Planning Bill

moved Amendment No. 21: 21: Clause 5, page 3, line 31, at end insert— ““( ) set out the flood risk of identified locations.”” The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 21 on assessing flood risk adds to the list in Clause 5(5), so that it would read: "““The policy set out in a national policy statement may in particular … set out the flood risk of identified locations””." When the Housing and Regeneration Bill was debated in this House, I moved similar amendments on flooding. Your Lordships will be relieved that I shall not regurgitate all the arguments. The House is only too well aware of the arguments and the problems. So I shall cut to the chase. Earlier this summer, my noble friend Lord Rotherwick sponsored an excellent debate on flood management. Then the noble Lord, Lord Davies, repeated a Statement on the Pitt report. Following the floods in 2007, there have been a number of Questions on flooding. Your Lordships will recall that after the floods in 2007, power was disrupted and bottled water had to be shipped into areas because installations were damaged. In this House, a Question was asked about how many similar installations there are in the country in danger of flooding. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, answered that there were hundreds. Unfortunately, my amendment on flooding in the Housing Bill was not accepted by the Government. In Committee, the Minister used PPS25 in her defence. She said: "““The point about PPS25 is that it gives us, for the first time, a hierarchy of risk, which we identify in terms of where we can build with modification. How do we assess the nature of the risk and what do we have to do … you cannot not build on flood areas in this country; you must assess the risk. That is where the Environment Agency comes in. PPS25 gives us a much more accurate tool than we have ever had before””.—[Official Report, 3/6/08; col. GC40.]" When I pressed my amendment on Report, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, responded for the Government by saying: "““The proper place for considerations such as these is within the planning regime. We will have the opportunity to debate this when the Planning Bill comes to your Lordships’ House later this month””.—[Official Report, 7/7/08; col. 566.]" So here we are. I agree with the Minister when she says that: "““You cannot not build on flood areas in this country””.—[Official Report, 3/6/08; col. GC40.]" Of course she is right, but where this happens, mitigating action should be undertaken to ensure that development is flood resilient and resistant where necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said that there were hundreds of existing installations up and down the country that are in danger from flooding. We must not repeat past mistakes when considering future infrastructure installations. My amendment provides that when the IPC is considering an application, it must assess the flood risk so that any mistakes made in the past are not repeated. There are two types of flood risk: heavy rain or rivers bursting their banks and, as my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith said in Committee, flooding due to rising sea levels. He went on to say: "““The thought of a nuclear power station being inundated in half a century’s time … A large load of radioactive material being lapped by the sea, would not be tolerable””.—[Official Report, 6/10/08; col. 97.]" Of course he is quite right. As an example my noble friend highlighted Dungeness which is located on the end of a long spit of very low-lying sand, all of which is susceptible to rising sea levels. Would we or should we build the next generation of nuclear power stations on a similar site? Perhaps not, if a flood risk assessment was made. I am absolutely certain that the noble Baroness in responding to the amendment will fall back on PPS25 for her defence. First, can she guarantee that the IPC will as a matter of course be required to comply with PPS25 for all applications that come before it? Secondly, is PPS25 robust enough? I am sure that the Minister will argue that it is, but others are not so sure. In his review of flooding, Sir Michael Pitt concluded that there is a need to strengthen and reinforce the provision of PPS25 and the building regulations to ensure that flood resistance and resilience measures are fully built into all new developments where necessary. Sir John Harman, as chairman of the Environment Agency, said in response to the Pitt review that urgent review and consolidation of flood risk management legislation will, however, be needed if your recommendations are to be turned into action. Consideration by Government of a new Water Bill is, in our view, vital to rationalise outdated legislation and to give full effect to your recommendations. I do not pretend to be an expert on flooding, but here we have two experts who say that the current legislation, and in particular PPS25, is not up to the job. The likelihood of the Government strengthening PPS25 or introducing a water Bill in the near future is remote, hence the need to have a requirement in the Bill to assess the flood risk of identified locations. I beg to move.