UNDERINVESTMENT IN FLOOD INFRASTRUCTURE IS UNACCEPTABLE
CIWEM believes that significant levels of
underinvestment in flood infrastructure, as identified by the
Public Accounts Committee, is unacceptable even in the current
economic climate.
The Institution welcomes the report of the Public Accounts
Committee, which identifies significant underinvestment in flood
risk management infrastructure. The burden borne by householders
and businesses exposed to flood risk can be devastating. The risk
and uncertainty generated in the minds of those who live and work
in areas identified as being at risk of flooding reduces their
feeling of well being and restricts their potential for growth.
Public investment in infrastructure must deliver broader
benefits such that flood risk management schemes reduce the risk,
enhance the environment and encourage growth. The expectation that
funding for such schemes should come from a range of public and
private stakeholders is appropriate, but there are no single
beneficiaries from such schemes and the concept of 'the beneficiary
pays' is not valid when, as is usual, schemes benefit the wider
community. Funding generated from stakeholders should be used to
increase the available budget, rather than replace reduced funding
provided by the Treasury. The suggestion that the funding mechanism
recently introduced is 'fairer' cannot be sustained when two
equally valid schemes are prioritised only on their ability to
generate third party income.
The concerns about ongoing flood risk at unacceptable levels are
shared by the ABI. Their report suggests that the areas
identified at greatest risk by the Environment Agency are likely to
find the level of future premiums to insure against flood risk
unaffordable, even if cover is available, which will not be
guaranteed beyond 2013. Where uninsured communities are affected it
is often the local authorities who provide the response to flooding
and subsequently reclaim their expenditure from the Treasury.
The opportunity to significantly enhance the environment
adjacent to our rivers, lakes and coastline is there with clear
legislative drivers, such as the Water Framework Directive,
together with specific funding. Flood risk management schemes
provide a vehicle to deliver those enhancements, but can only be
successful with the appropriate level of government funding. The
Public Accounts Committee report indicates that current levels are
insufficient.
CIWEM executive director, Nick Reeves, said: 'Budget cuts are
part and parcel of all walks of life at present, but there are some
areas that must be better protected. The report by the Public
Accounts Committee highlights one such area where householders and
businesses are being put at unacceptable risk through no fault of
their own, because funding for flood defences is being cut. At the
same time, the National Planning Policy Framework risks loosening
restrictions within PPS25 on new development in flood plains,
potentially putting even more people at risk of the often
devastating life impacts of flooding. For such people to then be
put in the position to potentially have to compete for private
sector funding to protect their properties and businesses, and at
the same time face the prospect of being unable to afford insurance
verges on immoral, particularly when climate change threatens to
bring increasingly extreme flood events in coming decades.'
Back