raise two issues which may have been given less airtime.
1. Cost benefit analysis in planning flood
protection.
The Defra methodology considers the immediate
(though discounted) cost of building repairs and contents renewal,
but makes no allowance for the consequential losses particularly:—
— Increased insurance premiums or excesses.
— Houses becoming unsellable.
And, although it may be hard to quantify, the
cost both financial and emotional of houses being uninhabitable
for six months.
It may be helpful on a day-to-day basis to have
practical method for rationing funds, but to have a properly informed
discussion about the real nature of the problem and long term
solutions, surely we need to understand the full costs.
2. The priorities of the Environment Agency.
Some organisations faced with a crisis in one
of their areas of operation would just ask their benefactors for
more money: others would look critically at every aspect of what
they do and how they do it in order to focus resources where they
are needed most. The second of these groups can act in a measured
way, or they may simply rob Peter to pay Paul.
Local observation and anecdote suggest that:
— Time and money is wasted on trivia.
— Flood defence budgets have been raided
in the past to meet other needs.
We would be grateful to the committee for examining
these issues.
1. INTRODUCTION
The river Dene is a tributary of the Avon, joining
it just East of Stratford-upon-Avon. Wellesbourne is a large village
straddling the river and much of the centre including the affected
part is a conservation area. Some buildings are listed.
It has been flooded twice in the past nine years,
affecting about 60 houses—over half of them to a depth of
more than 60cms, and 85% to at least 30cms. One third of the homes
are occupied by pensioners.
After the 1998 event, a report by the Environment
Agency concluded that it would not be "cost effective"
to spend £100K improving the defences to give 1 in 100 year
protection, opting instead for repairs to the existing defences
coting £24K and providing (allegedly) 1 in 75 year assurance.
Following the second flood in July 2007, a survey
was carried out among the victims, and 46 of the 60 houses were
represented (a couple of the houses were vacant and some people
had decamped and could not be reached). This has been presented
to the Environment Agency, and we understand a copy has been sent
to your Committee by Professor Green of FHRC.
The survey shows that the cost of building repairs
is £2.5 million and of replacing contents £1.0 million.
Six weeks after the flood, only 37% were living
in their homes, and only half expected to be back by Christmas.
2. COST BENEFIT
ANALYSIS IN
PLANNING LEVELS
OF PROTECTION
We don't presume to nitpick the detailed methodology
of cost benefit analysis, but we do ask you to consider the variables
which have simply been given no consideration in the models which
are used.
In particular:
2.1 Insurability
Among our local victims are people who have
been told that their insurance renewal will be subject to:
— a report from the Environment Agency
on flood prevention.
And of course many premiums are not yet due
for renewal, so the full situation is probably not yet revealed.
2.2 Houses being unsellable
Two floods in nine years has a devastating effect
on the saleability of a house if there is no prospect of improved
protection. If a house is hard to insure, it becomes extremely
hard to sell.
Apart from the obvious impact on the indebtedness
or net worth of families, this has specific implications for:
— people changing jobs and having to
move; and
— pensioners seeking to downsize or
release equity.
If we assumed a 20% reduction in house values,
this would amount to £4.5 million compared to a buildings
and contents cost of £3.5 million. In other words, the real
cost to individuals is more than double the real cost of reinstating
their homes.
2.3 Costs of homelessness
Many people are still homeless and will not
be back by Christmas. Some are in caravans, some with relatives,
and some in hotels or rented accommodation. In all we estimate
that 500 person months will be spent away from the 60 houses affected.
The emotional and physical strain for the elderly
living in caravans in the winter, or for young families crammed
into holiday cottages, though harder to quantify, should also
be feature prominently in considering the importance of improved
protection.
2.4 Implications for cost benefit analysis
The cost benefit calculations as they are currently
done give only a partial picture of the costs. This may serve
a short term purpose in allocating scarce funds between different
possible projects, but it fails to provide a true picture of the
financial and other pain that flooding brings.
For better understanding of the longer term
needs of the country as extreme weather events become more frequent,
don't we need an appreciation of the real costs.
It might even help deter building in flood plains.
3. THE PRIORITIES
OF THE
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
We don't want to have a general rant about the
EA. The people we have had dealings with since the flood have
all been very professional and sympathetic, and we believe they
will do their best to get us improved protection. However, a couple
of local observations suggest that flood prevention may not always
be given the priority it deserves.
3.1 Time and money wasted on trivia
There is a weir downstream of the village in
the middle of farmland close to the sewage works. A footbridge
carries a path over it. For safety reasons there are galvanised
steel railings around it and across the bridge.
A few years ago a programme of mowing the surrounding
grass was instituted. This serves no useful purpose at all, and
could even be said to look ridiculous in an unkempt rural context.
More recently, several workmen spent more than
a week painting the galvanised railings black, and replacing a
stile on the bridge with a kissing gate.
Even more contentiously, they then covered the
railings with stainless steel mesh so that when the floods came
all the field debris washed up against the mesh forming a dam.
The force of the water was such that the railings are now bent.
If the resources used in this futile enterprise
had been spent on maintaining the flood defences, we might not
now be writing to you.
Is anyone asking tough questions about avoidable
expenditure?
3.2 Raiding the flood defence budget.
Perhaps it would be more diplomatic to call
it re-deployment of resources to meet other more pressing needs,
but there is a persistent rumour round here that the floods budget
was raided to help sort out the recent farm payments fiasco. The
sad thing is that no-one is surprised or shocked.
Is it true that flood defence drops down the
priority list when it is out of the headlines?
The River Dene Action Group—Wellesbourne
December 2007
| 
