HC Deb 07 July 1982 vol 27 cc432-8

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gummer.]

2.17 am
Mr. Peter Fry (Wellingborough)

I wish to raise a most disturbing matter which could well affect householders in many parts of Britain.

A serious gap exists between the statutory obligations of various public bodies, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of the Environment, local councils and water authorities, whereby planning permission can be given for building on land known to be subject to flooding, where a house may be built and purchased only for the occupier to find that no authority is obliged to provide protection or remedy.

The main tenor of my remarks should be directed to one of the Minister's colleagues at the Department of the Environment. I am fully aware of the responsibilities of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for grants to assist in this direction, but such is the deficiency of the law that the answer must be one of consultation between my hon. Friend's Department and the Department of the Environment if there is to be any satisfaction.

I shall try straight away to clear the argument that it is the householder's responsibility alone to take out insurance that will cover the costs which are often considerable, if his house is flooded. To take out insurance is, of course, a prudent step, and as an insurance broker I agree with it, but once there have been several serious claims insurers will either increase the premium or decline to renew the insurance. At the very least they will impose considerably more onerous terms. A crucial factor is that there is no power to insist that an insurer offers cover for flood. In this context the insurance argument should not be taken too importantly.

Over the past few years there have been many serious instances of flooding in parts of my constituency, especially in August 1980 and in June 1981, when within 12 months there were rainfalls that we were told were supposed to happen only once in 60 years—so much for the value of rainfall statistics. After much badgering, it has been possible to obtain a number of relief schemes, partly with grants from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and partly with help from other bodies. I am grateful for what has been done in many parts of the country. However, there remain areas where nothing seems likely to be done.

To illustrate such cases I shall refer to Mrs. Brooke of Orlingbury Road, Little Harrowden, Near Wellington. In August 1977 she and her late husband became the third owners of No. 63 Orlingbury Road. It is a pleasant bungalow set slightly above a stream which runs through a culvert under the county road at the front of the property. The normal survey was undertaken when the bungalow was purchased and searches were made. There was no mention made to Mr. and Mrs. Brooke that the land was subject to flooding.

For the first three years that Mr. and Mrs. Brooke lived at No. 63 there was no excessive rainfall and no real danger appeared. However, in August 1980 there was widespread heavy rain and the land was flooded to several inches up the walls of the bungalow. Mr. Brooke became very distressed and worried about this. He was extremely disturbed that there might be a repetition. Although he had retired he had been reasonably fit, but the dread of a repetition of the flooding problem undoubtedly played on his mind. When in June 1981 there was even heavier rainfall that caused severe flooding to a depth of l0ft, Mr. Brooke became ill during the flooding. He died in hospital the next day of heart failure.

There seems little doubt that it was the dread of flooding and the appalling situation when it reached his home on the night in June that justifies Mrs. Brooke's claim that the flooding worried and killed her husband. Naturally she and her neighbours, whose property was also flooded, continue to be alarmed at the prospect of further heavy rainfall. It is clear that something needs to be done.

To see what was possible I called upon the Northamptonshire county council, Wellingborough borough council, the Anglian water authority and a representative from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The result of the joint consultations is that from the Ministry's point of view the cost of a scheme to prevent future flooding would be about £42,000 and it considers that that expenditure would not be cost-effective as only three dwellings would be involved. Therefore, no grant would be forthcoming. The Anglian water authority's view is that the stream is not a main watercourse and, therefore, there is no liability upon it. Northamptonshire county council could not see that the bridge aggravated the situation so it decided to make no contribution. Only Wellingborough borough council—not the original planning authority—offered, to pay with no obligation to do so, half the cost of the suggested scheme. But because no other authority or individual came forward with a contribution no further action was taken.

In some such cases riparian owners have a responsibility. Because the water for the street is drawn from a wide area, it is not just the responsibility of the nearest farmer and it is difficult to establish a case against any of the riparian owners. As a result, no help has been made available. The cost of the scheme is beyond the means of local residents.

For clarification I shall refer to the report prepared for the Northamptonshire county council policy and resources committee in May this year. It throws extra light on the case. It says that the planning history of the site goes back to September 1962 when the Nene River Board informed the County Council that there were no land drainage observations but recommended that the 30ft wide unobstructed berm be left along the edge of the watercourse. As a result the county council authorised outline planning consent with a copy of the river board's letter, and in June 1966 outline permission was granted by the district council.

The report continues: In January 1967 the developer submitted details after the Outline. Only after examination of the details did the river authority say that it merely wished construction to be kept clear of the 30ft berm, as previously requested.

In March 1967 the river authority told the county council: We have no accurate record of the extent of flooding in this tributary stream, but it does appear that flooding would occur on the low area of the south east … of Orlingbury Bridge and it would be prudent if this site was raised. It said that the berm could be reduced to 20ft rather than 30ft. The county council still authorised the issue of planning consent and a copy of the local authority's letter was attached. Detailed permission was issued in March 1967.

The report states that in May 1967 The farmer of the land on the opposite side of the stream wrote to the District Council complaining that the developer was raising the bank immediately adjacent to the watercourse. He said: As you must know, this stream is subject to flooding during periods of prolonged rain, and if the Harrowden bank is to be built up, it will mean that the whole of the flood water will pour onto our land … unless something is done to get the water away more quickly at the bridge and its approaches. Nothing was done to ensure that the water would get away more quickly. The developer slightly built up for the houses and although it was taken up with him, it is clear that there were no strong observations from the river authority, nor the local authority—the Wellingborough rural district council—when the development took place.

The county council says that because the letters from the river authority were attached to the planning permission, Such information about the potential risk of flooding as was available … was passed on to the developer who was thus put on notice that the land was liable to flood and ought to he raised. The developer and subsequent purchasers provided they or their buyers had inspected the planning permission, would have notice of the possibility of the land flooding. I doubt whether that information was available or properly conveyed to any purchaser—first, second or third—of that property. It is clear that the river board completely miscalculated the extent of the danger. Nor does it seem to have investigated the site properly. The original planning authorities—the old county council and the old rural district council—no longer exist. Only the Wellingborough borough council is taking any interest in the problem.

Any casual conversation with some of the long-term inhabitants of the village confirm what the farmer said in his letter to the district council in 1967. The land was known to be subject to flooding. With present knowledge it is easy to say that the developer should not have built on the land without taking more protective measures. But he was given planning permission with little restriction by the district council and the old county council. It is clear that the river authority's advice was inadequate and not properly considered by the planning authority at the time.

Even if the advice from the river authority had been stronger, as I understand the state of the law there was not then and is not now any obligation on the planning authority to abide by that advice. It could still give planning permission if it wished. The developer has long since completed the work on the site and moved on. Hence my constituent has a tremendous dilemma and a continuing cause for concern.

What should we make of the case? First, it is no use depending on the developer in such circumstances. In some parts of the country, developers have gone out of business since they built estates. Secondly, it is no good relying on the existing law, as the public bodies concerned have only optional powers and are not compelled to assist people who are in distressing circumstances. Thirdly, it is no use relying on the individuals to insure themselves because that can be unsatisfactory.

There must be many similar cases, especially where the danger that I have described applies. Many householders will not receive the protection that they believe that they deserve or expect. We cannot allow the problem to remain. There is a gap in the existing arrangements to which the Government should address their mind. What can be done?

First, the Government must accept that there is a problem. It is acute for people such as my constituents. Secondly, when planning permission is being considered, the advice of the water or river authority must be given much greater weight than the law allows at present. If the water or river authority gives incorrect advice, it should be liable. Thirdly—this may be the real answer—if planning permission is given, some form of responsibility must flow from the giving of that permission. Full responsibility could be placed effectively on the developer if it were decided that a bond must be paid to cover the cost of remedial work on a site that is likely to be flooded. Another option is for the planning authority to accept the obligations that flow from the permissions that it gives.

That is the type of approach that many people expect. The matter is urgent. Another bad winter or another heavy rainfall could cause enormous distress.

I hope that my hon. Friend will discuss this with her collegues at the Department of the Environment so that one of the public bodies at least has the clear responsibility to protect the homes and property of those threatened by flooding.

2.34 am
The Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) on the very graphic way in which he has presented the arguments on behalf of his constituent. May I say at the outset that I very much sympathise with his constituent's plight. To be flooded is in itself a harrowing experience even though the water may be only inches deep. What is perhaps just as bad, as my hon. Friend pointed out, is to live in the constant fear that heavy rainfall will cause another flood.

Before I try to deal with the points raised by my hon. Friend, I must outline the powers and functions of the various authorities concerned. The main legislation concerned with the prevention of flooding is the Land Drainage Act 1976 which consolidated a number of previous Acts on the same subject. The Act divides watercourses into three separate categories, each being the responsibility of a separate group of authorities.

First there are those watercourses which are designated by the Minister as "main rivers". These form the primary drainage network in the country. Using the railways as an analogy, they could be regarded as the inter-city lines of the system. Main rivers are the responsibility of the water authorities and only these authorities have power to carry out work on them. Similarly, anybody or any authority wishing to do anything such as building a culvert or putting a structure on the banks of a main river must first get permission from the water authority.

Second in order of importance from the drainage point of view are those watercourses which drain areas designated as internal drainage districts. These are invariably low-lying areas such as the Fens or the Somerset levels where constant attention to drainage is essential if they are to remain in productive use. There are, however, no internal drainage districts in the area in which my hon. Friend is interested, so I shall not spend any more time describing their problems.

Finally, there are all other watercourses—all the streams and brooks which carry the drainage water off the land and take it to the main river and thence to the sea. As my hon. Friend knows, these other watercourses are generally the responsibility of the riparian owners—that is, the people who own the land on each side of the stream. If there are blockages which prevent the free flow of water, these owners can be required by law to clear them. However, district councils also have powers to carry out any necessary work to prevent flooding caused by these minor watercourses. The powers are totally permissive and there is no statutory obligation on the district councils to do anything if they choose not to.

I turn to the important question of finance. Under the Land Drainage Act 1976, my Department is empowered to pay grants to water authorities, internal drainage boards and district councils in respect of expenditure incurred in carrying out river improvement or flood protection works. The rates of grant payable to the different authorities vary, but on average they amount to about 50 per cent. of the approved cost.

There are, of course, a number of conditions which have to be satisfied before grant may be paid, but the three most important requirements are that the design of the work is satisfactory from the engineering point of view, that the estimated cost of the work is reasonable and that sufficient benefit will arise from the work to justify the cost. This last requirement, which is perhaps the most important in this case, is known as the cost-benefit test.

Where a flood protection scheme is intended to protect houses or other property, the benefit is assessed by evaluating the damage which occurs or which might occur during a flood and aggregating this over the total expected life of the engineering works. A period of 50 years is usually taken. These values are then discounted to bring them to present-day value and compared with the estimated cost of the work. Where appropriate, other intangible but important benefits—such as the danger to human life or health—may also be taken into account in making the final assessment.

Against this background I should now like to comment on the flooding about which my hon. Friend spoke so eloquently.

First, there is the question of which authority has the power to carry out flood protection work at Little Harrowden. The answer is that the stream in question is not a main river, nor is it in an internal drainage district, so it falls to the district council to do the work if it wishes to.

Next, there is the nature of the work that would be needed and its probable cost. I am advised that the work would fall into two parts—first the improvement of the channel of the stream itself which is estimated at £10,000 to £15,000 and, secondly, the replacement of the existing road culvert which is estimated at £25,000 to £30,000. There is some question whether the cost of the road culvert should be met by the county council as the highway authority, but clearly that is not an issue on which I can comment. It must be resolved by the two authorities.

Therefore, the total cost of the scheme is likely to be, as my hon. Friend said, about £40,000. If my Department is to pay grant we shall need to be satisfied on the benefit side and here there is considerable difficulty. My hon. Friend referred to three bungalow units being involved. I understand that there are five units altogether—two semidetached pairs and one detached unit. My Department's engineers have looked at this as sympathetically as possible but state: by stretching every point to the limit of credulity"— I quote from their advice—they cannot bring the discounted benefit to more than £8,000. This is so far short of the estimated cost of £40,000 that it puts the scheme out of court so far as grant aid is concerned.

My hon. Friend will no doubt think that a harsh decision, but he will appreciate that taxpayers' money is involved and we must be satisfied that it is spent only on worthwhile schemes. This cost-benefit test is applied to every application that is made to us for grant aid under the Land Drainage Act 1976 and if we started to make exceptions we should be on a very slippery slope indeed.

There is, of course, no reason why the district council should not carry out the scheme without grant aid, but I can quite understand its unwillingness to do so. Indeed, I understand that it has generously offered to contribute £20,000 to the total cost of the work but that, in view of the county council's decision not to make a contribution and my Department's decision not to pay grant, the district council is not prepared to meet the whole cost.

My hon. Friend referred to the fact that planning permission had been given for the bungalows to be built and suggested that some responsibility rested on the planning authority to see that houses are not built in flood risk areas. The statutory responsibility of planning authorities is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but the giving of planning consent for development in flood risk areas is one that my Department and the Department of the Environment have recently been considering. I trust that, to that extent, my hon. Friend is satisfied that we do understand that the matter is important.

In circulars issued to planning authorities in 1962 and 1969 the risks of allowing development in areas which were liable to flooding were emphasised, and planning authorities were urged to consult water authorities before giving planning consent. These circulars have recently been revised and an up-to-date version will be issued shortly. However, I do not: think that this will solve all flooding problems, I understand that there was, in fact, consultation with the Welland and Nene river board—the predecessor of the Anglian water authority—in 1967 about the proposal to build bungalows on the land at Little Harrowden. There had, however, been no history of flooding on the site, and the river board did not advise against the development, so I do not think that either of the authorities can be blamed for allowing the building to go ahead.

In the light of this explanation, I fear that I cannot offer any help to my hon. Friend's constituent. There are numerous places thoughout the country where houses and other property are at risk of flooding whenever there is exceptionally heavy rain. For example, hon. Members will remember the very serious flooding which occurred in York and Selby last winter, a subject on which I spoke in a recent Adjournment debate. Where flood alleviation work can be carried out at a reasonable cost in relation to the benefit, these flood risks will gradually be eliminated, but it would be unrealistic for me to look forward to a day when all flood risks have been removed. There are some places—I fear that Little Harrowden may be one—where the investment of public funds to prevent flooding is quite out of proportion to the damage caused. I am sorry to end on such a depressing note, but I know that my hon. Friend would rather have a straight answer than a string of pious hopes.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Three o'clock am.