Memorandum submitted by Pickering Flood
Defence Group (FL 97)
At the top of the agenda on the lessons learned
page I invite the committee to place the example of the historic
market town of Pickering, North Yorkshire—and many more
in the same sinking boat—which have literally been hung
out to dry as a result of a failure to invest in defences despite
the need being demonstrated with deplorable frequency.
1. Summer's flooding in Pickering was predicted
and preventable. The town has flooded six times since in the last
eight years, the latest was the worst yet and caused upwards of
£2 million worth of damage to homes and businesses. A viable
scheme of defences was drawn up by the Environment agency five
years ago at a cost of £750,000, since then plenty of bricks
have been dropped—not one has been laid.
2. In common with other schemes in North
Yorkshire, most recently Ripon, but also Thirsk and Northallerton,
funding has been withdrawn by the Government for the scheme to
defend Pickering. It was the only one of seven "fast tracked"
projects not to have been built following serious and sustained
flooding. Malton and Norton, eight miles down the road were protected
and this time were both saved. Pickering was hit by its worst
deluge in living memory.
3. We urge the committee to examine the
yawning gap between rhetoric and reality on the funding of defences.
The offer is £200 million more investment by 2010. This amounts
to a sticking plaster over an open wound. The agency estimates
it would need double its current funding for the next decade just
to bring existing defences up to a satisfactory standard, let
alone build enough new ones.
4. The repeated claims made by the Secretary
of State for the Environment, Hilary Benn, no doubt on a very
tight brief, that capital spending on flood defences has not been
cut, must be thoroughly examined. Schemes already commissioned
were not cut, others—including Pickering and Ripon—have
been unceremoniously axed.
5. Spending on defences has increased, we
are told, but this depends on where the line is drawn to make
the comparison. The level of spending was in fact ramped up to
a more adequate level only to be cut back, resulting in the rug
being pulled from a series of schemes across North Yorkshire and
the country as a whole. Another case of being economical with
the truth, or at very least selective.
6. Taking Pickering as an example, the question
needs to be asked how £750,000 of public money can be spent
on drawing up a viable scheme of defences, only for the plans
to be left to gather dust for five years with no expectation of
proceeding at present because of the points system which has raised
the bar higher, in line with spending cuts.
7. The points system is used as a smokescreen
to veil the blatant failure of the Government to invest adequately
in protecting homes and businesses from the ravages of flooding.
The system is arbitrary, fails to take account of the specific
needs of communities in more rural areas, and should be consigned
to the same skips as those housing the belongings of flood victims
in Pickering.
8. The evidence is that that the Government—and
the Environment Agency—stuck their hands behinds their backs,
crossed their fingers, and hoped to avoid a repeat of the major
floods of 2000, and those 18 months previously. The gamble spectacularly
failed and victims in Pickering and other North Yorkshire towns
are paying the price.
9. It only a matter of time before further
floods hit the town. We know the cause, we know the solution.
The scheme on the table offers a quick win for the Government
and the Environment Agency in contrast to areas where a massive
amount of work still needs to be done on designing the infrastructure
needed to prevent a repeat of this summer's torrent of destruction.
10. We would be pleased to see the committee
analyse is how it is that the Government constantly talks about
climate change only to removes funding from the engineering solutions
needed to protect communities against its devastating effects.
That has been the experience of victims in Pickering and a string
of other towns in North Yorkshire.
11. Catchment Flood Management Plans offer
the hope of long term improvements in land management which may
help keep pace with worsening bouts of extreme weather by reducing
the speed of run off from farmland and areas such as the North
Yorkshire Moors. It is essential that this strategy is pursued
hand in hand with the provision of adequate defence. It is not
in any way a substitute for defences that need to be built now.
12. We need the £6.7 million defences
planned for Pickering to be provided without further delay or
excuse. It is blatant neglect to stand by while homes and businesses
are allowed to be hit time and again. We need to be saved from
the fiction pedalled about "resilience." When a wall
of water comes your way, only one thing will stop it—that
is properly engineered defences.
Help us.
Pickering Flood Defence Group
September 2007
| 
