Flood defence schemes have been postponed due to government funding cutbacks, it is being claimed today.
The Environment Agency says it will need to spend £750m a year over the next three years to protect areas threatened by floods.
The amount offered by the government falls short, meaning a number of projects have been put on hold.
These include a £100m scheme for Leeds, and plans to replace York's defences, which have been deemed inadequate.
The limited funding comes despite insurers, the National Audit Office and the Environment Agency warning that more spending on flood defences is needed.
Andrew Waller, a member of the Environment Agency's north-east region flood defence committee said: "We need to be spending a lot more than we are now.
"Flood defence spending is not keeping pace with increased demand for flood defences due to climate change.
"We will end up with a situation where more and more areas are not being covered."
In fact, the Environment Agency estimates that it needs £150m a year over the next ten years just to bring its existing assets up to standard.
Tim Kersley, head of asset management at the agency, said it is doing a lot with its funding.
But he said flood protection needs are increasing over and above the budget increases it has received.
He said: "All commentators agree we need more funding to adequately protect the community.
"We currently invest about £500m per year on flood risk management. Over the next three years we need to spend three-quarters of a billion per year."
"As the impacts of climate change bites we will need to spend nearer £1bn per year."
To deal with climate change by 2010, with inflation, the agency needs to invest £750m a year on flood risk management, the Environment Agency says.
Wednesday, 27 June 2007
Leeds: Environment Agency said no to Leeds flood defences
A vital £100m flood defence plan to protect Leeds city centre was shelved by the Environment Agency only six months ago, it has been revealed - according to the Yorkshire Evening Post.
The scheme would have seen a series of defences built along the River Aire to protect businesses and residents from exactly the kind of heavy rainfall which struck on Monday.
The project was under development by the Environment Agency for a number of years before being shelved in January for at least three years due to financial pressures.
It would have included "washland or flood storage areas" further upstream of the river.
Meanwhile, a separate scheme to protect Wakefield residents from the waters of Ings Beck, a tributary of the River Calder, was also "delayed indefinitely" earlier this year, it has emerged.
The revelations came as opposition parties in Parliament said the government has slashed flood protection budgets and ignored warnings that defences were inadequate.
Details of the ditched Leeds city centre flood defence scheme were revealed in an urgent email sent yesterday by Leeds City Council to MPs.
Leeds East Labour MP George Mudie swiftly raised the issue in the Commons chamber.
The email, sent by Louise Tonkinson, the council's acting head of corporate communications, warned that the ditched plan was to "identify and build defences in some of the city's worst at-risk areas".
She also revealed that the council was "urgently seeking information" about the progress of a flood defence scheme for Wyke Beck in the east of the city.
More the 30 households had to be evacuated due flooding from the beck on Monday - it is the third time in just over three years that it is flooded.
Mr Mudie questioned Environment Secretary David Miliband, as the cabinet minister delivered an emergency statement on the devastating flooding in Yorkshire and the Midlands.
Mr Mudie asked: "Can the minister review the decision of the Environment Agency to shelve the £100m scheme which was designed to protect Leeds city centre?
"Could he also ask the Environmental Agency to expedite the Wyke Beck scheme in my constituency which will help alleviate flooding in an area which has been flooded three times in three years to the great distress of hundreds of people?"
Mr Miliband said Mr Mudie had made "an important point" and pledged to "take up those issues with the environment agency and write to him as soon as possible".
Leeds city council is to meet the Environment Agency next month to demand that the protection plans are put back on the table.
Council leader Mark Harris "Whilst this scheme would not have prevented much of the flooding in other areas of the city, it would have protected people and businesses from flooding in the city centre.
"We have got to have an effective scheme in place to protect people and businesses from flooding."
Meanwhile, Wakefield Labour MP Mary Creagh also revealed a crucial flood protection scheme had also been shelved in her constituency.
She said: "In January I received a letter from the local Environment Agency informing me that the Flood Alleviation Scheme for Ings Beck, a tributary of the River Calder, would be delayed indefinitely. It was supposed to be completed earlier this year."
She added: "Wakefield is now flooded for the second time in two weeks, many A-roads are affected, the East Coast Mainline is shut, and the M1 and the M62 motorways are both greatly affected as they follow the path of the rivers Calder, the Aire and Hebble that run through my constituency."
The scheme would have seen a series of defences built along the River Aire to protect businesses and residents from exactly the kind of heavy rainfall which struck on Monday.
The project was under development by the Environment Agency for a number of years before being shelved in January for at least three years due to financial pressures.
It would have included "washland or flood storage areas" further upstream of the river.
Meanwhile, a separate scheme to protect Wakefield residents from the waters of Ings Beck, a tributary of the River Calder, was also "delayed indefinitely" earlier this year, it has emerged.
The revelations came as opposition parties in Parliament said the government has slashed flood protection budgets and ignored warnings that defences were inadequate.
Details of the ditched Leeds city centre flood defence scheme were revealed in an urgent email sent yesterday by Leeds City Council to MPs.
Leeds East Labour MP George Mudie swiftly raised the issue in the Commons chamber.
The email, sent by Louise Tonkinson, the council's acting head of corporate communications, warned that the ditched plan was to "identify and build defences in some of the city's worst at-risk areas".
She also revealed that the council was "urgently seeking information" about the progress of a flood defence scheme for Wyke Beck in the east of the city.
More the 30 households had to be evacuated due flooding from the beck on Monday - it is the third time in just over three years that it is flooded.
Mr Mudie questioned Environment Secretary David Miliband, as the cabinet minister delivered an emergency statement on the devastating flooding in Yorkshire and the Midlands.
Mr Mudie asked: "Can the minister review the decision of the Environment Agency to shelve the £100m scheme which was designed to protect Leeds city centre?
"Could he also ask the Environmental Agency to expedite the Wyke Beck scheme in my constituency which will help alleviate flooding in an area which has been flooded three times in three years to the great distress of hundreds of people?"
Mr Miliband said Mr Mudie had made "an important point" and pledged to "take up those issues with the environment agency and write to him as soon as possible".
Leeds city council is to meet the Environment Agency next month to demand that the protection plans are put back on the table.
Council leader Mark Harris "Whilst this scheme would not have prevented much of the flooding in other areas of the city, it would have protected people and businesses from flooding in the city centre.
"We have got to have an effective scheme in place to protect people and businesses from flooding."
Meanwhile, Wakefield Labour MP Mary Creagh also revealed a crucial flood protection scheme had also been shelved in her constituency.
She said: "In January I received a letter from the local Environment Agency informing me that the Flood Alleviation Scheme for Ings Beck, a tributary of the River Calder, would be delayed indefinitely. It was supposed to be completed earlier this year."
She added: "Wakefield is now flooded for the second time in two weeks, many A-roads are affected, the East Coast Mainline is shut, and the M1 and the M62 motorways are both greatly affected as they follow the path of the rivers Calder, the Aire and Hebble that run through my constituency."
Tuesday, 26 June 2007
Leeds: Fresh call for city flood defence
Council chiefs are to call for a £100m flood defence scheme in West Yorkshire to be resurrected following the recent severe weather.
The Leeds scheme was shelved three years ago by the Environment Agency, which said it was too costly.
On Monday parts of the city centre were flooded, causing the railway station and several roads to close.
Council leader Mark Harris said he was worried about the effect of further flooding on the city's economy.
He said: "Last night, many parts of the city's central area were flooded for the first time in living memory.
"The train station was closed and severe traffic disruption had a major impact on business continuity as well as putting city centre shoppers, workers and residents at risk."
The Environment Agency had planned to build defences along the River Aire, which flows through the city centre.
Mr Harris said: "This recent flood event has only served to underline the need for this scheme to be brought back on track urgently.
"The recent flooding was unique and unprecedented.
"Whilst this scheme would not have prevented much of the flooding in other areas of the city, it would have protected people and businesses from flooding in the city centre.
"Floods can have a serious impact on the city's economy and infrastructure and we cannot have a situation where the city centre, which is the heart of the city's economic performance, is being put at risk."
Mr Harris said he planned to meet with the chief executive of the Environment Agency next month to request that the scheme go ahead.
The Leeds scheme was shelved three years ago by the Environment Agency, which said it was too costly.
On Monday parts of the city centre were flooded, causing the railway station and several roads to close.
Council leader Mark Harris said he was worried about the effect of further flooding on the city's economy.
He said: "Last night, many parts of the city's central area were flooded for the first time in living memory.
"The train station was closed and severe traffic disruption had a major impact on business continuity as well as putting city centre shoppers, workers and residents at risk."
The Environment Agency had planned to build defences along the River Aire, which flows through the city centre.
Mr Harris said: "This recent flood event has only served to underline the need for this scheme to be brought back on track urgently.
"The recent flooding was unique and unprecedented.
"Whilst this scheme would not have prevented much of the flooding in other areas of the city, it would have protected people and businesses from flooding in the city centre.
"Floods can have a serious impact on the city's economy and infrastructure and we cannot have a situation where the city centre, which is the heart of the city's economic performance, is being put at risk."
Mr Harris said he planned to meet with the chief executive of the Environment Agency next month to request that the scheme go ahead.
Lambeth: 'Chilling' plans for the elderly
A hospital boss has criticised a council's plan to restrict care provision to elderly and disabled people - reports ICSouthLondon.
Patricia Moberly, chair-woman of Guys and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, has described Labour-run Lambeth's plan to restrict care to people in critical need as "chilling".
She said: "We have been trying over the years to make things better for vulnerable people in our society.
"It's much better for people to be looked after at home.
"The potential of these cuts is actually quite chilling."
Under the plan, elderly and disabled people in "substantial need" of care would no longer receive support services from the council.
The council also plans to ramp up care charges for things like home help from £7.55 to £17.50 per hour. It would see the council make a profit out of the service.
The plans met with a massive backlash when they were published this year.
Around 450 pensioners, disabled people and carers marched on Lambeth Town Hall in protest.
The backlash forced the council to extend a consultation into the proposals prior to their implementation.
A decision will be made next month whether or not to press ahead with the plans.
Ms Moberly made her comments at a meeting of Lambeth's health and adult services scrutiny committee on Wednesday night.
Other health professionals also slammed the strategy.
King's College Hospital stakeholder relations manager Phil Bollman said: "It seems to me that this will only shift care back to the hospitals and have an impact on care. People will end up stuck in hospital blocking beds."
Lambeth's cabinet member for health and adult services Councillor Donatus Anyanwu insisted efforts had been made to try to avoid the proposed cuts. But he warned Lambeth did not have the cash to prevent them.
He said: "We can't invent money, we can't make money. We can't rob some other area to pay for these services."
However, the government could afford to give Lambeth a bigger grant to maintain these services without cuts or increases in fees charged to vulernable people if it wasn't planning to gift an extra £2.5 billion a year to the audit-failing EU ... despite the EU's on-going failure for twelve years now to explain how the "majority" of its money is being spent.
So how is local MP Kate Hoey going to vote, when the EU budget deal comes up in Parliament for approval? In favour of lavishing billions more pounds on the EU without justification? Or in favour of saving public money from waste and its investment in better local services instead?
Patricia Moberly, chair-woman of Guys and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, has described Labour-run Lambeth's plan to restrict care to people in critical need as "chilling".
She said: "We have been trying over the years to make things better for vulnerable people in our society.
"It's much better for people to be looked after at home.
"The potential of these cuts is actually quite chilling."
Under the plan, elderly and disabled people in "substantial need" of care would no longer receive support services from the council.
The council also plans to ramp up care charges for things like home help from £7.55 to £17.50 per hour. It would see the council make a profit out of the service.
The plans met with a massive backlash when they were published this year.
Around 450 pensioners, disabled people and carers marched on Lambeth Town Hall in protest.
The backlash forced the council to extend a consultation into the proposals prior to their implementation.
A decision will be made next month whether or not to press ahead with the plans.
Ms Moberly made her comments at a meeting of Lambeth's health and adult services scrutiny committee on Wednesday night.
Other health professionals also slammed the strategy.
King's College Hospital stakeholder relations manager Phil Bollman said: "It seems to me that this will only shift care back to the hospitals and have an impact on care. People will end up stuck in hospital blocking beds."
Lambeth's cabinet member for health and adult services Councillor Donatus Anyanwu insisted efforts had been made to try to avoid the proposed cuts. But he warned Lambeth did not have the cash to prevent them.
He said: "We can't invent money, we can't make money. We can't rob some other area to pay for these services."
However, the government could afford to give Lambeth a bigger grant to maintain these services without cuts or increases in fees charged to vulernable people if it wasn't planning to gift an extra £2.5 billion a year to the audit-failing EU ... despite the EU's on-going failure for twelve years now to explain how the "majority" of its money is being spent.
So how is local MP Kate Hoey going to vote, when the EU budget deal comes up in Parliament for approval? In favour of lavishing billions more pounds on the EU without justification? Or in favour of saving public money from waste and its investment in better local services instead?
Saturday, 23 June 2007
Council tax 'doubles in 10 years'
The average council tax bill has almost doubled in the past decade, according to a report by the Halifax building society.
The rise, from more £550 to almost £1,100, is three times higher than the rate of inflation and twice the increase in average earnings.
The tax is now 91% higher than when Tony Blair first took office.
The Local Government Association (LGA), which represents councils in England and Wales, has dismissed the report as a rehash of old information.
Corin Thomson, LGA's programme director, said councils needed the extra money to cope with "major environmental challenges" and the care needs of an ageing population.
"Council tax is being put under huge strain over recent years as authorities are having to deal with massive social and economic change," Ms Thomson said.
Average earnings have increased by 51% over the past 10 years and retail price inflation has risen by 31%.
The typical UK household now has to pay £1,078 in council tax annually, compared with £564 in the 1997/98 financial year.
Martin Ellis, chief economist with Halifax, said that councils had made smaller increases in recent years because of the anger surrounding the steep rises since the later 1990s.
He said: "Councils may well turn round and say well that's because they're providing better services.
"But we're just highlighting the point that there's been a big, big increase and certainly much sharper than the increase in either prices or average earnings.
"And this is taking more and more of peoples' disposable income. We have seen, to be fair to councils in the last couple of years, we have seen smaller increases more in line with retail prices in the last couple of years.
"So I think they are taking note of what's been happening and the sort of level of discontent that there's been with the big increases."
Figures show that more than half of all districts have experienced at least a doubling in council tax bills since 1997.
Anna Pearson, Policy Manager at Help the Aged, said many older people on low incomes frequently went without basic essentials to pay their council tax.
"When you compare council tax rises with the meagre rise in the basic state pension, you can see why pensioners are having to deprive themselves of basic necessities to get by.
"In the fifth richest country in the world that is nothing short of appalling.", she said.
But why isn't the extra money councils say they need to provide services coming from central government? That shortfall is what's causing councils to put extreme tax pressure on local people who can't afford to pay more.
Dare we suggest that too much central government money is being wasted elsewhere, such as on contributions to the EU budget - billions of which are frittered by the EU on empty buildings or even simply lost through fraud?
Meanwhile council tax continues to rise and MPs are set to vote an extra £2.5bn a year for the EU. Contact your MP to make sure they vote against that EU budget deal when it comes before Parliament for approval.
The rise, from more £550 to almost £1,100, is three times higher than the rate of inflation and twice the increase in average earnings.
The tax is now 91% higher than when Tony Blair first took office.
The Local Government Association (LGA), which represents councils in England and Wales, has dismissed the report as a rehash of old information.
Corin Thomson, LGA's programme director, said councils needed the extra money to cope with "major environmental challenges" and the care needs of an ageing population.
"Council tax is being put under huge strain over recent years as authorities are having to deal with massive social and economic change," Ms Thomson said.
Average earnings have increased by 51% over the past 10 years and retail price inflation has risen by 31%.
The typical UK household now has to pay £1,078 in council tax annually, compared with £564 in the 1997/98 financial year.
Martin Ellis, chief economist with Halifax, said that councils had made smaller increases in recent years because of the anger surrounding the steep rises since the later 1990s.
He said: "Councils may well turn round and say well that's because they're providing better services.
"But we're just highlighting the point that there's been a big, big increase and certainly much sharper than the increase in either prices or average earnings.
"And this is taking more and more of peoples' disposable income. We have seen, to be fair to councils in the last couple of years, we have seen smaller increases more in line with retail prices in the last couple of years.
"So I think they are taking note of what's been happening and the sort of level of discontent that there's been with the big increases."
Figures show that more than half of all districts have experienced at least a doubling in council tax bills since 1997.
Anna Pearson, Policy Manager at Help the Aged, said many older people on low incomes frequently went without basic essentials to pay their council tax.
"When you compare council tax rises with the meagre rise in the basic state pension, you can see why pensioners are having to deprive themselves of basic necessities to get by.
"In the fifth richest country in the world that is nothing short of appalling.", she said.
But why isn't the extra money councils say they need to provide services coming from central government? That shortfall is what's causing councils to put extreme tax pressure on local people who can't afford to pay more.
Dare we suggest that too much central government money is being wasted elsewhere, such as on contributions to the EU budget - billions of which are frittered by the EU on empty buildings or even simply lost through fraud?
Meanwhile council tax continues to rise and MPs are set to vote an extra £2.5bn a year for the EU. Contact your MP to make sure they vote against that EU budget deal when it comes before Parliament for approval.
Monday, 18 June 2007
Manchester: Trusts fail hygiene targets
Seven NHS trusts in Greater Manchester are failing to meet key targets aimed at tackling bugs like MRSA, reports the Manchester Evening News.
Manchester Primary Care Trust, North Cheshire Hospitals and Stockport PCT all failed to show they are meeting two hygiene standards.
Trafford PCT, Heywood, Middleton and Rochdale PCT, Bury PCT and Warrington PCT had not met, or cannot provide enough evidence to prove they are meeting the standards.
Standards include properly decontaminating reusable medical devices, such as theatre instruments.
Nationally, one in four NHS trusts are failing to hit the minimum standards for hygiene.
The news comes just weeks after the Healthcare Commission warned that failing hospitals will be served with `improvement notices'.
Today's report, issued by the Commission, is based on trusts self-reporting on whether they meet a set of 24 core government standards on care.
A total of 55 trusts including Manchester PCT and North Cheshire Hospitals had not met, or could not prove they met the standard on keeping patients safe by reducing the risk from infections like Clostridium difficile.
Forty-three trusts, including Stockport PCT and Warrington PCT, had not met, or had no data to show they met the standard on areas being clean and buildings being in good order.
A spokesperson for Manchester PCT said: "Achieving compliance is an on-going priority for the PCT.
"We have allocated additional resources and put action plans in place to ensure progress is made and monitored in those areas where we did not declare full compliance this year."
Manchester Primary Care Trust, North Cheshire Hospitals and Stockport PCT all failed to show they are meeting two hygiene standards.
Trafford PCT, Heywood, Middleton and Rochdale PCT, Bury PCT and Warrington PCT had not met, or cannot provide enough evidence to prove they are meeting the standards.
Standards include properly decontaminating reusable medical devices, such as theatre instruments.
Nationally, one in four NHS trusts are failing to hit the minimum standards for hygiene.
The news comes just weeks after the Healthcare Commission warned that failing hospitals will be served with `improvement notices'.
Today's report, issued by the Commission, is based on trusts self-reporting on whether they meet a set of 24 core government standards on care.
A total of 55 trusts including Manchester PCT and North Cheshire Hospitals had not met, or could not prove they met the standard on keeping patients safe by reducing the risk from infections like Clostridium difficile.
Forty-three trusts, including Stockport PCT and Warrington PCT, had not met, or had no data to show they met the standard on areas being clean and buildings being in good order.
A spokesperson for Manchester PCT said: "Achieving compliance is an on-going priority for the PCT.
"We have allocated additional resources and put action plans in place to ensure progress is made and monitored in those areas where we did not declare full compliance this year."
Sunday, 17 June 2007
NHS 'hygiene standards struggle'
The BBC reports today that NHS trusts in England are struggling to meet key hygiene standards, according to data submitted to the NHS watchdog.
A quarter of the trusts report they are not complying with one of the three standards relating to the hygiene code, covering areas including cleanliness.
A spokesman for Patient Concern said: "This is terrible. It is bad news for patients and shows trusts are not getting the basics right."
In total there are , covering everything from clinical effectivness to governance.
England's 394 trusts self-declare how they are doing against 24 core NHS standards, which then help determine their overall NHS rating.
The Healthcare Commission now has to verify the data by cross-checking the information against its own intelligence, audits and surveys by other organisations and through a system of targeted spot-checks.
Trusts did best in meeting standards covering professional codes of practice, whistle-blowing and openness.
There was also a rise in the number of trusts reporting they met the two standards relating to compliance with the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, which issues advice on new treatments.
But with the three standards that relate to hygiene, compliance had fallen.
In particular, on reducing the risk of infection, 14% said they had failed, up from 7% last year.
A similar number said they could not say they decontaminated equipment properly - up from 12.6%.
TRUSTS FAILING ALL HYGIENE STANDARDS
Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust
Sheffield Primary Care Trust
Sutton and Merton Primary Care Trust
Wiltshire Primary Care Trust
Over one in 10 did not meet cleanliness standards either.
It meant that 99 trusts - one in four of the total - were not meeting the hygiene code.
A quarter of the trusts report they are not complying with one of the three standards relating to the hygiene code, covering areas including cleanliness.
A spokesman for Patient Concern said: "This is terrible. It is bad news for patients and shows trusts are not getting the basics right."
In total there are , covering everything from clinical effectivness to governance.
England's 394 trusts self-declare how they are doing against 24 core NHS standards, which then help determine their overall NHS rating.
The Healthcare Commission now has to verify the data by cross-checking the information against its own intelligence, audits and surveys by other organisations and through a system of targeted spot-checks.
Trusts did best in meeting standards covering professional codes of practice, whistle-blowing and openness.
There was also a rise in the number of trusts reporting they met the two standards relating to compliance with the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, which issues advice on new treatments.
But with the three standards that relate to hygiene, compliance had fallen.
In particular, on reducing the risk of infection, 14% said they had failed, up from 7% last year.
A similar number said they could not say they decontaminated equipment properly - up from 12.6%.
TRUSTS FAILING ALL HYGIENE STANDARDS
Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust
Sheffield Primary Care Trust
Sutton and Merton Primary Care Trust
Wiltshire Primary Care Trust
Over one in 10 did not meet cleanliness standards either.
It meant that 99 trusts - one in four of the total - were not meeting the hygiene code.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
