Pitt review: learning lessons of summer of floods

Last year's floods caused the country's largest peacetime emergency since the Second World War. In the immediate aftermath the Government commissioned a review team, led by Sir Michael Pitt, to consider the lessons of the flooding. This was particularly acute in Gloucestershire, Worcestershire, the Thames Valley, South Yorkshire and Hull.

The wettest summer since records began left 55,000 properties flooded. Around 7,000 people had to be rescued by emergency services and 13 people died. The events of summer 2007 saw the largest loss of essential services since the last war with almost half a million people without mains water or electricity.

Sir Michael's final report has a number of key recommendations for local councils and planning authorities, some of which will require legislation. Ministers have already responded with specific proposals and the promise of a draft Floods and Water Bill. A detailed Government response is expected later this year, probably in the autumn.

Flood Recovery Minister John Healey said: "Local communities, individuals, businesses and organisations showed immense resilience and fortitude in recovering from this event, and have made tremendous progress over the past year.

"But I fully recognise more remains to be done. The Government is in this for the long haul, and will continue to do everything possible to help ensure this momentum is maintained."

Tougher control on development in high flood-risk areas is clearly back firmly on the agenda. The Pitt report voiced strong backing for current planning policy set out in Planning Policy Statement 25, which says there should be a presumption against building in high flood-risk areas, taking into account all sources of flood risk.

The report does not call for an end to all development in the flood plain. Such a ban would make new development in and around London and Lincolnshire impossible. But the Pitt review highlighted that 11 per cent of new homes in England have been built in flood hazard areas since 2000 and that around a quarter of the properties that flooded last summer had been built in the last 25 years. According to Communities and Local Government nearly 16,000 dwellings were built in high flood-risk areas in 2006.

The 2007 floods also graphically showed that serious surface water flooding can occur in areas that are not considered to be flood plain. Hence the report's call for a shake-up in how urban drainage systems are managed and the requirement for local authorities to produce surface water management plans in areas thought to be at high risk of flooding.

The report has recommended that the effectiveness of planning policy should be kept under review "including the Environment Agency's power to challenge development".

The document, which has nearly 100 proposals, said that householders should no longer be able to lay impermeable surfaces as of right on front gardens and the Government should consult on extending this to back gardens and business premises. Communities and Local Government has published its impact assessment on moves to discourage the proliferation of impermeable hard standings in front gardens.

Ministers have signalled proposals to change householder permitted development rights for impermeable hard standings but retain the rights where the use of permeable material is involved. Under these new arrangements local authorities would be able to create a Local Development Order allowing impermeable surfaces where there wasn't a flooding risk.

What has been dubbed 'urban creep' is a contributor to surface water flooding and water pollution and currently costs an estimated £270m a year.

The Pitt Review concluded that the automatic right to connect surface water drainage of new developments to the sewerage system should be removed and urged greater use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS).

Leading members of the water pollution prevention and control industries have already urged the Government to require SUDS as a standard planning requirement on all new developments. That call has come from the water pollution working group of the Environmental Industries Commission (EIC).

The group's chairman, Chris Hoggart, said: "It is critical that new urban developments do not further increase flooding risks. SUDS offer an alternative to piped and channelled drainage systems based on natural processes to reduce flood risk and improve water quality by more slowly releasing flood water into drainage systems and avoiding major storm peaks."

The EIC has written to ministers arguing that "SUDs should be the default option on all new developments. Where SUDS are not proposed there should be a requirement to prove that they cannot be implemented".

The EIC wants this approach reflected in both the Building Regulations and in planning guidance. However, a key issue surrounding SUDs still has to be resolved: who will be responsible for maintaining and paying for systems once they are provided? The Pitt review highlighted this as a crucial area for Government decision-making.

Also urged by the Pitt report is a revision of the Building Regulations to ensure that all new or refurbished buildings in high flood-risk areas are "flood-resistant or resilient".

The review has made it clear that the starting point for proper building and planning control is the development of a good flood risk assessment. This means both regional flood risk assessments as part of the regional spatial strategies (RSSs) and more detailed strategic flood risk assessments (SFRAs) as part of the Local Development Framework (LDF). These assessments should apply to all sources of flood risk, including critical drainage areas.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has commissioned research into the adequacy and coverage of SFRAs which the report said were of "varying quality". The Pitt team has suggested that where local authorities share the same catchment it might make sense to share the cost of modelling work as Doncaster has decided to do with Barnsley.

The Pitt report said that where development is being considered as part of a wider plan, the proposed Community Infrastructure Levy might be an appropriate funding tool.

The review highlighted work done by the Town and Country Planning Association which indicated a lack of local authority supplementary policy documents which addressed flood risk management infrastructure needs.

The Pitt report reinforced the argument that developers should make "a full contribution to the costs both of building and maintaining any necessary [flooding] defences". However it was recognised that the issue of developer contributions could be thorny.

Developers would not be happy if they thought the contribution would cover a historic lack of investment in surface water investment and some councils have pointed out that requiring a full contribution could put developers off some sites which authorities wanted to be regenerated.

The Pitt review acknowledged that 'flood proofing' the planning and building control regime will be staff-intensive and will require the deployment of engineering skills currently in short supply in many local authorities.

There is also a corresponding requirement that the Environment Agency (EA) will need to boost its staffing resources to help with technical appraisals and more detailed planning advice on flood risk. The agency has taken action on this front.

One of the biggest development control issues raised during the Pitt review process was the monitoring and enforcement of development conditions after planning approval had been granted. Both LPAs and the EA have said they haven't the resources to do this at present. Inspections are reactive, generally after complaints.

The report argued that this was very unsatisfactory and recommended that LPAs should develop a monitoring system through an extension of the building control system for Building Regulations. "In high flood-risk areas this should be a priority issue for local authorities," stated the Pitt review.

Launching his final report, Sir Michael called for urgent and fundamental changes as the UK adapted to the increased risk of flooding. Government-commissioned reports by the Cabinet Office Foresight team in 2004 had warned that the flooding risk was on the increase and that urban drainage systems would pose a problem as climate change led to increased summer rainfall.

According to the Pitt report the Foresight team has reviewed those risks and it has concluded they are getting more pronounced.

Read the Pitt Review press release (PDF 137 Kb).

Access the Pitt Review web pages and final report.

Roger Milne

10 July 2008