Agenda item

The Chair welcomed Jo Turton, Executive Director for the Environment, Mike Kirby, Director Transport and Strategic Highways, Rick Hayton, Assistant Director Strategic Highways and Procurement, and Andy Cameron, Principal Engineer on secondment from the Environment Agency (EA), to the meeting.

It was reported that two pieces of legislation had been introduced which brought new flood risk management responsibilities for local authorities and other organisations, these being; the Flood Risk Regulations 2009, and the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.

The Committee was informed that the Regulations had confirmed the lead local flood authority (LLFA) role for the county council and unitary authorities. The Regulations had also imposed a duty on such authorities to prepare preliminary flood risk assessments (PFRA) in which "significant" flood risk areas should be identified. To assist with the process, the EA had produced a national map identifying areas meeting the criteria set by Defra (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) for "significant" risk. It was reported that there were no significant flood risk areas in Lancashire and as a result the further duty on local flood authorities to prepare flood hazard and risk maps, and flood management plans would not apply. The Committee was informed that this cycle of activity would repeat every six years.

The Committee was informed that the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 had imposed the most significant roles and responsibilities on local authorities and other organisations. These included:

·  A "strategic overview" role for the EA to assist upper tier and unitary authorities in taking on new duties and the creation of the national flood risk strategy;

·  Upper tier and unitary authorities (Lancashire County Council, Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council and Blackpool Council) were now designated as "lead local flood authorities". In addition to the PFRA requirement, there was now a duty on the county council to prepare a local flood risk management strategy; and

·  A number of "Risk Management Authorities" which would include; the EA, LLFA, district councils, highway authorities and water companies (United Utilities - UU) to exercise their flood risk management functions in accordance with the flood risk management strategy yet to be developed for Lancashire.

It was reported that the county council, district and unitary councils in the wider Lancashire sub-region were working in partnership with the EA and UU on developing responses to the new duties as LLFAs. Officers outlined some of the key duties required by LLFAs which included:

·  A duty to; develop, maintain, apply, monitor and consult on a local flood risk management strategy from October 2010.

·  The power to request information from third parties in connection with flood risk management duties. Third parties would a duty to co-operate with the LLFA and the EA.

·  A duty to ensure that flooding incidents are investigated by appropriate organisations and to identify and publish intended actions.

·  A duty to develop and maintain a register of structures or features that could impact on flood risk. It was explained that to develop such a register would be an extensive task as it would need to include details of structures/ features, ownership and condition of those identified across the county. The LLFA would also have the power to designate structures or features which would affect flooding, including those on private land.

·  The Scrutiny Committee of the LLFA to have the power to request reports or attendance at any meeting from any flood risk management organisation to allow scrutiny of the delivery of flood risk management functions.

·  The LLFA from October 2011, to take on the EA's role for consenting works that would likely affect the flow capacity of ordinary watercourses.

·  To act as a Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SuDS) Approval Body to work in tandem with the planning system. From October 2011, the LLFA would have to approve sustainable drainage proposals associated with any construction work for buildings or any structure that would cover land which would affect water absorption.

The Committee was informed of the main issues facing the LLFAs which were; resources, skills and knowledge. It was reported that the EA were running workshops on a range of themes to develop necessary skills and that officers from the county council had fully engaged with these opportunities.

The Committee was also informed that the county council had also taken the opportunity to part fund a secondment from the EA for 12 months to help develop appropriate responses to the new duties. However, it was explained that it would be critical in going forward for all councils in Lancashire to be sufficiently skilled and resourced to exercise their current and new flood risk management duties properly.

However, funding for these additional duties remained an issue for the county council. Whilst monies had been received from Defra, they had recently consulted on a proposed new system for funding capital flood risk management schemes based on a "payment for outcomes" approach. It was envisaged that such an approach would bring further challenges for LLFAs to raise any balance from other sources.

It was reported that a Lancashire Flood Risk Management Officer Group Chaired by the county council had been established in order to ensure effective partnership working. The group attended by officers from the county council, district and unitary councils in Lancashire, UU and the EA had begun to develop strategic approaches to the issues facing LLFAs and other organisations. It was also reported that the group had made good early progress on gathering local flood data and historical flood information. The Committee was informed that the EA and the Chair of the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee were pleased with Lancashire's approach and saw it as an emerging model of good practice for the delivery of these new duties.

Councillors raised a number of questions and comments. A summary of which is provided below:

·  There was interest in where the local flood risk hotspots were, in particular any sites that fell into the threshold set in the national risk register (30 thousand people). The Committee was informed that so far, data had been collated against surface flooding issues and not in relation to flooding from rivers. The EA were currently looking at this matter separately. The information was reviewed using national modelling techniques with an average occupancy of 2.8 people per household. However, the Committee was informed that the largest area at risk from surface flooding was Blackburn with around ten thousand people at risk followed by the areas; Preston, Burnley, Colne, Nelson and Ribble Valley - the largest of which, had approximately eight thousand people at risk. The Committee was informed that these areas would become priority areas for the LLFAs in creating the national flood risk strategy. The county council was also looking to enhance the modelling techniques used to get a better understanding of what was at risk and to alleviate those areas identified.

·  A question was asked in relation to the SuDS Approval Body and to who within the county council would have delegated authority to approve sustainable drainage proposals. The Committee was informed that delegated authority was not in place yet. However, officers assured the Committee that the county council as LLFA would be working closely with the district councils to formalise such a process.

·  Councillors re-iterated the importance of consulting them as a resource for local knowledge. The Committee was informed that the Environment Directorate was also looking to liaise with local groups to assist in identifying structures and features across the county.

·  One councillor commented that he didn't recall any instances were planning permission had been refused on a flood risk basis. Concern was expressed that with the increase in building activity, flooding incidences and the lack of regular gully emptying that authorities would need to ensure a more robust process was in place when refusing planning applications.

·  A councillor asked whether responsibility for sea defences would be transferred from the district councils to the county council. The Committee was informed that the responsibility would not be transferred, however, the county council as LLFA would be accountable under the new legislation. It was also suggested that district councils would gain additional powers from the new legislation.

·  Questions were asked in relation to preventative maintenance, gully cleaning and the clearing of subways and underpasses. The Committee was informed that the county council as LLFA was currently looking at its inventory of gullies, identifying problem locations with the view to changing maintenance regimes. With regard to the clearing of subways and underpasses, the Committee was reassured that these matters had been noted for action accordingly.

·  One councillor asked whether training would be carried out for the staff taking on the new additional responsibilities. The Committee was informed that Defra were running a capacity building initiative and a series of workshops to assist organisations in developing the necessary skills. The Committee was also informed that the county council along with the EA was jointly funding a post on a two year foundation flood risk management degree. The county council in working in partnership with the district councils was making sure it could access a wider skill-set to move forward.

·  A question was asked regarding what power the county council would have in ensuring that developers put in place the necessary flooding retention systems. Another question was also asked in relation to the quality of data and how intelligence was shared between authorities. It was reported that district councils had to abide by national planning policy which included carrying out strategic flood risk assessments to inform decision makers when approving or refusing planning applications. The county council was also working with district councils in creating surface water management plans as a new approach to assessing surface water flooding risks. It was hoped that an outcome of producing these plans would be the creation of local development policy documentation to share intelligence.

·  Concern was expressed regarding flooding in rural areas, issues being reported and a lack of physical action being carried out to resolve them. Assurance was sought by a councillor that concrete action wouldn't be sacrificed at the expense of additional meetings and trails to ascertain who would be responsible for what. The Committee was informed that the new legislation provided the county council with better prospects to deliver outcomes, putting money where it mattered and in taking schemes forward.

The Committee considered how it wished to take forward its additional responsibility on scrutinising the delivery of flood risk management functions. The Committee was advised that whilst it should monitor progress it would need to ensure that physical changes were occurring. The role of the Scrutiny Committee also allowed for it to call upon other organisations to attend meetings to present evidence.

The Chair felt that it would be appropriate for the Committee to receive feedback on what has been achieved in relation to the risk register, funding and the new responsibilities in six months' time.

Resolved: That;

  i.  The report be noted;

  ii.  An update report on Flood Risk Management be presented to the Committee in six months' time.