Nick Palmer MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Tel 0115-9430721
Email NickMP1@...
Website www.broxtowelabour.org

Saturday, 26 April 2008

Dear Attenborough constituent,
In the near future, Broxtowe Council will be asked to decide
whether to approve a proposal by the Environment Agency to improve
flood protection by a large scheme protecting the majority of Greater
Nottingham. This would significantly reduce the risk of flooding for
around 15,000 homes, including most of Attenborough, at a cost of £51
million in central taxpayers' money. However, it would involve
putting a wall along The Strand and this has caused substantial
opposition, with several hundred letters of objection.
Working with Cllr Pat Lally, I've been canvassing
Attenborough opinion, and we've found that many people are unaware of
the detailed arguments on both sides or even unaware of the project.
Since local opinion will be important to the councillors considering
the proposal, I thought it would be helpful to brief you and ask your
opinion. I am trying to represent the arguments neutrally and not
influence you, so that the committee gets as unbiased as possible a
picture of what my constituents think. I am not a councillor so
cannot influence the outcome myself, but I can make sure your views
are heard.
1. What exactly is proposed?
The Environment Agency wants to improve protection against flooding
around the conurbation, but there is no point in doing that if
there's a gap – the water will simply flood through it. Accordingly,
bearing in mind that part of Attenborough has been flooded quite
recently, they propose to put a wall, in places up to five feet high,
along the Strand between the road and the sports fields. If there was
a flood, the water would be allowed to go onto the fields, which to a
small degree would help take the excess water and protect homes. The
wall would be instead of the current hedge that runs along most of
the road. It's likely that it would be possible to cover it with
foliage.
2. Is it important?
Yes. If climate change makes heavy rain more frequent, areas like
Attenborough subject to flooding will suffer it more often. Insurance
costs will rise or possibly become unavailable, affecting the value
of homes. It's generally accepted that prevention is better than
cure: for instance, a flood in Hull affecting 15,000 homes cost an
estimated £200 million. All other parts of the scheme have been
approved, so a decision for Attenborough will potentially make or
break the entire scheme (there is no point in building protection
with a hole in the middle). If approved, work will start next spring.
3. Is there an alternative?
Yes. Residents are campaigning for the protection to be run behind
the sports fields instead. This would avoid visually dividing the
village from its sports fields and would give the fields themselves
protection. They stress that the sports fields are an integral part
of village life, and if flooding becomes more frequent they will be
waterlogged for days or weeks afterwards. The bowls club writes: "A
concern is that once the wall is constructed the Environment Agency
will be prepared to flood the village green more
regularly to protect property further down the Trent Valley. This will
increase the flood damage potential to Attenborough Village Green, on
a
more regular basis, and therefore the Bowls Club will lose more
playing
time than at present; with the potential that this will mean the club
cannot survive into the future." It is almost certainly true that the
EA will be prepared to flood the sports fields to protect homes.
For more details of their campaign, if you have internet access
see
http://www.bowlsnottingham.co.uk/attenborough_flood_alleviation_a.htm.
3. Why hasn't the EA accepted the alternative?
The alternative would run through a Site of Special Scientific
Interest including relatively rare wild flowers. By law, the EA is
forbidden to do this if there is a reasonable alternative. Natural
England, who are responsible for the SSSI, oppose the residents'
preferred route and could take legal action against it, which would
certainly delay the project and might block it altogether. A minor
further argument is that the fields will be useful to soak up flood
water in emergency, though they are a small part of what will be
needed.
Residents argue that the SSSI has not been especially well
protected up to now so this sudden interest in it is unfair, and puts
plants before people. Natural England say that although they can't
simultaneously do as much with every SSSI as they'd like, once such
sites are lost they are lost forever.
For details of the EA reasons not to choose the alternative, if
you have net access see
http://environment-agency.wales.gov.uk/news/1676658
4. What happens if the council rejects the proposal?
Campaigners would like the council committee to indicate that they
would welcome a proposal on the alternative route. The EA might come
back with this, or they might give up the scheme in favour of other
locations like Gloucester which were much more severely affected by
this year's flooding. I can confirm that other MPs are pressing hard
for their areas to be given priority, and certainly if the current
scheme is rejected on planning grounds that will be used as an
argument by other areas to give them priority instead (`look,
Nottingham doesn't even want it').
Campaigners argue, however, that a huge scheme like this will
not be allowed to founder because of this short stretch, and the EA
is likely to give in and propose the alternative. The outcome of any
resulting legal action is in my opinion hard to predict.
I hope this summary is helpful, and would be very grateful for your
feedback.
Best wishes,
Attenborough flood protection proposal: your feedback

Name(s):
Address:
Email address:

1. Your view of the proposals is (please circle the preferred option
and delete the others):

1. It's important to improve flood protection quickly and the
protection of all SSSIs is desirable, so the EA proposal should be
approved as it stands.
2. The council committee should press the EA to agree to come
back with a proposal on the residents' preferred route, even though
it goes through the SSSI. However, if the EA is unwilling to commit
to doing this, the council should approve the proposal.
3. The council committee should reject the proposal, but urge
the EA to come back with a proposal on the residents' preferred
route, accepting the risk that they might not do so or that legal
action could delay the project.
4. Flood protection is an expensive luxury and a poor use of
taxpayers' money: the scheme should be rejected regardless of the
route.
5. Other (please add details)



2. If you have email access, I should like to send you regular
updates on current local and national issues, not normally very
partisan in style and consulting you on your views. Would you like to
receive them?
Yes/No

3. This consultation is being funded by the Parliamentary
Communications Allowance, which gives MPs £10,000/year to send non-
partisan communications to voters. The Allowance is controversial
since it's criticised as raising MPs' profile at public expense, and
we're all feeling our way to find appropriate uses. This consultation
will cost around £500 in printing and postage which I intend to claim
back from the Allowance.
Do you think that this is a reasonable use of taxpayers' money?
Yes/No

4. Do you have any other comments?



Thank you for participating in the survey. Please send it to Nick
Palmer MP, 23 Barratt Lane, Attenborough, Nottingham NG9 6AD, or you
can email it to NickMP1@...