Comment

Government urged not to cut flood defence funding in next Spending Review

David Balmforth, ICE President 2015

ICE President Professor David Balmforth says local authorities need funding certainty to raise matching private sector cash.

This week I chaired ICE’s 2015 Flooding Conference - an opportunity for the flood management community to come together – sharing ideas on the latest projects and innovation and examining how far we have come in terms of sustainable flood risk management and resilience.

We will of course, also discuss government funding for flood risk management. It is becoming increasingly obvious that flooding is no longer a one-off event - it is a long-term challenge and we need an investment programme which reflects that.

"The six year, £2.3bn capital investment plan is not locked in and is therefore vulnerable to cuts in the Spending Review as government seeks savings to pay for other election promises."

There are 5.2 million properties at risk of flooding in England alone, with annual flood damage costs in the region of £1.1bn. It has been estimated that maintaining existing levels of flood defence would require flood defence spending to increase to over £1bn per year by 2035.

This is not just about funding new flood defences; it is also about maintaining our existing defences and building resilience.  Maintenance funding is still only allocated annually and we need a longer term investment programme that matches the six year “commitment” made to investing in new flood infrastructure. 

I use the term “commitment” loosely, because the six year, £2.3bn capital investment plan is not locked in and is therefore vulnerable to cuts in the Spending Review as government seeks savings to pay for other election promises.

"Looking forwards - given local authority budgets are also likely targets for cuts in the Spending Review - the situation looks set to go from unsustainable to desperate."

We must also understand that Government investment only part funds flood defence schemes; local authorities must generate the additional investment themselves from other sources. Attracting this “partnership funding” is however extremely difficult for most authorities as they lack the necessary skills - in fact, only 25% is coming directly from private contributions.  

This means councils are forced to plug the gap and find the other 75% from within their already stretched budgets. Based on the current situation, this is unsustainable, as local authorities have shouldered heavy spending cuts while at the same time facing increased cost pressures in areas such as social care.

But looking forwards - given local authority budgets are also likely targets for cuts in the Spending Review - the situation looks set to go from unsustainable to desperate.

Equipping local authorities so they can raise more partnership funding and do more to help communities build their resilience to flooding is part of the answer here - but that also hangs on the fate of the six year £2.3bn capital investment plan. Local authorities rely on the certainty of this centralised investment in leveraging private investment and a reduction in the Spending Review will further impede their efforts.

When pubic spending is tight, we know tough decisions must be made. But should protecting communities from flooding hang in the balance in a Spending Review? At ICE, we believe fundamental change is needed in how we view flood management, and our concerns are shared by many others. I hope government heeds our advice later this year.