Pitt review

Pitt Review (submission from John)

Having read the Pitt Review I am left a bit disillusioned as once again we have a large report full of suggestions and no actions. There is no firm working guidelines and there does not appear to any real supervision being placed on the suggestions made being carried out.

For any of this to be of any use it needs action and action is what is not happening. In my local area we have had to put up with the dubious delights of the Jubilee River. Yes it has reduced flooding in Windsor and Maidenhead but at the risk of everybody downstream. In the two occasions that it has been used, 2003 and last summer, we have had an example of how it should not be used and an example of how it might work. When the EA get it wrong we all pay. In 2003 it cost my father his life.

The timescale being suggested is completely at odds with what is happening in the environment and to me shows a complete lack of direction and commitment. Things need to happen now and not after the event.

When the Thames Barrier was built it was with an expected life up to 2030. It was also only expected to be used about once a year. It is currently being used 5-6 times a year. What will it be doing in another ten years let alone 2030 when, hopefully, there will be some form of replacement.

The lack of trust in the EA to do the job properly is widespread. My concerns were raised when I signed up for the Flood Warnings Direct scheme. Apart from having very mixed results with the warnings, it was the fact that the people who were answering the phones, including the supervisor, did not even know what a Flood Warden was ! And here they were signing people up to a flood warning scheme that is deeply flawed. A scheme that is meant to give you warnings but sometimes doesn’t.

Thinking back to this report, the only way that any of this would be of any use is for somebody else to look at it and make decisions on when things are going to get done with a firm timescale and huge penalties for failure. There is no room for maximum profits when you are playing with peoples lives.

Flood Risk Management

In 2003 we had the floods. In Old Windsor where I live we never have problem with the river Thames flooding. Sure it comes over the banks in places but that is it. On this occasion it completely flooded Runneymede and several towns along its route downstream of where the Jubilee River comes back into the Thames. Having lived here for 46 years I can honestly say that I have never seen Runneymede flooded that bad. On the Sunday morning of the floods, my father went to go to Blackbushe Market and headed off at 6.30am. He was unaware that Runneymede was flooded and as somebody had removed the barriers he drove into Runneymede straight into the water that he could not see at it was dark. Someone came along afterwards and put the barriers back without checking to see if any body had gone through and my father was stuck there, sitting waist deep in water with temperatures of -4. He was eventually rescued by the AA who refused to give up on him and found a way in to get him. By that time he had been there four hours. When he got home he was very ill. We summoned medical help but by the end of the evening he had started to lose his mind and deteriorated rapidly. So rapid that he died on the Wednesday morning.

Now what has this got to do with Flood Risk Management ? A lot. Runneymede never floods so my father would not expect to find water that deep through there. It is no good saying that if the barriers had been there then he wouldn't have got there but the fact is that if the EA had some form of ability on flood risk management then Runneymede would never have been flooded in the first place. It is very clear from the evidence available that they completely screwed up and cost a lot of people a lot of money when they panicked and let the Jubilee River loose.

We are not convinced that the EA has the ability to provide effective Flood Risk Management. If they are given that job then they need firm supervision.