Conclusions and recommendations
Funding for flood risk management
1. We
welcome the Government's recognition that effective flood protection
is essential for economic growth and for the regeneration of key
parts of the country. Additional capital funding until the end
of the decade announced by the Chancellor in the 2013 spending
round is essential for securing flood defences to protect homes
and businesses. However, funding has not kept pace in recent years
with an increased risk of flooding from more frequent severe weather
events and the relatively modest additional sums to be provided
up to 2020 will not be sufficient to plug the funding gap. (Paragraph
15)
2. Defra, together
with the Department for Communities and Local Government, should
act as an advocate for local communities with HM Treasury to secure
additional investment for local flood defences. Defra must set
out detailed evidence to demonstrate to HM Treasury that flood
management capital funding must rise year on year by £20
million over the next 25 years to keep pace with increasing flood
threat. This must be matched by a better balance between revenue
and capital funding, whether from government or other sources.
A review must take place prior to each spending period to ensure
that funding is neither excessive nor inadequate in the light
of developing scientific evidence on the
likely long term impacts of changing weather patterns on flood
risk. (Paragraph 16)
3. Although the effectiveness
of the Partnership model for allocating flood funding will become
fully apparent in time, we are concerned that only small amounts
of private sector funding have been secured to date. Defra must
demonstrate in the next 18 months that this model can deliver
much greater private sector funding
(Paragraph 22)
4. The Department
and the Environment Agency must simplify procedures to speed up
delivery of funding to local authorities for whom efficient cash-flow
is vital if project funding is to be secured
from private bodies. (Paragraph 23)
5. The Government
should ensure that maximum use is made of natural methods to prevent
and manage flooding, which could enable the application of wider
funding streams such as those available for EU agri-environment
schemes. (Paragraph 24)
6. We regret that
the current regulatory framework does not permit innovative investment
in natural flood defences by water companies and expect Ofwat's
next Price Review to rectify this. (Paragraph 25)
7. The current model
for allocating flood defence funding is biased towards protecting
property, which means that funding is largely allocated to urban
areas. Defra's failure to protect rural areas poses a long term
risk to the security of UK food production as a high proportion
of the most valuable agricultural land is at risk of flooding.
Defra must require the Environment Agency to amend its scoring
system to put a higher value on the benefits delivered by agricultural
land, so that such land becomes eligible for a higher proportion
of flood defence funding. (Paragraph 29)
Maintenance of flood defences and watercourses
8. We
are deeply concerned at the decision to reduce funding for maintenance
of flood defences and watercourses which could leave communities
exposed to the threat of flooding despite having benefited from
considerable capital investment in flood defences. It is essential
that adequate revenue funding is provided to enable the Environment
Agency to conduct the necessary dredging and maintenance of watercourses
so as to minimise flood
risk to local communities
(Paragraph 36)
9. We recommend that
Internal Drainage Boards which wish to undertake maintenance of
local watercourses be supported in doing so, including by enabling
them to retain the funding they currently provide to the Environment
Agency for these services. (Paragraph 38)
10. We recommend that
the Environment Agency continues to provide Internal Drainage
Boards and local authorities with schedules of maintenance work
to enable effective co-ordination of such work. Information should
be published so that interested parties and the public are fully
informed on the activities being undertaken. (Paragraph 39)
Local authority flood recovery work
11. We
recommend that the Bellwin scheme be amended to enable local authorities
to secure central government assistance for repairing and reinstating
roads and other infrastructure damaged by flooding. (Paragraph
44)
12. It is not logical
that the size of a local authority should determine whether or
not it is eligible for central government support in the event
of a flood. We recommend that the requirement for a local authority
to incur costs of at least 0.2% of its annual revenue budget in
order for it to qualify for Bellwin Scheme funding be reviewed.
A fairer measure of the impact of an event on a locality must
be adopted. (Paragraph 45)
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDs)
13. Three
years after enactment of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010,
its provisions on sustainable drainage have yet to be implemented.
We have previously criticised the Government for failure to reach
agreement with key parties, such as local authorities, on how
implementation is to be funded and managed, yet Defra is unable
to commit to commencement before April 2014. Sustainable drainage
is a key aspect of managing flood risk and it is vital that the
measures are implemented without further delay. (Paragraph 48)
14. Defra must liaise
with the Department for Transport and the Department for Communities
and Local Government on measures to encourage local authorities
and Highways Authorities to install sustainable drainage measures
which will improve the management of water run-off from roads.
(Paragraph 49)
Planning issues
15. We
are disappointed that the coalition agreement's commitment to
end unnecessary building in flood plains has not yet been translated
into effective action. Planning guidance allows building to take
place too readily in areas at high flood risk. Local planning
authorities need stronger support from the Government to resist
inappropriate developments in such places. (Paragraph 54)
16. We recommend that
the Government review how effective the National Planning Policy
Framework has been in preventing new development from increasing
flood risk. If necessary, guidance must be amended to enable local
authorities to reject planning applications where flood risk will
be increased as a result of building in a specific location. Liability
for householders' future costs, for example for increased insurance
premiums, needs to be placed on the final planning authority for
new developments authorised in areas the Environment Agency considers
to be at high risk of flooding. (Paragraph 54)
17. Extending permitted
development rights, for example to certain house extensions, could
have incrementally small but cumulatively significant impacts
on the ability of local areas to manage surface water flows. Defra
must in future liaise more closely with the Department for Communities
and Local Government to ensure that all planning rules are consistent
with sustainable drainage aims. We invite Defra to set out the
mechanism to be used to establish such closer liaison. (Paragraph
56)
18. The Government
must now set out how it will reform the planning system to ensure
that new developments do not jeopardise water supplies in areas
of water stress, for example by placing a statutory requirement
on all those making applications for developments consisting of
more than 10 homes or on sites larger than 1 hectare to consult
water and sewerage companies. (Paragraph 58)
19. We regret the
delay in introducing vital measures to improve the reservoir safety
regime and urge the Government to publish for scrutiny necessary
guidance on the regulations at the earliest opportunity. (Paragraph
59)
Household flood insurance
20. We
welcome the Government's increased funding for flood defences
which has enabled the insurance industry to undertake to continue
to provide affordable flood insurance under the Statement of Principles
regime until new arrangements can be put in place. The Government
and insurance industry have had a number of years to consider
future arrangements and we regret the delay in announcing a solution.
This uncertainty has exacerbated the concerns of householders
facing potentially significant rises in insurance premiums. The
Government must conclude negotiations urgently on the details
of the measures it proposes so as to spell out clearly the arrangements
which will apply in the future and end the current uncertainty.
(Paragraph 63)
21. We were not persuaded
that the open market would be able at present to offer affordable
insurance to all households. We welcome the Government's recognition
that, whilst premiums should in time reflect a property's risk
of flooding, this transition should only take place over a long
timescale. A solution must be found to ensure that insurance is
available for those homes built in areas at high risk of flood
which would be unable to obtain insurance. (Paragraph 79)
22. We endorse in
principle the agreement between the Government and the insurance
industry to introduce a levy-funded insurance pool for households
at high risk of flooding which will keep premiums affordable for
all. Flood Re will make transparent the current implicit cross-subsidy
under the Statement of Principles so that householders are fully
aware of the contribution they are making. This approach will
provide stability for communities and certainty for householders
in future.
(Paragraph 80)
23. The Government's
announcement raises many questions about the operation of Flood
Re, in particular how the scheme will be accountable to Ministers
and Parliament, and how taxpayers' interests will be protected
in the event of an extreme flood event requiring funding beyond
the capacity of the scheme. It is unclear who will bear the costs
from such a 1 in 200 year flood event. (Paragraph 81)
24. We are also concerned
that the approach does not achieve the value for money normally
required of Government policies. Furthermore, it is not clear
how assurances will be enforced to limit the amount of levy to
be paid by all householders and maintain premiums at affordable
levels for those in the scheme.
The regulatory regime must be fully transparent and open to Parliamentary
scrutiny. (Paragraph 82)
25. Ministers concede
that they must publish further details on these issues. These
must be provided urgently so that Parliament can scrutinise fully
both the Flood Re scheme proposals and the measures in the Water
Bill. (Paragraph 83)
| 
