HC Deb 10 January 2001 vol 360 cc1204-11

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

11.45 pm
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York)

I am delighted to have secured this Adjournment debate on planning guidance for developments on the flood plain in the Vale of York. The topic is very important to my constituents. The background to the debate is the recent flooding, but the debate is very timely as we await the much delayed consultation document PPG25, which deals with planning policy guidance for developments on flood plains.

I am pleased that this debate is not being held at such a late hour as was the case yesterday, and it is always a pleasure to appear opposite the Under-Secretary.

The recent maps of the flood plain published by the Environment Agency show that, at a conservative guesstimate, a very large proportion—between about 30 and 35 per cent.—of the Vale of York appears to be on the flood plain. I believe that the presumption should be against development on what is considered to be a functional flood plain.

The Government appear to be in conflict with their own targets for development of brownfield sites that are functional or potentially functional flood plains. Respect for the status of flood plains and the flooding that could happen on them should overrule Government targets for building on flood plains.

Paragraph 14 on page l3 of the consultation document PPG25 states: The primary responsibility for safeguarding land and other property against natural hazards such as flooding remains with the owner. There is no statutory duty on the Government to protect land or property against flooding … Operating authorities have permissive powers to carry out flood defence works in the public interest. That raises some important questions. How can a property owner protect land from acts of God such as floods caused by unprecedented weather that persists over several days, when the impact of that natural hazard is compounded by the actions of public authorities? The Environment Agency is looking closely at the impact on the flooding of the newly developed and recently opened park-and-ride scheme at Rawcliffe.

The floods caused 170 homes in Rawcliffe to be flooded and their occupants to be evacuated in the first week of last November. The park-and-ride scheme was deeply unpopular among residents, who resented it. The glossy, flashy consultation exercise cost many thousands of pounds, but not one resident of Rawcliffe received a leaflet about the scheme, or was consulted about it. People there could not believe their misfortune when the outcome of the consultation was to move the scheme, which had been so successful at Clifton Moor business park, to a greenbelt site at Rawcliffe. Injury has been added to insult: many of the families evacuated from the 170 homes have no realistic chance of returning for two or three months yet.

The park-and-ride scheme may have compounded the effects of the flood. Rumours that City of York council officials are to be feted, welcomed and congratulated in Downing street are especially inappropriate and insulting to residents of Rawcliffe, as the evacuees have no homes to go to.

Evidence given to the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs showed that car parks and other developments can compound flood conditions. Tarmac allows water to accumulate until it is released in one big and dangerous whoosh.

In addition, farmers have suffered especially badly as a result of the floods. A strong feeling exists among the farming community that vast areas of farm land were flooded to save towns and cities. Many people would argue that that was inevitable, but farmers have incurred heavy financial losses as a result.

A constructive way in which farmers could be invited to help would be to relax existing Treasury rules. With the farmers' agreement, designated farm land could be recognised as a potential flood plain area, through the creation of new riparian wetlands. Farmers could be reimbursed through a Government-funded voluntary scheme.

Such a strategy could benefit farm planning by identifying areas prone to flooding, and estimating the relevant periodicity of floods. It could benefit farm incomes by providing adequate compensation, for the public good, in connection with flood storage. It could benefit flood protection by providing less intrusive flood defences. It could also benefit biodiversity and water resources. I hope that the Minister will pass on my plea, and my suggestion that not just farmers but the local community could benefit.

The strategy might work in, for example, the Ings, north of York, where farm land has been allowed to be flooded in order to avoid flooding in houses within the inner ring road. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—who has responsibility for matters connected with flooding—will respond to that.

The strategy would have other potential benefits. It could secure incomes from riverside land in an increasingly unstable climate. It could reduce the speed at which water runs off agricultural land, thus reducing river speeds. It could create water calming zones, which allow rivers to widen gradually and reduce the impact of flooding. It could help to replenish the nation's groundwater reserves by allowing greater interaction between river systems and groundwater. It could create natural barriers that would enhance soil retention and improve river water quality, while increasing the area of wildlife habitats.

Let me also draw the Minister's attention to the serious loss to local businesses in the Vale of York—in, for example, Thirsk and Boroughbridge. In many instances premises and stock were severely damaged, and sales were seriously affected. The pursuant rail disruption, on top of the impact of the floods, has hampered the local economy further. Longer-term detrimental effects are feared: lower visitor numbers, fewer overseas student admissions to York university and lower inward investment. Job losses are also feared. The repercussions for local businesses are far wider than the immediate physical damage to their properties in the aftermath of the floods.

In their planning policy guidance on development and flood risk, the Government absolve themselves of any statutory responsibility to make good losses to businesses, farmers or home owners. I fear that they may find the electorate unforgiving in this regard.

In its conclusions, the Select Committee recommended that only very exceptional development should be allowed in the functional flood plain. It also said that flood-proof construction techniques should be encouraged, and that sustainable drainage systems should be adopted.

I heard today that tomorrow morning, at York race course, the Environment Agency's regional office for Yorkshire and the Humber will announce, together with the flood defence committee, a 63 per cent. increase on this year's flood levy for 2001–02. By any standards that is a massive increase—an increase of £10.7 million—and it will inevitably be passed on in an increase of at least 1 per cent. in council tax payments.

In connection with this debate, the Association of British Insurers wrote to me: The development and implementation of appropriate planning policies, together with targeted action on flood defences, will be an integral part of insurers' decisions on future premiums and the availability of cover. In its submission to the Select Committee's report on development and flood risk, the ABI wrote: ABI members have been concerned for many years about the threat of coastal and inland flooding. A particular issue is the control of development in the flood plain. The Government target of 3 million new homes by 2016, together with increased weather volatility and severity coupled with climate change will increase significantly the nation's exposure to flood risk. Such development will need to be controlled effectively to avoid potential insurance availability and affordability problems going forward. In revising PPG25, we have an opportunity to block further developments on functional flood plains, to make Environment Agency advice obligatory on planners and developers alike and to streamline the archaic and arcane procedures involved in flood protection. Why do such diverse operating authorities as the Environment Agency, the Internal Drainage Board, local authorities and other bodies have the power to make or maintain works for the drainage of land? Bodies such as the Environment Agency must give warnings of imminent flooding while others, such as the drainage boards, need not.

Key features are envisaged for PPG25. For example, the susceptibility of land to flooding is a material consideration for planning purposes and the Environment Agency has the lead role in providing strategic advice on flood issues. Many of us—members of the Select Committee and others—hope that following such advice will be made mandatory so that planners and developers can no longer ignore it. Policies in development plans should outline the consideration that will be given to flood issues, recognising the uncertainties inherent in predicting such events. Planning decisions should apply the precautionary principle to flood risk, avoiding such risk where possible and managing it elsewhere.

Developers should contribute to the cost of flood defences required because of development. In particular, I hope that that aspect of PPG25, should it be included in the Government's final document, will be used if it can be proved that the park-and-ride scheme at Rawcliffe led to serious flooding there on the first weekend in November. We hope that PPG25 will determine that planning policies and decisions need to be applied on a whole-catchment basis and should not be restricted to flood plains.

I repeat that where the Government's targets for brownfield sites and what appears to be a functional flood plain coincide, the purposes of the flood plain should have priority over meeting housing requirements for brownfield sites. There should also be a clearer allowance made in urban areas protected by flood defences for locally agreed solutions that take into account the alternative locations for development, the risk of flooding, the scope for design solutions to mitigate risk and other local considerations. The recent flood was one flood too many.

Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings)

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Agriculture Committee considered the matter in considerable detail three years ago? Long before the current round of floods, it recommended to the Government many of the measures that she is pertinently highlighting. Although the Government have had a long time to deal with the matter, they do not seem to have addressed the issues that were raised, so she is rightly raising them again now.

Miss McIntosh

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I said at the outset how regrettable the delay has been. Even more regrettable is the suggestion, made not necessarily in Government quarters but in some of the media, that intensive farming practices have compounded the flooding. I want to go on record as saying that that is simply not the case. Farming practices in the past five years have not changed to the extent of having such a dramatic effect.

The Government must act now after such a long delay to prevent future occurrences on the scale that we have witnessed recently.

12 midnight

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on securing the debate. She has a deserved reputation for being assiduous in pursuing constituency interests. I know that she has worked hard locally to help people who have suffered because of the floods. She has demonstrated her considerable knowledge, which she may have acquired rapidly as a result of the crisis caused by flooding.

The debate is timely given the continuing concern with flooding, in the hon. Lady's constituency and nationally. The issues that she has raised reflect the concerns that were expressed in the second report of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, which was published just before Christmas, and to which the hon. Lady contributed.

As the hon. Lady said, much anxiety has been expressed recently that flooding has been exacerbated by development on flood plains, as well as by the increased run-off from other development. Not only does that place additional house owners at risk because their homes are located in the flood plain: it increases the risk to the large number of properties that were already there. Consequently, as the hon. Lady said, there have been calls for a ban on development on flood plains. Indeed, she sought a moratorium on building new homes on flood plains such as the Vale of York until an estimate could be made of the damage incurred during the recent floods.

I digress slightly, but we should remember that there is a significant historical legacy of development on flood plains. Many developments, including the City of York, originated in Roman times. Rivers were a means of transport as well as sources of water and power. They needed to be crossed by land transport. It is therefore not surprising that settlements grew up on flood plains, especially at river crossings where there was flat ground that was easy to build on. Such settlements have expanded over the centuries, and about 10 per cent. of the English population now live in areas that are at risk from flooding. The social and economic case for locating close to rivers and river crossings is still strong. We should bear that in mind. Other issues should be balanced with some of the valid points that the hon. Lady made.

Planning guidance is the main subject of the debate. The Government recognise that the risk of flooding is an important consideration when deciding where to build houses and undertake other development. The land use planning system takes full account of that through policies in development plans and in decisions on applications for planning permission. Current planning guidance, which the previous Government introduced in circular 30/92, advises local authorities to use their planning powers to discourage inappropriate development in flood risk areas and to restrict development that would increase the risk of flooding. However, new planning policy guidance note 25, which we are preparing, will considerably toughen the approach to development in flood risk areas.

Following the Easter floods of 1998 and the sixth report of the Select Committee on Agriculture, the Government decided to review the existing guidance to ascertain whether it needed strengthening. Little did we know that even worse floods were on the way. In April 2000, we issued a new draft PPG25, to which the hon. Lady referred, as a consultation document. The responses were being analysed and taken on board in revising the draft when the rains commenced last autumn.

My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister described the rain and flooding as a "wake-up call". It further emphasised the need to strengthen planning guidance on development and flood risk to avoid increasing the risks to people and property owing to flooding. We needed to learn the lessons of the worst floods since 1947. I agree with the hon. Lady that all of us, including central and local government, now need to give the matter higher priority relative to other considerations. That view was shared by the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee in its brief inquiry into the subject. As I said, its second report was published in December, and we shall be responding to it.

Let me get down to the substance of the debate: planning policy guidance and surrounding issues. It is no secret that, as a result of events since we started to review the guidance, we are toughening it up even further. We hope to consult on the revised text later this month, with a view to publication in the spring. The new guidance will be much more robust in discouraging inappropriate development on flood plains. It will specifically state that built development is generally inappropriate in undeveloped and undefended flood plains which still function to transfer and store excess water during times of flood. Only development that specifically requires a waterside location or is essential infrastructure should take place on such functional flood plains. I hope that that is a response to one of the hon. Lady's points which she mentioned several times.

We recognise, however, that in some areas, including some parts of the Vale of York—and, indeed, in parts of eastern England in particular—there is no alternative location for development. We cannot bring further social and economic development across large areas to a complete halt. In such cases, the first essential will be to ensure that new development is as safe as it could and should be.

It must be recognised that it is not possible to defend absolutely against flooding. Flood defences can only reduce the risk; they cannot eliminate it. However, developers will be required to fund both the construction and future maintenance of flood defences that may be necessary to protect such development. We will also be setting target standards, which must be met for defences to protect new houses.

Alongside the search sequences that have become a hallmark of other PPGs, we will be introducing an explicit sequential test for those seeking to identify sites for housing and other development. That will be based on quantified categories of risk, specified by the Environment Agency, for both river and coastal flooding and types of development. Local authorities will be required to review their development plans in relation to that sequential test as part of the reviews of land suitable for housing that we have already required them to undertake under PPG3. The two requirements will be brought together.

It will be important that those proposing sites for development—whether it be the local authority in preparing local plans or developers when preparing planning applications—should carry out an appropriate flood-risk assessment. In doing so, they should consult the Environment Agency and other operating authorities. They must carry out such investigations as are necessary to determine the precise risks to the proposed development and its likely effects on flood risk. They must then demonstrate the efficacy of any mitigation measures that are to be incorporated as a result of that risk assessment in the development.

I should now like to address how we should look at levels of risk. If the hon. Lady accepts that we cannot eliminate risk completely, she should agree that how we consider and define levels of risk is crucial to the approach. There is a continuum from no risk to high risk, so the first choice for development in the sequential approach should be areas of no risk, followed by areas of low risk. The latter are defined—I took sometime to get my head round this; I hope the hon. Lady does not ask me to repeat it in this debate—by an annual probability of flooding of between 1 per cent. and 0.1 per cent. There is a precise definition of how those percentages are arrived at. It basically relates to the probability of somebody suffering flooding once a year; a calculation produces that 1 per cent.

In areas of high risk—those with an annual probability of flooding of 1 per cent. or above—the suitability of development will depend on whether the land is already developed and defended against an appropriate level of flooding and whether such development will add to flood risk downstream. Those will be the two tests.

Areas that are already extensively developed may be suitable for further residential, commercial and industrial uses subject to essential conditions. There must be adequate flood defences, buildings must be designed to resist flooding should defences be overtopped and there must be suitable warning and evacuation procedures.

Miss McIntosh

I am pleased to hear from the Minister that the Government are minded to have a sequential league table, but how does it compare with the previous measure of a one in 100 year risk or a one in 200 year risk?

Ms Hughes

The level of risk to which I referred and the probability are not new ways of assessing risk. They are a standard, and they relate to different time scales, other than the annual time scales. The 1 per cent. risk equates to the probability that flooding will occur four times during the length of an average mortgage, which is 30 years, or an evens chance within the human lifespan. They are not new figures: that is an already established standard.

Areas at high risk of flooding that are currently undeveloped will not generally be suitable under the sequential test for residential, commercial and industrial uses unless a particular location is essential: for instance, for navigation, for water-based recreational uses or for essential transport and infrastructure necessary for the population.

Areas at the highest risk from flooding, such as low-lying land behind defences, where failure could lead to rapid inundation by fast-flowing water, may be suitable for recreation, sport and conservation uses provided adequate warning and evacuation procedures are in place, and possibly for essential transport and utilities infrastructure. Residential uses should only be permitted in wholly exceptional circumstances, when no alternative is possible, and should be subject to fully suitable mitigation design and warning and evacuation procedures.

Even in areas at no risk from river or coastal flooding, excessive rainfall can flood low-lying areas and cause flooding as a result of surface flow, particularly from paved areas. The hon. Lady mentioned excessive run-off from developed areas that can cause significant problems downstream, such as the park-and-ride scheme. We shall also be requiring developers and local planning authorities to assess the effects of development on flood risk throughout the river catchment. Guidance on catchment flood management plans based on assessment of catchment flood is currently being prepared under the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Environment Agency research programme. That will provide a large-scale framework for integrated management of risks associated with high flood flows in a sustainable manner. I understand that parts of the Vale of York will be among the first areas to be examined under that research programme.

The hon. Lady mentioned the importance of design, which is critical. We must also consider the potential effects of climate change, and research on that is taking place. I shall refer to the relevant Minister the points that she made about farmers.

I do not accept the hon. Lady's contention that the Government have absolved themselves of responsibility. I feel very strongly about our approach, which I accept is not yet completely in the public domain because we have not yet fully produced PPG25 for her and others to peruse. That will show that, in so far as Governments can act, we have taken this issue seriously; we have responded to the plight of the people affected; and we will require a much more robust approach in response to these issues in the future.

Question put and agreed to. Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Twelve midnight.