Customize Consent Preferences

We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.

The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ... 

Always Active

Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.

No cookies to display.

Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.

No cookies to display.

Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.

No cookies to display.

Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.

No cookies to display.

Advertisement

Dismay at government response to flood prevention proposals

MPs have attacked the government’s ‘sub-standard’ response to calls for a radical overhaul of flood risk management.

A report published in November by the environment, food and rural affairs select committee outlined a raft of recommendations to tackle England’s ‘fragmented, inefficient and ineffective flood management’.

But in its response to the report, the government rejected the majority of proposals, saying : ‘We do not agree that there is a need for substantial change to the existing national and local governance provisions for flood risk management.’

It added that the current system had achieved ‘notable successes including securing better protection for more than 500,000 properties since 2005’.

The select committee had called on the government to develop ‘robust long-term plans and to fundamentally overhaul governance and streamline delivery of flood risk management’.

This should include requiring local authorities to publish annual summaries of planning decisions approved against Environment Agency advice, it said. MPs also want to see tighter controls over new development, such as forcing developers to provide redress where development not meeting planning conditions causes increased flood risk.

The government said it was concerned how these measures would work in practice and argued that ‘robust planning policies are in place to avoid and control development in flood risk areas’.

Ministers ‘must give’ more detail

MPs said the grounds for rejecting many of their proposals was ‘deficient’.

Jim Fitzpatrick, acting chair of the environment, food and rural affairs select committee, said: ‘People living in areas of flood risk need to be reassured that the government is acting to improve our disjointed flood management system.

‘Defra has failed to give sufficient justification for its rejection of our recommendations for important new measures to improve flood protection. Ministers must give us more detailed information on how the government is using its £2.5bn flood defence budget to slow the flow of water across river catchments so as to stop communities flooding in future.

‘Ministers must also update us on their actions to ensure that the insurance, planning and building regulation regimes reduce flood risk and improve property resilience.’

In light of the government’s response, the committee has called on Defra to provide information by the end of next month on how much of the £2.5bn flood risk management programme for 2015-21 includes natural approaches.

  • Read Andy Nolan’s response to the original report here

Photo by muffinn

Austin Macauley
Editor, Environment Journal

Comments

Subscribe
Notify of
guest


0 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Help us break the news – share your information, opinion or analysis