Finally, the Environment Agency have responded with data for our FoI request. They have only highlighted 9 flood defence projects (with “authorised cost changes” only, despite our request for ALL cost over-runs, regardless of authroisation) over the period requested with a total overspend of ~£10million (with a number of excuses for why), but we are a little stumped here. We know that the Morpeth flood defence that was forecast to go £6m over budget, is set to cost ~£25million and should have been in the pipeline before this financial year well before the first shovel hit the ground, so should have been considered in this request, but doesn’t seem to appear on the list, unless we have missed something.
Also, as any construction professional knows (and from what our ex-Flood Defence insider says), the vast majority of large scale projects like these typically go over budget, so to see just 9 projects highlighted over the period, it is highly suspect that this data is the whole picture.
Of course, these figures only covers projects that have cost over-runs (thanks EA for slipping in the Rawcliffe Bridge project that came under budget by ~£100,000 – why they included it we do not know, considering what we asked for, which again, leaves us suspect of the data provided).
Anyway, to say that this FoI was repeatedly delayed over the past few months for a mere 9 projects says a lot about the Environment Agency’s internal reporting and monitoring processes. We will be escalating this to our MPs, because the Environment Agency’s data raises more questions than it answers.
We’re particularly keen on hearing from Flood Defence experts still in the game – either internally or as a subcontractor – who can verify these details, as the one insider with this knowledge has been out for a few years. He thinks that this data is the tip of the iceberg and that the Environment Agency have released a tiny proportion of the projects that have run/are over budget to appease us.