Decision details

The Chair welcomed County Councillor Shaun Turner, Cabinet Member for Environment and Climate Change, Rachel Crompton, Principal Flood Risk Officer, Fiona Duke, Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Manager, Environment Agency, and Adam Walsh and Fiona Stewart – Team Leaders, Environment Agency to the meeting.

The report provided considered the main sources of public funding for flood risk management projects, how the funds were accessed, and how the projects in Lancashire were managed and delivered nationally, regionally and locally. The officers provided a brief verbal update at the meeting and took questions from the committee.

Comments and queries raised from the committee were as follows:

• The county council had three key functions with Flood Risk Management. These were:

• It was clarified that high-benefit schemes were those in urban areas where there was a considerable number of properties and infrastructure whereas low-benefit schemes were those predominantly affecting a small number of properties in for example rural areas. It was noted that for those schemes with a score of 100% or more were deemed viable and fully eligible for grant and aid. The challenge would be if there was available grant and aid from central government to deliver the scheme when the funding pot was accessible to schemes from around the country. Increases in construction costs now meant that less schemes were going ahead.

• The previous six-year program under Defra had allocated £5.2 billion nationally for flood risk management projects. However, with the change of government, this figure was under review, and a one-year program was in place while the new government assessed how to fund schemes. There was an awareness of significant shortfalls in funding based on the old funding formula. A consultation on a new funding formula was expected in May 2025 with an aim to implement the new formula from April 2026. It was also noted that £160 million was scheduled for investment in Lancashire over the next five years, with £65 million allocated to risk management authorities and £95 million to the Environment Agency. It was noted that existing coastal schemes would take up a considerable element of funding allocated as those schemes would help to protect thousands of properties.

• The estimated costs of the schemes outlined in Appendix 'C' of the report varied, depending on the size of the project. An example was given, and it was noted that the Preston and South Ribble scheme was a large project protecting around 5,000 properties, whereas the Padiham flood risk management scheme protected around 150 properties and required additional government funding to bridge a funding gap.

• The committee heard from one member that residents often expressed their frustration with recurring flooding issues in the same areas, and whilst those areas might not be considered a high priority statistically, they posed significant practical issues for residents. It was reported that the Flood Risk Management team investigated every flooding incident, including those homes that have repeatedly flooded and would communicate any identified issues to the relevant authority or service that would be responsible for delivering improvements needed. It was noted that the Flood Risk Management team could not force the pace of improvements to be carried out.

• On riparian ownership and legal action taken, the committee was informed that the county council had adopted a new policy for regulating ordinary watercourses in February 2024. It was reported that since March 2024, there were no examples of the county council taking a landowner to court. However, the Flood Risk Management Team was handling multiple cases were there was ongoing negotiations with landowners to get improvements completed. The challenge for the team was that landowners did not realise they had the legal responsibility for maintaining watercourses. Investment in time and effort to explain landowners' responsibilities was significant.

• Video surveys were used to identify specific issues in watercourses and to help target the right landowner to resolve problems. However, this process could be slowed down when a series of problems and multiple landowners are identified.

• The North West Regional Flood and Coastal Committee (NWRFCC) had set aside £100k local levy for risk management authorities across the five partnerships in the North West to bid into to help carry out work identified as quick wins. The fund had become oversubscribed due to its short and quick process to obtain monies. It was explained the funding could be used for minor drainage works, footpaths, highways and parks as well as ordinary watercourses. In recognition of the funding challenges, the NWRFCC as a one-off had increased the levy to £250k for 2025/26.

• Climate change was having a significant impact on how much and how rapidly water was flowing into the system, and the time of year this was happening. Increased summer rainfall events were leading to faster runoff from fields into rivers, which could cause drains to back up. The committee was informed that the Agency had just released new National Flood Risk Assessment modelling (NaFRA2) which was available to every risk management authority to review. It was suggested that this committee could recommend an action for the county council to review its responsibilities, and the changes highlighted n the new modelling data.

• It was reported that the amount of requests received from the county council for flood risk management funding were smaller in number compared with other local authorities such as Blackburn with Darwen. There was a lot of study work produced by the county council, but not as much in the design phase and delivery stages. It was noted that more investment in flood risk management could be achieved if Lancashire had additional dedicated resources to focus on bidding and delivering projects. It was therefore suggested that the Cabinet Member should consider allocating additional resources to the flood risk management team to focus on bidding for flood risk management projects and delivering the work. It was acknowledged that officers would need to investigate what additional resources they required and to report back accordingly.

• It was also suggested that when considering a potential increase in resources that the county council should take account of the increased risks identified from the newly published climate change modelling information.

• The committee expressed an interest in being involved in the upcoming national consultation on changes to the funding formula and it was suggested that the county council's final draft response to the consultation, be presented to the committee for consideration at a future meeting. Further information on the current funding formula for flood defence projects was also requested.

• One member noted the positive progress made with the Padiham scheme.

The Chair thanked the Cabinet Member and officers for attending and answering the committee's questions.

Resolved: That;

  i.  The Cabinet Member for Environment and Climate Change gives consideration to assessing what resources are required to further access monies available for smaller flood risk management schemes taking account of the Environment Agency's new national flood risk assessment (NaFRA) modelling data.

  ii.  The Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport gives consideration to working with the Environment Agency to identify whether county council contributions can be made for infrastructure change arising from flood defence projects.

  iii.  Information on the Government's current funding formula for flood defence projects be shared with the Environment, Economic Growth and Transport Scrutiny Committee.

  iv.  The county council's final draft response to the consultation on the Government's funding formula for flood defence projects be presented to the Economic Growth and Transport Scrutiny Committee for consideration.