Memorandum submitted by Bucklebury Flood
Alleviation Committee (FL 164)
We are a small action group representing the
villagers of Bucklebury in Berkshire, which was severely affected
by the July 2007 flooding. 26 out of 28 houses were inundated,
causing an estimated £2.4 million in damage. We have formed
a self-help group/action committee, whose activities may be monitored
on www.floodalleviation.co.uk.
We began with the simple goal of preventing
a re-occurrence of the flooding which caused so much anguish and
loss in our community. We have been given great support by many
organisations: the EA, West Berkshire Council, our local MP Richard
Benyon, landowners and more recently Norwich Union and the ABI.
It has become apparent that the Bucklebury story
is a useful encapsulation of the issues, as as we work towards
a permanent solution to our local problems, we feel that our experience
and growing knowledge of how things work (or don't) might be of
use in a wider forum. We invite members of the Select Committee
to visit us to see firsthand the issues "on the ground",
as a means of helping sharpen the analysis and recommendations
in the final review.
We have followed the submissions to the committee
so far, and have read in depth the Pitt interim report and those
of the ABI and the Environment Agency. As a general remark, all
seem to have uncovered most of the issues, but further work is
to be done.
There are three issues derived from our local
experience that we believe should be addressed:
— Clarify responsibility and accountability
for watercourse maintenance. Who is legally responsible for
maintaining watercourses and who is legally liable if an unmaintained
watercourse has reduced capacity and thus bursts its banks and
floods houses? The EA, councils or landowners? The Pitt report
recommends that there be "dialogue"—we recommend
a stronger decision on "where the buck stops".
— Secure watercourse maintenance
budgets. The chance of flooding after a given rainfall event
must not be dependent on budget variation. The EA must recognise
that their flood probability analysis is dependent on their own
budget allocation. If maintenance is reduced, the risk changes,
thus all stakeholders must be informed if the maintenance regime
is to be diminished, so that alternative measures may be put in
place.
— Clarify the criteria for capital
investment decisions. Disaster Management is important, but
prevention is a better solution—but where should the money
be spent? Both Pitt and the EA have inconsistent criteria: "best
value", "highest risk", "cost/benefit analysis",
"greatest number of properties"—which should it
be?
In closing we are supportive of the review and
offer our help in any way the Select Committee sees fit.
Bucklebury Flood Alleviation Committee
February 2008
|
