Memorandum submitted by BBC Radio 4: You
and Yours (FL 162)
You and Yours is BBC Radio 4's flagship
consumer and social affairs programme broadcast between 12 noon
and 1 pm every week day lunchtime.
The programme has 3.181 million listeners per
week. Their average age is 59. 56.1% of You and Yours listeners
are female. 43.9% are male.
The social grading of listeners breaks down
as follows:
INTRODUCTION
Between 15 January and 22 January working in
conjunction with the House of Commons Environment Food and Rural
Affairs Select Committee, we gave our listeners the unique opportunity
to contribute directly to the Committee's report looking at whether
we're managing flooding in the most effective way, via our phone
in.
Our phone in programme "Call You &
Yours—Flooding" was broadcast between 12.00 hours and
13.00 hours on Tuesday 22 January 2008 on BBC Radio 4. We asked
our listeners to give us their views on:
"Are you one of those dealing with the aftermath
of the recent floods? What lessons do you believe were learnt
after the severe floods of last summer? Do you think more could
be done to prevent all floods and should those with homes most
at risk do more to protect themselves?"
RESPONSE
We had a good response—about the usual
for a call in. Over the course of two weeks we received 101 emails
and 79 calls and texts. They break down into six broad categories:
— 32% (58 listeners) called expressing
concern about house building on flood planes or gardens that have
been concreted over. In some places, front gardens being concreted
over was a requirement of planning permissions being granted.
— 6% (11 listeners) commented on climate
change, feeling this was contributing towards flooding.
— 30% (55 listeners) commented on drainage
issues. Some felt that gulley drains and ditches have not been
properly maintained and that rivers should be dredged.
— 8% (16 listeners) expressed concern
about resources being diverted from flood defences or insurance
difficulties.
— 4% (8 listeners) drew international
comparisons.
— 17% (32 listeners) made general comments.
1. Examples of those expressing concern about
house building on flood planes or gardens that have been concreted
over
Tricia St Clair—Devon
I live in Cullompton, Devon. Last autumn we
were given information about a house building proposal by the
Mid-Devon District Council over the next 15 years. It is a proposal
to build hundreds of new homes. The sad aspect is that the map
included with the proposals shows quite clearly that many of the
homes will be directly on flood plain and all of the developments
butt up against flood plain land. The stupidity of this project
is beyond belief. It is all well and fine to say that houses can
be build with flooding in mind, etc, but what about the houses
nearby, the knock on effect of building on such land is enormous
as we know.
Lisa Mead—Forres
Michael Jack stated that our ancestors were
less aware than we are today about where to build, and consequently
they built towns on floodplains. I believe that our ancestors
were in fact far more aware of the vagaries or nature and how
to properly manage land, and in fact, building on floodplains
was a result of class structures: poor people ended up living
in risky areas, whereas the rich tended to live on higher ground.
The most valuable comments I heard on your programme related to
the need to replant forests and hedgerows in order to reduce the
risk of flooding at lower levels. Removal of hedgerow and tree
cover is one way in which our current farming strategies show
our lack of awareness of cause and effect in the natural world.
Jacqui Spencer—Plymouth
I live in Plymouth and the Council have just
replaced our pavement of paving slabs and grass verge with tarmac.
When I queried this I was advised that this is Council policy
now. It is clearly cheaper to maintain but will surely not help
flooding in the future and is not a very green policy.
Thank you.
2. Examples of people who commented on climate
change
John Walker—Dolwyddelan
We need to hear more about tackling the grassroots
causes of more regular and sudden flooding, which is global climate
change. We know that increased rainfall has a climate change "fingerprint"
on it.
I wonder how many of the people's lives which
have been disrupted by flooding have given any thought to how
their actual lifestyles are making the problem worse. For example,
one wonders how many people who have been flooded in their homes
are still flying away on holiday—with all the climate change
impact that aviation is known to bring.
We need to hear more about the root causes of
the kind of flooding we will see more of—and that means
changes to lifestyles, not the continual bleating of agencies
that they are under-funded.
Greg Glendell—Somerset
The great danger in planning against flooding
is to over react, and cause another problem; summer droughts.
With climate change, our weather is likely to have higher "winter"
rainfall while having more cases of summer droughts. So, the Environment
Agency should be co-ordinating land-use policy to ensure storage
of winter rains, which will be needed in the summer. So, we'll
need more reservoirs. Large-scale planting of native tree species
on our uplands could be used to replace most of the subsidised
sheep-farming currently on the hills. The new woodlands would
act as a great "sponge" to hold water during heavy downpours,
but releases it "slowly" later, thus reducing the chances
of flooding downstream. The new woodlands could be semi-commercial
in use, being harvested on long coppice/thinning rotations for
timber and paper products. This integrated approach would be more
economic than sheep farming while preventing both floods and droughts,
and creating new (carbon-rich!) wildlife habitats for the public
to enjoy; so, everyone wins!
3. Examples of people who commented on drainage
issues
Richard Smith—CheltenhamWe live in Cheltenham,
beside the river Chelt, and were flooded last July. We got off
lightly compared with some—it was a flash flood that put
a couple of inches of water through the house, and was gone in
an hour or two. I feel the major issue around here is controlling
runoff. Rivers & streams rise ever more rapidly, and indeed
water floods down streets, because of the increasing areas tarmacked
over. The planning system could and should control this, eg by
requiring effective drainage or runoff storage. But obviously
nobody's going to do this unless they are made to.
Phil Smith—Liverpool
Yet another broadcast on flooding with hardly
a mention (one brief contribution) on one of the major issues
affecting flood frequency and intensity. I refer to the gross
mismanagement of upland catchments which has been ongoing for
decades. Over-grazing, moor-gripping and agricultural "improvement"
etc have systematically destroyed the water-holding capacity of
upland ecosystems, including especially peatlands. Information
on this is widely available in the ecological and conservation
literature but is largely ignored by the media and politicians.
I suspect one of the reasons for this is that attending to the
problem would require the cooperation of large land-owners; these
are people who often do not welcome interference with their their
interests and have influence in high places. The methods for improving
water-holding capacity of the uplands are well-established and
inexpensive. They need to be implemented on a large scale. If
I was a resident of the Severn/Wye flood-plain, I should want
to know why this is not being done.
Nick Forest—Oxfordshire
Following flooding last July at our 150 year
old converted Barn in West Oxfordshire, my wife and I are currently
living in Oxford whilst the house is being restored. All the properties
in our hamlet were affected, along with several, other farm properties
within half a mile. We hope to move back to our house by the end
of February.
In the meantime I have worked with local landowners
who have done an outstanding job reengineering and clearing nearly
1.5 miles of ditches around Carswell Marsh. There is one problem
remaining in order to get the water to the River Thames which
is a mile from the houses in our hamlet. The ditches run into
a "brook" approximately 200 yards from the river and
then runs parallel and close to the river for four miles before
the water runs into the Thames. Along the length of the brook
it therefore has to cope with all the run off water on the South
side of the Thames valley for that distance, with only a small
fall. I am told is owned by the environment agency. The question
arises as to why this brook runs parallel to the river and within
a few hundred yards of it for such a long distance but given that
it does, then high quality maintenance of the brook to ensure
an adequate flow under flood conditions is essential. Having walked
the length of the brook, there are several areas in need of attention.
I physically took a detailed 20 page letter with many photographs
of the problem areas to the environment agency requesting action
on 10 December and posted a second copy on 9 January. After heavy
rain in December I measured the flow rate in the brook as 0.22
mph when many acres of fields adjacent to the brook were heavily
flooded. As of today I am looking forward to their response. One
employee I spoke to at the agency told me that the ditches "are
not maintained as they used to be".
I am not surprised that flooding appears to
be a greater problem than when these old properties were built.
4. Examples of people who expressed concern
about resources being diverted from flood defences or insurance
difficulties
Paul Thompson—East Riding of Yorkshire
In our village (Gilberdyke) in the East Riding
of Yorkshire it has been acknowledged by all agencies involved
that without the water being able to run from the village down
to the river Ouse at Blacktoft, very little useful flood defence
work within the village would be possible. It was deemed imperative
that the Environment Agency funds the MTP application to widen
and deepen the dykes down to Blacktoft and provide a pumping station
to lift the water into the river. Unfortunately they will not
invest in a modern pumping station as there are no funds available.
They have even hinted that our small village raise £1million
to fund this. This is obscene when you consider that prince William
is now learning to fly and has been approved to train as a pilot.
It costs at least £2.5 million to train a pilot on fixed
and rotary wing aircraft and that money is being completely wasted
on him. Considering our area could benefit significantly from
a new pumping station and infrastructure it is a disgraceful waste
of resources. I despair.
Kevin Jones—Argyll
Many of the people complaining about flooding
have bought houses where flooding is to be expected. For example,
Bewdley and other places along the Severn. I don't see why the
taxpayer should now be required to protect them.
5. Examples of a person who drew international
comparisons
Tricia Divers—Dorset
I used to live in Singapore, originally a marsh.
When it rained it was worse than ever seen in this country BUT
there were never floods. In this country we used to dredge rivers
and canals, regularly, keeping them clean and deep. The sylt was
put on the land making it more fertile. Drains were maintained
but to "save money" all of this was stopped. We are
now suffering the consequences of cost cutting and thousands of
people are having their homes ruined. The river Stour runs at
the back of my house. It regularly floods on the opposite bank
and yet, even now, the council are considering building on the
flood plane. Why do people never learn! It is not the council
that will suffer but the individuals who buy the intended properties.
6. Examples of people who made general comments
Alan—Penrith
After the appalling floods in Carlisle two years
ago the biggest problems were Builders over-charging for renovation,
poor workmanship and landlords over-charging for temporary accommodation.
These anti-social activities need to be prevented and there should
be some mechanism to regulate them. If someone is guilty of exploiting
the misfortune of others they should face some public exposure
to protect others.
Jenny Budden—Devon
Michael Jack said that one of the things they
want to hear from the public is how much protection from floods
they wanted. You reported on the programme that you had received
more emails hostile to increasing taxes to pay for flood defences
and blaming those who moved into property on the flood plain for
their own woes. What these correspondents apparently don't realise
is that flash flooding doesn't only occur on the flood plain.
Like one of your contributors we live half way up a hill and none
of the environmental reports we received prior to moving here
suggested any history of flooding. Yet our house was nearly inundated
by a flash flood due to a sewer surcharge.
What people don't seem to realise is that flooding
can occur anywhere and can be caused by what someone has done
further up the water course—eg many more people concreting
over their drives may not affect them but properties further down
the system suddenly find that they have a flooding problem for
the first time. Therefore it is short-sighted and complacent to
suggest that it is nothing to do with you!
I am emailing you this as you said you would
be summarising the contributions for the Select Committee.—Thanks
for doing this programme. I found it very informative and very
good broadcasting.
You & Yours feedback
This programme prompted a good response on "Call
You & Yours". The subject was at the forefront of a lot
of people's minds because of the recent flooding at the weekend.
Many people were keen to offer solutions like proper maintenance
of the drainage system or planning regulations to stop building
on our flood plain. A number of people told us of their experiences
last summer and again in recent weeks when they were once again
flooded. Many were keen to offer us their experiences and listeners
seemed keen to be involved with the radio programme because of
the potential to help shape the Committee's final report.
Rabeka Nurmahomed
Producer
BBC Radio 4: You & Yours
January 2008
| 
