Conclusions
1. The emergency response
framework for dealing with extreme weather (and other events)
has been repeatedly tested and there are established structures
through which the relevant central and local authorities learn
lessons and integrate these into improving systems. Cuts to local
authorities' and emergency services' budgets may be reducing the
capacity of local emergency responders to deal with extreme weather
events when required. (Paragraph 18)
2. Flooding is the
biggest adaptation risk, and will increase even if significant
resources are devoted to it. The Government has sometimes followed
what the ASC has called a 'reactive' funding strategy, prioritising
the most recent flooding events rather than long term objective
needs. (Paragraph 31)
3. Funding for flooding
adaptations must be sourced and matched against the value of the
benefits available. The challenge is to balance the revenue to
natural asset owner against the needs of potential beneficiaries,
who currently do not fully pay for those reduced-flooding benefits.
The Natural Capital Committee's work is at the heart of this question
and it has been doing invaluable research in this area. (Paragraph
32)
4. 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. (Paragraph
56)
5. 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 . (Paragraph 57)
6. 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. (Paragraph 58)
7. 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.
(Paragraph 59)
8. 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. (Paragraph 60)
9. Infrastructure
and networks—roads, railway, energy grids, airports and
so on—are increasingly vulnerable to disruption from extreme
weather events, but the economic and public-service impacts on
them from climate change are not fully understood. (Paragraph
76)
10. The UK's National
Adaptation Programme process—required by by the Climate
Change Act—puts us ahead of most countries. The Government's
NAP has created buy-in through its bottom up approach but the
Government has not identified proactive adaptation policies or
driven action in a coordinated way, demonstrating inadequate Government
leadership. The NAP document has also lacked a spatial focus to
help develop landscape-scale or regional strategies. (Paragraph
93)
11. The Government
has relaxed its 'reporting power' so that it is now only a voluntary
code. That risks data gaps in further work to identify and monitor
adaptation risks. (Paragraph 94)
12. The message on
our climate change risks and the required adaptations is not getting
across. (Paragraph 95)
| 
