Flood Risk Management

Lord Beith Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Hugh Bayley]

I am glad to receive support from the hon. Gentleman. However, I hope that he will join me in saying that these risks, which people in both our constituencies face, are present and real risks now and that we need Government funding now to address them. I say that because by the time that we work out a new system in five years’ time, our constituencies might have flooded.

In fairness to everyone else who wants to speak, I will take an intervention from the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed and then I will draw my remarks to a close.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

I just want to make the point that upstream flooding, which the hon. Gentleman describes as a form of alleviation in main urban centres, has a cost for the agricultural communities in the areas concerned. Even as far away as Northumberland, we were aware that in east Yorkshire there was considerable resistance to such schemes, but they are an essential part of flood management. Nevertheless, it requires a lot of co-operation and discussion with the farming community, to ensure that a proper balance of interests is recognised.

[Hugh Bayley]

That is obviously right and it is a very important contribution. We cannot get flood risk management for free, whether it involves building flood defences in York city centre or paying farmers to let their winter cropping fields flood at a time when they would otherwise be planting root vegetables or some other crop. However, it might be both cheaper and more environmentally sustainable to pay the farmers to grow more trees, create ponds and use other measures to retain some of the water long enough to protect downstream areas from inundation.

I could say much more about the consultation documents, about what the insurers are telling me or about the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report, but I will sit down now so that other Members can have their say.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Sheridan. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I am somewhat nervous, because I have known the gentleman sitting to the left of you—the Clerk, Mr Hennessy—for 30 years and I have never spoken in front of him before. It is a new experience for me.

I congratulate the hon. Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) on securing the debate. As Members may know, I will bore for Britain on the topic of coastal defences and, of course, river defences too. I mentioned the issue of flood defences in my maiden speech and in recent debates on shoreline management plans, and I will continue to do so because it is absolutely the No. 1 defining issue in my constituency of Suffolk Coastal.

I pay tribute to the Minister who is here today. He is actually very popular in our constituency, not only because he yet again confirmed the situation regarding Felixstowe’s flood defences in the main Chamber earlier today but because he visited my constituency. When he did so, people liked the fact that he listened, reflected on the facts and actually did something about them. We have seen that in some of the thinking expressed in the consultation paper and also in his encouragement of officials at the Environment Agency and Natural England to do the right thing by working with local people and landowners, to get more for less out of the budget. Sadly, due to the economic legacy that we inherited, that budget is slightly reduced from what we would of course like it to be.

In fact, I will go further and say that the Minister has been so successful that the risk is that he will get promoted, but we desperately do not want that to happen because we need him to sort out the fish problem too. Having said that, I will move on to other issues.

I generally welcome the change in thinking on flood defences. For me, there is an incentive, as that change in thinking will help people and communities who help themselves. It is that partnership model that I recognise, but it is a model that still provides protection, within the funding formula, so that where there are wards of deprivation the formula acknowledges that deprivation and will work towards alleviating it.

That gives a fresh element of hope to my constituents who, under the shoreline management plans, were told, “You’re on your own”. Actually, this new model is a way forward. The Minister has already seen some of the schemes in my area that I want to commend to the House. For example, at Bawdsey there was a situation whereby the economic benefits under the calculations did not derive any financing in particular. What happened was that some local farmers came together and offered up land for development. The local council agreed to grant planning permission for houses to be built on that land. Together the council and the farmers put the money from that development into a trust, which has now paid for coastal defences to protect the area around Bawdsey for some time to come.

More recently, in Thorpeness local home owners came together—I must admit that not all of them did so; one or two decided not to put their hands in their pockets. However, the rest came together and said, “We want to protect our shoreline along here”, and the Environment Agency, working with Suffolk Coastal district council, came up with a scheme that will make a difference to people’s lives.

There are ideas for future schemes. I am hesitant to speak about them, but one can see other opportunities whereby communities decide to have infrastructure development. I say that I am hesitant to speak about them, because I do not want my constituents to write in and say, “Thérèse Coffey demands turbine be placed in Felixstowe”; nor do I want my local paper to get the wrong end of the stick. However, there is an opportunity for communities around the country to come up with imaginative ideas for possible schemes.

For example, if we had a wind turbine in Felixstowe, that would work in a high wind when the port itself, down the road, is closed, because the cranes there cannot operate in high winds. That would contribute to the local economy, and the income could be ring-fenced and put into future sustainable defences, not only for Felixstowe itself but for areas, such as Felixstowe Ferry, at the mouth of the River Deben, that face particular difficulties at the moment. The Environment Agency is being very kind at the moment, but I recognise that that kindness cannot go on for ever with our future policy.

I am also interested to learn from the Minister how the pathfinder evaluations might fit into the consultation on the future of funding for flood defences and whether any element of that evaluation process will be incorporated in the consultation.

In Happisburgh, people are very excited because they have been offered some compensation for their houses that are about to fall into the sea. I mentioned that in the shoreline management plans debate, but unfortunately the Minister was in Brussels at the time, trying to do his best for us on fish. Although flooding is terribly disruptive to home owners in places such as York, the water normally goes away, and repairs are needed, but the risk with erosion is that it is terminal. Once someone’s house has gone into the sea, it has gone; not only that, the owner is liable for its safe disposal. With a ’60s or ’70s house with lots of asbestos in it, the owner might be able to apply for a grant of up to £5,000, but that might not cover the costs. The Pitt review constantly referred to in the consultation is based on fluvial flooding rather than on coastal erosion, which has been an add-on.

One thing that is mentioned in the document is that with homes built since 2009 it is the developers who are supposed to take on the flood risk. That is a reasonable suggestion, and I hope that anyone who has bought a house in a flood-risk area since 2009 realises that. With good design, housing can be a lot more resilient to flooding.

Under OM1 in the consultation, I am slightly disappointed to note that the agricultural land value estimate has not been updated or upgraded since the 2007 comprehensive spending review, despite in the other part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs there being thoughts on food security and about ensuring that we have that element. It would have been nice to see a slightly more generous value attributed to agricultural land.

Under OM5 to OM7, a lot of money is set aside per acre and per hectare for the recreation or preservation of habitats, to comply with the European habitats and water directives, and that, I am afraid, reinforces the view held by some that nature is more important than people. OM3 gives the figure of £3,050 rental income per year for properties at risk of coastal erosion. In my constituency, trying to rent a coastal property for £3,050 a year simply would not happen—a beach hut, perhaps, would be about it. The figure is probably more generous than it has been previously, but I urge the Department to think again on that.

I have to hold my hand up: I have not yet gone through the document with a fine-toothed comb, but will be working on that to ensure that I get my consultation response in by 16 February. However, the document contains some very encouraging phrases that reinforce the principle of partnership and give an opportunity to constituents who are being told that there is no public funding available for them.

I shall finish on two issues, one of which is the cost of delivery. There is an element of red tape in councils, with planning permission, and there are the aspects of the costliness of permits and studies for Natural England, and the consents from the Environment Agency. I know that the Minister has already taken action, and is committed to removing as many blocks as possible to make it as easy and cheap as possible for land owners to protect their defences—all force to his elbow. The Environment Agency told me a couple of weeks ago that it would not prevent land owners in “no active intervention” areas under the shoreline management plans from defending their property. That came as a bit of a surprise yesterday to some of the people at the all-party coastal and marine parliamentary group, and it was thrown up— perhaps anecdotally; I do not have enough evidence—that the Environment Agency might say that but Natural England will stop us anyway.

[Sir Alan Beith]

There is a tendency for one agency to say that the other agency will not allow it to do something, but in my experience getting them all together in the same room—ideally on site—means that some of that starts to fall away. Fruitful co-operation between agencies is the way forward, instead of blaming someone else for not doing something.

[Dr Coffey]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am relaying some of the anecdotes about the frustrations of landowners, but I agree that getting people in the same room to talk things through leads to constructive solutions, once the initial hurdles have been surmounted.

On the funding process, one of my local Suffolk Coastal councillors, Andy Smith, who is a lead council member on coastal matters, has raised with me the annual allocation of funding process. Some schemes take more than a year, and things are unclear or uncertain. There could be a project that was agreed a couple of years previously but which constantly comes up for review regarding the annual allocation of cash. There is something not quite right with that process, and I hope that we can get it right.

Finally, I am encouraging internal drainage boards to participate in the consultation because they could be effective delivery partners for a lot of the work that we want to do. IDBs are not the only solution, but they are a good one. They combine local landowners and councillors, and have an element of democratic authority. The future is quite bright, and could be very bright for coastal and river defences, but I urge the Minister to ensure that the policies of the previous Government, of making 100-year decisions on the basis of three years’ funding, are a thing of the past. There are many generations of families in Suffolk who have done their bit for their bit of land over the years, passing it on from generation to generation. Let us not kill off the chances of this generation for the sake of 100-year hindsight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) on securing a timely debate on the same day as today’s announcement.

In my own patch in Wansbeck, following the most intense rainfall in living memory on 5 and 6 September 2008, a month’s rain fell in 24 hours, which meant that the river Wansbeck burst its banks and the whole town of Morpeth was flooded. That was compounded by other flooding problems including flooding from the Cotting burn, the Church burn and the Postern burn in Morpeth. There was extensive flooding throughout the town centre and nearly 1,000 properties, including many businesses on the main street, were directly affected, causing huge problems. Hundreds of residents had to be evacuated and emergency shelter was provided in the King Edward VI high school, at county hall and in the town hall in Morpeth. Iconic buildings such as the chantry and St George’s church suffered considerable damage, as did landmark shops. The emergency ambulance station, the doctors’ surgery, the health centre at Gas House lane, the Riverside leisure centre and the town’s main library were also inundated and had to close for a considerable period.

Firefighters, ambulance crews, the RAF, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the British Red Cross were among the emergency services involved in the rescue and recovery operations over the whole weekend. A collection of voluntary groups and the town’s churches came together to help hundreds of flood victims and the campaign was spearheaded by the Morpeth Lions club. Families were out of their homes for more than a year and businesses were closed for months, and still people from within the floodplain are not back in their properties.

Prior to the devastating flood, there was a huge flood in Morpeth in 1963, which was before I was born—people might question that. In an attempt to protect the community from further devastation in the future, I am working closely with the Morpeth flood action group, officers of Northumberland county council and the Environment Agency to try to progress the proposals for the Morpeth flood alleviation scheme. The proposed scheme for Morpeth is designed to reduce the risk of flooding from the River Wansbeck and the main burns in the town. It involves the storage of water upstream of Morpeth on the Mitford estate, the building of new defences in the town where none currently exist, and the replacement and refurbishment of some existing defences.

It is imperative that the flood alleviation scheme should be delivered to protect communities and businesses in the town of Morpeth. Local people need the reassurance that their homes are safe from the ravages of the extreme weather conditions and they deserve the peace of mind that those assurances will bring. Shops and businesses need to be assured that they will not suffer a reoccurrence of the devastation of 6 September 2008 and that they can have a secure future in Morpeth where they can build their businesses for the benefit of their employees, local communities and the local economy.

[Sir Alan Beith]

The hon. Gentleman presents his case eloquently. Many of the businesses he mentions are either owned by my constituents or employ them. A large area of my constituency will face the upstream flooding that is part of the alleviation scheme, but I think we all want to work together to ensure that Morpeth and Rothbury do not have to go through such an experience again.

[Ian Lavery]

I agree with that and understand the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks, bearing in mind that his constituency is next to mine. I understand the associated problems, particularly upstream, as compared with those in the town centre of Morpeth.

In addition to the trauma and devastating personal and physical effects of the floods, local residents and visitors must now come to terms with problems obtaining buildings and contents insurance, which has been mentioned. It is a huge problem for people living on floodplains. The current agreement with insurance companies will continue until 2013, and who knows what will happen after that? It must be considered as a matter of extreme urgency. Many people living in Morpeth face huge rises in premiums and excesses. One gentleman living in the Morpeth floodplain was asked, after going to court, to pay £300 a month in insurance, and the excess was £20,000. That is not insurance. It is a massive problem. Individuals, families and businesses who have experienced the horror and trauma of flooding have had their lives turned upside down, and they should not have to face additional problems that cause them further distress and upset as well as imposing a huge financial burden on them. Those issues must be tackled as a matter of urgency.

I have not got much more to say, but I pay tribute to the men and women of the emergency services who, on all occasions up and down the country, have been absolutely fantastic when such things occur. They put their lives at risk to ensure that everyone else is safe.

To move on slightly from local issues, recommendation 39 of the Pitt review, which both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats supported before the election, stated:

“The Government should urgently put in place a fully funded national capability for flood rescue, with Fire and Rescue Authorities playing a leading role, underpinned as necessary by a statutory duty”.

The coalition agreement committed to

“take forward the findings of the Pitt Review to improve our flood defences, and prevent unnecessary building in areas of high flood risk.”

Both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives supported a statutory duty, and it is in the coalition agreement.