Twenty-eighth Report Adapting Institutions to Climate Change Cm ...

Chapter 4
BOX 4E THE EXMOOR MIRE RESTORATION PROJECT 35
Exmoor was draining heavily following the digging of drainage ditches (known as grips) in
the 20th century. Draining changed the moorland habitat, damaging biodiversity, and allowed
water to flow off the moors faster than before, leading to rapid rises in river levels in times of
heavy rain. The solution was to block these drainage channels, which has reduced the flooding
problems, improved biodiversity management and had the additional benefit for the relevant
water company (South West Water) that Exmoor is now acting as a water store that regulates
flow throughout the year. Another benefit for the water company of reduced flooding is that
there is less need to purify water that is carrying agricultural run-off or sediment. Here, as
elsewhere, it will be important to monitor progress to be sure that such ongoing benefits do
indeed flow from the project.
Enabling mechanisms for adaptation goals
4.75 One of the main constraints on adaptation is the absence of enabling mechanisms. A simple
example given to the Commission involved another tree-planting scheme, this time in Wharfedale,
which could manage flood risk if 5% of the catchment was planted with trees but only if trees were
planted in very specific areas of the catchment. There is at present no mechanism by which such a
scheme could be made to happen other than by obtaining agreement from all relevant landowners.
Nature conservation provides a more subtle example, because mechanisms to designate sites for
species that are likely to arrive as the climate changes (i.e. providing nature reserves for species
that are not there yet, or a ‘space for nature’) do not currently exist. Compulsory purchase powers,
which could theoretically play a role in both these cases, are normally used for the purpose of
building developments rather than for soft engineering or green infrastructure.
4.76
Schedule 1 of the Flood and Water Management Bill will allow for the designation of structures or
other features which may affect flooding or coastal erosion risk and will prohibit their alteration
without the consent of the responsible authority. Similarly, the approach to ‘risk management’ in
this Bill would allow for increased probability of flooding in one place to reduce the probability
of flooding in another (Clause 3(2)).
4.77 The planning system provides, as discussed in Chapter 3 (3.29-3.44), a potentially powerful institutional
structure for adaptation to climate change. But whilst the planning system has the final
say as to whether a proposed development goes ahead, and can even seek to encourage particular
forms of development through development planning, it cannot compel positive action (as in the
example of Wharfedale above). In this sense, the planning system is in the main ‘enabling’ and
‘permissive’, and has limited scope to promote new schemes or to enable adaptation of the existing
built environment. Although development planning, with its emphasis on sustainable development,
is a material consideration in development control decisions, the demand for positive action must
largely come from elsewhere.
4.78
Central Government enjoys considerable power in the planning system (through control of policy
and nationally significant infrastructure, the calling-in of controversial decisions, decisions on
appeal, etc.), but the planning system is characterised by significant discretion, and final decisions
are in many cases taken by locally-elected politicians. Given the local nature of climate change
impacts, and the capacity of the planning system to engage local publics, this is appropriate.
However, all local authorities, regardless of local political imperatives, need to address climate
change. A range of mechanisms (policy, statutory powers and duties, monitoring and reporting)
are in place to try to ensure that this happens. It is possible to move to more robust requirements
84