The full report is in the link to the pdf file below
Our view is
It appears all the problems with this report can be seen from the Summary – EFRA have simply been looking in the wrong direction in respect of our perspective.
Like the EA and like the Government generally EFRA falls into a blinkered “understanding trap” and makes a tacit acceptance that all in the water-world is currently mostly rosy and the challenge for policy and required action arises from climate change and funding defence deficiencies only ie politically it is easiest to blame the weather – no consideration as to how our natural water systems can be improved or how to attack flood risk at source (rivers and water bodies not rain!).
i. Experiences of the 2019–20 floods
10. There were some suggestions that the immediate operational response to the floods of the autumn and winter of 2019–20 was less well-organised than in previous years, with some issues around speediness and communication. Regional variation in experience was noted.
11. The importance of support for communities to recover, after the immediate period of flooding has passed, was emphasised. The impact this year of covid-19 was noted, including on the ability of authorities and insurers to contact those affected. The pandemic had also impacted the ability of people to return to flooded homes in a timely manner.
12. The mental health impacts of flooding were particularly emphasised, and some participants vividly described the fear and anxiety that living with flood risk can bring. The uncertainty brought by the coming winter, in the context of a second wave of covid-19, were noted.
ii. Confidence in risk management authorities
13. Concern was expressed at the perceived fragmentation of responsibilities for flooding among various bodies, and a lack of accountability regarding who is responsible for what.
14. Some participants expressed frustration at how long it can take to deliver local flood resilience measures. It was also suggested that flood action groups can sometimes deliver schemes faster and at much reduced cost compared with risk management authorities. It was felt that engagement with local communities should be seen as an investment, not a cost.
15. Riparian ownership was discussed, both the lack of understanding of responsibilities among owners, and a lack of enforcement of these responsibilities by local authorities.
16. It was felt that investment in maintenance of drainage infrastructure is inadequate, and that Ofwat may have a role to play in improving this. It was also suggested that reservoirs could play more of a role in managing flood risk.
iii. Development and flood risk
17. A greater role for local knowledge of flood risk in planning decisions was seen as important. It was also felt that the downstream impacts of development can be ignored in planning decisions.
18. Local groups can feel disempowered by the planning process, which several participants felt was ill-equipped to factor in flood risk and drainage implications in the face of other pressures and a lack of capacity and knowledge within planning authorities.
19. Participants highlighted problems with the delivery of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) by developers, as well as with their long-term management and maintenance. Some suggested that the approach of SuDS Approval Bodies, envisaged in Schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, would be an improvement.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1d0yC7NAvOs3SzZbz10RnzHVjSpQPkuIq/view?usp=sharing
