House of Commons - Future flood and water management legislation - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee

Future flood and water management legislation - Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Contents

1 Flood management

Background to flood management policy

5. The Environment Agency (EA) estimates that 2.4 million properties are at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea in England, of which 1 million are also susceptible to surface water flooding, with a further 2.8 million properties susceptible to surface water flooding alone. In all, around 5.2 million (one in six) properties are at risk of flooding. Of these, some 500,000 are classified as being at "significant" risk (i.e. there is a greater than 1 in 75 probability of a flood occurring in any one year).[5] The EA calculates the expected annual cost of damage to residential and non-residential properties in England at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea to be more than £1 billion.[6]

6. The ability of flood water to disrupt lives and livelihoods was brought sharply into focus by the flood events in Cumbria in 2009 and in Cornwall in November 2010. The Cumbrian floods were estimated to have cost around £276 million, while early estimates put the costs of the Cornish floods at potentially £12 million.[7] On an even greater scale, in summer 2007 floods in parts of England and Wales led to the deaths of 13 people, with some 49,000 households and nearly 7,000 properties flooded. Overall the 2007 floods cost around £4 billion.[8] The subsequent independent review conducted by Sir Michael Pitt at the Government's request made a large range of recommendations on how to better prepare for and respond to flood events.[9]The Government accepted the Pitt Review in full and initiated work to implement the key recommendations, in particular by enacting the Flood and Water Management Act (FWMA) in April 2010. Despite this, flood management policy was a work in progress at the time of the general election in May 2010 since the FWMA had not yet been commenced. Furthermore, there were a number of issues which Defra consulted upon alongside the draft Flood and Water Management Bill but which, due to lack of parliamentary time, were not included in the final legislation.

COMMENCEMENT OF THE FLOOD AND WATER MANAGEMENT ACT 2010

7. The first commencement order for the FWMA has been laid and measures are being commenced in phases, from September 2010 onwards.[10] Further commencement dates are expected to be announced shortly. For example, the Government is working towards most local authority responsibilities for flood risk management being ready to come into effect from April 2011. The Act establishes a new framework of roles and responsibilities for key bodies to ensure an effective, joined-up response to flooding threats and events. It gives the Environment Agency overall responsibility for flood management strategy,[11] while county or unitary councils become Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) leading the co-ordination of flood risk management in their areas, including preparation of plans to manage surface water flooding.[12]

8. Some provisions will not be enacted until later in 2011 or in 2012, given the need to consult on the detailed application of these measures, such as those on sustainable drainage systems (SUDs) which we address below.

Resourcing flood management work

9. Effective practical implementation of flood policy objectives requires adequate resources for both the management activities of those charged with preparing for and responding to flood events, such as preparation of strategies and flood risk management plans, and for capital projects, principally building and maintaining flood defences.

LOCAL AUTHORITY FUNDING

10. The EA emphasised to us the importance of local authorities in delivering local flood risk management.[13] A key plank of the FWMA is that local authorities are expected to take on the role of Lead Local Flood Authority, including taking responsibility for surface water, ground water and ordinary watercourse flooding.[14]Defra has committed itself to "fully funding new net burdens" on local authorities,[15] a point re-iterated by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Rt Hon Mrs Caroline Spelman MP, who told us that Defra had allocated funding from its own budgets to local government since "it isn't reasonable to ask local authorities to do things without resourcing them correctly".[16] Defra's Director General, Environment and Rural Group, Peter Unwin, told us that the Department had given councils some £21 million for next year and £36 million for subsequent years to cover extra responsibilities under the FWMA.[17] In addition, Defra told us that this year local authorities were spending some £100 million from their formula grant on flood activity.[18]

11. However, we received a great deal of evidence questioning Defra's assumptions about the funding levels necessary for local authorities to undertake their enhanced roles. Somerset County Council, for example, considered that the £36 million funding did not reflect the full costs to councils of implementing the new burdens placed on them by the FWMA.[19] Devon County Council stated that surface water flooding accounted for some 46% of the flood risk to properties, however, councils (who are tasked with managing such flooding) only received some 6% (£36 million) of overall flood funding. It recommended the establishment of a single "Flood Risk Management" pot combining EA money and new surface water, ground water and ordinary watercourse funding. This should be shared out based on "flood zone risk and surface water vulnerability".[20] Essex County Council also wanted revenues, from either charges such as the General Drainage Charge or from Regional Flood and Coastal Committee (RFCC) scheme funding, to be made available for surface water flood work.[21] The need for sufficient funding for councils was endorsed by water industry companies such as Severn Trent Water,[22] and by the insurance industry. The Association of British Insurers (ABI) considered that the Government should ensure that sufficient funding sources were available as part of a long-term funding strategy which should be set out as soon as possible.[23]

12. On 24 November 2010, after we finished taking evidence, Defra published a consultation document which set out in more detail the principles under which it was proposed that funding for flood defences would be secured in future.[24] Amongst its proposals is the suggestion that capital grants should be available for surface water flooding work since "all sources of risk, and projects sponsored by all operating authorities, should be treated and valued equally on a benefits and damages avoided basis".[25]

13. Under the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR), on average, central government funding to councils is set to decrease by 26% over the next four years, although the decrease in funds available is estimated at 14% if projections for council tax levels are taken into account.[26] Ring-fencing of most revenue grants will end from 2011-12, and local authorities will have to make their own choices about where to direct funding according to their local priorities.[27]

14. Both new and existing flood management legislation can only be effectively implemented if those charged with putting it into practice have adequate and stable funding. Under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 local authorities will have a leading role in local flood work and will have to balance this new area of responsibility with other demands on their limited budgets, including the potential need to make increased contributions if some local flood defence projects are to proceed in the next few years. We believe that councils should aim to give flood protection work the same level of priority that the Government has spelt out in the Coalition Agreement. We recommend that Defra and the Department for Communities and Local Government review local authorities' spend on flood management work in April 2012.

15. We have not been able to examine in detail the impact of the Comprehensive Spending Review on local authority flood management work, nor the potential implications for this work of the Government's proposals for funding of surface water management projects. In view of the level of concern over the sufficiency of council funds to meet their new flood responsibilities, we will wish to return to this issue in future.

SUSTAINABLE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS

16. A specific responsibility placed on local authorities under the FWMA is to adopt and maintain sustainable drainage systems (SUDs) for new properties.[28] The provision of SUDs for new developments, and where possible for existing developments, is widely supported by organisations such as the EA, since they aid effective surface water drainage in an economically and environmentally-friendly manner.[29] Much of the evidence we received, including that from the Local Government Association (LGA), supported the Act's position that local government should be responsible for SUDs since this would enable councils to establish a closer link between drainage and planning.[30] However, some water companies disagreed with the FWMA's approach. Yorkshire Water for example, said that water and sewerage companies should own and manage SUDs since this was a core activity for such companies, and they were also able to recover the associated costs through sewerage bills. It considered it to be "counter intuitive" to transfer responsibility for private sewers to water companies whilst at the same time creating new drainage responsibilities for local authorities.[31]

17. Evidence submitted to this inquiry reveals widespread concern among local authorities about their ability to fund SUDs' adoption and maintenance. The Impact Assessment (IA) published alongside the Flood and Water Management Bill assumed a level of savings from a separate policy which councils strongly dispute will accrue to them.[32]

18. The LGA was critical of Defra's methodology and conclusions since the IA was based on a 2002 survey which had only secured a 12% response rate from local authorities. It cited Defra's caveat at the time that the survey's figures could "only be used as a guide" yet the Department had used it to conclude that councils would realise some £50 million in savings to spend on SUDs work.[33] The LGA quoted a number of councils which had calculated that they would accrue only a fraction of Defra's assumed savings from the transfer of sewers. For example, Leeds City Council said it spent £28,000 on private sewers in 2008-09 while Defra estimated that council's spend to be some £760,000 a year.[34] Councils including Devon, Cornwall, Lincolnshire and Essex County Councils and Calderdale Council reinforced these concerns in their evidence to us.[35]

19. The LGA also considered that the IA was out-of-date as savings to councils would have been further reduced since 2002 due to significant amounts of housing having left local authority control.[36] The Association considered it "essential" to establish a sustainable, long-term funding mechanism for SUDs maintenance and replacement. It proposed a model by which surface water drainage revenue collected by water and sewerage companies for those properties served by sustainable drainage systems could be passed to councils for funding SUDs maintenance.[37]

20. Defra told us that the 2002 survey represented the "best evidence available" and that issues such as variations in the levels of local authority involvement in private sewerage and cost recovery had been taken account of in calculating the £50 million figure.[38] It said that the LGA had not offered an alternative estimate. Defra said it wanted to "achieve a fair outcome for both local authorities and the taxpayer" and had set up a joint review panel with the LGA, as well as committing to fund the maintenance of adopted SUDs while options for a longer-term funding mechanism were considered.[39]

21. The principle of local authorities recovering costs, both immediate and continuing, associated with new developments from developers is an established one. The Planning Policy Statement on Development and Flooding (PPS 25) states that, where surface water drainage systems are provided solely to serve any particular development, their construction and ongoing maintenance costs should be "fully funded by the developer".[40] Commuted sums could therefore be negotiated with developers to meet the ongoing costs of maintaining SUDs.

22. We support the development of sustainable drainage systems (SUDs) for new properties and their retro-fitting where feasible since they are a cost-effective, environmentally beneficial method of providing drainage. In implementing the SUDs provisions in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, Defra must take into account the diversity of views as to who should be responsible for SUDs maintenance and the strong concerns many local authorities have about securing long-term funding for this. We are concerned that Defra's calculation of the level of resources it expects to be available to councils as a result of the transfer of private sewers is not based on robust data and that councils will therefore not be adequately recompensed for their new duties on SUDS. We recommend that Defra undertakes further work on its model for the ownership and funding of SUDs, including the extent of the potential for local authorities to recover costs from developers.

FIRE AND RESCUE AUTHORITIES' FLOOD DUTIES

23. The emergency response (including that by the EA) to the summer 2007 floods was estimated to have cost £27 million.[41] The Pitt Review examined the role for Fire and Rescue Authorities in responding to flood events and recommended that the "Government should urgently put in place a fully funded national capability for flood rescue, with Fire and Rescue Services playing a leading role, underpinned as necessary by a statutory duty".[42] The Fire Brigades Union (FBU) argued that, as flood rescue is not a core function, there was a need for a statutory duty on Fire and Rescue Authorities to undertake such work, as recommended by the Pitt Review, and that this could be implemented via an order under Section 9 of the Civil Contingencies Act.[43] The FBU was concerned that, despite £2 million funding from Defra for flood rescue capability, "none" of the money had been spent on fire-fighter training or personal protective equipment and there was less equipment available than at the time of the 2007 floods.[44]

24. Defra told us that the Pitt Review was "not categorical about the issue of statutory duty" and referred to Sir Ken Knight's review of the Fire and Rescue Services' (FRS) response to the 2007 floods which concluded that such a duty was not necessary. Defra considered a duty could be counter-productive since other responders would "withdraw from the response" due to lack of statutory duty on them, which would lead to increased pressure on FRS funds. It did not, however, rule out introduction of a statutory duty.[45] The Minister also told us that if there were a local failure from prioritising statutory over discretionary matters, or if the "wrong priorities" were adopted, then Defra had a "national responsibility" to make sure the Pitt Review recommendations were followed through.[46]

25. In November 2010 Defra announced that a further £2 million was being provided to help fund emergency services' flood rescue work.[47] At the same time the Department launched the first phase of its "Exercise Watermark" to test the preparedness of agencies to respond to flood events.[48]

26. We welcome the launch of Exercise Watermark and the additional £2 million of funding from Defra towards emergency services' flood rescue work but recognise that this represents only a fraction of the potential costs to these authorities of preparing for and responding to flood events. We are concerned that the lack of a statutory duty for Fire and Rescue Authorities could jeopardise their flood preparation and response work, given pressures on them to direct their limited funding towards fulfilling non-discretionary duties. We recommend that the Government places a duty on Fire and Rescue Authorities to undertake specified flood rescue preparation and response work, and that provision of adequate resources for this work is included under the funding formulae applied to emergency services.

FUNDING FOR FLOOD DEFENCES

27. Previous Defra Ministers accepted EA estimates that funding on flood defences needed to double by 2035 to maintain current protection levels.[49] A Government report in 2004 calculated that by the end of the century, increased risk of flooding due to factors such as climate change and urban development could increase the annual cost of flooding from £1 billion to £2 billion at today's prices, if flood management programmes were to be increased in line with the rising risk. However, costs could go up to around £27 billion if they were not.[50] A considerable part of Defra's capital budget has in recent years been allocated to flood management work such as building and maintaining flood defences. For example, in 2008-09 around £347 million, or 55% of the Department's total capital budget, was allocated to such work.[51] The EA states that every £1 spent on most new flood defence schemes generates an £8 return in the long term,[52] for example through avoidance of the costs of restoring property and assets after flooding. Defra describes this as amongst the highest value for money achieved by public sector investment.[53] Graph 1, below, sets out overall expenditure over the past decade on English flood risk management work.

Graph 1: Expenditure on flood risk management in England, 2000 to 2010

Source: Environment Agency, Flood Risk Management in England, 2009

28. The Minister said prior to the CSR announcement that protecting flood and coastal erosion defence budgets was a priority. However, he warned that the Government could not be expected to meet the estimated £20 billion cost of funding defences for every property at risk. The Minister is reported to have said that some communities in high-risk coastal areas would have to be sacrificed due to rising sea levels and erosion.[54] He told us that "the idea that we could surround all our coastlines that are vulnerable to coastal erosion by steel and concrete in perpetuity and defend every house was a notion that was wrong from the outset".[55]

29. In October 2010, the CSR announcement provided top-line information on the level of funding for flood defence work for the period 2010-11 to 2014-15. Defra plans to spend some £2.1 billion better protecting 145,000 homes by the end of this period.[56] The Secretary of State clarified that the 145,000 figure was the number of "additional homes" that the Government had committed itself to protecting within the CSR period.[57] The EA will also work to achieve efficiency savings on capital investment in flood defences of 15% by 2014-15.[58] The Secretary of State told us that Defra had secured a "very good outcome" from the CSR capital bidding process, particularly since the previous Government had been committed to 50% savings on its overall capital budgets. She claimed that it was a "very good return on public investment when public money is spent defending people's homes".[59] However, whatever the previous administration's spending plans may or may not have been, £2.1 billion represents an 8% annual reduction over the next four years, compared to the previous four years' spend, or around a 17% reduction on the previous Government's funding for flood defence work in 2010-11.[60]

30. Further detail on budgets from April 2011 for specific Defra bodies, including for the EA, will be provided in due course. Nevertheless, the Environment Agency's Chairman, Lord Smith of Finsbury, believed that the CSR meant that flood defence projects on site could finish but there would be "some difficulty" starting new flood defence projects over the next year or two. He also believed that revenue funding would be sufficient to maintain current emergency response levels—an "absolute" EA priority.[61] He expected the EA to be able to "maintain a very strong maintenance programme".[62] He suggested that of the 500,000 homes at significant flood risk, the CSR settlement would allow increased protection to some 45,000.[63]

31. The evidence reflected the debate that has been started about the basis on which flood defences are funded and the potential to improve the allocation of costs to reflect the benefits to private individuals and organisations. For example, Yorkshire Water argued that accessing private capital to support flood defence investment should be explored, as this would release public sector resources to be spent in other priority areas.[64] The Minister gave us assurances that flood defences would not be sold off but he placed emphasis on partnership working to "empower communities",[65] arguing that local people should be able to contribute since it meant they were better protected from flooding, and that this should be reflected in their insurance premiums.[66] He said that injecting alternative funding could make schemes viable that would not be pursued if funded solely from public sources.[67] Defra also believed that the EA's practice of seeking funds where appropriate from those who stand to be major beneficiaries of new and improved flood defences allowed Government funding to be "spread further and achieve more overall".[68]

32. Defra's consultation document on funding flood and coastal erosion risk management work, published on 24 November, aims to implement the Pitt Review recommendation that "local investment in flood risk management should be allowed and encouraged".[69] It proposes that from April 2012 new principles should apply for the allocation of grant-in-aid to reflect the Government's view that "the private as well as public nature of benefits suggest that costs should not fall to the general taxpayer alone".[70] Although at present some 95% of costs are met by central Government, nevertheless existing local levy powers mean that local communities are already funding some schemes, and have often needed to fully fund projects where central grant-in-aid has not been available.[71]

33. Under the new approach, some grant-in-aid will be available to all projects but 100% funding will only be provided to projects that deliver "sufficient benefits".[72] Where more projects are seeking grant-in-aid than is available within a particular region, Defra proposes that Regional Flood and Coastal Committees can "raise local levy to pay the flood defence grant-in-aid contribution needed to avoid the projects having to be deferred, or the full project costs if no other funding is forthcoming".[73] The consultation document states that the proposals will give communities more choice, but that providing funding additional to grant-in-aid would be "voluntary".[74]

34. Defra claims the new approach will give "greater certainty" over Government investment and enable it to focus support on those "most at risk and least able to afford to protect themselves".[75] Nevertheless, Defra recognises that the existing EA process has been an efficient way of delivering national priorities and exploiting economies of scale.[76]

35. We are concerned about the future adequacy of funding for flood defences given the need to increase investment in order simply to maintain the current level of protection in the face of flood threats which may be increasing as a result of climate change. We note the priority Defra places on protecting flood defence work and welcome its provision of more than £2 billion over the next four years for such work. We welcome the focus on improving procurement to deliver 15% efficiency savings in Environment Agency flood defence budgets which was designed to help to deliver improved protection to 145,000 properties by 2015. However, it is an inescapable fact that the CSR funding settlement represents a cut to flooding budgets. This is against a background where funding for flood defences has been judged to be inadequate.

36. Given the considerable sums of capital spending being invested into flood defences in the UK, we believe it is essential that Defra regularly reviews the evidence base on which projections of increased flood risk are based. No model projecting changes in sea level or changing weather patterns can ever be perfect for all time and if future evidence were to emerge which conflicted with the original projection or, for instance, suggested that the pace at which sea levels were rising was starting to slow, then the Department should take account of such evidence.

37. Whilst Defra's recently published consultation document on the future funding of flood and coastal erosion risk management gives substance to the debate as to how to ensure that beneficiaries provide a higher proportion of the funding for flood defences, proposals are at an early stage of development. We conclude that it is right that beneficiaries such as developers should help fund new schemes, but it is by no means certain that any shortfall in central Government funding will be made up at this stage by contributions from other sectors, particularly the local government sector which is already contributing to funding many local flood defence projects. Clear principles and methods must be agreed urgently amongst all interested parties to secure funding from all sources to meet the Government's flood defence objectives in the next few years since timely investment in flood defences provides significant economic and social returns. We note Defra's assurance that public funding will be focussed on those communities at greatest risk who are least able to protect themselves and recommend that Ministers spell out in their consultation response how such communities will be identified and how their protection will be achieved in practice.

38. We recommend that the Environment Agency provides the Committee with an update in May 2011 on how the allocation of Defra's CSR funding will impact on its flood programmes and by the end of 2011 on how its efficiency programme has impacted on its flood defence work.

FLOOD INSURANCE

39. One of the main sectors calling for action to maintain flood defence spending is the insurance industry. The Association of British Insurers (ABI) estimated that by 2035 another 350,000 properties would be added to the 500,000 properties currently at "significant" flood risk unless steps were taken now. It considered the FWMA to be a "vital step towards better protection for home owners and businesses" which fulfilled part of the 2008 'Statement of Principles' agreement between the ABI and the Government on the provision of flood insurance (see annex). This agreement enables the insurance industry to provide up until the end of June 2013 flood insurance to the vast majority of households and small businesses, both those located in areas where flood risk is not significant (ie less than a 1 in 75 annual probability of flooding) or in areas at "significant flood risk" where the EA has announced plans to reduce the risk for those customers to a level "below significant" within five years.[77] This agreement does not, however, apply to new properties built after January 2009 since the ABI encourages developers and customers purchasing a property in a new development to ensure that it is insurable for flooding. Nevertheless, the ABI also considered that binding targets should be placed on the EA to reduce the number of properties at significant flood risk.[78] RSA Insurance Ltd considered that the present agreement would not be renewed in its existing form after it expired in June 2013 since the Government needed to demonstrate a clearer "commitment to continuing, planned investment in spending on flood defences".[79]

40. These views were echoed by the LGA who warned that, should the insurance industry withdraw its agreement to provide flood risk cover to the over 5 million properties in flood risk areas, there was a "danger of creating blight, unbalancing the housing market and undermining social cohesion".[80] However, the Secretary of State saw "no reason" why anyone should not be able to insure their property".[81] The Minister called for the insurance industry to work with the Government to "encourage homes and properties to be resilient to flooding".[82]

41. There is an urgent need for the Government to reach agreement with the insurance industry on the provision of flood insurance to millions of homes and businesses in flood risk areas since the current 'Statement of Principles' is set to expire in 2013. The renewed agreement should ensure that investment in flood resilience measures by householders is reflected in the insurance premiums they pay. Defra should provide the Committee with an update on progress on this within six months.

Agriculture and flood defences

42. We received evidence about the contribution that agricultural landowners make towards achieving flood management objectives. The National Farmers' Union (NFU) noted that, since 75% of England and Wales was agricultural land, farmers' involvement in management of flood risk was "crucial" but it emphasised that "services they can offer do not come without a cost".[83] The NFU considered that agricultural land should not be seen as a "free resource" (for example for temporary storage of floodwaters) and welcomed the clause in the FWMA permitting arrangements to be made for financial or other support for "action taken by persons in respect of risk of, or in preparing to manage the consequences of, flooding or coastal erosion".[84] The Minister recognised that proper compensation was owed to landowners. Wetting farmland in order to protect properties from flooding imposed "a lot on the farming community" hence the industry's views needed to be taken into account.[85]

43. No specific outcome measures in relation to agricultural benefits and food security are included in the current flood defence cost-benefit calculations. The Minister told us that such measures would "divert resources away from protecting people and property and other sectors of the economy that tend to suffer much greater damages than agriculture when flooding takes place".[86] Defra noted that less than 2% of the damage suffered in the 2007 floods was incurred by the agricultural sector, despite the floods occurring close to harvest time. It told us that there was "no evidence" that flood events represented a threat to food security in the UK, and that agricultural benefits were appropriately valued within the existing appraisal and prioritisation system.[87]

44. Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) have been the bodies responsible for socio-economic scheme management under the Rural Development Programme for England (RDPE).[88] Peter Unwin, Director General, Environment and Rural Group, Defra told us that the department would take over this responsibility when the RDAs were abolished, without affecting delivery to farmers".[89] The Secretary of State believed that it would not be possible to place responsibility with Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs), the "obvious vehicle for delivery", whilst the LEP "map was evolving". By taking responsibility centrally, Defra could assure the European Commission that public resources were being properly applied to the purpose for which they were intended and were being properly "controlled and audited".[90]

45. While the evidence suggests that the impact of flooding on agriculture is not as costly as on other sectors, greater recognition of the value of flood defence works undertaken by agricultural landowners is needed. The Water White Paper and Natural Environment White Paper must fully reflect the potential role of agricultural practices in assisting the achievement of flooding objectives. Where agricultural land is used for flood defence and mitigation purposes, the owners and farmers should be properly compensated.

46. We note with concern that final arrangements have yet to be made for administering payments under the Rural Development Programme for England after the abolition of the Regional Development Agencies. Defra should set out clearly in its response to this report how it will manage the transitional arrangements in order to ensure that this inter-regnum does not hinder work to encourage landowners to implement measures to support water management and flood defence work.

Planning to mitigate flood risk

47. We received evidence from a range of bodies endorsing the aim of reducing flood risk to new developments. The ABI, for example, suggested that the best way to avoid creating new flood risk is to stop development in high flood risk areas, but that, where development is needed in such areas, higher minimum standards should be applied to buildings, including for design features. It welcomed current planning policy, as set out in the Planning Policy Statement on Development and Flooding, PPS 25,[91]which strengthened requirements for flood resilience in new developments. However, it was concerned that the new localism focus should not lead to any increase in "unwise developments in high risk areas".[92] PPS 25 also allows local authorities to negotiate commuted sums to cover the costs of increased flood risk from new developments.[93]

48. The Government's Coalition Agreement set out a broad aim to prevent "unnecessary building in areas of high flood risk", but provided no specific definition of what constituted "unnecessary building".[94] The Minister told us that there was a need to look at more flexible approaches to development, such as providing some money to protect properties for only 20-30 years as opposed to a period of 100 years.[95]

49. While a blanket ban on development in areas at risk of flooding would clearly be the most direct method of ensuring that new properties are not affected by flooding, this is not a practicable approach given limited land availability, particularly in those areas where development pressures are highest. It is important to direct development to low flood risk areas as much as possible, but, where development is essential in higher flood risk areas, sufficient attention must be given to mitigation measures. Planning authorities must also recognise the need for the costs of any flood defence measures provided for those properties that are constructed in high flood risk areas to be borne, at least in part, by those such as developers who are beneficiaries. We recommend that the Water White Paper set out a clear framework for planning for new developments in flood risk areas, building on existing planning policy, including principles for the apportionment between public agencies and private beneficiaries of the costs of providing flood defences for new developments.

Internal Drainage Boards

50. Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs) play a key role in flood prevention in the nearly 10% of the country where ongoing watercourse and drainage management is needed to keep water levels within acceptable limits. The Boards are independent, statutory bodies responsible for land drainage in areas of special drainage need, covering 1.2 million hectares of lowland England.[96] There are currently some 160 IDBs in England and Wales, concentrated in East Anglia, Yorkshire, Somerset and Lincolnshire. Although it included no specific proposals, the consultation document published with the draft Flood and Water Management Bill stated that IDB reform might be necessary to address concerns over some Boards' accountability and accessibility. The document claimed that some IDBs operate "solely or primarily for the benefit of farmers" to the "detriment of nature conservation".[97] However, it also referred to Defra's recent process of modernising IDBs, including amalgamation of Boards, to reduce costs and to more closely match them to river catchment units in line with the concept of holistic water management.

51. We received evidence both for and against reform of IDBs. In favour were organisations such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) who said reform was "long overdue" since Boards needed a sustainability duty and their membership needed to better reflect local authority and environmental interests.[98] Some organisations supported the concept of extending IDB roles, for example the EA was interested in working with Boards on extending their role into management of main rivers in IDB areas.[99] Against reform were bodies such as the NFU who considered radical reform to be unnecessary given IDBs' successful track record. It considered the Bill's consultation proposal to be a blunt instrument, although there was scope for improved engagement by Boards with their stakeholders.[100]

52. The Minister told us that while IDBs were a "wonderful example of local community spirit and voluntary activity" undertaken by committed people with local knowledge, some Boards could operate better if they were amalgamated.[101] The Minister was wary of the potential enlargement of the IDB role into main river management, since he did not want to "fix something that is not broken".[102] Although measures on reform of IDBs were not included in the FWMA, the Government has included enabling provisions in the Public Bodies (Reform) Bill currently going through Parliament to allow reform of IDBs at a subsequent date by delegated legislation.[103]

53. Internal Drainage Boards are already seeking to maximise the impact of their work including through implementing improvements to their structure. However, the broader question as to the necessity or otherwise of more substantial reform of IDBs was left unresolved at the time of the last election. We favour a localised, incremental approach to any reform as opposed to a "one size fits all" model imposed centrally. We recommend that the Water White Paper set out the broad principles for the evolution of the relationship between IDBs and other agencies with drainage functions over the next 5 years, allowing for local implementation according to the specific needs of each area. Defra should consider allowing IDBs to retain levy money currently paid to the Environment Agency for maintenance of river courses so that IDBs can use their skills and equipment to undertake these functions directly where appropriate to local circumstances.

5 The Environment Agency uses three main flood risk categories: "Low risk" equates to a less than 0.5% chance of flooding in any year at that location (i.e. a one in 200 chance in any given year), "Moderate risk" equates to a 0.5- 1.3 % chance (i.e. a one in 200 to 1 in 75 chance in any given year), "Significant risk" equates to a more than 1.3 % chance (i.e. a one in 75 chance or more in any given year).Environment Agency, Flooding in England: A National Assessment of Flood Risk, 2009. Back

6 Environment Agency, Flooding in England: a National Assessment of Flood Risk, 2009, p 6. Back

7 "Huge cost of Cumbria floods revealed days after fresh destruction hits Cornwall" The Guardian, 19 November 2010. Back

8 Environment Agency, The costs of the summer 2007 floods in England, Project Summary, January 2010, p V .Total "out of pocket" costs were £4 billion, with some £2.5 billion borne by households (of which 75% was recovered through insurance claims) and some £1 billion borne by businesses (of which some 90% was recovered through insurance claims). Back

9 Sir Michael Pitt, Learning lessons from the 2007 floods, June 2008, p 3. [This report is subsequently referred to as "The Pitt Review"]. Back

10 The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (Commencement No. 1 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2010 commenced certain measures from 1 September and others from 1 October 2010. Back

11 The Environment Agency published its draft national strategy on 24 November 2010, with a consultation running until February 2011.Defra/Environment Agency, Reducing the threat, building resilience, empowering communities; Consultation on a national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy for England, November 2010. Back

12 Defra webpages. www.defra.gov.uk Back

13 Ev 62 Note: Volume I of this report contains written evidence submitted by only those witnesses who also gave oral evidence to the Committee. Additional written evidence is contained in Volume II to this report available on the Committee's website at www.parliament.uk/efracom.Such evidence is referenced as 'Ev w'. Back

14 Flood and Water Management Act 2010, Sections 6 and 9. Back

15 Defra fact sheet, Flood and Water Management Act 2010: Funding for local authorities, Defra webpages. www.defra.gov.uk/environment/flooding Back

16 Minutes of Evidence taken before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, 16 November 2010, HC 611-i, Q 3. Back