Memorandum submitted by Norman Baker MP
(FL MP 17)
Thank you for your letter dated 24 July regarding
your Select Committee's inquiry into flooding. I welcome the opportunity
to share with you my ideas for what aspects of current flood prevention/defence
policies are working and where they need to be reviewed.
The Associate Parliamentary Group on Flood Prevention
last met in April 2007 when representatives from the Environment
Agency and the Department for Communities and Local Government
gave a presentation on Planning Policy Statement 25, which aims
to ensure that flood risk assessment is made an integral part
of the planning application procedure.
I have divided this submission into the four
sections I believe are in most need of attention: government spending,
the points system, planning and lessons learned from the floods
this summer.
GOVERNMENT SPENDING
The Committee is encouraged to consider:
— Whether the recently announced increase
in spending on flood management and prevention is sufficient,
particularly in light of recent events.
— How available funds should be spent.
The Group welcomes the Secretary of State's
announcement to the House on 2 July 2007 that spending on flood
management and prevention would be increased from £600 million
in 2007-08 to £800 million in 2010-11. However, whilst it
is not yet clear when or how this funding will be allocated, it
is clear that the level is still not enough to protect the UK.
The cost-benefit ratio of government spending on flood defences
would appear to be enormous; the money put in is more than repaid
by the avoidance of floods and I would encourage your Committee
to consider this aspect. Taking the recent floods as an example,
the Association of British Insurers has estimated the costs to
the insurance industry alone to be in the region of £3 billion.
This figure is four times that committed by the Government for
future flood management and prevention, and I therefore believe
there needs to be a realisation that government spending on flood
defences is money well spent and does reap benefits in the future.
I look forward to hearing further detail about
how and where this increase in government spending will be spent.
For example, what does the Government believe constitutes as a
flood defence, and what constitutes as its maintenance? I look
forward to seeing a timetable outlining when this money will be
invested, and believe the urgency illustrated by the adverse weather
conditions this summer requires it be spent sooner rather than
as the three years is coming to an end.
In response to a Parliamentary Question (PQ151147,
26/07/07) regarding progress made on flood defence schemes announced
for construction in 2006-07, we have learned that of the 33 schemes
announced with a construction spend greater than £250,000,
only 13 have been completed or are likely to be completed in 2007.
In his reply the Environment Minister, Phil Woolas MP, stated
that "the overall programme of flood and coastal erosion
risk management works is prioritised on an annual basis in the
light of demands on the system and the budget available".
This statement causes some concern, and I believe the Committee
should inquire as to what assurances the Government will give
that the backlog of schemes will be carried out as a matter of
urgency, and that future schemes will be carried out on time.
This point was echoed by Members in a Westminster Hall Debate
on 11 July 2007, including by myself, when concerns were raised
that Government promises made in 2000 and 2003 in reaction to
flooding, were no longer kept once the issue had fallen out of
the public's mindset.
POINTS SYSTEM
The Committee is encouraged to consider:
— Whether the present points system
is the correct means of allocating funds for flood defences and
whether alternative systems should be considered.
— How smaller communities can be better
protected from flood risk.
As highlighted in the National Audit Office
report entitled "Building and Maintaining river and coastal
flood defences in England" (published on 15 June 2007 prior
to the severe floods), the points system by which helps the Environment
Agency to decide which schemes should receive funding for flood
spending is recognised as complex. The current system is based
on three key components (economic, people and environment) with
a maximum award of 44 points. This scheme attributes the same
importance to the number of people and homes protected, as it
does to the creation or improvement of existing wildlife and the
protection of the existing conservation designated areas. Undoubtedly
the protection of the environment is extremely important; however
I believe further examination is required as to whether it should
be deemed at the same level of importance as protecting life or
property.
Additionally it could be argued that the present
system is unfairly weighted against smaller communities. My constituency
in Lewes suffered severe flooding in 2000. It caused devastation
with hundreds of people driven from their homes and the financial
centre of the town left in ruins. Lewes was divided into six cells
and seven years on, only one of the six cells has seen adequate
improved flood defences provided. The Cliffe area in the middle
of town, the financial and shopping centre, has not been protected
because the points system has determined that too few people live
there. It has not made any allowance for the fact that the whole
town depends on the prosperity of Cliffe. This is a disgrace and
further supports the need for this system of funding allocation
to be reviewed.
PLANNING
The Committee is encouraged to consider:
— Whether planning authorities should
be able to ignore Environment Agency advice on new developments
and, if so, what conditions should be put on mitigating flood
risk on such developments.
— Whether flood risk can be reduced
through better property design and whether tighter standards should
apply.
— Whether HIPs should have a greater
role to play in warning home buyers of potential flood risk.
In December 2006, the Government published Planning
Policy Statement 25, which made the Environment Agency a statutory
consultee to ensure that flooding would be taken into account
in the planning application procedure. The Government should be
congratulated for ensuring flooding is an integral part of the
process. However under PPS25, the "exception test" allows
planning authorities to effectively ignore the Environment Agency's
advice if the benefit of development is deemed to outweigh the
risks of flooding.
In addition, it is clear that one of the Government's
top priorities is building for a sustainable future. However,
what is not clear is where this building will take place and at
what cost environmentally. Aside from the risk of building on
flood plains, a significant flood risk remains in modern house
building standards. The fashion trend has changed over the last
decade or so to have smaller gardens, paved driveways and conservatories.
All of these features post a significant risk to flooding, as
surface water has nowhere to drain away. The Government needs
to take this into account when it considers its future plans.
On 1 August 2007, the Government's long awaited
Home Information Packs came into force for properties with four
or more bedrooms. Stepping away from the political debate, it
is disappointing that a "flood" search, in respect of
river and coastal flooding, is only part of the voluntary Home
Condition Report element of the pack and I believe this is an
important piece of information that homeowners have an automatic
right to know when they are purchasing a house. In addition it
is disappointing to see that only Environment Agency maps can
be used within the flood report element of the Packs. Other information
is available on the market, both from the insurance industry and
other independent organisations, and it is therefore unclear why
the Government has taken this decision.
LESSONS LEARNED
FROM THE
FLOODS IN
JUNE AND
JULY 2007
The Committee is encouraged to consider:
— The potential dangers caused by small
watercourses.
— The effect of overburdened sewers
and traffic calming measures on flood water.
— Flood-compatible building materials.
Some of the areas hit by flooding during the
summer of 2007 had already been fortunate enough to benefit from
effective flood defences from the major rivers but were nevertheless
profoundly affected. This was in many cases as a result of flash
flooding from extremely heavy rain on the catchment areas of normally
very small watercourses. The Group would therefore like to encourage
the Committee to look into ways of protecting buildings located
near relatively minor watercourses from flash flooding and, in
hilly areas, from potentially devastating landslips.
Another aspect worthy of the Committee's consideration
is the exacerbating effect on flooding that comes when surface
water drains and sewers cannot cope with the volume of flood water
and the potential for adapting these systems in flood-prone areas.
Similarly, some traffic calming measures, such as sleeping policemen,
also had an unexpected, adverse "damming" effect on
water flow.
Finally, the Group believes that it would be
helpful if the Committee looked at the potential for using "flood-compatible"
building materials in new construction projects in flood prone
areas, such as paving materials that are porous and underground
storage systems that are far more effective than conventional
soakaways.
In conclusion, I would like to congratulate
your Committee for holding this important inquiry. It is clear
that the summer floods of 2007 have raised the profile of the
issue to the top of the Government's agenda, and pressure should
be applied to ensure this is where it remains.
I hope this is helpful.
Norman Baker MP
Lewes
Chair, Associate Parliamentary Group on Flood Prevention
September 2007
| 
