House of Commons - Public Accounts

Select Committee on Public Accounts Fourth Report

1 Protecting people and properties from the risk of flooding

1. Some 2.1 million properties in England, affecting 4.3 million people, are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea. 48.5% of these properties are at risk of flooding from the sea, 48% from rivers and 3.5% from both (Figure 1 shows the Environment Agency's flood zones). England has not experienced major coastal flooding since 1953, but inland flooding in 2000, prior to our 2002 report, affected some 9,000 properties.[2]

2. Widespread flooding affected properties in the Midlands, Yorkshire and Humberside in June 2007 and in the South and South West of England a month later, and at least four people tragically lost their lives. There was also significant disruption to infrastructure. The risk that part of the Ulley reservoir near Rotherham might collapse due to the increased volume of water led to 250 people living downstream being evacuated from their homes and the temporary closure of the M1 motorway. At one stage, up to 140,000 properties in Tewkesbury, Gloucester and Cheltenham lost mains water as a result of the flooding of the Mythe water treatment plant in Tewkesbury and around 48,000 properties in Gloucestershire were without power at one stage when a number of sub-stations were inundated.[3]

3. Flood water can cause extensive damage to property, ruining soft furnishings, carpets and electrical goods and can also cause structural damage to buildings. The experiences of those affected by events in June 2007, many of whom have had to move into temporary accommodation while their homes are cleaned, allowed to dry out and repaired, show how traumatic and unpleasant the effects of flooding can be.[4]

4. The Environment Agency (the Agency) is the principal authority responsible for managing the risk of flooding from main rivers and the sea in England and Wales.[5] The Agency planned to undertake a review of the June 2007 floods to consider the causes and the adequacy of the actions taken. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has also commissioned an independent Lessons Learned Review.[6]

Figure 1: The Environment Agency's analysis of flood zones in England and Wales

Note: This map does not take account of flood defences.

Source: Environment Agency

5. The level of rainfall in summer 2007 may have been unprecedented, but there are lessons to learn from the Agency's immediate response to the situation. The Agency did not deploy temporary flood defences in Worcester, but the water levels rose above predicted levels on one river, resulting in the flooding of some 30 homes. The Agency had a warning system to notify residents of the imminent risk of flooding and in just one week (25 June-2 July 2007), Floodline Warnings Direct sent out over 90,000 messages. But sending out warnings by email, fax or telephone at certain times of the day, for example, late at night or early in the morning might not be adequate if occupants are not alert to receive them.[7]

6. The Agency received £483 million from the Department for flood risk management in 2006-07, including £25 million in local levy from local authorities, compared to a total of £303 million in 2001-02. Since its inception in 1996, the Agency has spent £3.4 billion on flood risk management. Figure 2 shows expenditure each year since 2002-03.[8]

Figure 2: Environment Agency Expenditure on flood risk management 2002-03 to 2006-07[9]

Source: Environment Agency

7. Commercial and housing developments in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s resulted in the inappropriate construction of many properties in the flood plain. Under the Government's latest agreement with the insurance industry, known as the Statement of Principles, insurers will offer flood cover to those with a less than 1 in 75 year risk of flooding and to existing customers at greater risk where planned work will bring them into the 1 in 75 year category. Where no defences are planned, insurers will work with existing customers on a case by case basis. The agreement (renewed in November 2005) depends on the Government reducing the flood risk to 100,000 homes in the next three years; sustaining adequate investment in flood defences which take account of climate change; strengthening land use planning to limit new development in flood risk areas; providing more detailed information on flood risk and flood defence schemes; and alleviating the risk of sewer and flash flooding.[10]

8. The Agency has improved the flood protection for an additional 100,300 households between 2003-04 and 2005-06 by investing £900 million on the construction of new defences. The 169 construction projects completed between 2003-04 and 2005-06 included new sea and river defences and the reconstruction of existing defences.[11] The Agency aims to start as many new construction projects as funding constraints permit. It was not clear, however, that the Agency was in a position to determine the right balance between funding new construction projects and ongoing maintenance work. The Agency had put in place a science programme which included projects to gather data on the typical lifespan of each asset type, the influence of maintenance measures on flood risk and to what extent the visual inspection of a flood defence provides a suitable assessment of its structural integrity.

9. Existing commitments accounted for nearly £105 million (representing 84%) of the 2007-08 construction budget. Only £20 million of the 2007-08 budget was therefore available for new projects. The Agency noted that the amount committed varied from year to year depending on the portfolio of projects and that projects often take several years to complete. For example, any major remedial works resulting from the June 2007 floods, would have to be funded by deferring or slowing down work on existing construction schemes.[12]

10. Funding for new construction projects is determined using a priority score system developed by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Each potential project was assessed against three factors: the financial benefits of a proposed flood defence compared to the estimated cost of construction; the number of houses protected for each £1,000 spent; and the impact of a scheme on wildlife habitats and conservation areas. In 2006-07 any project which scored 25 points or more out of a possible 44 was likely to receive funding. In 2005-06 the Agency spent £76 million, representing 29% of its construction budget, on project development. Funding limitations meant that potential projects were developed which were unlikely to go ahead. Since relatively little funding is available in any one year for new project starts, the development of such schemes, including for example, the potential flood defence scheme in Ripon, consumed resources and raised the hopes of communities when there was little likelihood of construction. The Agency was acting to improve efficiency and expected to achieve a reduction of 3% a year in expenditure on study work and other development costs over the next two years.[13]

11. Climate change may lead to changes in typical weather patterns across the country including the risk of more intense periods of rainfall in parts of the country. The major flooding in summer 2007 illustrates the damaging consequences of such events. Flood defences were typically built to withstand the risk of a one-in a hundred year flood, but the Agency estimated that some of the June 2007 floods were in excess of one-in-140 year to one-in-150 year events. Flood water had flowed over barriers such as those near Doncaster and Sheffield. Drainage systems had also been overwhelmed.[14]

12. The Agency was researching the extent to which climate change affected the volume of water flowing in rivers and existing defences were being rebuilt to withstand projected flood requirements in 50 years time. Best estimates indicate that the Agency needs to allow for a 20% increase in flow to take account of the predicted change in rainfall pattern. Future flood risk might, however, depend upon the broader management of land in river catchment areas, for example using water storage areas to hold excess water upstream temporarily during periods of heavy rain to protect urban areas.[15]

13. At the time of the Committee's previous report on inland flood defences in 2002, the Agency had started to develop catchment flood management plans and later set a target to complete 68 plans by December 2007. These plans are designed to set out the policy for managing flood risk in a catchment over the next 50 to 100 years, taking into account various factors over the long term, such as climate change and property development, so that decisions about construction and maintenance can be made in the context of the catchment as a whole.[16]

14. The Agency's intention was that proposed construction projects would be based upon catchment modelling and the policies set out in the river catchment flood management plans. Only six of the catchment plans had been completed by June 2007, however, and the Agency did not expect to complete all plans until the end of 2008. Budget cuts imposed by the Department in 2006-07 were said to have slowed progress on developing plans. Meanwhile, the Agency was continuing with its construction programme. £232 million of work was, for example, planned for the Humber Estuary over the next 25 years. The catchment flood management plans for the Rivers Don, Rother and Ouse in North East England were, however, still being developed and would not be completed until July 2008.[17]

15. Existing drainage systems are often put under strain when new housing developments are built, as usually the system is extended to include the additional properties with limited consideration given to the impact on the capacity of the whole drainage system. The adequacy of urban drainage was becoming an increasing concern, particularly with more intense rainfall adding to the risk that drainage systems would be overwhelmed.[18]

16. The Agency was involved in a number of pilot projects to develop 25 year drainage plans, but their success would depend upon the collaboration of water companies, local authorities and developers. The Agency was pressing for greater use of sustainable urban drainage systems in its discussions with planners and developers, for example, using permeable concrete and creating water holding areas so that water could be contained without entering the drains and causing flash flooding. The difficulty with these systems was agreeing who would maintain them in the future. The Agency pointed out that none of the proposals in the White Paper on Planning for a Sustainable Future, published in May 2007, specifically addressed flood risk or sustainable drainage systems. The White paper did, though, propose a more strategic, clearer and focused national policy framework. Planning Policy Statement 1—Delivering Sustainable Development, was central to the paper and gave policy support to sustainable urban drainage systems.[19]

2 C&AG's Report, para 1.1; Ev 7 Back

3 Oral Statement to the House by the Secretary of State on flooding in England, 26 June 2007; Oral Ministerial Statement by the Secretary of State on Flooding, 24 July, 2007 Back

4 C&AG's Report para 1.4; Qq 4, 8 Back

5 While we refer to the Agency as responsible for flood risk management in England, it actually has permissive powers under the Water Resources Act, 1991, to manage flooding from designated 'main' rivers and the sea. The legislation confers no right to protection or to any particular standard of defence. Where the Agency does not exercise its permissive powers, any flood defence remains the responsibility of the relevant landowner. Back

6 Ev 29, Ministerial Statement by the Secretary of State on learning lessons from the recent floods, 12 July 2007; Oral Ministerial Statement by the Secretary of State on Flooding, 23 July 2007 Back

7 Ev 28; Qq 60, 99-104 Back

8 C&AG's Report, para 1.8; Ev 17 Back

9 Ev 23 Back

10 Q 32; Statement of principles on the provision of flood insurance updated version, Association of British Insurers, November 2005 Back

11 C&AG's Report, para 3.1 Back

12 Qq 21-25, 52-55; C&AG's Report, paras 2.6, 3.7 Back

13 C&AG's Report paras 3.8-3.10; Qq 24-25, 42-43, 51-53; Ev 25 Back