Last week DEFRA (the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs), published its consultation paper on the funding and management of flood risk and preventative works.
Not only should it see more spending in less well-off areas, but it also opens the door to funding for more innovative approaches to flood alleviation.
Here in Stroud, we have our own impressive Natural Flood Management (NFM) scheme. It is run by the District Council, with help from people like the Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust, National Trust, National Farmers Union and the county council, set up after the devastating floods of 2007. It uses innovative techniques to slow the flow of water in the river network, taking water back into the aquifers and onto the floodplains – which has tremendous benefits for wildlife and biodiversity. Protecting our homes goes hand-in-hand with protecting and enhancing our natural environment.
Last year I took Climate Minster Kerry McCarthy to see the NFM work just upstream of Nailsworth. She was impressed by the level of work going on at a fraction of the price of the more conventional hard engineered solutions.
I’d like to think that visit played some part in shaping the proposals for the Government’s new funding model which would make it much easier for projects such as our Stroud one to go ahead.
The consultation is open to anyone with an interest – individuals, local authorities, landowners, farmers, local flood groups and environmental groups. I’d encourage as many people as possible to take part, it closes early July.
Protecting our homes (and building new ones), should not come at a cost to nature. We know we need to build faster, and I welcome the £39bn investment for affordable housing in the Spending Review. However, this cannot be to the detriment of our natural world.
The Planning and Infrastructure Bill was back in Parliament last week, with some environmental groups expressing their concerns about Part III. As it stands Part III makes it possible for developers to simply pay for any environmental damage caused, but not oblige them to complete the compensation work themselves. This could lead to projects paying their way out of their environmental responsibilities.
In my view, Part III of the bill must be paused and looked at again. Planning and infrastructure should always be harmonious to our natural world and the climate.
