SUFFOLK FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT JOINT SCRUTINY PANEL ANNUAL REPORT Working in Partnership with

Transcription

1 SUFFOLK FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT JOINT SCRUTINY PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2010 Working in Partnership with

2 Suffolk Flood Risk Management Joint Scrutiny Panel Foreword by Councillor Gary Green, Chairman of the Suffolk Flood Risk Management Joint Scrutiny Panel The joint scrutiny panel has, over the last twelve months, explored how key agencies and organisations with flood risk management responsibility for Suffolk has responded to Sir Michael Pitt s Review and what is in place to meet the responsibilities set out in the Flood and Water Management Act Our approach has been fact finding through a series of investigations, meeting representatives of the main organisations who collectively have responsibility for managing flood risk in Suffolk. I felt it was important, as a joint scrutiny panel investigating how the risk of flooding on a community was being handled, we should make visits where practical. The panel has attended an Emergency Training Session, a local flood of highway affecting properties, and examples of new development using Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems. These, together with the information provided by the organisations attending the Panel meetings, have given the councillors across Suffolk a greater understanding of the issues around flooding. It is clear from the evidence received, that good progress has been made in Suffolk against Sir Michael Pitt s Review Recommendations. This has given Suffolk County Council, as lead authority, and its partner organisations, a good start to address the requirements of the Flood and Water Management Act The panel has found some areas where further work will be required, these include joint working across organisations, community engagement, communication and collection of comprehensive mapped flood data. However, overall, panel members are confident that as government regulation and guidance is published, the Suffolk Flood Risk Management Partnership will be able to meet its statutory responsibility. In reporting the panel first year s investigation to the Scrutiny Management Board, I was pleased to note that the Board welcomed the panel s proposal to work with the Suffolk Flood Risk Management Partnership in the further development of a coordinated approach to flood risk management in Suffolk. I would like to thank officers from the various public sector bodies who have attended meetings, and the staff from the County and Borough Councils for their assistance. Cllr Gary Green, Chairman of the Suffolk Flood Risk Management Joint Scrutiny Panel Dated October

3 Why this scrutiny was necessary 1. The Government wanted us to do this. Sir Michael Pitt was tasked by the government to undertake a comprehensive review of the lessons to be learned from the severe flooding in the summer of In his report, The Pitt Review, he set out obligations for local authorities in relation to flood management. These responsibilities included a need for scrutiny to review work by public sector bodies and essential service providers in order to manage flood risk. 2. The key questions used for this scrutiny in Suffolk are included as Appendix This report sets out what the panel did, what it found out and its recommendations for improvement. Approach to the scrutiny 4. Flooding affects different locations in different ways and can happen anywhere in Suffolk. On 15 October 2008, the County Council s Scrutiny Management Board considered how it might meet scrutiny obligations and resolved to seek the agreement and involvement of the seven of the district and borough councils and the county council to scrutinise this together. 5. The Suffolk Flood Risk Management Joint Scrutiny Panel began work in July Its membership is given at Appendix Meetings were timed to be able to consider progress at key stages of Suffolk s implementation of the recommendations in the Pitt Report. 7. The Panel agreed to approach its task through a series of face to face meetings with public sector bodies and essential service providers. 8. The Panel has also been on fact finding visits to establish the local issues and responses and some of the management arrangements that are being developed. This included: Attending an Emergency Training Seminar on 30 September 2009, Seeing an example of a Sustainable Urban Drainage System at Tayfen Meadows, Bury St Edmunds, Visiting Thurston Road, Beyton during a period of flooding, and attending a meeting of the Suffolk Flood Risk Management Partnership. 9. At its meetings, the panel considered information presented to them by representatives of Suffolk Flood Risk Management Partnership, Environment Agency, Internal Drainage Boards Suffolk (East Anglian Region Water Level Management Alliance) Joint Emergency Planning Unit, Anglian Water. 10. Each organisation was asked to provide evidence to the following; An explanation of the organisation s roles and responsibilities; A response to the parts of the Pitt Review Recommendations that relate to the organisation; A summary of action taken to date following the publishing of the Pitt Review, and 3

4 Evidence of cross-organisation working, and engagement with local councils. 11. A summary of the responses and outcomes of the scrutiny are given below. What the Panel has found out County Council and Suffolk Flood Risk Management Partnership 12. The County Council has a lead role for the management of surface, ground and ordinary water course flooding. The Suffolk Flood Risk Management Partnership was created to make sure this happens. 13. The partnership includes representatives of all local councils, water authorities, the Environment and Highways Agencies, Internal Drainage Boards, the Broads Authority, Government Office (Eastern Region) and the Suffolk Resilience Forum. 14. A number of projects to manage the risk of surface water flooding are being planned or are underway in Ipswich. The Panel also visited a site at Beyton where joint funding is in place to do things to reduce the likelihood of flooding. 15. The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 places responsibility on Suffolk County Council for approving and taking on ownership of Sustainable Urban Drainage System (SUDS) in Suffolk. Officers told the panel that this is a significant piece of work, and that internal discussions around closer working have begun. 16. An example of a monitoring report (September 2009) provided progress information on each of the Pitt Review recommendations. An update report has also been considered by the Panel. 17. A number of the Pitt recommendations relied upon greater public awareness; for example, the problems caused by householders laying impermeable surfaces. It was not clear how the Partnership would make the public more aware. 18. Of the 45 recommendations within the Pitt Review that apply to the partnership, the panel noted that 9 had been completed, 27 were underway and 11 were awaiting government legislation or guidance. 19. The Suffolk Flood Risk Management Partnership is published as a good example, alongside Lincolnshire County Council, on the Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA) for local government website. Environment Agency 20. Roles and Responsibilities include: a) providing technical advice and support and giving guidance at national and local levels. b) managing the funding process for flood management projects by developing its long-term investment strategy. c) developing a national mapping and asset management tool. d) Being the lead authority for the development of Local Surface Water Management Plans, and e) co-ordinating the collection of information on instances of surface 4

5 water flooding. 21. The Environment Agency already completes Flood Zone Maps and is developing the use of LiDAR (Laser Imaging Technique) system to survey inland and coastal defence systems. Its use has been focused on the Suffolk coasts. 22. Advice to householders is given on flood risk, drainage, home improvement grants and planning applications. Advice is also give on new development proposals regarding flood risk and drainage. 23. The Environment Agency has an ambition to collate all historical and recent information on localised flooding. Collectively, this information is expected to provide a more accurate, standardised approach to assessing flood risk. There is currently no mechanism for borough, district, town or parish councils to report any surface water flooding. 24. The Agency s work to collect surface and ground water flooding data is well underway and, with liaison with the County Council to incorporate local data will have indicative flood risk areas mapped by June The Environment Agency intends to consult with and advise local communities, town and parish councils. It will do this to raise awareness of flood risk, how to prevent it and what can be done to take in the event of flooding. Internal Drainage Boards 26. The Water Management Alliance has produced a promotional DVD to explain the role and responsibility of Internal Drainage Boards to communities. The Panel has viewed this DVD. 27. The Internal Drainage Boards have made progress on the development of three year business plans, the formation of an eastern consortium of Internal Drainage Boards within a Water Management Alliance and working with the Audit Commission. 28. This is intended to improve transparency and governance. 29. The three year business plans have been out to consultation with local councils, and the Suffolk Flood Risk Management Partnership. 30. The Boards also provide Geographic Information System (GIS) information as required. Anglian Water 31. OFWAT imposes confidentiality restrictions on Anglian Water. This makes it difficult for local authorities to identify sites for future development, and to have all the information required to determine planning applications, particularly for example regarding sewerage flooding incidents. 32. Anglian Water has improved its procedures for publicity during an emergency by updating its card warning system and offering individual warnings and advice for vulnerable residents. 33. There is a need, as part of the recording of flood risk areas in Suffolk, to develop criteria for the assessment and prioritising of these sites for future remedial works. 5

6 Suffolk Resilience Forum 34. The Suffolk Resilience Forum has responsibility for the development of emergency procedures in Suffolk. This would include actions in the event of significant flooding. 35. A Community Emergency Strategy has been developed in Suffolk which identifies steps to take in an emergency. 36. As part of its work the Suffolk Resilience Forum looks at how other organisations have coped with emergency situations. 37. Iain Bryson, Head of Emergency Planning at Gloucestershire County Council provided information at one of the Suffolk Resilience Forum s training sessions and identified the importance of having an integrated multi-agency approach to community consultation. 38. Following the severe flooding in November 2009 at Cockermouth, Cumbria, the Panel requested an explanation of the current procedures to assess Suffolk bridges against risk due to flooding. 39. Further community engagement is planned, following the launch of the Community Resilience Emergency Plan in April Summary of findings of the Panel 40. The Panel is satisfied that: a) Suffolk County Council is leading on the management of local flood risk in Suffolk, with the support of the relevant organisations, through the Suffolk Flood Risk Management Partnership. b) The Suffolk response to the recommendations in the Pitt Review compares well with other authorities across the UK with good progress made by the Suffolk Flood Risk Management Partnership and the organisations separately referred to in this report. c) All members of the Partnership are addressing a number their responsibilities and there has been some evidence of improved joint working, with the most significant being the creation and progress to date of the Suffolk Flood Risk Management Partnership. d) The evidence provided in relation to bridge management in Suffolk demonstrated that an adequate assessment had been made of the risk and this had identified that it is unlikely that a similar scenario could occur in Suffolk. 41. An opportunity to improve joint working identified by the panel has resulted in encouraging Ipswich Borough, Suffolk Coastal and Mid-Suffolk District councils to take up their places on the East Suffolk Internal Drainage Board in order to represent local interests. 42. The County Council s Scrutiny Management Board has echoed the concerns of the panel that the statutory requirement of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 places additional resource and cost outlays on local government at a time when resources are being reviewed. 6

7 Recommendations Recommendation 1. The Panel recommends that the Suffolk Risk Management Partnership: a) Establish surface and ordinary water course flood risk maps based on the collection of historical and local knowledge, and a drainage asset register. b) Develops criteria for the assessment and prioritising of known localised flood risk areas in Suffolk for future remedial works. Reason: The Beyton and Stanton schemes which the panel has been made aware of are examples where the impact of frequent localised flooding can cause significant disruption for the individuals affected. The Environment Agency has made it clear that funding for these types of measures is unlikely to be adequate. Recommendation 2. The Panel recommends that the Suffolk Risk Management Partnership explores the use of a confidentiality agreement across organisations, for sharing sensitive information across authorities, for example information considered to be sensitive by OFWAT may be able to be considered as a Part II Agenda at Planning Committee meetings. Reason: the issues outlined by Anglian Water around the sharing of sensitive information across authorities, and the regulation currently in place by water regulators OFWAT, is likely to make it difficult for all organisations to fully meet Pitt Review Recommendation 17. Recommendation 3. The Panel recommends that the Suffolk Risk Management Partnership consider a multi-agency approach across the partnership and the Suffolk Resilience Forum membership to develop means of improving public awareness of what is happening in Suffolk in relation to flood risk management, and what actions local people should take to plan for an emergency. Reason: The panel had concerns that not all town and parish councils consider flood risk management to be a serious issue that requires them to make plans. The Pitt Review identified a need for the public to make up a flood kit and for communities to be better prepared and self-reliant. There are opportunities for joint working across local councils to support the development of local flood management plans. Recommendation 4. The Panel recommends that the Environment Agency consider developing a central, or common, Suffolk database to collect and log the historical data and local knowledge of sites of flash flooding held by local councils as well as private organisations. 7

8 Reason: historical data of localised flooding tends is not systematically recorded. Local communities and councils are well placed to identify areas at risk. Recommendation 5. The Panel recommends that the County Council prioritises the development of a county/planning authority mechanism of requesting, checking and approving of sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS). Reason: the introduction of SUDS schemes in new developments that affect the absorption of water through the ground is an important means to reduce the risk of future flooding. It is a significant area of work required by law. Future Scrutiny 43. At its October 2010 meeting the panel received an update from the Suffolk Flood Risk Partnership and Environment Agency. As it was clear that work was underway to complete a preliminary Assessment Report setting out the flood risk areas in Suffolk; the panel agreed that; a) A further meeting of the Panel would take place in June 2011, to receive an update on the conclusions of the preliminary Flood Risk Assessment Report; b) As the Panel was overall satisfied with progress to date, the size and frequency of the Panel meetings would be reduced; c) Representatives of the Panel would attend meetings of the Suffolk Flood Risk Management Partnership so that any significant issues arising, warranting scrutiny could be identified. 44. The Chairman of the panel has expressed a wish to the representatives of councils across Suffolk, that its continuing business is done in an efficient way, making use of technology where this is an effective way of sharing information and keeping members up to date on progress in relation to Flood Risk Management in Suffolk. 45. Existing panel members may propose further areas of investigation in relation to flood risk management in Suffolk by contacting the panel s Chairman. A Councillor Request Form has been agreed as the appropriate way any panel members can raise issues around flood risk management in the future. This is set out in Appendix 3. Further information on this scrutiny 46. A full list of background information is available from the Suffolk County Council by contacting Scrutiny Officer on or ing sandra.gage@suffolk.gov.uk 47. Previous information produced by the Joint Scrutiny Panel and published by the County Council is available at Suffolk County Council Scrutiny Management Board meeting 21 April 2010 minutes are available at: 8

9 Glossary Defra DVD EA IDB s IDeA JSP LiDAR OFWAT SFRMP SUDS Department for Rural Affairs Digital Video Disk Environment Agency Internal Drainage Boards Improvement and Development Agency for local government Joint Scrutiny Panel Laser Detection and Ranging. An imaging technique used to establish land contours for mapping. Water Services Regulation Authority. Economic regulator of the water industries in England and Wales Suffolk Flood Risk Management Partnership Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems. Drainage systems introduced as part of developments that mimic natural drainage of land 9

10 Appendix 1 Focus of Scrutiny At its first meeting, the panel identified a number of key questions which it needed to address: 1. What are the recommendations of the Pitt Review? i. For scrutiny, and ii. Generally 2. What progress has been made in implementing these recommendations in Suffolk? i. Emergency procedures in the event of flooding, ii. Managing the risk of future flooding 3. What is the role of the Suffolk Resilience Forum in relation to flooding? 4. What plans are there for recovery/regeneration after a flood? 5. What is being done to manage flood risks now? 6. What is the role of the Suffolk Flood Risk Management Partnership? 7. How will flood risk management be managed in the future? 8. What are the roles of all authorities and organisations as a result of the Pitt Review in managing flood risk, including Town and Parish Councils? 9. Where do the various responsibilities lie in Suffolk, to manage the risk of flooding and; i. How are these responsibilities defined? ii. How will these responsibilities be co-ordinated in the future? 10. Is there clear accountability for implementation? 11. How will actions and outcomes of both the Suffolk Resilience Forum and the Suffolk Flood Risk Management partnership be monitored and managed against the Pitt review recommendations at both County and District level? 12. How is information being shared and communicated? 13. What can we learn from good practice in other geographical areas? 14. What are the timescales to implement the Pitt review recommendations? 15. How will the statutory requirements, as a result of the Pitt review, impact on the approach taken by Suffolk joint initiatives? 10

11 Appendix 2 Panel Membership The Scrutiny Management Board invited membership from the seven Borough/districts councils as well as the County Council. Up to two Councillor members were invited from each. The membership is as follows; Gary Green Suffolk County Council (Chairman) Sandy Martin Suffolk County Council Penny Clarke - Babergh District Council Len Young Babergh District Council Tony Simmons Forest Heath District Council Andy Drummond Forest Heath District Council Phil Smart Ipswich Borough Council Russell Harsant Ipswich Borough Council Derek Osborne Mid Suffolk District Council Rodney Scott Mid Suffolk District Council David Lockwood St Edmundsbury Borough Council (Vice-Chair) Gavin Price St Edmundsbury Borough Council Christine Block Suffolk Coastal District Council Marianne Fellows Suffolk Costal District Council John Goldsmith Waveney District Council 11

12 Appendix 3 Suffolk Flood Risk Management Joint Scrutiny Panel - Councillor Request for Scrutiny This form should be used by a Member of the Suffolk Flood Risk Management Joint Scrutiny Panel to request a meeting of the Panel, clearly setting out the reasons why. The Joint Scrutiny Panel Chairman will consider all requests received and will advise of his decision. To submit a request please complete all sections. Contact details Councillors Name (print): The name of the Council you represent Councillor s Contact number: Councillor s address: Information about the issue you want to raise and action already taken What are you concerned about? Please give your reasons for asking for this issue to be considered by the Suffolk Flood Risk Management Joint Scrutiny Panel Chairman. What enquiries have you made already? Who have you been in contact with? (Please include names and contact details) 12

13 What have you found out? What do you think the Joint Scrutiny Panel should do? What specific research or investigation would you like considered by the Scrutiny Panel Chairman? What other organisations and representatives should be involved? Are there any deadlines associated with this issue which the Joint Scrutiny Panel Chairman needs to be aware of? Yes No If yes, please give details. Would you like the opportunity to speak to the Scrutiny Panel Chairman? Yes No Would you like to be kept updated by: Letter Phone Date form completed: Please complete and return this form to: Suffolk County Council Endeavour House Russell Road Ipswich IP1 2BX For information about the work of the Suffolk Flood Risk Management Partnership, please contact; Matt Hullis, Specialist Leader Environment Strategy, Economy, Skills and Environment Directorate Tel Jane Burch, Flood and Coastal Policy Manager, Economy, Skills and Environment Directorate Tel