M.Beer

I have taken a keen interest in fluvial flooding issues since my parents had a Thamesside bungalow in the 1950's and 1960's, and having been a riverside Parish Councillor since 1976 and a Borough Councillor since 1995 - during which time I have been deeply involved in development control issues - I think I have a good overview of most aspects relating to flooding.

Beyond any doubt whatsoever the biggest problem which must change is the policy of Central Government and the executor of its policy, the Environment Agency, as they talk big on policies to tackle flooding, when in reality there has never been adequate funding or a really positive resolve and commitment to get to grip with the problems.

The result is that almost everything is expressed in terms of ideals, aspirations and targets which are discretely qualified to avoid being charged with broken promises. The Environment Agency must be mandated and funded to ACT to dramatically reduce the risk of flooding instead of wasting time and money advising the public to take personal action to avoid such risks, most of which are almost always the result of other peoples' actions or inactions.

By far the biggest cause of flooding is the unrelenting demand of Central Government to cover vast surfaces of the catchment areas outside of the flood plains with all forms of development and hard surfaces which rapidly shed their surface water to the lower lying areas. It is totally immoral to severely restrict development in the flood plains while actively promoting development elsewhere which exacerbates lowland flooding. The introduction of Sustainable Urban Drainage policies which may be applied to large developments must be mandatory to all development and paving as the cumulative result of thousands of hectares of small extensions and driveway paving simply cannot be calculated.

Many years ago Local Drainage Boards and bodies such as the Thames Conservancy had localised responsibilities for maintaining watercourses, but the huge bureaucracy of the Environment Agency which swept them aside is virtually unaccountable for its actions (or lack of them) and has ceased to carry out such very obvious maintenance work as dredging, after having invented ridiculously spurious reasons for not so doing.

A responsible body and Government Ministers ought to move heaven and earth to reduce the risks of flooding instead of wasting resources to make excuses to defend policies for not taking action. If Officers of the EA and Ministers do not have the resolve use their energies to find ways of doing things, they should be removed.

If the mussels are rare, then they could be collected and reintroduced after dredging or where dredging is not necessary. If they only exist in silt, then that is a very good reason for relocating them, not for putting thousands of people and the local economy at risk.

The toxic content of silt surely cannot be too serious if salmon are returning to the Thames? In most situations a property owner has the responsibility to remediate such problems, and as the EA has taken possession of the watercourses and the first 1 metre width of every bank, it is surely responsible for such cleaning up and dredging as may be necessary. Presumably the toxicity cannot be too great a health hazard or else something would have been done ages ago - and therefore it seems perfectly logical for the Government to legislate to permit special licences for the disposal of such silt.

The self scouring arguement does not stand up. Most of us were taught in geography that meandering rivers scoured the outside of bends and deposited silt on the inside of them, thus forming oxbow lakes. It may have escaped the notice of the EA that Thames banks are jealously guarded, so while inside bend silting occurs the width of the river does not increase by scouring as it would do "in the wild".

The suggestion that it would be illegal to drop river levels in the winter to accommodate flash flood water because of the River Navigation Acts is indefensible. If proper dredging were carried out even the very occasional out of season pleasure boats would not be put at risk of grounding, and more to the point, the Navigation Acts were almost certainly introduced to protect the commercial barge traffic of a bygone age. Again, if out of date legislation threatens human life, homes and the economy, then it must be amended.

The EA flood warning system is still not fit for purpose. As a Parish Councillor and part of the Flood Warden Team, I registered on the EA Flood Warning Scheme. I received an expensively produced presentation box and literature - but have yet to receive any warning in the ensuing 2 or 3 years. A complete waste of money and another failure to do its job.

In similar vein, the Flood Warning Signs distributed to Parish Councils and the like, abysmally fail to get the message across in a clear and obvious manner. The old use of escalating colour and shape indicators (yellow roundel, amber square, red triangle if I remember correctly) could be seen across the road and was only displayed when flooding became a possibility - which is far better than a permanent notice which one has to press one's nose against to see whether anything is happening or otherwise. This highlights the EA's total absence of commonsense and practical procedures and must be changed as soon as possible.

The absence of a firm commitment to prioritise the completion of the Lower Thames Flood Relief Study to enable the early actual execution of this essential work is totally unacceptable. The failure to do this will inevitably increase the risk of flooding in this and and other densely populated upstream areas. Funding must be found for this AND other areas at risk of fluvial or coastal flooding, as the economic and social costs of not so doing would be enormous. While many problems can justifiably be laid upon the EA, these will inevitable escalate if that body ceases to discuss flooding matters with local Councils and community representatives. Flood policy and relevant action is undeniably the responsibility of the EA, and the withdrawal of administrative support funding for the Thames Flood Forum (which related to the Thames from Hurley [upstream of Maidenhead] to Teddington) is an appalling example of the arrogance of this poorly performing Government Agency. The TFF and similar bodies elsewhere must continue to be funded by the EA.