Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from County Councillors Jenny Purcell and Julie Gibson.

Members are asked to consider any pecuniary and non-pecuniary interests they may have to disclose to the meeting in relation to matters under consideration on the agenda.

None.

It was noted that a response had not yet been received in relation to the Public Realm Agreement Budget allocations for 2024/25 and projected budget allocations for 2025/26, including the updated list of Parish and Town Council allocations and a response would be circulated to the committee once received.

Resolved: That the minutes of the meeting held on 30 January 2025 be confirmed as an accurate record and signed by the Chair.

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'  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The Chair welcomed Katherine Bentley, Resilience Service Delivery Manager to the meeting. 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 remained in the meeting for this item.

The report provided information on the roles and responsibilities of the county council in response to flooding, what Lancashire would expect in terms of weather warning and informing, with a particular focus on heavy rain and flooding, and what response the various authorities provided in a flooding event. 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:

• It was highlighted that there was frustration among members and the public about not knowing who to contact during emergencies and that more clarity was needed. It was reported that members had previously been issued with an emergency contacts card and that officers were in the process of updating the card to include the automated 24/7 Floodline number which was available for public use.

• The Environment Agency's role was to lead on forecasting and warnings about flood risks and they would issue flood alerts and flood warnings and severe flood warnings to inform the public and partners of potential floods. They would also gather data post-flood to inform where flood risk management investment was needed best. It was suggested that one area of improvement with incident response could be to co-ordinate the recovery phase and send out one representative rather than multiple representatives for different purposes.

• It was noted that United Utilities would respond to flooding caused by their assets. The committee was informed that responding to flooding events wasn't the responsibility of just one organisation and depending on whose assets were the cause of the flood would depend on who led with the remedial work.

• On who to contact in an emergency situation, members of the public could ring 999 and the Fire and Rescue Service might be deployed. However, it was highlighted the Fire and Rescue Service had a finite resource and could be working across multiple locations. Incidents were triaged with a view to ensure that the service delivered the 'most for the most'.

• It was emphasised that there wasn't a single public authority that carried the duty and responsibility of saving people's homes from being flooded. Whilst generally one authority was responsible for managing the roads and drainage; one authority was responsible for sewers; and one authority was responsible for defending and rescuing people at risk of significant danger, ultimately not one organisation was responsible for water entering and flooding a property – this was the responsibility of the householder. Considerable effort was carried out by the risk management authorities on encouraging people about what they can do for themselves. The Resilience Forums across the North West had created a flood plan available to all  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

The Chair welcomed Debbie King, Head of Service Environment and Climate, and David Goode, Public Rights of Way Manager to the meeting. County Councillor Shaun Turner, Cabinet Member for Environment and Climate Change also attended for this item.

The report provided an overview of the responsibilities of the council in relation to Public Rights of Way and how those functions were delivered by the service. 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:

• Obstructions counted for a considerable number of investigations carried out by the Public Rights of Way team. Examples included the public assuming they could redirect footpaths from their property without proper process or believing that livestock in a field was grounds for redirecting a footpath. It was highlighted that the team covered maintenance and enforcement and in providing context to this work, the committee was informed that if a landowner did not fix an issue, such as a broken gate, it would become an enforcement matter for the county council.

• It was clarified that the county council had the power to confirm unopposed right of way Orders, but not opposed Orders. Opposed Orders were processed by the Planning Inspectorate.

• The report highlighted numerous unresolved defects or obstructions, some of which had persisted for years. However, it was noted that there had been no specific plans to address those unresolved issues, as they often were resolved naturally (e.g. weather related issues) or were fixed by landowners. Any safety related issues would be prioritised and responded to on the same day where possible.

• Integration between the Public Rights of Way system and the Love Clean Streets app would depend on the review of the highways asset management system (HAMS) to determine whether data would be integrated with the Love Clean Streets app or an alternative system. As the systems were not integrated, it was suggested that the instruction on the county council's website to use the Love Clean Streets app for reporting public rights of way defects be removed. Officers agreed with the suggestion as the app also often led to unresolved issues and confusion due to its street-based maps functionality. Email was often the preferred method for contacting the Public Rights of Way team instead of using the Love Clean Streets app, as administrative staff were available to assist the public in accurately reporting issues, ensuring better service delivery.

• The Local Delivery Scheme grants had been designed to pump prime local projects and encourage local ownership of public rights of way. It was suggested that providing generic suggestions or examples of what could be achieved could help parish and town councils prioritise important local projects and these could be included in future correspondence.

• Whilst one member felt the £500 Local Delivery Scheme grants were not considered sufficient by some parish and town councils, it was noted that the grants were intended for minor works that were important to the local  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

The committee received a report that set out the findings from an initial meeting of the Lancashire Road Safety Partnership Inquiry Panel held on 10 December 2024 and certain suggested recommendations for the Committee to considered.

It was noted that paragraph 2 of the report mentioned a progress report on the recent review and transformation of the Lancashire Road Safety Partnership. The panel aimed to recommend certain actions and determine whether an Inquiry Day was needed to understand the changes and assess how it could add value to the new arrangements. It was requested that the progress report be circulated to the committee members.

It was also noted that the Terms of Reference of the Lancashire Road Safety Delivery Group, as set out in Appendix 'A' of the report, did not specify who attended from partner organisations. It was requested that information on attendees of the delivery group be provided to the committee. Additionally, it was requested that the minutes of the last meeting of the delivery group be shared with the committee.

Resolved: That

  i.  The findings and the options and proposals set out in the report be noted.

  ii.  The Environment, Economic Growth and Transport Scrutiny Committee agreed that an Inquiry Day was no longer required.

  iii.  The following suggested recommendations proposed by the Inquiry Panel be supported:

·  That the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport gives consideration to:

1)  From a Lancashire County Council perspective, reviewing the terms of reference for the Lancashire Road Safety Partnership Challenge Board and the Lancashire Road Safety Delivery Group after the first 12 months of operation to reaffirm the effectiveness of the new arrangements.

2)  Liaising with the Police and Crime Commissioner for Lancashire to:

a)  Consider asking the Police and Crime Panel for Lancashire to carry out a review on improving speed enforcement across Lancashire.

b)  Request that speeding concerns raised by county councillors are actioned as part of the enforcement regime.

The committee considered the work programme for the 2024/25 municipal year, and an update on actions and assurances.

 Resolved: That the:

  i.  Work programme for 2024/25 at Appendix 'A' be noted.

  ii.  Formal written response from County Councillor Shaun Turner, Cabinet Member for Environment and Climate Change to the Committee's recommendations on the Management of Waste Operations through Planning Policy and Enforcement at Appendix 'B' be noted.

  iii.  Formal written responses from County Councillor Rupert Swarbrick, Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport to the Committee's recommendations on Highways Reactive Maintenance Performance and the Love Clean Streets App at Appendices 'C' and 'D' respectively be noted.

  iv.  Actions and assurances at Appendix 'E' be noted.

An item of urgent business may only be considered under this heading where, by reason of special circumstances to be recorded in the minutes, the chair of the meeting is of the opinion that the item should be considered at the meeting as a matter of urgency. Wherever possible, the chief executive should be given advance warning of any member's intention to raise a matter under this heading.

There were no items of Urgent Business.

The next meeting of the Environment, Economic Growth and Transport Scrutiny Committee will be held on Thursday 26 June 2025 at 10:30am in Committee Room B – The Diamond Jubilee Room, County Hall, Preston.

It was noted that the next meeting of the Environment, Economic Growth, and Transport Scrutiny Committee will be held on Thursday 26 June 2025 at 10.30am in Committee Room B – The Diamond Jubilee Room, County Hall, Preston.