Memorandum submitted by the National Trust
(FL 81)
1. SUMMARY
1.1. The National Trust was significantly
affected by the recent flooding in England and Wales, and we welcome
the opportunity to submit evidence to this inquiry.
1.2. Flooding is predicted to become more
frequent as a result of climate change and there is a need to
adapt to this heightened risk.
1.3. The Trust advocates a risk based approach
to the planning of the nation's infrastructure, and urges the
Government to be much more proactive in relocating major infrastructure
and housing developments out of high flood risk areas in order
to protect people's lives and livelihoods. This is in addition
to avoiding problems with the location of new development.
1.4. We also advocate investment in more
effective, long-term cost efficient and sustainable solutions
to flood risk management, based on restoring the natural function
of catchments. Every parcel of land in a catchment, including
that within major built developments, can make a contribution
to reducing the probability and consequence of flooding, with
the uplands and floodplains playing vital roles in water capture
and storage.
1.5. There is also a cultural challenge
for society to relearn how it must live with water. We suggest
the Government should take a more proactive approach to the communication
of flood risk, not only to raise general awareness, but to facilitate
practical adaptation through promoting actions that people can
take in everyday life.
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1. The National Trust is one of Europe's
leading conservation charities, with over 3.5 million members
and 49,000 volunteers. We are the UK's largest non-Governmental
landowner, managing over 245,000 ha of countryside and greenspace.
We own over 1,100 km of coastline in England, Wales and Northern
Ireland and manage over 10% of SSSIs in the UK. Over 100 million
visits are made to our countryside and coastal sites every year
and we also welcome 500,000 educational visits to our properties.
2.2. The Trust's experience of flood risk
management is based on the following:
— the Trust's core statutory purpose
of conserving and promoting access to the nation's natural and
cultural heritage in perpetuity—we are a steward of special
and fragile places for ever, with decisions taken for long term
public benefit;
— the Trust is a major business, from
tourism to catering, with an annual turnover of £295 million—we
have significant economic assets actually or potentially at risk,
but also benefits to be derived from a more integrated approach;
— the Trust is a major voice in public
debate at national, regional and local levels, indirectly through
the media and directly through interpretation and events at our
sites—through our communication we have the potential to
reach millions of people and promote greater understanding of
the risks we all face; and
— the Trust is an authority on land
and resource management and use—we have decades of expertise
in understanding and managing risks and undertaking our conservation
work through the careful "management of change".
2.3. The Trust is working towards improved
sustainable land and water management across its whole estate,
through working in partnership with individuals eg farm tenants,
neighbouring landowners (such as water companies and conservation
NGOs), and national partner organisations (such as Natural England
and the Environment Agency). Our approach to water resource management,
based on working with the grain of natural processes as far as
possible, is outlined in our water policy (see Appendix One).
2.4. In 2006 we undertook a Water Resources
Risk Assessment (WRRA), which will be used to help "water-proof"
all management decisions, and help enable adaptation to climate
change. It will guide strategic and operational decisions and
investment, both to reduce the risks to the Trust and to make
the most of the positive opportunities. For example, we will not
expand visitor facilities in an area of high flash flood risk.
Some relevant headlines from the WRRA include:
— 43% of England and Wales drains through
NT owned land
— we are very exposed to whatever happens
"upstream" of our properties, so must be vigilant and
active in influencing land use and water use in our catchments.
We also have a responsibility to ensure that our activities do
not impact negatively on interests downstream.
— 5% of NT land and 1,893 NT buildings
are within the flood zone 3
— wherever we have such flood risk
areas, we must know what is at risk and how it will respond to
the flood when it comes, so that we can mitigate and adapt buildings
(where practical) ahead of the flood event.
— 120 properties are in very high Flash
Flood Risk areas
— flash floods can happen very quickly
and their impact on settlements, infrastructure and people (such
as in campsites and caravan parks) can be devastating, as we experienced
at Boscastle.
2.5. We welcomed the risk-based approach
to flood risk management set out in the Government's "Making
Space for Water" strategy, and suggest this should be implemented
more widely.
3. THE IMPACTS
OF RECENT
FLOODING IN
ENGLAND AND
WALES ON
THE NATIONAL
TRUST
3.1. The National Trust was significantly
affected by the floods in June and July 2007. Over 100 buildings
were damaged to varying degrees, and an initial estimate from
our Loss Adjusters suggested the potential cost of the flood damage
for June and July incidents is approximately £1.3 million[23].
Table One gives an overview of some of the flooding impacts on
properties.
Table One
EXAMPLES OF IMPACTS OF FLOODING ON THE NATIONAL
TRUST, JUNE/JULY 2007
|
| Dates of flooding | Property affected
| Summary of impacts
|
|
| 20-23.07.07 | Buscot & Coleshill, Wiltshire
| Over 60 properties in the local National Trust villages at Buscot & Coleshill flooded, with impacts ranging from 4 inches to over 4 feet of inundation. Some damage to old walls, gates, paths, drains also.
|
| 20-23.07.07 | The Vyne, Hampshire
| The Vyne saw some extraordinary rainfalls and as a result the basement—including boiler room—flooded.
|
| 20-23.07.07 | Osterley House, London
| Osterley House was hit by lightning, disabling fire and security systems.
|
| 20-23.07.07 | Ham House, London
| Water ingress to the basement |
| 20-23.07.07 | Morden Hall Park, London
| Some backed up sewage and drainage caused unpleasant damage to some tenanted properties.
|
| 20.07.07 | Knole, Kent |
The heavy rain on the 20th July caused a lot of water entering the Ballroom, necessitating the removal of a picture and a large ceramic jar. All windows had some leakage. The gutters can't cope with such a large amount of water. Damage was minimal.
|
| 20-23.07.07 | Snowshill Manor, Gloucestershire
| Closed due to lack of water supply following flood damage to water treatment works. Access path washed out.
|
| 23.07.07 | Coughton Court, Warwickshire
| Closed—due to flooding damage. |
| 25.07.07 | Charlecote Park, Warwickshire
| Closed—due to flooding damage. |
| 20-22.07.07 | Hidcote, Gloucestershire
| 4 or 5 cottages flooded, garden paths washed out garden closed for repair.
|
| 20-22.07.07 | Chedworth Roman Villa, Gloucestershire
| Flooding of buildings and general level of water flow through property—no damage but property closed for health and safety reasons.
|
| 20-22.07.07 | Avebury, Wiltshire
| Offices flooded, no electric, property closed.
|
|
3.2. A number of our properties in northern England were
also affected. For example, at Fountains Abbey World Heritage
Site, Ripon (there was direct damage from floodwater of historic
fabric which may also include undercutting of heritage river defences).
Estimated costs for Fountains Abbey are approximately £55,000,
of which approximately £21,000 relates to buildings and structures
damage and reinstatement and the balance relates to loss of commercial
fixtures and fittings plus loss of revenue (that revenue ultimately
being used to pay for conservation work and interpretation). A
figure of approximately £200,000+ has been suggested for
longer term works that may be needed to reduce the risk from flooding.
4. LESSONS LEARNT
FROM RECENT
FLOODING
4.1. This summer's flooding has brought home the need
for society to adapt to climate change, as well as the importance
of acting now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to limit more
severe impacts in the future. As the Stern Review emphasised,
there are limits to adaptation and without strong and early mitigation,
the physical limits to—and costs of—adaptation will
grow rapidly.
4.2. The Government has an essential leadership and co-ordination
role to play in securing effective adaptation to climate change.
The Trust is calling for:
— Long term planning and climate proofing of decision
making and public spending to minimise risk and accommodate change;
— A new integrated spatial approach to the planning
and management of natural resources at local, regional and national
levels;
— Innovation in financial mechanisms that enable
households, businesses and wider society to manage risks and share
costs equitably;
— Raising public awareness and understanding of
climate change impacts and risks through improved communication
and engagement.
4.3. Flooding is projected to become more frequent as
a result of climate change: both flash-flooding and river basin
flooding caused by more intense rainfall will increasingly affect
more people and property. We have to adapt to this heightened
risk by changing our use of land in the headwaters of catchments
and in some floodplains, so as to maximise retention and slow
release of heavy rainfall. We believe there is scope to adjust
Government incentives to support suitable uses (see 4.5 below).
4.4. The Trust advocates a risk-based approach to the
planning of our infrastructure, and urges the Government to be
much more proactive in relocating major infrastructure and housing
developments out of high flood risk areas in order to protect
people's lives and livelihoods. Local authorities should specifically
be required to plan for this in their Local Development Frameworks.
There is also a need to adapt existing buildings in known flood
risk areas to suffer less damage, and be more easily cleaned or
repaired when flooded.
4.5. We are also advocating investment in more effective,
long-term cost efficient and sustainable solutions to flood risk
management, based on restoring the natural function of catchments.
The floods in England in June and July would have happened no
matter how benign the catchment land-use. The rainfall intensities
we experienced simply overwhelmed saturated land and watercourses
and found every possible route to pass downstream. However, every
parcel of land in a catchment, including that within major built
developments, can make a contribution to reducing the probability
and consequence of flooding, with the uplands and floodplains
playing vital roles in water capture and storage. By rewarding
farmers and land managers for practices that are conducive to
water retention and slow release we can help secure a more sustainable
future, reducing flood risk with additional benefits for wildlife,
landscape, cultural heritage and public access.
5. ISSUES THE
COMMITTEE SHOULD
EXAMINE DURING
ITS INQUIRY
Where is "Making Space for Water"?
5.1. The Trust strongly supported the Government's stated
intent to make space for water by managing flood risk strategically,
within the context of the catchment or shoreline as a whole, and
sustainably, through respecting natural processes (Making Space
for Water, Defra 2004). This is the philosophy and approach the
Trust is increasingly employing in the management of its own land,
buildings and coast.
5.2. Unfortunately, a huge gap remains between the stated
aims and objectives of the strategy and delivery on the ground.
The "portfolio of responses" discussed in the strategy
remains an aspiration, leaving public investment locked into provision
of hard defences even if more cost-effective alternatives exist.
At the same time, communities and businesses that do not qualify
for defences can be offered flood warning but will become increasingly
vulnerable in the face of climate change.
Why haven't Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems been widely
adopted?
5.3. There is a significant opportunity to reduce flash
flood risk in urban areas through the development of Sustainable
Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS). SUDS are surface water drainage
methods that take account of quantity, quality and amenity issues.
5.4. Despite a commitment to SUDS within "Making
Space for Water", they have yet to be widely adopted. The
reason for this is unclear—the technology is available and
affordable. The Trust has installed a SUDS at our Stamford Brook
housing development on the Dunham Massey Estate in Altrincham,
Greater Manchester. A series of open trough-like depressions (swales)
run through the development, allowing infiltration into the permeable
geology. In extreme events water is also be channelled into a
series of retention basins, as well as the restored Sinderland
Brook river corridor. This has delivered observable improvements
to water resources, as well as biodiversity benefits.
Involving the public in flood and coastal erosion risk management
5.5. To facilitate public support for a sustainable approach
to flood risk management we believe the public (and stakeholders)
should be aware of the risks that relate to them and to be aware
of their rights and responsibilities.
5.6. There is also a cultural challenge for society to
relearn how it needs to live with water. The Trust has evidence
that communities a century ago had adapted well to living with
flood events eg through making the ground floor of houses resilient
to flooding. Those same ground floors are now covered with fitted
carpets and occupied by people with no "memory" of flooding.
5.7. The Trust finds that, amongst many of the communities
it has a stake in, there is a significant lack of public awareness
and understanding of the complexity of flood risk, the scale of
the risks they face, or the implications of climate change at
home. This makes local participation in decision-making difficult.
Attempts at more inclusive decision-making are undermined by inadequate
process, capacity and skills for involving local communities,
particularly within national agencies. This can lead to unreasonable
and unfulfilled public expectations about the different flood
solutions possible, sometimes bringing into disrepute the process
and decisions made and undermining public confidence. The Government,
statutory agencies and other authorities may know the extent of
risk yet appear unwilling to contact at-risk communities directly
beyond saying flood risk information is available on the Environment
Agency website.
5.8. We believe a step change improvement is needed in
the way the Government proactively communicates the risks from
flooding to the public, not only to raise general awareness, but
to facilitate practical adaptation through promoting actions that
people can take in everyday life. Relying solely on people finding
their way to EA Flood Risk Maps is insufficiently proactive. We
recognise our own role in raising public awareness, and that we
can also be more open and confident in communicating externally
and engaging with communities. We would welcome more of a partnership
approach to achieving this.
5.9. Restoration of the flood damage at Boscastle (where
the Trust is the predominant landowner, including the harbour
walls) indicates the problems caused by a hasty response and lack
of discussion about options and needs with the local community.
The result is that some of the more immediate works initiated
by the Environment Agency have restored the previous defences
rather than necessarily provided solutions fit for future requirements.
However, long-term options are being explored with regard to the
management both of the harbour and of the land in the Boscastle
catchment.
Relocation out of flood risk areas
5.10. As a society we need to draw up and implement plans
for relocation of permanent uses in the highest risk areas. We
feel new mechanisms are needed in insurance, assurance, compensation
and long term management in order to facilitate this. A coherent
Government approach to managing the socio-economic impact on those
communities and enterprises that will no longer be protected from
flooding is essential. Relying on conventional products and timescales
will be wholly inadequate.
5.11. In our experience, a relocation package, including
compensation, will be needed to move those buildings or assets,
their occupants or contents away from areas where risk cannot
be sustainably managed. Over the next 20 to 50 years there will
be many more homes and businesses unable to secure private insurance
and mortgages. If we do not provide transitional support, we risk
creating pockets of deprivation and potentially ghetto communities.
This is because those who can afford to manage risk either by
moving away or privately investing to protect themselves in the
short term will do so, whereas poorer households are less able
to adapt, leaving them highly vulnerable to loss of assets and
in the worst cases to loss of life.
5.12. We call upon the Government to develop a relocation
strategy as an essential part of the nation's response to climate
change, drawing on wider national and international experience.
National Trust
September 2007
23
Note: £1.3 million is only an estimate and it will
be many months before the claims are settled. Back
|
