Is Ipswich ready for the next great flood? The worrying lessons of Storm Babet

The day Suffolk met Babet

There is something rather comforting about Suffolk's weather. We expect a little rain, an occasional stiff breeze and perhaps a flooded lane somewhere near Debenham. Nothing too theatrical. Certainly nothing requiring a lifeboat outside the village shop.

Then, on Friday, 20 October 2023, Storm Babet arrived and demonstrated that Suffolk's drainage arrangements were rather less impressive than we had imagined.

Up to four inches (100mm) of rain fell across parts of the county. Rivers escaped their banks, roads disappeared, and water poured through front doors. More than 900 properties were initially reported as internally flooded.

For many households, the experience was devastating. Furniture ruined, possessions destroyed and homes rendered temporarily uninhabitable.

And what followed was a remarkable demonstration of local government's ability to investigate something thoroughly after it has happened.

The uncomfortable question is whether those investigations will prevent it from happening again.

£1m to discover what went wrong

Suffolk County Council deserves credit for its response in several respects.

It committed an additional £1m to flood investigations, reported cleaning more than 111,000 highway gullies following Babet and identified substantial investment in drainage repairs.

The scale of the problem was extraordinary. In an ordinary year, the council undertakes perhaps three or four formal flood investigations. Babet generated more than 100 potential investigations, including cases of repeated flooding.

These are known as Section 19 reports, produced under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.

They are detailed documents that examine where water came from, why it accumulated, and what might prevent its return.

But buried in the council's own explanation is a key qualification.

The council can recommend improvements, but those recommendations do not automatically oblige the organisations responsible to undertake them.

A report might identify inadequate drainage, an obstructed watercourse or the need for substantial engineering works. Whether those improvements happen is another matter.

And here lies the difficulty.

There is an enormous difference between understanding why somebody's house flooded and ensuring it does not flood again.

Ipswich has already had another warning

Ipswich need not look as far back as 2023.

On Tuesday, 2 June 2026, intense rainfall brought flooding to Spring Road, Fore Street, Holywells Road, Nacton Road and several other locations.

Vehicles became stranded, buses were diverted, and parts of the town's transport network struggled.

Ipswich MP Jack Abbott subsequently demanded inspections of drainage infrastructure, challenging the description of the flooding as merely localised.

Meanwhile, the council's published flood investigations include reports covering Ashcroft Road and Spring Road.

It is worth asking how many recommendations have led to completed physical improvements, rather than further assessments, monitoring, or discussions between authorities, because the responsibility is divided rather awkwardly.

Suffolk County Council manages highway drainage. Anglian Water looks after public sewers. The Environment Agency oversees main rivers and tidal defences. Ipswich Borough Council has its own planning and emergency responsibilities.

Water, unfortunately, pays no attention whatsoever to organisational boundaries.

The remarkable suggestion of air raid sirens

At Suffolk County Council's scrutiny meeting last week, Councillor June Mummery, cabinet member for coastal affairs, communities and public health, suggested that villages could use air raid sirens as part of their flood warning arrangements.

There is something wonderfully nostalgic about the idea.

One can almost imagine the village policeman arriving on a bicycle, followed by a gentleman in a tin helmet announcing that the river has become troublesome.

But behind the imagery lies a serious question.

If communities are being encouraged to consider sirens, what does that tell us about the effectiveness of existing warning arrangements?

Sirens might alert people nearby, but who activates them? Who maintains them? What do different signals mean? And how does a deaf resident, somebody living alone or a household beyond earshot, receive the warning?

There is nothing inherently wrong with a properly organised local alarm system. But it cannot substitute for coordinated emergency planning, reliable forecasts, clear responsibilities and adequate infrastructure.

The £70m barrier that cannot stop every flood

Ipswich has one enormously important advantage: its tidal barrier.

Opened in 2019, the £70m scheme was designed to protect approximately 1,600 homes and more than 400 businesses against tidal flooding.

It represents a substantial improvement to the town's defences.

But the barrier principally addresses the threat arriving from the sea.

It cannot magically absorb torrential rainfall falling across Ipswich, unblock a highway drain or prevent the River Gipping's tributaries from overflowing.

Indeed, the borough's own flood risk assessment acknowledges continuing risks from rivers and surface water.

There is also the awkward issue of rising sea levels.

A major defence is essential, but it should never encourage the mistaken belief that a town is therefore flood-proof.

An extraordinary winter may be approaching

Meanwhile, something unusual is happening thousands of miles away.

The tropical Pacific is experiencing an exceptionally strong El Niño, involving unusually warm sea-surface temperatures which influence atmospheric circulation around the world.

The Met Office has warned that such conditions can increase the likelihood of wetter, windier and stormier weather across Britain in late autumn and early winter.

And there is another intriguing development.

The polar vortex, the immense circulation of winds high above the Arctic, has become unusually disturbed.

In early November, meteorologists identified the possibility of an exceptionally early sudden stratospheric warming event, which can sometimes disrupt atmospheric patterns and increase the likelihood of colder British weather weeks later.

That does not mean Suffolk is guaranteed floods, blizzards or an Arctic winter.

But it does mean the approaching season warrants attention.

Add a warming climate, an atmosphere capable of holding more moisture, the continuing threat of intense rainfall, and the argument for better preparedness becomes increasingly difficult to dismiss.

What the council still needs to tell us

Suffolk County Council has investigated, invested and produced considerable documentation. That should be acknowledged.

What remains less clear from the public information is precisely how much safer individual communities have become.

How many Storm Babet recommendations have actually been implemented? How many remain unfunded? Which vulnerable drainage systems have been improved? And is there sufficient emergency capacity to respond if several Suffolk communities flood simultaneously?

These are not unreasonable questions.

Nor should residents be expected to navigate an administrative maze while water rises around their front doors.

The bottom line

Babet demonstrated that extreme flooding is not confined to distant coastal communities or picturesque riverside properties.

It can happen in an ordinary Suffolk street.

The next serious storm may arrive this winter, or several years from now. Nobody can say. But when it does, residents will be interested in something considerably more practical than another beautifully produced investigation.

They will want to know whether the drains work, whether the warnings arrive, and whether someone has actually done something about the problems identified three years ago.

Because the worst possible conclusion after the next flood would be that we already knew exactly what needed fixing.

Don't forget: If you enjoy our content, please add Ipswich.co.uk as a "preferred source" on Google so you can easily find more of the content you value.

This article cost us ~£60 to produce

It's free for you to read thanks to the generous support of our partners. Please support us by supporting them.