Source · Select Committees · Environmental Audit Committee
Recommendation 11
11
Not Addressed
Absence of comprehensive record of flood resilience assets limits strategic management.
Conclusion
We find that the absence of a comprehensive, up-to-date, and accessible record of flood resilience assets significantly limits England’s ability to manage flood risk strategically. The lack of visibility over third-party, locally delivered, and nature-based assets fragments responsibility, undermines coordination, and hinders long-term investment decisions. Without a full understanding of where assets are, what condition they are in, and who is responsible for them, it is not possible to plan effectively, ensure reliable protection, or respond proactively to future risks. (Conclusion, Paragraph 50)
Government Response Summary
The government details its existing financial oversight and assurance processes for flood and coastal erosion risk management investment programmes, and the high-level oversight provided by the Floods Resilience Taskforce. It does not address the committee's finding about the absence of a comprehensive, up-to-date record of flood resilience assets.
Government Response
Not Addressed
HM Government
Not Addressed
Defra undertakes detailed financial oversight and assurance, including agreeing the business case for the flood and coastal erosion risk management investment programme as a whole, monitoring progress against programme targets and ensuring the programme is evaluated, through the structures and processes used to consider all major investment. These actions take place in line with HM Treasury guidance, which provides a standard framework for the government’s work at programme and project level, including assessments for value for money, affordability and other considerations. The Floods Resilience Taskforce provides oversight of national and local flood resilience, which includes a high-level view of flood investment. The Taskforce has reviewed flood events to identify good practice and areas for improvement at both local and national levels each winter. The Taskforce assessed preparedness for autumn and winter 2025 at its meeting in September and has been a forum to discuss emerging trends, for example in flood insurance. The government will continue to use the Flood Resilience Taskforce to prepare, learn and drive improvement in national flood resilience planning across the floods system. But we do not agree on formalising the role. It would complicate the responsibilities and accountabilities which should be as clear as possible, as set out in a previous recommendation. Making investment fairer and more inclusive Recommendation at paragraph 78: ‘As the Government prepares to implement the new investment framework from April 2026, it must prioritise funding for communities most at risk from flooding. A simpler system must also be a fairer one, capable of supporting those facing the greatest hardships and repeated flood events. The framework should be designed to deliver fairer and more inclusive outcomes, by: • Incorporating social vulnerability factors such as deprivation, health inequalities, insurance exclusion, and rural isolation, particularly where flooding cuts off entire communities, in decision making, • Improving access to funding for small-scale, rural, and community led schemes, • Recognising the long-term and repeated impacts of flooding on people, places, and livelihoods, • Valuing the co-benefits of adaptation, including biodiversity, mental health, and economic stability, and • Moving beyond rigid cost-benefit rules to ensure resilience is built where it is most urgently needed.’