Auditor General Stephen Boyle accuses Scottish Government of telling complete idiots not to build houses on land liable to flood as global warming increases risks

Sir Keir did say he’d get rid of planning red tape, didn’t he?
Find your own postcode flood risk at – https://map.sepa.org.uk/floodmaps/FloodRisk/PostCode
Support Talking-up Scotland's work to counter the lies and get you the facts, daily, at: https://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/checkout/help-talking-up-scotland-tell-truth-about-scotland/payment/nBQxjVzq/details

Professor John Robertson OBA

What do you notice in the above SEPA map of flood risk in Ayr? There’s barely a house at risk. For centuries, Scots have not built on flood plains knowing how heavy rain can be and how big our rivers can get, but today, via BBC Scotland, Auditor General Stephen Boyle is at it again, this time trying to blame the Scottish Government for not putting in place protection for idiots who insist on building on flood plains.

The Sepa website tells you where there is an increased risk due to global warming. You just have to use it!

In stunning confusion and grammar, the BBC report by Kevin Keane, opens with:

Flood protection for Scottish homes identified as “at risk” may not be built because of problems with leadership and funding, watchdogs have warned

A joint report by the Auditor General and the Accounts Commission has concluded that the system for allocating money to projects is not “fit for purpose”.

The failings are likely to affect some of the 400,000 households threatened with flooding by 2080 because of climate change, a significant increase on the 284,000 currently at risk.

So, I’m not entirely sure of his meaning here but I think he’s saying that we should be able to build new houses in places already known to be at risk [like in England] and expect the rest of us to pay more via taxation, to build extra flood protection for them.

He is saying that isn’t he? What a f…………………………!!!!

As far back as 2006, researchers at the English College of Estates Management, whose patron was HRH Prince of Wales, made a number of highly encouraging comments about the achievements of the Labour-run Scottish Executive, SEPA and the Local Authorities:

As far as flood protection is concerned, unlike in England, the 1 in 200-year standard of protection is ‘universal’ for all new buildings, with a 1,000-year standard for such vulnerable uses as old people’s homes, schools, hospitals etc. In addition, construction in flood hazard areas has almost completely ended. Crichton (2003: 26) estimates that “the active flood management programme currently in progress will result in almost all high-risk properties being protected against the 200-year flood within the next three years, taking climate change into account.” It is also interesting to note that the Scottish Executive grants for flood defences have never been refused on the grounds of budget restraints and there is no rationing of flood defence spending.

It is clear, however, that the more stringent building standards which are applied in Scotland ensure that severe storms result in much less property damage than comparable events in England. Also, the level of flood protection and the commitment of funding to achieve flood protection are higher in Scotland than in England.’

College of Estates Management at: https://www.cem.ac.uk/media/28193/flooding.pdf

More recently, with SNP leadership, the favourable comparison still seems to hold. Published research from the esteemed Joseph Rowntree Foundation, in 2012, seems to support my first impressions quite strongly:

‘Where English planning regulations permit building in flood plains where there is no alternative, Scottish Planning Policy does not permit building in areas in which ‘the flood risk exceeds the 200-year return period’, i.e. where in any year there is a greater than 0.5 per cent probability of flooding. Scotland has stronger regulations governing the capacity of sewage and drainage systems for new building. It also has stronger minimum standards for flood defences. Building regulations ensuring flood resilience in the housing stock are more developed. Scottish planners, through Flood Liaison and Advice Groups, are engaged with local communities, the emergency services, insurers and other interested parties in drawing up flood plans. The differences in regulatory regimes between England and Scotland are reflected in the number of households that are at risk of flooding, and the resilience of communities in responding to those risks.’

The level of investment will be one factor in these differences. In recent years, spending in England and Wales has declined seriously after significant increases under Labour in 1997 to 2010, as revealed in a UK Parliament Briefing Paper from 2015:

‘Central Government spending on flood defence in 2010-11 was cut soon after the Coalition Government was formed. Spending was reduced in one year by £30 million or 5%. In the 2010 Comprehensive Spending Review (2011-12 to 2014-15), a total of £2.17 billion in central government funding was provided for flood and coastal defence. This represented “a six percent fall in central government funding”, The Committee on Climate Change calculated that this represented a real term cut of around 20% compared to the previous spending period.’

In sharp contrast, for Scotland, we see in a Scottish Parliament Committee Paper for 2014-2015, evidence of increasing investment:

‘With regard to flood protection and alleviation, the Committee welcomes the cash terms increases in the funding available to SEPA, and to the Natural Assets and Flooding  budget, both of which sit in the RAE portfolio. The Committee believes that, due to climate change, severe weather events will become increasingly likely in Scotland in years to come, and it is therefore essential that flood forecasting and warning systems be as accurate and robust as possible. The Committee welcomes the increased funding for flood forecasting and warning in the RAE portfolio and recommends that the Scottish Government continue to ensure sufficient funding is available to improve flood forecasting and warning systems, to ensure greater consistency across the whole of Scotland.’

As for more recent evidence of superiority in the Scottish system, see this at the Scottish government site and little (surprise, surprise) MSM coverage of it at the time:

‘£42 million a year plan over the next decade.

More than 10,000 families are to benefit from a ten year strategy to protect homes in many of Scotland’s most flood-prone communities. The plan is the result of grant funding totalling £420 million and follows an agreement reached between the Scottish Government and COSLA. The cash will be used to deliver 40 new flood protection projects and support local flood risk management plans. More than 130 flood protection studies will be carried out to help find potential solutions for another 26,000 residential properties currently at risk. The announcement came as the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, fulfilled her pledge to return to Newton Stewart following an earlier visit in the aftermath of flooding at Hogmanay.’

So, unlike the UK Government, the Scottish Government has maintained or bettered the investment and the sophistication in flood prevention here. Had I been writing in 2006, the Labour-controlled Scottish Executive would have rightly claimed any credit for performance north of the border. In 2016, the SNP-controlled Scottish Parliament can do the same. Will BBC Scotland allow them to do it? They clearly didn’t in the run-up to General Election in 2016 so I doubt it.

There you have it, my attempt to shore up our defence plans against a flood of BBC bias (See what I did there, again, again?) as we approach the UK Monsoon season.

Sources:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37306094

http://news.sky.com/story/16312m-flood-defence-plan-an-elastoplast-say-victims-10569571

http://www.gov.scot/Topics/Environment/Water/Flooding

College of Estates Management at:https://www.cem.ac.uk/media/28193/flooding.pdf

UK Parliament Briefing Paper at: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tGK3kUO-iKEJ:www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn05755.pdf+&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Scottish Parliament Paper at:http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/CurrentCommittees/70875.aspx

Scottish Act on Control of Flood water at:http://www.gov.scot/Resource/Doc/1057/0094052.pdf

WWF Report at: http://nationalfloodforum.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/floodplanner_web.pdf

3 thoughts on “Auditor General Stephen Boyle accuses Scottish Government of telling complete idiots not to build houses on land liable to flood as global warming increases risks

  1. Re.. 👇

    In stunning confusion and grammar, the BBC report by Kevin Keane, opens with:

    Flood protection for Scottish homes identified as “at risk” may not be built because of problems with leadership and funding, watchdogs have warned

    A joint report by the Auditor General and the Accounts Commission has concluded that the system for allocating money to projects is not “fit for purpose”.

    The failings are likely to affect some of the 400,000 households threatened with flooding by 2080 because of climate change, a significant increase on the 284,000 currently at risk.

    Above is about 2080 👆

    Below is about 2050 👇

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-assessment-of-flood-and-coastal-erosion-risk-in-england-2024/national-assessment-of-flood-and-coastal-erosion-risk-in-england-2024

    “1.3 How our assessment of flood risk is changing

    The new NaFRA shows that around 6.3 million properties (homes and businesses) in England are in areas at risk of flooding from one or a combination of sources:

    • rivers
    • the sea
    • surface water

    With climate change the total number of properties in areas at risk from rivers and the sea or surface water could increase to around 8 million by mid-century. In other words, 1 in 4 properties in England will be in areas at risk of flooding from rivers and the sea or surface water by mid-century. ” 

    Liked by 3 people

    1. The hydraulics are a tad more complex than the gloss NaFRA are putting on it – Sea level rise is still theoretical, not that it will/won’t rise, it’s the by how much and when – eg Scientific predictions of glacier and Arctic/Antarctic ice melt are having to be re-written on the hoof, such is the rate of change scientist are observing in real time – They know what the endpoint is and the effect, it’s the bits in between which are elusive, and this threatens vast areas, and most obviously England…

      Similarly with river levels, but here there is a vast difference between the topography of England and Scotland – Where the rains fall and their intensity is dramatically changing, such that the hydraulic modelling of river flows in Scotland is constantly having to be tweaked – Add in the vagueries of sea level rise and it all gets very complicated very quickly.

      Despite Keane’s go-to being Brechin, you will note the problems there are little to do with rising sea levels, but upstream landlords asserting ‘not on my land’ over flood control, and have a guess where that originates, it ain’t local, but I doubt Stephen Boyle would defy those who put him in place…

      Like

  2. It seems to me that IF the BBC cannot directly acuse the SNP/Scottish Government of any failing where for example there is a lack of substantive evidence they then instead slant the news item in a way to ensure the viewer/listener is left to conclude that they are likely to blame. It’s a Union thing and are very expert at it.

    Robbo

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.