Costs to taxpayer of flood defence loss
EAST ANGLIAN DAILY TIMES 10 December 2007 | 09:01
DANIELLE NUTTALL
MOVES to abandon flood defences along the Suffolk coast will cost taxpayers up to
£5million just to keep open key roads such as the A12.
Highways bosses in the county said the Environment Agency's proposals not to
protect the Blyth Estuary in five years' time will mean transport links along the coast
could be paralysed.
They said the A12 - particularly at problem spots such as Blythburgh - would suffer
regular flooding and closures, causing chaos for people travelling between Ipswich
and Lowestoft, while the A1095 road to Southwold was also extremely vulnerable.
Guy McGregor, the county's transport chief and chairman of the Blyth Estuary
Strategy Group, said it could cost around £4.8m to provide protection, raise roads
where needed or even reconstruct flood-damaged roads.
But the Environment Agency insisted its duty was to protect people and homes and
said the county council was responsible for keeping roads open and maintaining them.
Mr McGregor will tell a full county council this week that Suffolk already had a
“clear picture” of the impact flooding could have on the A12 from last month's storm
surge, which saw the road closed for 26 hours.
“Under the proposals, the Environment Agency would just walk away from future
flood protection of these roads and other infrastructure.
“This would leave the county council, as the highway authority, the considerable costs
of providing protection, raising road levels where possible or even reconstruction at a
considerable cost of up to around £4.8m.
“It is completely unacceptable for the Environment Agency and indeed the
Government to expect the county council to meet such costs in maintaining these vital
road links.”
Mr McGregor added the Environment Agency had “understated” the impact on roads
and the knock-on impact on tourism.
“If you allow the sea to gain access to certain parts of the coast it can get behind
important places like Southwold and make them virtual islands,” he said.
Mr McGregor's concerns were last night echoed by Suffolk Coastal MP John
Gummer who said he had been warning of the issue for some time.
“These are the kinds of inescapable figures if you do not want your county to be
flooded,” he said.
“Obviously if the Government walks away from all this the county council will have
to pick the bill up and that means every taxpayer.”
The agency claims it must save money in sparsely-populated rural areas in order to
help fully fund schemes to protect urban populations.
The organisation said prioritising guidelines meant that spending money to maintain
defences in the Blyth estuary could not be justified, leading to the proposal to
withdraw the maintenance of some sea walls, and re-focus the money on higher
priority areas.
Environment Agency spokesman Richard Woollard said it was continuing to carry out
repair work to defences in the Blyth area, and as recently as 10 days ago.
“We are not abandoning the Blyth estuary. We are continuing with maintenance on
parts of the Blyth estuary in the next five years,” he said.
“About 10 days ago we were actually repairing the banks of the Blyth estuary area
following the tidal surge weeks ago.
“Our role is to reduce the risk of flooding to people and property. Roads are the
responsibility of the county council. In terms of where that funding would come from
would be a matter for them.
“The A12 has flooded and does flood - it flooded during the surge the other week.
The local authority has a duty to keep roads open and maintained.”
County councillors are now set to fight the agency's plans to abandon flood defences
in the area and are preparing to draw up a detailed response to the proposals.
Mr McGregor along with representatives from Waveney and Suffolk Coastal district
councils aim to hold meetings with MPs and government ministers over the issue and
say the final decision will be taken at the highest level.