Many thanks for this, Rachel. You have a good memory!
It covers the same issues as are being kicked around now, in the
context of severe flooding in the Somerset levels area that had
been going on for up to 9 months -- so a more severe situation
than the current (bad enough) one; and the problems and issues
are very reminiscent of those being faced today.
The questions of cost and value permeate the programme.
So surely that situation, a year ago, surely brandished a warning
in the face of the Government and its Agencies; yet the same excuses
are being trotted out now (though in the present one, they haven't
yet come up with anything to match the Environment Agency's view
that overtopping a flood defence does not correspond to failure
of the defence ... ).
Coincidentally, some of the issues (like the proliferation of
planning permissions to build on flood plains) are the same as
I dreamt up for my tongue-in-cheek response to John!
Best wishes to all,
Ted.
On 10-Feb-2014 21:09:54 Cohen, Rachel wrote:
> There was a good File on Four programme about flood defence spending
> broadcast nearly a year ago. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01qwc8t. I
> haven't listened again recently, but my memory is that it explained spending,
> or lack thereof, well. Part of the problem is the (new) requirement for
> matching funds.
>
> Rachel
>
> Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
>
>
> Ted Harding <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> On 10-Feb-2014 17:19:35 John Bibby wrote:
>> Chris Smith said the treasury rule requires a benefit/cost ratio of
>> "at least eight".
>>
>> They are discussing it on PM right now.
>>
>> But where does the number 8 come from? I thought it would be about 1.
>> JOHN B
>
> I heard it myself on World At One (at about 13:30), again uttered
> by Lord Smith. He gave the 8:1 ratio, and said that it was a "government
> spending rule" ... I have no idea what the basis of the "8:1" rule is
> (but see below ... ).
>
> Interestingly, a minute later in the program, there was an interview
> with Professor Richard Ashley who, "ten years ago", was a co-author
> of a report into flood risks and their management. From his Sheffield
> University web-page:
>
> https://www.shef.ac.uk/civil/staff/research/ashleyr
>
> I infer that this was the two-volume:
>
> Future Flooding Vol I -- Future risks and their drivers. (2004).
> Evans EP., Ashley R M., Hall J., Penning-Rowsell E., Saul A.,
> Sayers P., Thorne C., Watkinson A.
> Foresight.. Office of Science and Technology. April.
>
> Future Flooding Vol II -- Managing future risks. (2004).
> Evans EP., Ashley R M., Hall J., Penning-Rowsell E., Sayers P.,
> Thorne C., Watkinson A.
> Foresight.. Office of Science and Technology. April.
>
> He said that the Government had ignored their conclusions and their
> recommendations ever since. He sounded quite vehement.
>
> For the World At One broadcast, go to:
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03tr3mw
>
> Lord Smith is at about 33:00, followed by Richard Ashley at about 34:00.
>
> I have tried to find out whether these reports are publicly available,
> but no luck so far. They could be interesting reading, especially if
> compared with the current situation!
>
> If anyone has a lead as to where (or if) they can be accessed, I'd be
> most obliged.
>
> John, as to your "But where does the number 8 come from? I thought
> it would be about 1" -- come on, John, don't be silly! The 8:1 ratio
> would encourage the money to be spent where it will do most good!
>
> You have a housing estate of some 30 houses built after the developers
> engineered planning permission to build on a flood plain. Average value
> of each house: £150,000. Total value: £4.5 million.
>
> As it happens, the cost of upgrading the flood prevention for the
> area would be £5 million. On your 1:1 principle, that money should
> be spent on protecting their homes.
>
> But, in fact, their insurers will probably pay up (if they could
> afford the premiums in the first place), and in any case they can
> be moved to some other estate of "affordable housing" -- probably
> also on a flood plain. So no problem. At best they're only farmers,
> and moving them around will do no harm.
>
> Meanwhile, further upstream is a small village, also at risk of
> flooding, where there are 5 houses each worth £8 million. The "8:1"
> rule ensures that these are eligible for flood protection upgrade,
> which is much better value -- especially since their owners are
> City financial traders, for whom the worry and distress due to
> flooding, or the risk of flooding, could impair their judgement
> and result in serious instabilities in the Stock Market.
>
> John: get your priorities right!
>
> Best wishes to all,
> Ted.
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 10-Feb-2014 Time: 20:43:35
> This message was sent by XFMail
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> ******************************************************
> Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
> message will go only to the sender of this message.
> If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
> 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
> to [log in to unmask]
> Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and
> cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by
> subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical
> Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of
> our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site
> www.radstats.org.uk<http://www.radstats.org.uk>.
> *******************************************************
>
> ******************************************************
> Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
> message will go only to the sender of this message.
> If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
> 'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
> to [log in to unmask]
> Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and
> cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by
> subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical
> Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of
> our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
> *******************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
E-Mail: (Ted Harding) <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 10-Feb-2014 Time: 22:42:42
This message was sent by XFMail
-------------------------------------------------
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
|