Written evidence submitted by Steven Jacobs, director at Allups Limited (FLO0003)
Introduction and reason for submitting evidence
No one project, idea or product can stop flood damage entirely and insurance money can no more pay for lost memories than for the loss of a loved one.
Following the 2007 floods and more frequent occurrences of extreme weather and flooding in the UK I read the Pitt Review’s executive summary in the hope of finding some ideas on how we could help improve flood defence preparations to help alleviate the agony and heartache I saw people just-like-me facing through no fault of their own without a clue.
Struck by the authoritative Pitt report’s assertion that they simply could not find convincing evidence that sandbags were beneficial in the fight to protect non-business premises / people’s homes from flood ingress, my business partner and I developed a better alternative to the pile of 10 + sandbags stacked in front of so many front and back doors.
The reason for submitting evidence to your committee is to present our perspective as a small British business with flood mitigation ideas and just one innovative eureka-like product developed to help empower and encourage everyone to protect their properties better.
Call for evidence
Flooding
Terms of reference
It depends on what governance means, synonyms include domination and control:
if the question means are current national and local arrangements to control flood effective the answer is clearly no. As to co-ordination arrangements, they are limited and within their limitations, they seem to be effective.
There is still a dependency on the traditional default – to deploy sandbags. In 2007 the Pitt review recommended sandbags be withdrawn and replaced with other temporary forms of flood protection. On page 18 of the Pitt Review executive summary available from the national archives, you can read:
“ES.49
‘Strategic sandbagging’ can be successfully used alongside roads or adjacent to important buildings to prevent them from flooding, but the work needs to be done properly by experts. The Review was unable to obtain any significant evidence that sandbags were particularly effective during the 2007 summer floods in providing protection to individual households.
ES.50
Nevertheless, sandbags are still widely regarded as an important focus for community action and they should not simply be withdrawn. The general provision of sandbags should be phased out in favour of better products such as kite-marked flood boards, air brick covers and other forms of temporary defence.
Despite this irrefutable truth, there are directions to the public and on local authorities’ websites about the use and availability of sandbags.
A quick search of sandbags.gov on Google brings up: headlines that relate to information posted on 1 Mar 2009 with a captivating title Sandbags: how to use them to prepare for a flood. The snippet goes on to advertise how the beleaguered public can get sandbags and how they can deploy them to protect their property.
Soon after there is another article on www.gov.uk dated 2017 on how to store sandbags at collection site after a flood. This provides further government endorsement for the use of sandbags making them seem all the more legitimate by specifying conditions that must be complied with and enforcement by law should they not comply.
The third piece on the page is again a government site ässets.publishing.service.gov.uk that publicises an e-mail address for enquiries at the environment agency. It states sandbags are relatively ineffective – without stating with relation to what so does not disincentivise further interest. Instead the hook goes on to direct the public where they can(and by strong implication as written by the government agency should - despite any misgivings on the relative effectiveness) get or buy unfilled sandbags and sand.
The next article on the screen is from www.guildford.cov.uk telling their residents where they can get hold of sandbags in case of flood emergency.
Followed by Surrey County Council’s headline dated as recently as 20 Sept 2019 advertising where sandbags can be sourced in surrey … via their local district or borough council who will provide information about sandbag providers in their area.
Dorset Council has a headline entitled “Sandbags and local flooding advice ”to capture attention before going on to say they are not responsible for providing sandbags but you could e-mail their customer service for further advice (by inference in the context of other articles on the page to find out where to get sandbags)
It is now April 2020, 13 years after the Pitt review informed government that the provision of sandbags should be phased out in favour of better products … other forms of temporary defence.
Maybe literally they are unavailable from some authorities but some make them available to the most vulnerable (often most incapacitated) still and their provision certainly has not been / is not being replaced by better products.
When approached responsible authorities refuse to consider better alternatives if they are in any way unique for fear of being accused of favouritism or falling foul of government guidelines. They hide behind supply chain management systems designed to reduce their workload by directing small suppliers and large to comply with their specifications but those specifications are limited to their limited subject knowledge – influenced heavily by current suppliers – an inherently biased system in need of review.
By default, they continuously misguide the public into believing sandbags are an effective way – even if not the most effective way - to provide protection to their individual home at the last minute and when pushed even supply sandbags for the most vulnerable to fill themselves. This contradicts Pitts inability to find any evidence that they were effective for household use and so I ask the committee to take whatever action it deems appropriate to address this discrepancy.
Government has been disingenuous ever since 2007 when they claimed to take the Pitt Review so seriously as to learn its lessons. Instead they continue to mislead the public into a false sense of security with sandbags by “explaining how they work on the .gov website” when Pitt said he found no evidence that they were effective for domestic use.
Translated into a government priority clearly it must now immediately remove all reference to sandbags from all its websites and advise local and lead flood authorities to do the same.
It should stop issuing sandbags to the public, and reserve them for the emergency services.
Most importantly, it should link this message with removal of restrictions on authorities and charities that stop or hinder them from buying or promoting unique flood mitigation products as they see fit.
Why? The government has skewed the flood protection market towards fitted products (the new B.S. BS 851188:2019 is limited in scope to fitted/installed flood resistance products), and sandbags.
In so doing, it has literally stifled opportunities for low cost innovative solutions to capture the public’s attention, killing the very entrepreneurial spirit we need to rebuild Great Britain. Supposedly credible sources of information (the government, local authorities and charities) fail to present credible reliable consistent advice on sandbags and other unfitted DIY products. They currently tell the public to have an expensive flood survey that subsequently recommends costly fitted flood systems. Possibly ideal for wealthy homeowners it leaves the poor tenant and cash strapped families and individuals with a Hobsons choice, pay for essentials today and risk life changing flood damage tomorrow or invest heavily in flood defence for an event that may never happen. No wonder there is little engagement or traction from the public when a flood campaign says “Be Prepared”.
The cost is negligible, I am not advocating major flood protection scheme’s – they can and should be paid for by utility companies as they upgrade dams, reservoirs, sewers and waterways to secure safe and constant water supply.
The cost is emotional, to reverse policy and, if precedence is needed as so often it is to provide a comfort zone for change, to show a parallel with the Corona Virus.
For the greater good in response to climate change, the government can and should invest in our entrepreneurial spirit by creating a demand for its Great British goods. When it does that companies can access capital and expertise and grow into international players, to help with the national debt.
The question was “Given the challenge posed by climate change, what should be the Government’s aims and priorities in national flood risk policy, and what level of investment will be required in future in order to achieve this?”
Put simply the national risk policy must directly address the full range of people and their resources with correct up-to-date advice that fits their needs. There is no one solution that fits all and government policy must recognise this and simply be much more open and flexible to quickly supporting and adopting new possibilities.
The Policy should include an open channel perhaps something as simple as a website where people / companies can freely publish their products for the public to see and choose. It cannot rely on retailers – who cherry pick fast selling high profit year round easy to forecast products over low cost, low margin one with a spiky sales profile. It should be an open platform for all flood products to be given equal visibility to the British public with a disclaimer that the government does not endorse any products but simply gives all equal visibility so people can most easily compare options and come to their own decisions.
People like to buy. Communities will most effectively and willingly be involved and supported when government creates a climate that puts people in the right frame of mind to buy flood product for self-help. I do not mean by supplying money, people with money often chose not to spend it, I mean by creating a spending mood – as supermarkets do by wafting bread and coffee odours and with soft music, a not too warm or too cold environment, lighting etc.… On line, Amazon & Apple & others stimulate demand with ratings, time limited offers, pier / expert / celebrity endorsements, offers, prizes, advertising all designed to create a Buzz.
Monitoring communities’ involvement with a feedback loop, as HMRC and others do with post service surveys, can help refine the process.
The government’s wider approach to flood is towards self-help, as they understand that they do not have the resources to help everyone as well as they would want. They can however “incentivise” people to change for their and the greater good, especially post Brexit.
Here, the government can identify the best trees or vegetation by area and encourage their planting. As the climate is changing there may be areas where rice can be planted, for example, not a traditional British crop but one that could help feed the population with home grown produce and make better use of flood plains. Rice generally grows best in regions that experience short periods of intense, heavy rainfall. This article shows how in the USA they allow rivers to flood into rice fields and that helps the Salmon population – another great cash crop.
Existing housing can be made more resilient to flood, i.e. the system, community, society or defence can react and recover more quickly and easily from the damaging effect of flood, by deploying some of the following ideas:-
Insurance companies should be encouraged, e.g. with a change in 12% insurance tax, to promote flood protection products. These products should be low cost starter project items, that cost no more than £50 to reduce flood entry through gaps around doors, from coming up through toilets and airbricks.
The pack could be offered free with home insurance on the understanding that there are no flood mitigation guarantees. The flood emergency starter kit would reduce the excess premium by £50 to encourage end user uptake. More packs could be available from the local authorities for a fee to encourage engagement with local authorities who could help guide the public towards other ways to prepare for flood.
Local authorities could offer similar products to high-to-medium flood risk residents, e.g. by accessing central government funding.
By supplying low cost temporary flood mitigation products through insurance and local authorities the public will gear up to protect themselves and be stimulated to consider investing in more permanent solutions as they see the government and their local authorities are taking the whole climate change = more flooding issue, very seriously.
Sustainable drainage and planning policies should include recommendations to plant water draining vegetation suitable for the area, e.g. rice and Salix trees like weeping willows, some meters from a property near rivers where floodwaters would flow and banks may be broken. This recommendation could save on costly silt removal / dredging.