-
HC 49-II Incorporating HC 1060-i, Session 2006-07
Published on 7 May 2008 by authority of the House of Commons
London: The Stationery Office Limited
£0.00
House of Commons
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
Flooding
Fifth Report of Session 2007–08
Volume II
Oral and written evidence
Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 23 April 2008
-
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is appointed
by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration,
and policy of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs and its associated bodies.
Current membership
Mr Michael Jack (Conservative, Fylde) (Chairman) Mr Geoffrey Cox
(Conservative, Torridge & West Devon) Mr David Drew (Labour,
Stroud) Mr James Gray (Conservative, North Wiltshire) Patrick Hall
(Labour, Bedford) Lynne Jones (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak) David
Lepper (Labour, Brighton Pavilion) Miss Anne McIntosh
(Conservative, Vale of York) Mr Dan Rogerson (Liberal Democrat,
North Cornwall) Sir Peter Soulsby (Labour, Leicester South) Dr
Gavin Strang (Labour, Edinburgh East) David Taylor (Labour, North
West Leicestershire) Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood) Mr Roger
Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon & Radnorshire) The following
members were also members of the Committee during this inquiry
Daniel Kawczynski (Conservative, Shrewsbury & Atcham), Mrs
Madeleine Moon (Labour, Bridgend) and Mr Jamie Reed (Labour,
Copeland).
Powers
The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the
powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders,
principally in SO No. 152. These are available on the Internet via
www.parliament.uk.
Publications
The reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The
Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the
Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at
www.parliament.uk/efracom
Committee staff
The current staff of the Committee are Chris Stanton (Clerk),
Nerys Welfoot (Second Clerk), Sarah Coe (Committee
Specialist—Environment), Marek Kubala and Joanna Dodd (Inquiry
Managers), Professor Frank Farquharson and Professor Colin Green
(Specialist Advisers), Andy Boyd and John-Paul Flaherty (Committee
Assistants) and Mandy Sullivan (Secretary).
Contacts
All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, House of Commons, 7
Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general
enquiries is 020 7219 5774; the Committee’s e-mail address is:
[email protected]. Media inquiries should be addressed to Laura
Kibby on 020 7219 0718.
-
Witnesses
Wednesday 10 October 2007 Page
Baroness Young of Old Scone, a Member of the House Lords, Chief
Executive, Dr David King, Director of Water Management and Mr David
Rooke, Head of Flood Risk Management, Environment Agency Ev 10
Wednesday 7 November 2007
Professor Edmund Penning-Rowsell, Head of Flood Hazard Research
Centre, Middlesex University and Professor Howard Wheater,
Professor of Hydrology, Imperial College Ev 40
Wednesday 14 November 2007
Mr Kim Ryley, Chief Executive and Professor Tom Coulthard,
Leader of the Independent Review Body in Hull, Hull City Council,
Sir Robert Kerslake, Chief Executive, Councillor Jan Wilson, Leader
of the Council and Mr John Charlton, Director of Streetforce,
Development, Environment and Leisure, Sheffield City Council Ev
64
Mr Kevin Whiteman, Managing Director and Mr Robert Salmon,
Director of External Communications, Yorkshire Water, Mr David
Fullwood, Clerk to Beverley and Holderness Internal Drainage Board,
Preston IDB and Wilberfoss and Thornton Level IDB, Dr Jean
Venables, Chief Executive of the Association of Drainage
Authorities and Mr David Sisson, Engineer to Lindsey Marsh IDB,
Internal Drainage Boards Ev 80
Wednesday 21 November 2007
Mr Duncan Jordan, Group Director for Environment,
Gloucestershire County Council, Mr Richard Dudding, Director for
Environment and Economy and Mr Dave Etheridge, Assistant Chief Fire
Officer, Oxfordshire Fire and Rescue, Oxfordshire County Council Ev
95
Mr Tony Wray, Chief Executive, Mr Andy Smith, Water Services
Director, Mr Martin Kane, Customer Relations Director, Severn Trent
Water, Mr Richard Aylard, External Affairs and Sustainability
Director and Mr Bob Collington, Director of Wastewater Services,
Thames Water Ev 112
Wednesday 28 November 2007
Mr Stephen Haddrill, Director-General, Association of British
Insurers, Mr Igal Mayer, Chief Executive, Norwich Union and Mrs
Bridget McIntyre, UK Chief Executive, Royal and SunAlliance Ev
130
Ms Regina Finn, Chief Executive and Mr Jonathan Hodgkin,
Director of Network Regulation, Ofwat Ev 148
-
Wednesday 12 December 2007
Mr Richard Benyon MP, Rt Hon David Curry MP, Martin Horwood MP,
Mr Laurence Robertson MP and Ms Angela C Smith MP Ev 158
Dr Ann Calver, Head of Site and Mr Terry Marsh, Leader, National
Hydrological Monitoring Programme, Centre for Ecology and
Hydrology, Professor John Mitchell, Director of Climate Science and
Mr Steven Noyes, Director of Operations and Customer Services, Met
Office, Dr Chris West, Director of UKCIP and Ms Jacqui Yeates,
Deputy Science Team Leader, UK Climate Impacts Programme Ev 188
Wednesday 9 January 2008
Mr Dan Hawthorn, Senior Policy Adviser, Planning and
Development, Mayor’s Office and Mr Kevin Reid, Senior Planner,
Greater London Authority, Mr Rynd Smith, Director of Policy and
Communications, Royal Town Planning Institute Ev 213
Ms Pamela Taylor, Chief Executive, Mr Phill Mills, Deputy Chief
Executive, Mr Bruce Horton, Policy Adviser, Mr Jim Marshall, Policy
Co-ordinator and Mr Richard Venters, Legal Adviser, Water UK Ev
224
Wednesday 23 January 2008
Sir Michael Pitt, Independent Reviewer and Mr Roger Hargreaves,
Head of Pitt Review Ev 238
Mr Jeremy Walker, Chair, Yorkshire RFDC, Dr Peter Ryder, Chair,
Thames RFDC and Mr Tim Farr, Chair, Midlands RFDC Ev 252
Wednesday 30 January 2008
Mr Paul Temple, Vice President, Mr Andrew Clark, Head of Policy
Services and Mrs Anna Hall, Water Adviser, National Farmers’ Union,
Mr Andrew Wood, Executive Director and Mr James Marsden, Director
of Policy, Natural England Ev 274
Mr Steve Batty, Mr Malcolm G Coward, Mr Paul Rouse and Mr Mark
Harrison Ev 287
Mrs Julie O’Neill, Chair, Burton Joyce Residents’ Association,
Mr Peter Jesse, Chairman and Cllr Keith Marquis, Councillor,
Strensall and Towthorpe Parish Council, Cllr Reginald A Shore,
Leader and Mr James Nicholson, Director of Neighbourhoods and
Health, West Lindsey District Council Ev 297
-
Monday 4 February 2008
Mr Alan Raymant, Director of Operations and Asset Management,
Central Networks, Mr Nick Winser, Executive Director, Transmission
and Mr Chris Murray, Director of Asset Management, National Grid Ev
311
Baroness Young of Old Scone, a Member of the House of Lords,
Chief Executive, Mr Phil Rothwell, Head of Flood Risk Management
Policy and Mr David Rooke, Head of Flood Risk Management, Executive
Agency Ev 318
Wednesday 6 February 2008
Mr Phil Woolas MP, Minister of State (Environment), Mr Martin
Hurst, Director of Water and Mr David Wright, Resilience and
Institutional Framework Programme Manager, Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ev 350
-
List of written evidence
Mr Tony Adams Ev 592
Ms Christine Adamson Ev 396
Alde and Ore Association Evs 552, 553
Ashchurch Parish Council Ev 458
Association of British Insurers Evs 120, 123, 140
Association of Drainage Authorities Ev 513
Mr M Baker Ev 406
Norman Baker MP Ev 377
Revd. Robert Barlow Ev 411
Dr R A Barnes Ev 542
Mrs Jean and Mr Gordon Basnett Ev 397
Mr Steve Batty Ev 283
BBC Radio 4: You and Yours Ev 586
Mr Michael A K Bell Ev 565
Richard Benyon MP Ev 155
Clive Betts MP Ev 376
Professor Keith Beven Ev 562
Ms Margaret Bishop Ev 409
Blueprint for Water Ev 482
Mr Chris Blunkell Ev 580
British Damage Management Association Ev 529
British Ecological Society Ev 438
The British Insurance Brokers’ Association Ev 484
British Water Ev 572
Bucklebury Flood Alleviation Committee Ev 591
Ms J D Budden Ev 553
Colin Burgon MP Ev 370
Burton Joyce Residents’ Association Ev 293
Butler Sherborn Ev 469
Mr Peter Butterworth Ev 557
Ms Rosie Callinan Ev 404
Rt Hon David Cameron MP Ev 376
Mr Roger Case Ev 398
Central Networks Ev 304
Chaceley Parish Council Ev 402
Chairmen of Regional Flood Defence Committees in England Evs
249, 261
Chalford Parish Council Ev 395
Mr Jeremy Chamberlayne Ev 393
Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management Ev
479
Mrs Judy Chipchase Ev 389
Clanfield Parish Council Ev 439
Ms Alison Cobb Ev 448
-
Mr Melvyn Cole Ev 494
Coleford Area Market and Coastal Towns Initiative Partnership Ev
507
Mr Peter Collier Ev 388
Commission for Rural Communities Ev 490
Consumer Council for Water Ev 543
Revd. Stephen Cope Ev 394
Country Land & Business Association Ev 441
Mr Malcolm G Coward Ev 284
Rt Hon David Curry MP Ev 155
Datchet Parish Council Ev 528
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Evs 343,
366
Ms Mary Dhonau Ev 550
Down Ampney Parish Council Ev 403
Eastington Parish Council Ev 447
Mr Robb Eden Ev 428
Mr D F and Mrs A L Edwards Ev 555
Ms Jane Edwards Ev 556
Engineering Services, Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council,
West Yorkshire Ev 559
English Heritage Ev 531
Environment Agency Evs 1, 29, 335
Nigel Evans MP Ev 370
Ms Sue Everett Ev 508
Mr Tim Fairhead Ev 579
Farm Crisis Network (FCN) in Yorkshire Ev 446
Ms Pauline Farman Ev 401
Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University Evs 34,
53
Frampton-on-Severn Parish Council Ev 398
Mr Dudley George Ev 391
Gloucestershire Constabulary Evs 516, 527
Gloucestershire County Council Ev 93
Mr James Harris Ev 396
Dr Nick Haycock Ev 567
Rt Hon David Heathcoat-Amory MP Ev 379
Mr Roger Hendry Ev 394
Hesco Bastion Ev 471
Mr Fred and Ms Jean Hollier Ev 415
Ms Carolyn Horsewood Ev 413
Martin Horwood MP Ev 156
Chris Huhne MP Ev 371
Hull City Council Ev 54
Institution of Civil Engineers Ev 497
Mr David Jones Ev 413
Mr Julian Jones Ev 591
Dr Susan Juned Ev 417
-
Mr Holger Kessler Ev 398
Mr Allen Keyte Ev 392
David Kidney MP Ev 380
Professor Donald Knight Evs 462, 467
Landmark Information Group Ev 589
Mr Ewan Larcombe Ev 541
Ms Patricia Lee Ev 551
Leeds City Council Ev 501
Mr Richard Long Ev 558
Peter Luff MP Ev 372
Mr C G Mann Ev 556
John Maples MP Ev 387
Ms Janet Marrott Ev 391
Mr Roger Martin Ev 389
Mayor of London Evs 206, 220
Mr Peter J D McNally Ev 539
Met Office Evs 178, 203
Mr Peter Mills Ev 594
Mr Joe Morris & Mr Tim Hess Ev 423
Ms Carole Mortimer Ev 400
National Farmers’ Union Ev 265
National Grid Evs 307, 317
National Trust Ev 453
Natural England Evs 270, 282
Natural Environment Research Council Evs 169, 202
Mr Colin Newlands Ev 394
Ms Rebecca Nicholls Ev 407
Norwich Union Insurance Evs 124, 141
Ofwat Evs 143, 154
Ordnance Survey Ev 416
Oxford City Council Ev 445
Oxfordshire County Council Ev 94
Ms Gill Pett Ev 397
Pickering & District Civic Society Ev 495
Pickering Flood Defence Group Ev 493
Sir Michael Pitt Ev 237
Ms Fay Price Ev 401
Prudential Property Investment Managers Ltd Ev 585
Quedgeley Parish Council Ev 401
RSPB Ev 534
RSPCA Ev 451
Rt Hon John Redwood MP Ev 373
Resthaven Nursing Home Ev 393
River Dene Action Group—Wellesbourne Ev 568
Laurence Robertson MP Ev 156
-
Mr Paul Rolph Ev 407
Mr John Rossetti Ev 566
Mr Paul Rouse Ev 286
Royal & SunAlliance Evs 127, 130
Royal Town Planning Institute Ev 212
Mr David Royffe Ev 397
Mr Timothy Royle Ev 396
Martin Salter MP Ev 370
Severn Trent Water Ev 104
Mr R B Shacklock Ev 417
Sheffield City Council Ev 59
Mr Graham Shelton Ev 414
Mr Bill Sherwood Ev 550
Angela C Smith MP Ev 157
Ms Lorraine Smith Ev 389
Mr Roland M Smith Ev 450
Mr Tony Smith Ev 551
Mr Edward Stephens Ev 470
Stoke Orchard and Tredington Parish Council Ev 392
Ms Susan Stoner Ev 395
Strensall and Towthorpe Parish Council Evs 295, 302
Stroud District Green Party Ev 419
Graham Stuart MP Ev 372
The Survey Association Ev 426
Sir Peter Tapsell MP Evs 374, 376
Ms Jacqui Taylor Ev 412
Tewkesbury Chamber of Commerce and Industry Ev 428
Tewkesbury Town Council Ev 435
Thames Water Ev 109
Ms Margaret Thompson Ev 540
Miss D Thorne Ev 555
Paddy Tipping MP Ev 374
UK Climate Impacts Programme Ev 187
United Utilities Ev 474
H R Wallingford Ev 510
Water UK Evs 221, 232
Mr Stephen Watkins Ev 445
Mr Nick Weir Ev 391
West Lindsey District Council Ev 296
Professor Howard Wheater Ev 36
Whiteshill & Ruscombe Parish Council Ev 401
Ms Julie Wickham Ev 393
Wildlife Trusts Ev 486
Wildwood Trust Ev 460
The Witham First and Third District Drainage Boards Evs 570,
571
-
Mr Dennis Woodman Ev 388
Woodmancote Parish Council Ev 405
Mr Jack Wrightman Ev 557
Yorkshire Water Evs 76, 91
List of unprinted evidence
The following memoranda have been reported to the House, but to
save printing costs they have not been printed and copies have been
placed in the House of Commons Library, where they may be inspected
by Members. Other copies are in the Parliamentary Archives, and are
available to the public for inspection. Requests for inspection
should be addressed to The Parliamentary Archives, Houses of
Parliament, London SW1A 0PW (tel. 020 7219 3074). Opening hours are
from 9.30 am to 5.00 pm on Mondays to Fridays.
Peter Hebblethwaite (FL 025) - Background paper
Strensall & Towthorpe Parish Council (FL 039a) -
Photographs
Mike Smith (FL 043) - Background paper
Chairmen of the Regional Flood Defence Committees supplementary
(FL 063a) - Map
National Grid (FL 080) - Appendix
Butler Sherborn (FL 086) - Appendices
Hesco Bastion Ltd (FL 088) - Appendix
Water UK (FL 095a) - Photographs
Sue Everett (FL 107 & FL 107a) - PowerPoint
presentations
Oxfordshire County Council (FL 126) - Annex
The Alde and Ore Association (FL 136) - Annexes
O M Goring (FL 146) - Background paper
John Rossetti (FL 150a) - Background paper
Mayor of London (FL 151a) - Annex
River Dene Action Group - Wellesbourne (FL 153) - Annex
The Witham First and Third District Drainage Boards (FL 155) -
Annex
Landmark Information Group (FL 163) - Map
Julian Jones (FL 165) - Appendices
Beverley & North Holderness Internal Drainage Board -
Background papers
Upton St Leonards Parish Council - Background paper
Wiltshire and Swindon Local Resilience Forum - Background
paper
Timothy Maddison - letter to Welsh Assembly
Dr David Stephens - letter to Chairman
Tony Cowley - letter to the Chairman
Ken & Gill Holway - letter to the Chairman
HJ Harper - letter to the Chairman
Ian Hill - letter to the Chairman
Denis Gibbs - Letter to Lynne Jones MP
David Drew MP - Notes from meeting with Tim Brain, Gloucester
shire Chief Constable
-
Processed: 28-04-2008 22:35:14 Page Layout: COENEW [SO] PPSysB
Job: 381640 Unit: PG01
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 1
Oral evidence
Taken before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Committee
on Wednesday 10 October 2007
Members present
Mr Michael Jack, in the Chair
Mr GeoVrey Cox David LepperMr David Drew Dan RogersonMr James
Gray David TaylorLynne Jones Mr Roger Williams
Memorandum submitted by the Environment Agency (FL 121)
Summary
The Environment Agency welcomes the opportunity to respond to
the Environment, Food and RuralAVairs (EFRA) Committee inquiry into
the recent flooding across England.
The following memorandum summarises the role of the Environment
Agency, our initial views on the keyissues arising from the floods
of June and July 2007, and on the significant policy and leadership
challengeswe face.
This memorandum will cover:
— Inland Strategic Overview Role
— Characterisation of Risk (mapping flood risk)
— Development and Flood Risk
— Sustainable Drainage
— Emergency Planning
— Protecting Critical Infrastructure
— Rural Flood Risk Management
— Reservoirs
— Investment
— Governance
Our internal review is due to report in December 2007, but we
have incorporated our preliminary findingsinto this submission. We
look forward to the findings of this and other reviews of the
floods this summer.Our initial conclusions include the
following:
— The weather event that led to the flooding was unprecedented
in many places, with significantamounts of rain falling in very
short periods of time. The flooding occurred largely because
urbanand land drainage systems were unable to cope with the large
volumes of water which resulted.
— We are still analysing the performance of our flood defences
during the event but early indicationsare that with virtually no
exceptions, the majority performed to design standard and did not
fail.They were, however, in many places simply overwhelmed and
overtopped by the sheer volumeof water.
— There were many communities that were satisfactorily protected
by defences, including some forthe first time following recent
investments.
— The Environment Agency’s flood warning systems performed well
with no problems with serviceprovision. We warned over 45,000
properties at risk; our flood agents took almost 55,000 calls;
wereceived over 200,000 calls to our recorded message service and
received over 43 million “hits”from 4 million individuals on our
website. All of our systems stood up to the challenges ofincreased
usage.
— Our links with the Met OYce and the data provided by them were
crucial in allowing theappropriate deployment of staV and
resources. However, the specificity of forecasting informationis
not yet such as to define with suYcient accuracy where rain will
fall so that more local impactson surface water and small
watercourses can be assessed.
-
Processed: 28-04-2008 22:35:14 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB
Job: 381640 Unit: PG01
Ev 2 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
1. Introduction
1.1 The severe flooding that aVected much of the country in June
and July followed what we now knowto be the wettest May to July
period since records began in 1766. The sheer volume of water
overwhelmedmany drainage systems and some defences, and much of the
flooding occurred because these systems couldnot cope with the
sheer quantity of water. However, whilst little reported, our
activities and previousinvestment to protect homes and businesses
substantially reduced the impacts of this extreme event.
1.2 Nevertheless, the eVects were severe. Several people lost
their lives. 44,600 homes and 7,100 businesseswere flooded.
Transport infrastructure was disrupted, and many properties were
without power and waterfor many days. Recovery from such an event
can take years, as properties are dried out, cleaned, repairedand
redecorated. Rural areas and businesses too have had to face the
impacts of flooding. Many farmershave suVered significant losses of
livestock and crops.
1.3 Every flood provides a learning opportunity to examine the
root causes and identify areas forimprovement. The summer floods
brought into sharp relief a number of issues, many of which we
werealready tackling. This incident was characterised by severe
surface water flooding and potential problemswith reservoirs, as
well as flooding from rivers and other watercourses.
1.4 A particular challenge is urban surface water drainage. In
many places, flooding occurred as a resultof prolonged heavy
rainfall, leading to surface water run-oV and drainage systems
being overwhelmed.Pressures on drainage infrastructure had been
increased by new development, infill of previouslyundeveloped land
and increased levels of impermeable paving. Climate change is
likely to make urbansurface water flooding more common as rainfall
is predicted to increase by 10–30% by the 2080s, andintensity could
increase by up to 20% (UKCIP, 2002).
2. Inland Strategic Overview Role
2.1 There is a need for clarification of responsibilities for
inland flooding from whatever source. Atpresent, no single
organisation has the strategic overview role for all inland
flooding issues, includingflooding from river systems and surface
water. Whilst local government will be the key local player for
urbansurface water flooding, there needs to be a strategic overview
and co-ordinated approach to flooding fromall sources, including
rivers, seas and surface water. There are benefits to be gained
from a co-ordinatednational approach. These include, for example,
in the methodology and techniques used for riskcharacterisation and
surface water management; in aligning the design capacity of
surface water systemswith those of river and coastal defences; and
in the contributions that whole-catchment approach to
watermanagement oVers.
2.2 Defra wrote to key stakeholders in June 2007 to seek views
on their approach to the intendedEnvironment Agency Strategic
Overview for Inland Flood Risk Management, and to ask for feedback
ontheir draft impact assessment for the Integrated Urban Drainage
work. Additionally, the Defra MakingSpace for Water initiative has
funded 15 pilot studies in urban areas in England examining
diVerentapproaches to urban flood management. These studies will
report in 2008 and provide an evidence-basedapproach to policy
development. The Environment Agency believes there is an urgent
need to establish astrategic overview role, to provide national
leadership, advice and support to all bodies who have roles toplay
in the management of flood risk for the future, including the
several bodies locally who have a key roleto play in the management
of surface water flood risk. The issue of the overview of surface
water floodingis also identified in the independent review of the
2007 floods in Kingston-upon-Hull, commissioned by HullCity
Council.
2.3 Working within a strategic framework, advice, support and
tools provided by the EnvironmentAgency, Local Authorities, as the
key local players, would undertake Strategic Flood Risk
Assessmentscovering all forms of flooding to inform spatial
planning decisions. Where necessary these would trigger
thepreparation of a Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). A SWMP
would take account of flooding fromsurface water, sewers, combined
sewers and the impact of these sources in combination with flooding
fromrivers, the sea, groundwater, canals and reservoirs to provide
a more holistic approach to the problem ofurban flooding. Input on
flood risks from rivers, the sea, groundwater, canals and
reservoirs would continueto be provided by the Environment Agency.
At present markedly diVerent design standards are applied
byoperating authorities to urban drainage systems. Typically,
return periods of up to 1 in 30 years will beapplied but not
universally and not in a co-ordinated approach with others to
appropriately manage urbanflood risk. Retro fitting the application
of higher standards and increased risk protection would
beprohibitively expensive but regulation to ensure that all new
build and redevelopment conforms to newstandards would bring
significant improvements over time. Surface Water Management Plans
would alsoallow the identification of priorities for the
remediation of surface water flooding “hot spots” in
currentsystems.
2.4 The forthcoming Planning Reform Bill could introduce a duty
for all utilities, regulators and agenciesto work with local
authorities to produce a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA),
where EnvironmentAgency Catchment Flood Management Plans identify a
significant risk of urban flooding.
-
Processed: 28-04-2008 22:35:15 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB
Job: 381640 Unit: PG01
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 3
2.5 A methodology for developing these plans is critical. The
Environment Agency could develop amethodology that would be applied
nationally by Local Authorities. A SWMP would provide input to
theLocal Development Framework for the Local Authority.
2.6 We believe that the Environment Agency could perform an
eVective strategic overview role for alltypes of inland flooding.
However, the role needs careful specification and the balance of
responsibilitiesbetween the Environment Agency, Local Authorities
and other organisations will need to be clearlyarticulated.
3. Characterisation of Risk
3.1 We already have a well-established way of characterising and
mapping the risk of flooding from riversand the sea. The
Environment Agency is not, currently, responsible for floods from
surface water. Were weto be given the overview role outlined above,
it would still be far more diYcult to characterise and warnagainst
the risk from other sources of flooding. Water moves in complex
ways through the changinglandscape in a dynamic urban environment,
and is extremely challenging to map. Planning decisions,
urbandesign and changes in sewerage provision all conspire to make
it diYcult to accurately predict flooding.Little work has been done
on mapping areas at risk from urban surface water flooding. There
is nonationally consistent approach. There needs to be developed a
workable, risk-based methodology forcharacterising urban flood
risk. This will be an important part of implementing the European
FloodsDirective, and critical for the Environment Agency in taking
a meaningful strategic overview for all formsof flooding, as
proposed by Defra.
4. Development and Flood Risk
4.1 The new planning policy guidance on development and flood
risk (England: PPS 25) published inDecember 2006 introduces a
strengthened presumption against developing in areas of flood risk.
At the sametime the Government introduced new powers for the
Environment Agency to challenge planning authoritiesthat overrule
our advice based on the basis of riverine or coastal flooding and
flood risk from surface waterdrainage. It remains diYcult to
identify urban areas at high risk from surface water flooding in a
consistentway and therefore the full potential of PPS25 is not
being realised.
4.2 In 2005–06, we objected to more than 4,000 planning
applications in England because of concernsabout flood risk (High
Level Target 5—Development and Flood Risk, 2006). In the end, only
10 majordevelopments went ahead against our advice in 2005–06, but
that is 10 too many. Our report on buildingin the floodplain for
2006–07 will be completed in November.
4.3 Increased storminess and the possibility of flooding
occurring more widely outside the floodplain dueto surface water
issues, means that the resistance and resilience of buildings to
floods needs to be increased,to reduce the damage when such floods
occur. The feasibility should be examined of introducing
floodresistance (preventing water entering buildings) and
resilience (reducing the impact of water which hasentered
buildings) requirements into the Building Regulations as part of
measures to adapt to climatechange.
5. Promoting Sustainable Drainage
5.1 Sustainable drainage systems (SUDS) slow the movement of
surface water through the builtenvironment to emulate natural
processes. These include allowing water to soak into the ground
andproviding absorbent surfaces, buVering or storage. In doing so,
they reduce the impact of rainfall on thedrainage system. However
such systems do require long term maintenance and, at present,
there is no legalclarity as to whose responsibility this is or who
will fund it.
5.2 Local Authorities should take the lead on providing SUDS. In
the forthcoming Planning Bill, apresumption in favour of SUDS
should be introduced to add weight to existing policy in PPS 25.
LocalAuthorities should apply a presumption in favour of SUDS in
planning applications for new developmentsby applying conditions.
So-called General Binding Rules could be introduced, requiring
parking areas orother surfaces to be made permeable, as envisaged
in the Defra non-agricultural diVuse pollutionconsultation.
5.3 Section 106 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (right of
connection to a public sewer) should be amendedto encourage the use
of SUDS. Currently this section gives property owners a right to
connect to a publicsewer without having to consider alternatives or
demonstrate that SUDS are not feasible.
5.4 Greater transparency in charging for surface water drainage
could reward organisations that place asmaller load on the surface
water drainage system. This would encourage more permeable
surfaces, reducingsurface water runoV.
5.5 PPS 25 requires that drainage issues be appropriately
considered as part of the flood risk assessment.Where flood risk
from drainage has not been adequately considered in this way the
Environment Agencywill object.
-
Processed: 28-04-2008 22:35:15 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB
Job: 381640 Unit: PG01
Ev 4 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
6. Emergency Planning
6.1 The multi-agency approach to emergency planning is sound.
The Environment Agency, Police, localgovernment, Fire and Rescue
Service and others jointly develop strategies for responding to
floodemergencies and these worked during the floods. The fora and
collaborative mechanisms set up under theCivil Contingencies Act
stood in good stead during the flood emergency, so these need
further developmentto focus on particular flood emergency
issues.
6.2 The Environment Agency played a full role in supporting the
Government at a national level throughattending meetings of the
Civil Contingencies Committee (known as COBRA meetings) and in
providingbriefings for Ministers and members of Parliament.
7. Protecting Critical Infrastructure
7.1 The experiences at Walham electricity sub station operated
by National Grid and the Mythe WaterTreatment Works operated by
Severn Trent Water have brought into sharp relief the necessity for
protectingour critical infrastructure. The Receptors Vulnerable to
Flooding project (Environment Agency and JBA,2007) found that
significant numbers of public and private sector critical
infrastructure facilities were at riskfrom flooding. These included
15% of major energy installations, 14% of emergency response
installations(fire, ambulance and police stations), 9% of hospitals
and health centres and surgeries, and 57% of waterand sewerage
treatment works, as well as railway stations and lines, roads,
telephone exchanges and schools.
7.2 The Civil Contingencies Act requires business continuity
plans to be prepared by category 1 and 2responders. However, this
does not extend to a specific duty to protect critical assets from
flooding. Ourexperience of the recent floods suggests that some
utility companies may not have appropriate businesscontinuity plans
in place to address all the potential impacts of major flooding. We
encourage utilitycompanies to review their business continuity
plans in light of the most up-to-date information that we
haveavailable. Our reviews from previous floods have identified
this as an issue. To ensure that adequate progressis made, the
Environment Agency would want to see proposals to include a
specific requirement in theClimate Change Bill for utilities and
all critical infrastructure and service providers to take account
ofclimate change adaptation needs.
8. Rural Flood Risk Management
8.1 Considerable rural land flooded during the summer floods.
The Environment Agency works withlandowners and Internal drainage
Boards to help manage rural flood risk where possible. The
Agencyprioritises the provision of defences and the maintenance of
watercourses on a risk basis. In the case ofmaintenance of
watercourses, including dredging, the Environment Agency provides
maintenance anddredges where that will help reduce flood risk.
There are a number of ways in which land owners andmanagers can
help reduce flood risk. Two current research projects under Defra’s
Making Space for Waterinitiative are helping to provide the
scientific evidence to show land owners and managers what role
theycan play in reducing floods from their land. In addition, the
use of farmland adjacent to rivers to storefloodwater and re-create
natural floodplains, perhaps subject to payment, can help manage
flood risk.
9. Reservoirs
9.1 During the floods problems were identified at a number of
reservoirs including the well-publicisedUlley Reservoir near
Rotherham. The Environment Agency became the enforcement authority
forreservoirs across England and Wales in October 2004. Our
experiences over the past three years and from thefloods lead us to
conclude that a review of the legislation would be timely. The
combination of the impacts ofclimate change and an ageing reservoir
stock mean that risks from dam failure are likely to increase
andhaving a modern risk-based legislative framework in place is in
our view a pre-requisite to managingthose risks.
10. Investment
10.1 There is strong justification for increased investment in
flood risk management to cope with theexisting backlog of
floodplain development, growing development pressures, additional
duties andobligations placed upon us by our changing role and
developing legislation, and to take account of theimpacts of
climate change. The economic benefits are clear—for every £1 spent
on protecting homes andbusinesses and building in resistance and
resilience, the cost of clean-up and repairs following a flood
canbe reduced by up to £6 (Defra Zero-based review of flood risk
management, 2006 unpublished). Theinvestments we make are therefore
paying for themselves many times over. The pressures on the flood
riskmanagement budget remain and the cost of bringing urban
drainage systems up to standard and improvingstandards will also be
considerable.
-
Processed: 28-04-2008 22:35:15 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB
Job: 381640 Unit: PG01
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 5
10.2 The continued investment and provision of flood defences
for properties in areas at high risk offlooding is a fundamental
part of Government’s agreement with the insurance industry. The
“Statement ofPrinciples” agreed with the ABI states that insurance
for flood risk will continue to be oVered by the industryas long as
Government investment in flood risk reduction measures continues.
The ABI has called for floodrisk management budgets to be increased
at 10% per year (A future for the floodplains, ABI, 2006), and
theEnvironment Agency believes it is prudent to increase the budget
this steadily so that capacity can increasein line with a real
increase in budget.
10.3 The Government announced in July its intended expansion of
overall funding in flood riskmanagement from £600 million per year
to £800 million per year by 2010–11, although it is not yet
clearhow much the Environment Agency will receive, or when. The
National Audit OYce identified the need foran additional £150
million to be spent on bringing our existing assets into “good”
standard. The ABI’s viewis that this commitment should be made over
and above the increase to £800 million annually alreadyannounced,
and they have identified a case for an additional £8 billion to be
spent over 25 years on east coastdefences alone. The Government’s
Foresight report also advised that an increase in spending of £30
millionper annum in real terms would be necessary to contend with
the best current predictions of the eVects ofclimate change.
10.4 So, we warmly welcome the extra funding announced by the
Secretary of State for Environment,Food and Rural AVairs. We
believe it should increase steadily in 2008–09 and 2009–10, and in
accordancewith the ABI’s proposals after 2011. Increases should
continue through the next spending review, towardsreaching over £1
billion annually.
11. Governance
11.1 Some commentators are already suggesting disaggregation of
flood risk management to more localcontrol. The Government
consulted on governance and funding after the extensive floods in
autumn 2000and concluded that a national approach was needed to
enable eVective focus on priorities and more eYcientuse of
resources and skills. Government has just agreed that the
Environment Agency will take on theresponsibility for strategic
overview on the coast and is consulting on giving the Environment
Agency asimilar role inland.
11.2 Other commentators have suggested that management of flood
events point to the need for a singleflood agency which would
handle all aspects of flood emergency management from forecasting
and warningthrough to event management, community support and
post-flood recovery. The management of floodevents requires
collaboration of a wide range of organisations. For example, the
skills of both theEnvironment Agency and the Met OYce are needed
for flood forecasting. Emergency management needsclose
collaboration between Local Authorities, the emergency services,
utility companies, Internal DrainageBoards, voluntary organisations
and others. The important factor is clarity of responsibilities and
excellenceof co-ordination, not the creation of a single
organisation, which would cut across the ongoing
“peacetime”responsibilities of other organisations.
11.3 A fundamental principle behind the creation of the
Environment Agency was the need for theintegrated management of
rivers, including pollution control, water resources, the land /
water interface andbiodiversity as well as flooding. This is even
more valid now. The Water Framework Directive requires suchan
approach and this will soon be universal across Europe.
11.4 A response to the flood event that focuses on
organisational restructuring rather than action on theissues risks
losing output for up to two years while restructuring takes place
and reductions in productivityfor some three years after as the new
arrangements bed down. Many of the issues identified as arising in
thesummer floods were highlighted in reports from previous flood
events. It is vital that the real issues aretackled, rather than
resorting to restructuring as a substitute for real focus and
action.
12. Conclusions and Recommendations
12.1 In reaching conclusions and making recommendations, we must
bear in mind that the full pictureof the events in June and July,
and the full impacts of the flooding have yet to be clearly
understood. Theinternal “lessons identified” review that we are
undertaking, together with reports from other studies, willadd
flesh to the bare bones of information that have so far been
available, and help us direct our futurethinking, policies and
activities. Our interim views, based on what we know so far, are as
follows:
— Recommendation 1—We believe that there needs to be an eVective
strategic overview role for alltypes of inland flooding. The role
needs careful specification and the balance of
responsibilitiesbetween the Environment Agency and other
organisations will need to be clearly articulated. TheEnvironment
Agency could provide leadership, advice, expertise and national
support. LocalAuthorities would need to take a lead role in the
local management of surface water flooding.These roles would need
to be supported by appropriate powers and resources, and by
SurfaceWater Management Plans that would set out a package of
responses to risks that were identifiedin a consistent way (Section
2.0).
-
Processed: 28-04-2008 22:35:15 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB
Job: 381640 Unit: PG01
Ev 6 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
— Recommendation 2—We need to develop a workable, nationally
consistent toolkit forcharacterising urban flood risk and
prioritising responses (Section 3.0).
— Recommendation 3—PPS 25 gives the Environment Agency the
greater involvement in planningdecisions we called for. However, to
be eVective it must be rigorously applied and supported byLocal
Authorities (Section 4.0).
— Recommendation 4—Resistance and resilience requirements should
be included in the BuildingRegulations for new development in areas
that could flood, from whatever source (Section 4.0).
— Recommendation 5—In the forthcoming Planning Bill, a
presumption in favour of SUDS shouldbe introduced to add weight to
existing policy in PPS25. Local authorities should apply
apresumption in favour of SUDS in planning applications for new
developments by applyingconditions and clear arrangements need to
be put in place for ongoing maintenance (Section 5.0).
— Recommendation 6—Section 106 of the Water Industry Act 1991
(right of connection to a publicsewer) should be amended to
encourage the use of SUDS, and charging regimes should
rewardorganisations that place a smaller load on the surface water
drainage system (Section 5.0).
— Recommendation 7—Local Authorities together with Local
Resilience Forums should be givengreater accountability for
ensuring emergency plans are adequate in relations to the level of
floodrisk (Section 6.0).
— Recommendation 8—Measures that promote investment in
resilience and prevention of floodingof critical infrastructure
need reviewing. There should be a specific climate change
adaptation rolefor utilities and service providers in the Climate
Change Bill (Section 7.0).
— Recommendation 9—Land owners and managers should be encouraged
to consider the manyways in which their activities can help reduce
flooding, for example by careful soil management orcreating
washlands and water storage areas (Section 8.0).
— Recommendation 10—Reservoir safety legislation should be
reassessed to learn the lessons of therecent events (Section
9.0).
— Recommendation 11—Investment in flood risk management is
promised to increase but longer-term commitment to such funding
needs to be given by Government in the face of climate
changeimpacts (Section 10).
— Recommendation 12—Fundamental changes to governance of flood
risk would becounterproductive. Defra should take forward its
intention to give the Environment Agency anoverview role of all
inland flooding (Section 11).
Environment Agency
September 2007
Annex 1
Our role and activities during the summer floods 2007
1. The Environment Agency
1.1 We are the lead agency for providing flood risk protection
and warning of flooding from “main”rivers. Other bodies, (Local
Authorities, the Highways Agency and utility companies) are
responsible forthe standards and maintenance of smaller
watercourses, culverts, drains and sewerage systems. We have
aregulatory role in managing flooding from reservoirs, except where
we own reservoirs specifically managedto reduce flood risk.
Riparian owners are responsible for other watercourses on their
land.
1.2 This memorandum explains how we discharged our
responsibilities during the summer floods. Itexplains how we worked
with others in discharging those responsibilities across the range
of our activities,including mapping and modelling flood risk;
interpreting weather warnings; forecasting flooding and
issuingflood warnings; building and maintaining flood defences;
incident management and response; clean-upoperations; and
aftercare.
1.3 Although it is not possible to conclusively attribute any
particular event or series of events to climatechange, we do know
that predictions for the UK suggest we can expect more severe
storms accompaniedby intense rainfall. This, combined with
predicted sea level rise, mean that the risks of coastal and
inlandflooding are likely to increase.
-
Processed: 28-04-2008 22:35:15 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB
Job: 381640 Unit: PG01
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 7
2. Forecast And Warning
Mapping
2.1 We map flood risk and provide free to the public, via our
web site, the most detailed mapping analysisof flood risk of any
country in Europe. This information is regularly updated and shared
with localauthorities and the insurance industry to assist in
planning and insurance provision. We map areas at riskof flooding
from the sea and from rivers. We do not currently have a
responsibility to map areas that maybe vulnerable to surface water
flooding, sewer or groundwater flooding.
2.2 Most of the areas that flooded were identified on our flood
maps as being at risk of flooding. Thosethat weren’t identified by
flood maps as being at risk tended to be areas aVected by drainage
systems beingoverwhelmed by the run-oV from exceptional rainfall.
Early data analysis shows that five times as manyproperties were
aVected by surface water flooding as against those directly aVected
by river bankovertopping, although the relationship between the two
is complex. Areas where urban flooding was causedsolely by
overwhelmed urban drainage systems do not receive flood warnings
under the current system.
Data gathering
2.3 We constantly monitor rainfall, river and sea conditions. We
also use weather forecastinginformation provided by the
Meteorological OYce (Met OYce) on rainfall forecasts, weather
radar, tidelevels and wind conditions. These data help us plan and
warn for events.
2.4 The data are fed into our national flood forecasting system
(NFFS), which predicts river and tidelevels for critical locations
across England and Wales and allows us to warn people at risk and
professionalpartners. When severe weather is predicted, our
national and regional flood forecasting duty oYcers are inregular
and direct contact with Met OYce forecasters.
Triggers for action
2.5 The Environment Agency’s operational flood response can be
triggered in a number of ways,depending on the response required,
for example:
— Using weather forecasts from the Met oYce—for informing
professional partners, running riverlevel and tide forecasts,
putting staV on standby;
— Using detected river levels through remote sensing or direct
observations—used to issue floodwarnings and operate our flood
control structures, including putting up our temporary
floodbarriers; and
— Through reports of flooding from the public or others—these
can be received by Floodline (ourflooding information telephone
service 0845 988 1188); our National Customer Contact Centre(NCCC)
during oYce hours, or through our Regional Communication Centres
(RCCs) using ouremergency out of hours contact number. They are
then passed to the relevant local duty oYcer toinvestigate and
act.
Flood warnings
2.6 We issue flood warnings when rivers or sea levels reach
trigger levels, or when high levels are forecast.Before we issue
warnings to ensure we try to be as specific as possible about which
communities will beaVected. However, we have to find a balance
between the needs for accuracy and the importance of alertingthe
public and our partners early enough for them to react
appropriately. We also need to be aware of theproblems of raising
false alarms, which, if repeated, reduce the willingness of people
to respond.
2.7 We aim to give at least two hours’ notice of flooding, but
in some locations, where catchments respondvery quickly to
rainfall, this notice period is not feasible. We do not currently
have a responsibility to providea flood warning service for
flooding from sewers, drains or surface water, although work is
currently beingdone under Defra’s Making Space for Water initiative
to study the feasibility of expanding current floodwarnings to
cover other flood risks.
2.8 During the summer floods:
— We warned over 45,000 properties of flooding through our free
flood warning systems.
— Our flood agents took almost 55,000 calls and we received over
200,000 calls to our FloodlineRecorded Message Service. Our call
centres were manned with triple the usual number of staV.
— We issued 233 Flood Watch Warnings, 272 Flood Warnings, and 51
Severe Flood Warnings.
— We received over 43 million “hits” to flood pages from 4
million individuals on our website whichcontain advice on preparing
for flooding, what to do during a flood and on cleaning up after
aflood.
-
Processed: 28-04-2008 22:35:15 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB
Job: 381640 Unit: PG01
Ev 8 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence
Floodline Warnings Direct (FWD)
2.9 We have invested £10 million over the last 3 years in our
new national flood warning disseminationsystem, Flood Warnings
Direct (FWD). It has proved a robust and reliable way of getting
warnings out topublic and our professional partners. This system is
unique in the world, warning free of charge registeredusers at the
highest risk of flooding via telephone, fax, text, mobile, pager
and email.
2.10 We have sustained a long running campaign to raise
awareness of flooding and the availability offlood warning and
advice. To date 40% of those oVered FWD have voluntarily signed up
for the service.We continue eVorts post flood to encourage sign up,
for example by taking out full-page adverts in threenational
newspapers, local newspaper advertising, direct mailing, and going
door to door.
3. Response
3.1 During the June and July flooding we mobilised all
appropriate head oYce and regional operationalteams. Their
activities included checking the condition and stability of our
flood defence assets; confirmingtelemetric readings; installing
demountable flood barriers; monitoring and forecasting; issuing
warnings;manning our incident control rooms; and responding to
queries from the public, Government Ministers andoYcials, Members
of Parliament and the media. Many staV from non-flooded areas and
other disciplinesof Environment Agency work were drafted in to
supplement formal flood risk management staV, an exampleof where a
large, multi-functional agency is able to provide a more robust
response in such emergencies.
3.2 Over this period, up to 23 National, Regional and Area
Incident Rooms were operational, and staVattended the same number
of Gold and Silver Control Centres.
Gold and Silver Controls and Civil Contingencies Committee
3.3 The Gold and Silver Command structure is used to co-ordinate
a managed response to majorincidents where a range of agencies and
emergency services have a role to play. Communication betweenthe
Environment Agency Regional contacts and Gold and Silver Controls
across the country worked well,largely due to pre-established
relationships and links made during emergency planning exercises
and LocalResilience Forums. We were able to provide updates as
necessary on flood risk in many areas. These werewidely cascaded to
responding agencies and authorities on a regular basis and the
information was oftenthe basis for informing evacuation plans and
informing the public. The same material was used extensivelyby our
own staV to brief the media, provide press statements and give
interviews.
3.4 The importance of our role in control centres is
recognised—Hull City Council and Humberside Fireand Rescue have
both indicated that the Environment Agency were “invaluable in
providing accurate andvital information on river levels, tides, and
weather forecasts” at Silver Command in Hull (Hull
FloodsIndependent Review Body).
3.5 We also provided liaison oYcers in the Met OYce and in the
Fire and Rescue Service (FRS) NationalFlood Support Team. These
staV were able to keep direct contact as needed with both the
National IncidentRoom (gathering and co-ordinating situation report
information from local Operational staV for onwardtransmission) and
with Area Forecasting teams (monitoring river levels and
environmental conditionspredict their possible eVects). For the
FRS, this provided useful intelligence on how rainfall was
aVectingriver flows and levels, predicted peak times and locations.
Without this, the FRS would not have been ableto co-ordinate the
deployment of water rescue staV and assets as eVectively.
3.6 We played a full part nationally in the Cabinet OYce Civil
Contingencies Committee (known asCOBRA).
Local communities and residents
3.7 After the floods, we put significant eVorts towards working
with and talking to local communitiesand answering questions about
flooding in their areas. We organised or took part in drop-in
centres andadvice sessions where our staV were on hand to answer
questions and oVer practical advice on all aspectsof the flooding,
as well as to hear first hand from people aVected by flooding. Many
of these took place ona multi-agency basis so that together we
could provide as much information as possible locally. We also
hadstaV acting as “flood ambassadors” in some communities to oVer
on-the-spot advice and answer questions.
3.8 Our Floodline is available to provide advice 24 hours a day
during a flood event. Flood pages on ourwebsite contain information
on preparing for flooding, what to do during a flood and cleaning
up after aflood.
3.9 We provided four national briefings to MPs during and after
the flooding as well as briefing MPs inaVected constituencies at a
regional and local level. We supported the Government by providing
briefingsfor Ministers and assisted with Government briefings for
members of Parliament.
-
Processed: 28-04-2008 22:35:15 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB
Job: 381640 Unit: PG01
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev 9
4. Assets
4.1 Across England and Wales, the Environment Agency flood risk
infrastructure assets comprise 17,400structures and 22,800
kilometres of coast and riverbank defence with an estimated
replacement cost of £20billion. Over the five years to 2007–08, our
capital investment programme will have reduced the risk ofcoastal
and river flooding to an additional 155,000 properties.
4.2 We assess the condition of our assets and grade them from 1
(very good) to 5 (very poor).Improvements to our condition
assessment work have helped to improve the classification of our
defencesbased on fit-for-purpose performance. Currently more than
90% of our assets are graded as being in fair (3)or better
condition.
Performance during events
4.3 Past evidence has shown that the majority of instances where
flooding occurs is due to either anabsence of defences or where the
design capacity of the defences is overwhelmed. Our records show
that onlyaround 1% of instances of flooding arises directly from an
asset failure. Current evidence from the summerflooding of 2007
confirms that asset failure was not a significant contributory
issue.
Standards of protection
4.4 Flood defences in England and Wales are provided under the
Environment Agency’s permissivepowers—there is no legal requirement
on the Government to protect property to a given standard, or at
all.Government policy in England, set through Defra, identifies
indicative standards of protection. These arecurrently between 1 in
50 and 1 in 100 for fluvial defences and 1 in 200 years for tidal
flooding. The standardfor each location is established through
economic assessment and focuses on optimising the benefit to
costratio. It typically enables standards of protection of around 1
in 100 years for urban river systems and 1in 200 years for urban
coastal defences. There are exceptions; most notably on the Thames
where defencesprotecting London from tidal flooding are set to the
1 in 2000-year standard.
4.5 Calculating standards of protection is based upon
statistical analysis of the historical record. Thefrequency and
severity of intensity of rainfall are predicted to increase as a
consequence of climate change.These are major drivers of river
flooding. We therefore build increased tolerances into our
floodmanagement works to cater for climate change inland and at the
coast. We allocate funds to areas of highestrisk taking account of
the need to spread risk reduction as far as possible with the funds
available.
Temporary and demountable barriers
4.6 Temporary flood barriers are totally removable and portable
flood control systems and are one of anumber of mechanisms that we
can use to protect people and property from flooding. They are used
as ashort-term measure, for example when repairs to permanent
defences are being undertaken or duringconstruction of a permanent
defence. We regularly use them in a number of locations in England
(wherepermanent schemes cannot be justified). Our temporary
defences were used to protect the electricitysubstations at Walham,
maintaining electricity supplies to 500,000 people across
Gloucestershire and SouthWales, and Castle Meads. Temporary
barriers at the Mythe Water Treatment Works near Tewksburyenabled
recovery work to start at the plant and restoration of water
supplies to begin far earlier than wouldhave been possible without
defences.
4.7 Demountable defences are set in pre engineered locations
where permanent fixings are in place towhich barriers can be
attached. They are used successfully in a number of places where it
is not possible toput permenant barriers, often for aesthetic
reasons. We successfully deployed demountable defences atBewdley in
Worcestershire and Shrewsbury protecting many properties.
4.8 Reliance on the use of temporary barriers however is not
without risk, as shown in the case of Upton-upon-Severn, where we
were unable to install temporary defences in time. As previously
agreed between theEnvironment Agency, local community and Local
Authority, the barriers for Upton are stored 23 milesaway at
Kidderminster, where secure storage facilities, equipment for
loading and removing them fromlorries are available. Under normal
circumstances, excellent transport links enable us to be on site
withinan hour. However, the extreme weather conditions caused
severe traYc disruption and, despite our besteVorts and help from
the police, we were unable to reach Upton in time to erect the
barriers. We now knowthat due to the unprecedented amount of water
flowing through the area, even had we been able to erect
thebarriers, they would have been overtopped.
4.9 Even though the barriers were not used at their intended
location in Upton, we were able to deploythem to great eVect at
Walham electricity sub-station, preventing the loss of power to
half a million people.
-
Processed: 28-04-2008 22:35:15 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB
Job: 381640 Unit: PG01
Ev 10 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee:
Evidence
Dredging
4.10 Whilst there are certain circumstances where dredging and
channel clearance may help reduce floodrisk, we have largely found
in the past that, overall, channel maintenance contributes little
to reduction offlood risk in major events and it is therefore less
economically beneficial than other flood risk managementtools. To
reinstate more widespread channel management practices on top of
our other flood riskmanagement activities would, therefore, require
significant additional resource.
4.11 River channel clearance would have had limited immediate
benefit during the summer floods. Riversonly stay inside their
banks in low to medium flows. Above this the river will flow onto
the floodplain, whichis as much a natural part of the river as the
channel itself. Channels, which are over-deepened beyond
theirnatural profile, quickly silt up as they try and find their
natural state of equilibrium.
5. Recovery
5.1 The focus on the floods has now moved from incident
management to the recovery phase and tolonger-term reviews of what
went well and the challenges for the future.
5.2 Our immediate role in the aftermath of a flood is to inspect
defences and other equipment to ensurethey remain serviceable and
to remove debris and blockages from main watercourses where we
believe theyare increasing flood risk. Local Authorities have the
lead role in co-ordinating recovery eVorts following aflood. We
believe that planning for recovery is as important as planning for
the flood itself.
5.3 Current direct costs of the floods to the Environment Agency
stand at £20 million. Three quarters ofthis will be needed to
repair our flood defences.
Clean up operations
5.4 We have a limited role in post event economic and social
recovery but we work with others to helppeople get their lives back
to normal as quickly as possible. As flood levels receded, our
workforce wasdeployed to help remove water from flooded areas as
quickly as possible, including using large temporarypumps through
to unblocking debris from culverts and under bridges, and helping
the emergency servicesremove obstacles and blockages.
Environment Agency
September 2007
Witnesses: Baroness Young of Old Scone, a Member of the House of
Lords, Chief Executive, Dr David King,Director of Water Management
and Mr David Rooke, Head of Flood Risk Management,
EnvironmentAgency, gave evidence.
Q1 Chairman: Good afternoon, ladies andgentlemen. I am delighted
to see so many people heretaking an interest in the Committee’s
first sessionafter the summer recess. Can I just deal with onesmall
but important piece of housekeeping before westart? As some
colleagues here may be new to theCommittee or may have forgotten
how we operate, itwould be very helpful if you could make certain
yourmobile phones or other alert mechanisms are turnedoV. I welcome
our first witness in our inquiry intoFlooding, the Environment
Agency: BaronessYoung, their Chief Executive, Dr David King,
theirDirector of Water Management and Mr DavidRooke, the Head of
Flood Risk Management. Youare all very welcome and thank you for
yourcomprehensive submission and oVers to theCommittee of further
briefing to enable us tounderstand in even greater detail some of
the lessonslearned from the summer’s flooding. I would just liketo
say at the outset that this particular inquiry hasattracted an
unprecedented response, particularlyfrom members of the public. On
behalf of theCommittee I would like to express my thanks tothose
people, some of whose lives were blighted byflooding, but
nonetheless have seen fit to share withthe Committee their own
thoughts and indeed posed
some very pertinent questions which I hope, as weproceed with
these hearings, we will be able to reflectand reflect upon when it
comes to reaching ourconclusions. I would like to start, Baroness
Young,if I may, by asking you a question borne out of thefact that
there do seem to have been an awful lot ofreports on the subject of
flooding and floodmanagement with lots of very good advice. I
lookedback to the predecessor committee of this and I thinkit was
in the Session 1997–98 when they published areport on Flood and
Coastal Defence and in theirrecommendations they made an
importantobservation that there needed to be integratedmanagement
of flooding issues.1 They concentrateon main rivers, non-main
rivers and internaldrainage board areas and made the
distinctionbetween that and coastal activity. In the case of ourown
Committee we published a report, ClimateChange, Water Security and
Flooding on 16September 2004 in which we made a number ofpressing
recommendations, including asking theGovernment to publish a White
Paper on the subjectof the Foresight Report which very
accuratelypredicted the onset of more extreme weather
1 Agriculture Committee, Sixth Report of Session 1997–98,Flood
and Coastal Defence, HC 707-I
-
Processed: 28-04-2008 22:35:15 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB
Job: 381640 Unit: PG01
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev
11
conditions and made some very importantrecommendations about
should be protected,including vital infrastructure.2 The
Government’sown activity in terms of their response to MakingSpace
for Water for example had conclusions whichsaid (and I quote): “The
aim will be to manage risksby employing an integrated portfolio of
approacheswhich reflect both national and local priorities.”Their
first thought was that these were all aimed atreducing the threat
to people and their property.With so much advice how come it went
so wrong?Baroness Young of Old Scone: Thank you for givingus an
opportunity to say that we do not think it wentwrong as a result of
the advice. The reasons whythese floods were so severe was because
the weatherthat prompted them was indeed severe. There was
anunprecedented amount of rain in June and July,more than ever
before.
Q2 Chairman: Just to interrupt, you say it wasunprecedented but
Sir David King’s report alertedeverybody—albeit on a long
timescale—to the onsetof more extreme weather conditions associated
withclimate change. If you look at the scientific evidencein volume
two of his findings a lot of the kind of thethings that we saw
happen in the summer—forexample the lack of protection for
vitalinfrastructure—were flagged up as work areas inthat document.
What did you, as an Agency, dowhen Sir David published his findings
in terms ofgiving advice to the Government?Baroness Young of Old
Scone: We have looked, asyou have, at all the reports that have
been done onfloods since 1998 and if you look at all
therecommendations coming from these reports aconsiderable number
of them have been acted onand implemented. Some of them are
currently partof a process of implementation as part of MakingSpace
for Water which is the Government’s strategyfor flood risk
management. I think the issue really,as far as the previous
findings are concerned, is thepace at which they are being
implemented. In somecases this is as a result of the pace that can
beachieved through funding; in other cases it ischanges in
legislation; sometimes it is cultural and achange in hearts and
minds. It is a big andcomplicated process of implementing all of
thesereports. I believe we need to move faster and I dohope that
the reviews that are currently takingplace—your own and Sir Michael
Pitt’s—will in factreinforce the need not to come up with
newconclusions but to implement the ones that havealready been
reached.
Q3 Chairman: Let us get to the heart of the matter. Itis
refreshing to hear you say that things should movefaster and this
is borne out of, if you like, a reactionof some very harrowing
situations which occurred inthe summer. Going back to 2004 when
that reportwas produced—indeed, you are continually workingin the
area of dealing with flood prevention issues—did you sit down
formally with government and in2004 deliver a hurry up message in
the context of thethen available resources?
2 Environment, Food and Rural AVairs Committee,Sixteenth Report
of Session 2003–04, Climate Change,Water Security and Flooding, HC
558
Baroness Young of Old Scone: There has been a hugeamount of
sitting down with government on theMaking Space for Water strategy,
which is theprimary vehicle for changing the way in which floodrisk
management is delivered. That has achieved awhole variety of
changes including the work that hasgone on to take a risk based
approach to flood riskmanagement for the future. We have delivered
moretechniques of assessing risk, we have madeconsiderable progress
in delivering our mapping andwarning systems. As a result of that
report there wasalso the injection of additional funding into
thesystem through the spending rounds and there are anumber of
things that are currently underway,including giving us a role on
the coast to integrate(you made the point about integration)
andconsulting on whether we are going to have a role inflooding
in-land from all sources of flooding. Sosome of these things have
been done and some ofthese things are currently out to consultation
andsome of them remain to be done. I do not believe thatany of the
messages from previous reports or indeedfrom the report that you
are referring to have notbeen worked through in the Making Space
forWater strategy.
Q4 Chairman: You made a very telling statement atthe beginning,
a candid statement in which you saidthat things should happen
quicker. When did youstart to deliver to Defra the message that
thingsshould accelerate? Was it as a result of what hashappened
this summer or was it as a result of studyand thought at an earlier
time?Baroness Young of Old Scone: It all depends verymuch on which
of the elements of the report aretaken into account. One of the
things we have donein the review of all the various reports is to
work outwho, in fact, was responsible for taking the lead.Some of
those things we were responsible for takingthe lead in, others it
was parts of government, othersit was local authorities, others it
was individualagencies, parts of government, whatever. I think
theimportant thing is that we have pressed on as fast aswe possibly
could with the things that we wereresponsible for. We have urged
government to moveforward on the things that they are responsible
forand there are quite diYcult conundrums to face interms of the
wide variety of responsibilities,particularly for surface water and
urban floodingwhere Defra was consulting prior to the floods on
a“minded to” basis about our role in co-ordinating allof the
organisations that are responsible in the urbanand surface water
areas, for example localauthorities, water companies, the
HighwaysAgency, highways authorities, the development
andre-development process where clearly at the momentthere is huge
confusion to the public and a lack of co-ordination.
Q5 Chairman: I think it would be helpful to theCommittee if you
could lay out in writing and inmore detail, bearing in mind the
reports to which Ihave referred, to give us some kind of time line
ofactivity in terms of your exchanges with governmentto see the
type of recommendations that you weremaking to ministers, what
degree of urgency you, asan Agency, attach to them; the kind of
response you
-
Processed: 28-04-2008 22:35:15 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB
Job: 381640 Unit: PG01
Ev 12 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee:
Evidence
10 October 2007 Baroness Young of Old Scone, Dr David King and
Mr David Rooke
were getting from Defra as to whether, in yourjudgment, they
were motoring fast enough in thelight of the advice that you were
giving.Baroness Young of Old Scone: I am certainly happyto do that
as far as our responsibilities go, but Iwould not want it to be
left on the record that we areresponsible for all flood risk
policy. That is a Defrarole and that is one you will have to put to
them.Chairman: We are going to come on to who else maybe
responsible because in your evidence you putforward some quite
candid conclusions about betterco-ordination of bodies. You alluded
to them inyour remarks a moment ago and we will want toprobe that
in detail. Before I go on to look in moredetail at the June and
July floods I want to bring inDavid Taylor.
Q6 David Taylor: In your comments a moment ortwo ago I think you
were suggesting that you weregoing to take a risk based approach to
flood riskmanagement. What on earth other approach wouldyou take? I
do not understand that.Baroness Young of Old Scone: I can probably
turn toDavid King or David Rooke on this because theyhave been
around flood risk longer than I have, butmy understanding is that
over the last ten years orslightly less we have been increasingly
able to mapand assess flood risk and to direct our activities
andour resources towards the areas of higher flood riskthan we have
been previously in the past. Historyplayed quite a large part and
indeed if you rememberthe 2000 floods to some extent history played
a bit ofa part there in that the prime minister of the day
wentaround standing on bridges, looking at floodedcommunities and
saying “This must have a flood riskmanagement scheme”. So it was
very much that ifsomewhere had flooded we tended to say that
weshould look at what needed to be done to resolvethat situation
rather than stepping back and saying,“Where, in these flood risk
management areas, arethe highest priorities? Where are the places
that aremost at risk? Where can resource and focus save themost in
the way of property and risk to human life,rather than simply going
on the basis of where hadpreviously flooded. The two Davids may
want tocomment.Dr King: I think it is worth saying that
theunderpinning philosophy in the 50s and 60s andright up through
the 80s was about flood defence.Almost implicit in that was that
you could builddefences that would stop flooding. The reality is,
ofcourse, that you cannot do that; you can only bebetter prepared
against the impact of floods.Therefore it is a change of view; it
is about lookingat how you manage the risk down and it is
alsoaccepted that you manage the risk down by a basketof diVerent
interventions which on one side might beabout development control,
keeping buildings awayfrom inappropriate development of a flood
plain to,of course, building and maintaining defences. It is awhole
diVerent thought process that now existsaround managing floods.
Q7 Chairman: Let us look briefly at what happenedin June and
July because the view has been createdthat the floods that we
experienced both in the ruraland the urban settings were
unprecedented and verydiVerent from anything that we had had
before.Perhaps you could comment on that.Baroness Young of Old
Scone: They certainly werediVerent from what we have experienced
before toan extent that there was a huge amount of rain in avery
short space of time. They were the wettest Juneand July ever
recorded. Much of the flooding camenot from what we would regard as
a traditionalflood, as it were, from the rivers or the seas but
fromthe huge volume of water simply overpowering thesurface water
drainage systems and causing fairlyinstant flooding, quick
flooding. That might later onhave been complicated by flooding from
the rivers inmany cases as well, but the initial flooding was
verymuch surface water flooding. For those of you whoremember
seeing some of our motorways runninglike rivers, that was certainly
the cause there. I thinkthere were some big lessons to be gained
from thatabout these heavy rainfall events if they are going
tobecome increasingly common with climate change.The other
complicating factor was, I think, that itwas a summer flood rather
than a winter flood andindeed there were two events very close to
each otherso that we had a series of very saturated catchmentsand
very little capacity either in the river systems inthe second case
or indeed in the ground itself to takemore water. So that made the
situation worse.Generally speaking in terms of a traditional flood,
asit were, the systems that were in place worked well.We had good
collaboration with the Met OYce,although we have to make the point
that the capacityof the Met OYce to predict to very fine grain
thathelps us then predict floods to very fine grain is notyet
technically there. We issued warnings forflooding from the river
systems pretty well. Therewere a few occasions when it did not
quite go rightbut mostly it went well. The big problem was ofcourse
that the majority of floods were not from theriver systems, they
were from surface water systemswhich are not currently subject to
flood warning andindeed are not currently able to be mapped. They
arevery unpredictable and the title gives a clue onoccasions in
that many of them are very flash floodsso there was not much time
to warn even if thetechnology had been there. Our defences
generallystood up well in that we did not have catastrophiccollapse
or failure of defences other than a few wherestructures that are
mechanically operated orelectrically operated failed as a result of
their powersupply going out. There were a small number ofdefences
in that category but of course the majorityof our defences that
were implicated were simplyoverwhelmed by the volume of water
because thesorts of design standards to which they had beendesigned
were insuYcient to take this unprecedentedflood. We did have a
number of flood defences thatworked extremely well and did defend
communitiesand worked well to their design standards. Themessage
from us for the floods and what makes themso diVerent was very much
the huge volume of waterin a very short space of time and the fact
that it was
-
Processed: 28-04-2008 22:35:15 Page Layout: COENEW [O] PPSysB
Job: 381640 Unit: PG01
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee: Evidence Ev
13
10 October 2007 Baroness Young of Old Scone, Dr David King and
Mr David Rooke
the surface water systems that failed to respond. Ithink the
third thing is the critical infrastructureissue.
Q8 Chairman: We are going to come on to discussthat so you will
be able to go into it in more detail,but there is a concerning
point I want to conclude onthis. You said that at the moment you do
not have amodel that can deal with the kind of urban
floodingsituation that we saw and yet you as an Agency, indefending
your position about responding to thesefloods, have made great play
about your flood riskmapping, about your helpline and your
Floodline(the information that can go to people). It does begthe
question that if we are looking forward what youare going to do to
try and address the impact of whatwe currently regard as
unprecedented but whichmight become the norm. One of the things
thatworries me about the modelling arrangement is thatyou do it on
a frequency basis of one in 50, one in100, one in 200 or even one
in 1000 year events butnobody seems to have actually gone back and
said,“Well, if this kind of rainfall occurs anywhere, whatwould the
flood risk map actually then look like?”We have had a lot of focus
on coastal and riverflooding in terms of your mapping, but you
haveadmitted that there is a gap in terms of the urbanenvironment
and there seems to be a dearth ofmathematical modelling to say that
if we get so-called unprecedented events anywhere, not trying
topredict when it is going to rain but just to look at thecountry
as a whole and say, “If this lot dropsanywhere, what are the risk
factors?” What are youdoing to improve the modelling and the
anticipationof this type of event in the future?Baroness Young of
Old Scone: Can I make somepoints of principle and then perhaps pass
to DavidRooke to talk about the whole issue ofcharacterising urban
flood risk? We are not workingon modelling of urban flood risk at
the momentbecause we do not, as yet, have a responsibility forurban
flood risk other than from rivers.
Q9 Chairman: Why not?Baroness Young of Old Scone: Because as yet
theGovernment has not given us that responsibility.They were
consulting on whether they should puttogether a proposition before
the summer events butwe are not responsible for urban flooding from
allsources.
Q10 Chairman: So at the moment it is localauthorities, is it,
who are supposed to be responsiblefor that?Baroness Young of Old
Scone: At the moment it is avery complicated mixture of
responsibilities of localauthorities, of owners of land, of the
HighwaysAgency, the highways authorities; in circumstanceswhere it
is the water company assets that areinvolved—sewers and drains—it
would be the watercompanies. So it is a very mixed and
uncoordinatedpicture. In some areas there has been a degree of
co-ordination, for example following the floods inCarlisle there
has been very good work to bringtogether all the parties and put
together a surface
water drainage plan and flooding plan combined.However, in the
vast majority of urban settlementsat the moment that will not have
been done. As yetwe are not looking at modelling floods from
surfacewater issues within cities. Let me just take one pointof
principle also about your extreme eventshappening anywhere. We
could in theory look at ourflood mapping and risk approach and work
outwhat was needed to protect everywhere against thepossibility of
a very extreme event. I personally donot believe that that would be
the best use of publicmoney because it would be highly
unpredictable.Where some of these very extreme events willhappen,
although they may be increasing infrequency with climate change,
only once in alifetime or two lifetimes or three lifetimes in
somelocations. To engineer the whole of the country tothat standard
would be quite expensive.
Q11 Chairman: I am not suggesting that that was theoutcome I was
seeking, it was “do the modelling andthen decide from the response
the approach” whichseems to be lacking.Baroness Young of Old Scone:
I certainly think thatnationally there needs to be a discussion and
debateat government level about the standard of protectionthat we
believe is important and how frequently wewould regard as
acceptable an event that wouldoverwhelm the traditional defences.
We also need tolook at other ways of making sure that if
theseextreme events occur that proper contingencyplanning is in
place and that generally speaking webuild our buildings and our
settlements with moreresilience.Chairman: We are going to come onto
that but MrWilliams wants to come in here.
Q12 Mr Williams: You have talked about theconsultation that is
taking place as to whether theEnvironment Agency should take the
legalresponsibility in urban flooding from surface water.How did
that consultation arise? Was it because ofa ministerial
announcement?Baroness Young of Old Scone: It is part of theMaking
Space for Water strategy and this was thebeginning of the process
of looking at integration.We have gone through the process of
Defraconsulting on integrating the roles in coastalflooding and
coastal protection. That has now beenagreed and we are going to
have a combined role incoastal flooding and coastal protection.
This wasnow moving onto consulting on the inland roleintegrating
surface water drainage with floodingfrom the rivers as well. It was
partly the process ofimplementing Making Space for Water.Dr King:
Making Space for Water is theGovernment’s strategic framework for
handlingflood risk over the next ten to 15 years. Sitting underthat
strategy document are somewhere between 15and 20 programmes of work
which largely sweep upall of the recommendations that the Chairman
madereference to. Many of those have progressed but it istrue to
say that most of the focus over the lastnumber of years has been on
fluvial and coastalflooding. However, the issue of urban flooding,
for
-
Processed: 28-04-2008 22:35:15 Page Layout: COENEW [E] PPSysB
Job: 381640 Unit: PG01
Ev 14 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee:
Evidence
10 October 2007 Baroness Young of Old Scone, Dr David King and
Mr David Rooke
example last December the Government set anumber of pilots
looking at urban flooding, surfacewater flooding, specifically to
try to understand howwe might best manage the surface water issue.
Inaddition to and as part of that Defra are consultingon the need
for a strategic overview. There are fiveor six diVerent
organisations involved in managingurban flooding. They all have an
important part toplay and must continue to do so, but there is a
needfor a strategic overview part of which would be
thecharacterisation of national risk. My belief is that interms of
characterisation mapping surface waterflooding, which is a lot more
diYcult for a wholevariety of technical reasons, we are
significantlybehind where we are with our understanding
ofcharacterisation and mapping of fluvial and coastal.
Q13 Mr Williams: Can I just ask how far theconsultation has
proceeded? What conclusions haveyou come to?Baroness Young of Old
Scone: It has gone throughthe consultative process and Defra now
has theresponses. They are not going to act on those untilthe
review, chaired by Sir Michael Pitt, has come tosome
conclusions.
Q14 David Lepper: Could I concentrate on yourresponsibilities
for flood warning systems and publicinformation. There is no doubt
at all these have beenunder very heavy pressure during the summer.
Ithink you talked of some 43 million hits to yourwebsite during
that period, but you concluded inyour evidence to us that the
current system stood upto the challenges of increased usage. On the
otherhand, we have a number of those organisations andindividuals
who have submitted evidence to uswhich suggests diVerently, for
instance SheYeld CityCouncil say that severe flood warnings were
onlygiven when the water level was already up to thewindscreens on
vehicles. The National Farmers’Union says that farmers who had been
signed up fora flood warning did not receive the warning until
itwas too late for them to rescue their livestock.Residents in
Oxford complained about incorrectand confusing information. Would
you agree thatyou do need to review the processes of
warning—accepting the fact that this was perhaps a once inhowever
many years occurrence—that pressureswere put on the system and many
of thoseindividuals who were relying upon the Agency’s ownwarning
system and information felt that they werelet down.Dr King: The
first thing I would say is that when youget an event of the
severity that we did clearly therewill be lessons learned and there
will beimprovements that we will make. The second pointthat I would
make is that our warning system isexclusively associated with
fluvial, so flooding fromrivers. In the dissemination of warnings
we use theFloodline Warnings Direct which enables you togive a
warning either by fax, phone or pager. We usethe Internet and
obviously we use the local radio aswell as Floodline. In terms of
warnings, we gave out45,000 warnings and we strive to give a two
hourwarning. We know that about 75 per cent of
warnings were given with at least two hours, butobviously there
are 25 per cent where we did not.Given the nature of the flooding
that unfortunatelyhas happened. In terms of our website,
youmentioned we had 43 million hits from 4 millionpeople and
although there was some minor slowingof the system we are talking
about seconds.Normally 95 per cent of the enquiries are withinthree
seconds, it went down to a minute in someperiods.
Q15 David Lepper: We had Tewskesbury Chamberof Industry and
Commerce telling us that in relationto Tewskesbury, where the flood
happened on aFriday night (or at least the worst part of it), they
tellus over the weekend it was impossible to connect tothe
Environment Agency website. That is not just amatter of the slowing
down of the process because ofthe number of hits, but they are
telling us they couldnot get any connection at all to your
website.Baroness Young of Old Scone: We can certainly giveyou the
evidence from our own logging process thatshows that the website
was active throughout. Ifpeople were not getting onto it obviously
we need tolook at it. Perhaps I could just comment on one ortwo of
the examples you gave. SheYeld, for example,was one of those areas
where there was considerable,very rapid flooding from surface water
drainageissues and that was the primary cause of most of
theflooding in SheYeld and therefore it was verydiYcult to give
warning at all. We currently do nothave a warning system there. The
NFU issue, if thereare farmers who were signed up for a warning
anddid not get one, we need to explore that but myunderstanding is
that in many cases it was that theydid not feel they got it in
time. Our standard is awarning, if we can, two hours beforehand. I
thinkthe one point I would want to make about thefarmers is that we
still have remarkably few farmersand others signed up to the
warning system. Only 41per cent of people who are eligible have
signed upand we would very much like to press for morepeople to be
signed up to it so that we can, wherepossible, give warnings. Again
we can look atinstances where farm