4 Development and planning
35. The planning system also has a flood defence
role to play by minimising development on floodplains and maximising
the use of 'sustainable drainage' techniques.
Floodplain development
36. Dan Rogerson told us that the Government "have
been very clear that we do not want to see building on floodplains".[84]
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that
Inappropriate development in areas at risk of
flooding should be avoided by directing development away from
areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making
it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere.[85]
The Defra Minister went on to say that the Government
will put in place measures to protect existing communities on
floodplains, such as London, but "what we do not want is
new development on floodplains and unprotected areas".[86]
However, Lord Krebs explained to us that "the rate of new
build in flood plains is higher than the rate of new build elsewhere"
and while there may be good reasons for this it meant that "we
are potentially storing up problems for the future"[87]:
Many of those homes are protected by community-level
defences built by the Environment Agency. But there is a question
as to whether this build-and-protect policy is short-sighted,
and whether in the end you will have to invest more and more in
flood defences to keep those homes protected.[88]
37. The Environment Agency is a statutory consultee
on all new developments of over one hectare that are within the
floodplain, but does not comment on small developments of fewer
than 10 homes.[89] It
"takes a 'risk-based' approach, using its expert judgement
to determine whether to respond directly to an application, or
rely on the developer using the Agency's Flood Risk Standing Advice".[90]
Paul Leinster stressed that the Environment Agency is "an
adviser to the planners; we are not the determinants of planning
applications".[91]
Dan Rogerson also told us that
if there is any doubt within a local authority's
mind about something, an application, they can seek the Environment
Agency's advice proactively as well. It is not just the local
authority sitting there with their arms folded waiting for the
Environment Agency to bang on the door.[92]
38. We heard that Environment Agency advice on development
applications in flood risk areas (when provided) is largely followed
by local planning authorities, helping to ensure that "developments
should be safe, resilient and not increasing flood risk elsewhere".[93]
The Environment Agency told us that, in 2013-14, in 97% of cases
in which the Agency "sustained an objection to a planning
application on flooding grounds … those have been accepted
by local planning authorities in their decisions".[94]
Kent County Council[95]
and Kingston Upon Hull County Council[96]
confirmed that, when offered, the Environment Agency's advice
is generally followed.
39. Steve Quartermain, the DCLG Chief planner, told
us that:
On planning applications where [the Environment
Agency] are consulted, they will give advice and they do take
into account not only the site-specific issues but then they will
look at the cumulative effect and whether it has an effect downstream
or whether it is upstream that is affected, and they do take this
more holistic approach. This advice is given to planning authorities
and they can take that into account when they take their decisions.[97]
Lord Krebs raised concerns, however, about increasing
flood risk as a result of the cumulative impacts of small scale
floodplain development, on which the Environment Agency is not
required to provide advice. He told us that "about 12,000
new homes a year [are] being built without Environment Agency
advice on flood risk".[98]
Paul Crick of Kent County Council told us that
The cumulative impact is not necessarily where
the development is. Often it is downstream in communities that
have not perhaps had any development for years and years and yet
the impact of the additional development upstream … impacts
on those communities downstream.[99]
40. The Environment Agency explained that "nobody
has a comprehensive overview of the total development across England".[100]
The Agency could add the most value on the more complicated and
larger developments, where they "look at the impacts both
of the development itself and within its catchment situation".[101]
Meanwhile Paul Leinster told us that:
It should not be a surprise now to any local
authority that they need to consider flood risk when they are
considering planning applications and I do not think they should
have to rely on us to do that very necessary first level of scrutiny.[102]
Dan Rogerson raised a lack of feedback from local
authorities to the Environment Agency on whether the Agency's
guidance has been followed as an issue. As a result, he told us,
Defra had put in place a number of measures "to remind local
authorities to get the feedback to the Environment Agency on exactly
how they have taken account of that advice, from the local authority
side".[103]
FLOOD RE
41. Our ASC witnesses highlighted the safeguard against
inappropriate development, provided by the Flood Re flood reinsurance
scheme.[104] Oliver
Letwin was confident that Flood Re would, through market forces,
prevent inappropriate development in the flood plain. He told
us that "the most powerful incentive you could possibly have
in the housing market is the housing market. If it is impossible
to sell houses, builders will not build them".[105]
Moreover, Pete Fox of the Environment Agency emphasised that:
The fact that the Government has proposed a flood
reinsurance system—and houses built after 2009 are proposed
to be excluded from the scheme—will also add to developers'
difficulty in justifying and selling their properties once they
have built them at flood risk.[106]
42. The National Flood Forum believed that on its
own, Flood Re "does nothing to reduce flood risk, and could
in fact encourage inaction. Flood Re, in effect, buys time for
us to collectively reduce our flood risk, so that a market can
deliver affordable insurance effectively".[107]
Oliver Letwin told us that the insurance scheme was intended to
have a finite life:
It has been the intention right from the beginning
… through to the near end of the Flood Re discussions that
you should get to the point where—a period of decades rather
than years—Flood Re disappears because the need for it disappears,
because we have protected what needs protecting of the old, we
have built the new in a way that does not require that protection
and therefore there is not a reinsurance problem anymore. That
means that we need to have proper incentives from the insurance
companies also for those houses that are subject to risk to invest
in sensible groundwater flood risk prevention, for example. That
is all part of the package. This is not saying that Flood Re is
a permanent feature of the scene that there is to solve all the
problems. It is a transitional device to try to get us to the
point where it is unnecessary.[108]
Similarly, Lord Krebs told us that a well-structured
Flood Re scheme provides an opportunity to incentivise property
level resilience measures, so that "when people suffer flood
damage and are paid by the insurance company to repair their home,
they repair it in a more resilient way".[109]
In February 2015, he wrote to the Chief Executive of Flood Re,
outlining his advice for designing an effective Flood Re that
would "promote flood alleviation, reduce its costs, and improve
value for money".[110]
In this letter, he explained that "Flood Re should form the
centrepiece of a comprehensive, 25-year strategy that seeks to
counter the increasing risk of flooding and reduce the number
of households at high risk".[111]
Surface water flooding and sustainable
drainage
43. Sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) slow the
rate of surface water run-off and improve infiltration, in both
rural and urban areas, by mimicking natural drainage. This reduces
the risk of flash-flooding which occurs when rainwater rapidly
flows into the public sewerage and drainage systems. The ASC found
however that their uptake in new development has been low. Brian
Smith, a member of the DfT Transport Resilience Review, noted
that run-off and high groundwater levels were a particular problem
for the transport sector in last year's winter flooding. This
could, he argued, be ameliorated by
getting sustainable drainage systems in place.
What we are doing is allowing the problem to get worse for the
future, so it does seem to me rather bizarre that we are …
not addressing something that we know is contributing to the problem.
I think to get a move on the sustainable drainage systems regulation
is really important.[112]
44. Defra and DCLG undertook a consultation on
delivering Sustainable Drainage Systems[113]
in 2014, which proposed strengthening planning policy to make
clear that the "expectation is that sustainable drainage
systems will be provided in new developments".[114]
Minor developments—9 houses or fewer—would not be
covered. Lord Krebs wrote to the Defra Secretary of State outlining
the ASC's concerns: that the proposed revision to the planning
system excludes minor development, and that it does not address
the 2008 Pitt Review recommendation to remove the automatic right
to connect new developments to public sewers.[115]
In December 2014, the DCLG Secretary of State told the House that
the Government response would "make it clear that the Government's
expectation is that sustainable drainage will be provided in new
developments wherever this is appropriate".[116]
Dan Rogerson told us that it was the Government's approach "to
promote SuDS as a first point of call. People should assume that
SuDS is the answer unless it cannot be delivered on site, and
then they have to demonstrate it cannot work".[117]
45. The ASC told us that they were still worried
that the changes would not encourage the uptake of SuDS in new
development, not least because:
developers have an automatic right to connect
new homes to existing public services, and that right remains
to this day. While that remains, I think there is an argument
to say that while developers can always connect to the sewers,
they are always likely to want to, so it is an uphill battle to
get them to adopt some of these approaches that they could see
as much more difficult, tricky, and novel ways of managing sensible
drainage.[118]
East Sussex County Council, like the ASC, were concerned
about the delays in ending the right-to-connect provisions of
the Flood and Water Management Act, believing that this was preventing
the widespread use of SuDS in new developments.[119]
Oliver Letwin told us that "the Act is being implemented
gradually" and the Government do not intend to implement
the regulation before the Election.[120]
Local planning
46. Lead Local Flood Authorities (LLFAs) were created
under the 2010 Flood and Water Management Act. They are responsible
for "managing the risk of flooding from surface water, groundwater
and ordinary watercourses" and for "developing, maintaining
and applying a strategy for local flood risk management in their
areas and for maintaining a register of flood risk assets".[121]
The ASC worried that:
Whilst some of the new roles are statutory, the
core task of managing and reducing flood risk is not. Even where
statutory roles are specified, there is scope for LLFAs to determine
the level of activity required to meet them.[122]
Lord Krebs noted that an Environment Agency assessment
in 2013 found that only five out 152 Lead Local Flood Authorities
had a flood risk management plan in place.[123]
The NAO found in March 2014 that only 16% of LLFAs had done so.[124]
Dan Rogerson told us that:
This is an issue that has certainly vexed me
in my 15 months that I have been Minister. They have responsibilities
and as Defra we have provided money to local authorities through
DCLG to do that work. Under the Act they have the responsibility
to take it forward. In many more authorities that work is well
underway, but it has been a source of concern to me, particularly
given the first winter I experienced in the job, that these plans
should all be in place.[125]
He told us that he had written to councillors and
local authorities on several occasions to stress the importance
of this issue.[126]
47. The lack of a legal duty for managing and reducing
flood risks appears to have affected the resources allocated to
this area within local authorities. East Sussex County Council
believed that "within the current economic climate of budget
constraints across the local government sector, it is a significant
challenge to prioritise work on longer term adaptation work programmes".[127]
The ASC reported that:
Local authority spending is under pressure and
at least some of the funding provided for managing local flood
risk is being diverted to other council services. This is leaving
flood risk management teams with less than they feel they need,
including to fulfil their statutory duties. Taking steps to reduce
local flood risk is not a statutory duty for local authorities.[128]
Climate UK told us that "budget cuts and diminishing
capacity within the public sector are a barrier to local action,
undermining the ability to deliver on the recommendations of the
ASC report".[129]
The City of London Corporation believed that "since the abolition
of the National Indicator set, in particular NI-188,[130]
and the ongoing reductions in local authority funding, by necessity
local authorities have focussed on the provision of core services".[131]
The National Flood Forum highlighted that "many local authorities
have lost their skilled staff [and] it is not clear for many authorities
whether they have the skilled resource to be able to deliver their
responsibilities".[132]
They wanted the Government to "ensure that local authorities
have flood risk management teams with the right skills and resources
to deliver the functions required".[133]
48. Staff cuts in the Environment Agency might also
affect flooding work. The ASC calculated that
Numbers of flood risk management staff within
the Environment Agency fell by 800 (20%) after the 2010 Spending
Review, with a decrease of over 400 in the asset management teams
responsible for the maintenance of defences and the response to
flood incidents.[134]
This was a concern of several witnesses. Paul Crick
of Kent County Council told us that "capacity at a local
level is key"[135]
and Alex Nickson of the Local Adaptation Advisory Panel (and Greater
London Authority) told us that "core local competency to
be able to develop and deliver [flood risk management] projects"
needed to be retained.[136]
49. Martin Budd of Kingston upon Hull City Council
told us that it was not yet clear what effect Environment Agency
staff cuts might have:
We have always been very successful in terms
of flooding, in terms of being able to work very closely with
the Environment Agency to develop the schemes that are required
for the city, but there is certainly a concern that, as the changes
start to take place, capacity will start to disappear. More of
that will fall back on to the local authority to try to find the
resources to do that.[137]
When we asked the Environment Agency about these
staff reductions, they explained that the 40% staff cut was not
as stark as the ASC had suggested[138]
because of the Agency's restructuring.[139]
The ASC nevertheless raised a concern that continuing development
on floodplains was increasing the reliance on flood defences and
an under-investment in these defences was storing up costs and
risks for the future.[140]
The planning policy framework
50. Some of our witnesses raised a concern about
the wider planning system. The NPPF, which provides guidance to
local planning authorities, devotes a chapter to "meeting
the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change".
It encourages consideration of long term effects.[141]
Steve Quartermain, Chief Planner at DCLG, told us that local planning
authorities understand what the NPPF asks of them and what the
Government guidance says.[142]
Nevertheless, Dan Rogerson told us that the Government was providing
local authorities with the relevant information to take account
of the wider national picture of flood risk management:
We have improved massively the flood mapping
that is available to them, to make their job easier. If you have
smaller district councils it is invaluable to them—I would
hope—to have the information that is there, and the work
that has gone on since 2007, when surface water flooding was a
huge part of the problem we experienced. We are talking about
floodplains where people quite often are thinking about river
flooding or estuaries. There is more information about surface
water flooding there as well, and local authorities will place
conditions, … to make sure that any development, however
small, takes account of that.[143]
51. Dr Hugh Ellis of the Town and Country Planning
Association (TCPA), was critical, however, of the planning timescales.
The TCPA highlighted that:
'Local Plans' are the only statutory planning
instrument we have in England and such plans have a very short
time horizon of between 10 and 15 years. The nature of climate
impacts and the long lasting character of the built environment
means that much longer time scales are vital.[144]
There was, Dr Ellis believed, no sense of what England
would look like in 2050, in relation to economic development,
infrastructure, climate change and housing,[145]
and that "any adaptation strategy that plans for less than
50 years is pointless; ideally it is 50 to 100 [years]".[146]
The TCPA also wanted climate change adaptation and mitigation
to be integrated in a holistic planning approach "to avoid
maladaptation such as carbon emissions-intensive adaptation".[147]
52. Summing up their criticisms of the current planning
regime, the TCPA told us that
We are faced with a major national choice between
building a secure and resilient future, through clear planning
and investment, or falling victim to the current policy and political
muddle which leads to an ineffective form of crisis management.
The benefits of the first approach will be stronger outcomes for
our economy and for the natural environment but they will also
be fairer outcomes for our most vulnerable communities. Given
how long it takes to reshape the built environment we can be clear
that action must be taken now to reshape the nation. Further delay
will be costly for taxpayers and potentially disastrous for many
vulnerable communities.[148]
The National Flood Forum echoed these concerns:
A review is needed on how effectively planning
policy is being delivered through the whole development process
at delivering government policy on flood risk management, particularly
as reflected in the National Planning Policy Framework, the Flood
and Water Management Act 2010, the National Flood Management Strategy,
and their equivalents in the devolved administrations.[149]
Building standards
53. Paul Leinster from the Environment Agency identified
scope for adaptation at the individual property level. He told
us that we need to think about how "we make sure that properties
become more resilient" as well communities.[150]
Climate change is likely to alter the risks to public health and
well-being. Cold-related mortality is likely to decline slightly
with rising average temperatures, but remain the largest weather-related
risk to health in the future. Due to an ageing population, approximately
40,000 excess deaths a year are expected in the 2050s as a result
of cold weather, compared to 41,000 today. Furthermore, without
adaptation the number of additional deaths and illness associated
with heat stress is likely to increase. Current estimates, based
only on increasing average temperatures rather than the more frequent
heatwaves, suggest approximately 7,000 excess deaths a year in
the 2050s; a tripling of the current figures. Professor Paul Cosford
from Public Health England told us
There is certainly no shortage of evidence on
the health impacts of climate change and the likely effects there.
I think that the challenge for us is ensuring an adequate focus
on the risks that are there from the health impacts in terms of
extreme events—flooding, heat waves and so on—while
at the same time not forgetting that cold weather kills far more
people than heat waves do at the moment, and still will for some
years to come.[151]
54. Understanding of these risks has improved since
the first Climate Change Risk Assessment was published in 2012[152],
but building standards do not appear to have reflected that evolving
understanding. In our November 2013 report on the Housing Standards
Review we criticised the Government's decision to discontinue
the Code for Sustainable Homes and to "significantly dilute"
the 'Zero carbon Homes' standard in 2016, which will have consequences
for our emissions performance.[153]
We concluded that abandoning the Code would reduce opportunities
for local authorities to push ahead with more challenging standards
on energy and water efficiency. The emphasis has not, however,
been on the need to reduce the impacts of heat stress on householders
or the users of other buildings. Local Authority Building Control
told us that
As temperatures rise due to climate change there
is an increased risk of overheating in buildings.
As our homes and other buildings become tighter,
there is growing concern that indoor air quality is suffering
as a result, and it becomes even more important that the ventilation
provisions in the [Building] Regulations are adequate to counter
this. A body called the Zero Carbon Hub is currently studying
this.[154]
55. Dr Ellis of TCPA believed that "the Building
Standards Review … and measures through planning and the
NPPF do not emphasise anything like enough the importance of green
infrastructure and potential temperature change".[155]
The National Housing Association told us that housing should be
considered as "nationally significant infrastructure with
equivalent import for national economic, social, and health resilience."[156]
The ASC concluded that
A new standard or other requirement is needed
to ensure that passive cooling measures are built in to new homes
at the design stage. Voluntary measures are unlikely to be taken
up by house builders because the benefits will accrue to the householder
rather than the developer.[157]
Conclusions
56. Despite the clear flooding risks of building
on floodplains, this continues. The Environment Agency's advice
against doing so is largely followed by planning authorities,
but the Agency does not consider smaller developments which can
still in aggregate have a significant effect on flooding risk,
and the potential knock-on effects for communities downstream
from a proposed development can be missed. The Government
should require the Environment Agency to provide flood risk advice
on all sizes of development, including small developments currently
exempted. The Government should reassess the Environment Agency's
future resources, skills and financial needs, to ensure that these
reflect the increasing risks from flooding in the years ahead,
and the volume of work needed to deal with these.
57. The Flood Re insurance scheme will not in
itself reduce flood risk for individual properties, but it does
offer a means for encouraging greater property level flood resilience
measures to be delivered .
58. The Government has said that it supports the
deployment of Sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) as the default
approach to development, but has stopped short of enforcing its
use through the existing provisions of the Flood and Water Management
Act. It has also stopped short of removing developers' automatic
right to connect new homes to the public sewer system, which would
provide an incentive for them to include SuDS. The Government
must enforce the powers it already has under the Flood and Water
Management Act to require SuDS in developments, particularly on
floodplains, and remove the developers' right to connect homes
to the public sewer.
59. Only a minority of Lead Local Flood Authorities
have produced the required flood risk management plans, and without
a legal duty to manage and reduce flood risks the local authority
budgets for this work are liable to be reallocated to other duties.
Where flood risk plans are produced, they are unlikely to cover
the multi-decade planning horizon commensurate with the infrastructure
lives involved. The Government should review the rigour of
local authorities' flood risk management plans, and put authorities'
responsibilities to take action to reduce flood risk on a statutory
footing to prevent resources being directed elsewhere.
60. Building standards have so far given less
weight to the health risks of over-heating than to energy efficiency.
Continuing climate change will require an increasing emphasis
on heat as well as cold. The Government must ensure that its
research in the Zero Carbon Hub addresses these issues, and consider
heat-stress issues—including the use of more appropriate
building materials—in the next review of building regulations.
84 Q329 Back
85
DCLG, National Planning Policy Framework , para 99 Back
86
Q329 Back
87
Q254 Back
88
Q252 Back
89
ASC, Managing climate risks to well-being and the economy, (July,
2014), p45 Back
90
ibid, p45 Back
91
Q93 Back
92
Q337 Back
93
ASC, Managing climate risks to well-being and the economy (July,
2014), p27 Back
94
Q87 Back
95
Q44 Back
96
Q42 Back
97
Q338 Back
98
Q254 Back
99
Q46 Back
100
Q92 Back
101
Q92 Back
102
Q93 Back
103
Q329 Back
104
Q253 Back
105
Q334 Back
106
Q87 Back
107
National Flood Forum (CCA0009), para 11 Back
108
Q349 Back
109
Q258 Back
110
Letter: Lord Krebs to Brendan McCafferty: "Designing Flood Re to encourage flood risk reduction"
(2 February 2015) Back
111
ibid Back
112
Q217 Back
113
Defra, consultation on delivering Sustainable Drainage Systems Back
114
Ibid, p6 Back
115
Letter: Lord Krebs
to Rt. Hon. Elizabeth Truss: "Consultation on delivering Sustainable Drainage Systems"
(24 October 2014) Back
116
WMS Statement 18 December 2014 Back
117
Q338 Back
118
Q264 Back
119
East Sussex County Council (CCA0014), para 4.7 Back
120
Q348 Back
121
Defra, Flood risk management: information for flood risk management authorities, asset owners and local authorities
(updated 3 June 2014). Back
122
ASC, Managing climate risks to well-being and the economy (July,
2014), p42 Back
123
Q251 Back
124
NAO, Strategic flood risk management (November, 2014), p9 Back
125
Q339 Back
126
Q339 Back
127
East Sussex County Council (CCA0014), para 4.3 Back
128
ASC, Managing climate risks to well-being and the economy (July,
2014), p42 Back
129
Climate UK (CCA0010), para 2.1 Back
130
National Indicator 188 measured Local Authorities progress in
assessing and managing climate risks and opportunities, and incorporating
appropriate action into local authority and partners' strategic
planning. Back
131
City of London Corporation (CCA0027), para 3 Back
132
National Flood Forum (CCA0009), para 9 Back
133
National Flood Forum (CCA0009), para 9 Back
134
ASC, Managing climate risks to well-being and the economy (July,
2014), p27 Back
135
Q19 Back
136
Q19 Back
137
Q19 Back
138
Q92 Back
139
Q82, Q83 Back
140
ASC, Managing climate risks to well-being and the economy (July,
2014), p8 Back
141
DCLG, National Planning Policy Framework
(March 2012), pp21-25 Back
142
Q329 Back
143
Q332 Back
144
Town and Country Planning Association (CCA0028), para 2.6 Back
145
Q141 Back
146
Q159 Back
147
Town and Country Planning Association (CCA0028), para 2.6 Back
148
Town and Country Planning Association (CCA0028), para 4.1 Back
149
National Flood Forum (CCA0026), para 12 Back
150
Q91 Back
151
Q146 Back
152
ASC, Managing climate risks to well-being and the economy (July,
2014), p127 Back
153
Environmental Audit Committee, Eighth Report of Session 2013-14,
Code for Sustainable Homes and the HousingStandards Review, HC192 Back
154
Local Authority Building Control (CCA0036),
para 6-7 Back
155
Q142 Back
156
National Housing Association (CCA0019), para 4.1 Back
157
ASC, Managing climate risks to well-being and the economy, (July,
2014), p157 Back
|
