The Summer 2007 Flood Restoration Fund:

Transcription

1 The Summer 2007 Flood Restoration Fund: The Approach and Methodology Applied in Determining Allocations community, opportunity, prosperity

2

3 The Summer 2007 Flood Restoration Fund: The Approach and Methodology Applied in Determining Allocations August 2008 Department for Communities and Local Government

4 Communities and Local Government Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Telephone: Website: Crown Copyright, 2008 Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. This publication, excluding logos, may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium for research, private study or for internal circulation within an organisation. This is subject to it being reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the publication specified. Any other use of the contents of this publication would require a copyright licence. Please apply for a Click-Use Licence for core material at or by writing to the Office of Public Sector Information, Information Policy Team, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU licensing@opsi.gov.uk If you require this publication in an alternative format please alternativeformats@communities.gsi.gov.uk Communities and Local Government Publications PO Box 236 Wetherby West Yorkshire LS23 7NB Tel: Fax: Textphone: communities@capita.co.uk Online via the Communities and Local Government website: August 2008 Product Code: 08 FRD ISBN:

5 Contents 3 Contents Section 1: Introduction and Context 5 Section 2: Establishing the Restoration Fund Scheme 6 Section 3: Allocating the Restoration Fund 10 Annex A: Restoration Fund Allocations 12 Annex B: Data collection form 16 Restoration Fund Q&A 24

6

7 Section 1 Introduction and Context 5 Section 1 Introduction and Context 1.1 The Summer 2007 Flood Restoration Fund was a scheme established by Communities and Local Government under section 31 of the Local Government Act 2003 to support the work of local authorities, including fire and police authorities, in helping recovery from the widespread and exceptional flooding of summer The establishment of the summer 2007 Flood Restoration Fund scheme was first announced by John Healey, the Minister for Flood Recovery, on 6 May in a written ministerial statement, Flood recovery update. This scheme is referred to throughout this document as the Restoration Fund. 30.6m was made available through the scheme and the funding was provided as an un-ringfenced revenue grant announced on 17 July 2008 and paid to local authorities one week later. A table setting out the full list of payments is at Annex A. 1.3 This document has been prepared to enable local authorities and other interested parties to understand the approach taken to calculating the grant allocations. 1.4 The methodology explained here differs from methodologies used to distribute earlier flood recovery funding and should not be treated as giving any indication of how Government may approach any future national flooding or other emergency events. Future decisions about whether to make Government support available and, if so, by what mechanism or method that support is allocated, will be taken in the light of all the relevant circumstances applying at the time.

8 6 The Summer 2007 Flood Restoration Fund: The Approach and Methodology Applied in Determining Allocations Section 2 Establishing the Restoration Fund Scheme Our approach 2.1 The purpose of the Restoration Fund was to distribute the additional funding made available to the UK following the successful award of monies from the European Union Solidarity Fund. Local authorities (including police and fire authorities) were at the forefront of both the response and the recovery effort from last summer s floods and they have incurred costs relating to responding to and recovering from the summer 2007 floods. To be eligible for any grant from the Fund relevant authorities would be required to demonstrate that they had suffered financial costs as a direct result of the floods. Consultation 2.2 At the same time as announcing the Restoration Fund, the government launched a consultation exercise aimed at all English local authorities, police and fire authorities potentially eligible to apply to the fund, their representative bodies and other interested parties. 2.3 The consultation exercise closed on 29 May 2008 having received over 100 responses, for which we were grateful. The comments received were then used to formulate how information was gathered. 2.4 The consultation paper sought views on: Our preferred method of allocation: To use financial data collected from all relevant authorities, ie all those who said they wanted to apply to the fund and who had incurred expenditure as a direct result of the floods and in the categories defined in a pro-forma. The data were to be collected using a pro-forma (which was also consulted on) and returned to the Government Offices by 27 June.

9 Section 2 Establishing the Restoration Fund Scheme 7 Once the data collection exercise had been concluded, we proposed to calculate an amount ( the relevant amount ) for each relevant authority. This would be done by subtracting from the financial data (as defined below), which had been supplied by the authority in the pro-forma, the amount of specific funding that the authority had already received from central government in relation to the floods, that is: Bellwin Funds Emergency Capital Highway Maintenance Flood Repair Scheme from Department for Transport Flood Recovery Grant from Department for Children, Schools and Families Flood Recovery Grant from Communities and Local Government 2.5 These relevant amounts were then to be used as the basis for distributing the Fund on a proportionate basis. So, for example, if the relevant amount for authority A was (say) 10 million and the relevant amount for authority B was (say) 5 million, subject to any other applicable principles of the Fund, authority A would receive double the funding of authority B. 2.6 Those authorities who had so far received none, or only a limited amount, of the specific funding made available by central government were likely to be eligible for a proportionally larger share of the Fund. 2.7 The majority of those who responded to the questions in this section of the consultation document agreed that this would be a fair way of making the allocation. 2.8 The consultation paper advised that a view would be taken on whether or not to take into account the proportion of an authority s relevant amount compared to its budget when deciding how the Fund should be distributed. In this scenario authorities relevant amounts would be expressed as a proportion of their overall budgets and allocations would then be based on these amounts. The paper also advised that once the data had been collected ministers may wish to focus funding on those authorities which had suffered the largest financial impact and that authorities may want to take this into account before they decided to become part of the data collection exercise.

10 8 The Summer 2007 Flood Restoration Fund: The Approach and Methodology Applied in Determining Allocations Defining the scope of the financial data to be collected 2.9 There were two alternative ways of defining the scope of the financial data we needed to collect from relevant authorities. A. We could have used the costs incurred by relevant authorities as a direct result of the floods as in the above allocation method; that is, the total level of damage incurred for which the authority was directly responsible, whether or not an authority had been able to begin remedial work. For this version of the method the costs incurred would be from the date of the summer 2007 floods to the opening of the data collection period. However, we had concerns that these data may not be readily available to authorities in the time frame available, and that the data may have been difficult to collect in a consistent way between relevant authorities and that there may have been a disproportionate burden on relevant authorities in collecting the data in a way that was accurate and auditable. B. The second option, which following the consultation was the one we chose, was to base any allocation on the total spend of relevant authorities; that is, on the total amount of expenditure incurred by an authority as a direct result of the floods. For this version of the method spend would be defined as money actually paid to an external supplier evidenced by a receipted invoice or, for payments to staff, payroll information and accounting records of travel and subsistence. The data period would be from the date of the summer floods to the end of the 2007/08 financial year. We thought it likely that this would be a simpler and less burdensome option for relevant authorities, since we believed it likely that these data would be more readily available to them. In addition, we thought this option would be likely to produce more consistent data and felt that it also recognised the need to ensure that the data collection exercise was not disproportionate to the level of potential gain. However we did recognise that this method may risk disadvantaging those authorities that had not been able to spend due to lack of resources Sixty per cent of those who expressed a preference opted for Option B above and following some of the feedback received in the consultation exercise, the following definition was used: The total spend of relevant authorities; that is, the total amount of expenditure incurred by an authority as a direct result of the floods. data relating to expenditure incurred in 2007/08 in the defined categories [of the pro-forma], where such expenditure is complete, or has been contractually committed, by the end of June 2008.

11 Section 2 Establishing the Restoration Fund Scheme Financial information on insurance was not collected; this meant that local authorities were not required to submit information relating to how much income they may have received as the result of insuring, or, how much they had paid out on insurance policies. This was for two reasons. One, local authorities have a complex set of arrangements in place regarding how they manage expenditure in relation to unforeseen events; isolating expenditure relating to external insurance companies, as opposed to self insurance or reserves did not appear to offer a level playing field for making applications to the Restoration Fund. Two, taking account of insurance in this way would have overly advantaged those who had not insured, and undermined the value of making appropriate arrangements on insuring assets. The data collection form 2.12 So that consistency of financial data collection could be assured across relevant authorities, the data were to be collected by way of a pro-forma, on which views were sought. We asked, did the document: Cover all categories of spend/costs arising from the floods? If not what had been missed? Include things which are not spend/costs arising from the floods? Contain clear definitions so that it was clear what information should be included in each category? 2.13 Following the consultation the pro-forma was simplified in some categories, and fuller descriptions provided in others. The final version of the pro-forma (and explanatory covering letter) which was used is attached at Annex B. Collecting the data 2.14 Following consideration of the consultation responses, a pro-forma and a covering letter was sent by the Government Offices to all local authorities who said they wanted to apply for a share of the Restoration Fund Eighty-two local authorities submitted applications for the Restoration Fund to their Regional Government office by the closing deadline of 27 June. The Government Offices returned 81 applications to the Department for Communities and Local Government on 7 July after having checked the applications for eligibility. One local authority had its application disallowed as its expenditure did not meet the criteria laid out in the letter and pro-forma.

12 10 The Summer 2007 Flood Restoration Fund: The Approach and Methodology Applied in Determining Allocations Section 3 Allocating the Restoration Fund 3.1 Following the data returns the total flooding expenditure as defined above (and as provided in the pro-forma at Annex B) was used as the basis on which to subtract the funding already received from the Government. In addition to payments already made by government, the sums to be paid by the Department for Transport to authorities in July were also subtracted. The remaining sum, the relevant amount, was then used as the basis on which to distribute the Fund. To address an anomaly from a previous flood recovery funding round, the total flood recovery pot of 30.6m was reduced by 21,000, and that sum was awarded to one authority at the same time as the Restoration Fund. Allocations formula Distributions 3.2 In coming to a decision on the best way to distribute the Fund, the two options outlined in the original consultation were considered: a straight forward pro-rata distribution based on an authority s relevant amount; or a distribution based on spend as a proportion of the overall local authority budget. In considering further these two options it became apparent that the distribution method based on spend as a proportion of overall budget did not provide a logical basis for distribution. In some cases, for example, this method would have resulted in an award of grant in some areas which was greater than the costs that had been incurred by local authorities in those areas. Additionally, there were difficulties in establishing an overall budget figure, which would have required adding together revenue expenditure and capital expenditure. Some capital expenditure is financed from revenue expenditure, which would have resulted in double counting. It would not have been possible to eliminate this in a consistent way because provisional outturn information for had been published for capital expenditure but not for revenue expenditure, so the two datasets used to establish an overall budget figure would have been inconsistent. A simple pro-rata distribution was therefore chosen.

13 Section 3 Allocating the Restoration Fund 11 Focusing the funding 3.3 In determining the amount to be paid to each local authority the decision was taken to focus on those authorities which had suffered a significant financial impact and whose relevant costs were relatively greater. A threshold was set accordingly. As the distribution of the fund was determined by the relevant amount, it logically followed that any threshold which was set should apply in relation to an authority s relevant amount. Those local authorities whose relevant amount was less than the threshold would therefore receive no payment. 50,000 was selected as the most appropriate cut off point; Annex A shows that the nearest authority below this point had a relevant expenditure of just over 42,000, so there was a clear gap between this and the threshold. The level chosen below which no local authority would receive a payment meant that the minimum payment to a local authority was 12,657. It was deemed reasonable to expect a local authority to absorb a relevant amount of less than 50,000 from within its budgets. Allocations 3.4 After setting the threshold the Restoration Fund was distributed among all those authorities whose relevant amounts exceeded that threshold. Distribution was on a pro-rata basis. Applying the threshold meant that 62 local authorities received funding, 19 did not. All 81 local authorities were advised of the outcome of their application to the Fund on 17 July Payments were made to all of the 62 local authorities within two weeks of the announcement. Annex A contains a table which sets out the full list of local authorities who made eligible applications to the fund, their total flooding expenditure as defined in the pro-forma, the amount of government funding received to date (including the July 2008 Department for Transport allocations), the relevant amount on which calculations were based, and the amount of grant awarded to each authority.

14 12 The Summer 2007 Flood Restoration Fund: The Approach and Methodology Applied in Determining Allocations Annex A Restoration Fund Allocations Local Authority Kingston Upon Hull City Council East Riding of Yorkshire Council Sheffield City Council Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council Government Office Spend (data end June/ early July) Total central govt payments Final relevant amount Pro rata distribution the Humber 41,511,294 8,074,241 33,437,053 7,557,419 the Humber 28,959,097 11,224,076 17,735,021 4,008,457 the Humber 22,472,068 10,720,731 11,751,337 2,656,029 the Humber 13,876,329 5,617,814 8,258,515 1,866,584 Cheltenham Borough Council South West 8,545, ,861 7,850,239 1,774,306 Gloucestershire County Council South West 27,061,483 20,363,544 6,697,939 1,513,863 Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council North Lincolnshire Council the Humber 8,379,498 2,365,591 6,013,907 1,359,259 the Humber 7,620,403 2,955,108 4,665,295 1,054,447 the Humber 5,285,079 1,747,082 3,537, ,656 Nottinghamshire County Council East Midlands 4,068, ,508 3,210, ,524 Oxfordshire County Council South East 3,197, ,422 3,016, ,820 Worcestershire County Council West Midlands 5,934,639 3,005,670 2,928, ,004 Shropshire County Council West Midlands 4,907,753 2,094,993 2,812, ,738 West Berkshire Council South East 4,555,484 2,379,325 2,176, ,854 Herefordshire County Council West Midlands 4,169,005 2,269,114 1,899, ,412 Cotswold District Council South West 2,212, ,932 1,461, ,316 Wokingham District Council South East 1,562, ,942 1,372, ,244 Lincolnshire County Council East Midlands 1,274, ,930 1,063, ,376 North Yorkshire County Council the Humber 1,072,166 50,000 1,022, ,029

15 Annex A Restoration Fund Allocations 13 Local Authority Government Office Spend (data end June/ early July) Total central govt payments Final relevant amount Pro rata distribution Warwickshire County Council West Midlands 1,492, , , ,233 Scarborough Borough Council the Humber 1,123, , , ,652 Tewkesbury Borough Council South West 1,912,397 1,045, , ,919 Malvern Hills District Council West Midlands 1,240, , , ,678 Gloucester City Council South West 1,730, , , ,016 Leeds City Council the Humber 1,013, , , ,291 Hampshire County Council South East 738, , ,996 North East Lincolnshire Council South Yorkshire Police Authority the Humber 920, , , ,571 the Humber 699,083 77, , ,489 Cherwell District Council South East 602,876 23, , ,063 Wychavon District Council West Midlands 1,401, , , ,284 Oxford City Council South East 581, , ,706 99,608 Derbyshire County Council East Midlands 527, , ,087 92,235 Chesterfield Borough Council East Midlands 622, , ,731 82,210 London Borough of Croydon London 476, , ,803 80,192 West Mercia Police Authority West Midlands 335, ,997 75,942 Swindon Borough Council South West 579, , ,834 61,440 West Oxfordshire District Council South East 999, , ,067 61,266 Gloucestershire Police Authority South West 1,223, , ,292 60,639 Reading Borough Council South East 363, , ,667 57,334 Worcester City Council West Midlands 302,944 76, ,763 51,253 Telford and Wrekin Borough Council West Midlands 283,678 73, ,678 47,617 Lichfield District Council West Midlands 319, , ,873 43,141 Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames London 335, , ,294 41,654

16 14 The Summer 2007 Flood Restoration Fund: The Approach and Methodology Applied in Determining Allocations Local Authority Government Office Spend (data end June/ early July) Total central govt payments Final relevant amount Pro rata distribution Darlington Borough Council North East 207,101 23, ,101 41,610 Bassetlaw District Council East Midlands 560, , ,913 40,438 Humberside Police Authority the Humber 168, ,000 37,971 Stratford-on-Avon District Council West Midlands 838, , ,848 37,259 South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority the Humber 575, , ,129 35,288 Vale of White Horse District Council South East 425, , ,287 34,194 Kirklees Council the Humber 326, , ,750 33,168 London Borough of Harrow London 173,148 50, ,148 27,834 West Lindsey District Council East Midlands 264, , ,177 25,806 City of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council the Humber 916, , ,146 25,573 East Lindsey District Council East Midlands 603, , ,196 23,550 Thames Valley Police Authority South East 102, ,485 23,164 Newark and Sherwood District Council East Midlands 325, ,712 91,402 20,659 Humberside Combined Fire Authority the Humber 256, ,935 88,443 19,990 Milton Keynes Council South East 72,505 72,505 16,388 Ryedale District Council the Humber 68,323 68,323 15,442 Hereford and Worcester CFA West Midlands 194, ,627 60,286 13,626 Forest of Dean District Council South West 81,949 23,000 58,949 13,324 East Sussex County Council South East 106,958 50,958 56,000 12,657 Ashfield District Council East Midlands 65,244 23,000 42,244 North East Derbyshire District Council East Midlands 70,893 28,770 42,123 Nottinghamshire Fire Authority East Midlands 42,027 42,027

17 Annex A Restoration Fund Allocations 15 Local Authority Government Office Spend (data end June/ early July) Total central govt payments Final relevant amount Pro rata distribution Staffordshire County Council West Midlands 111,134 70,907 40,227 Lincolnshire Police Authority East Midlands 39,879 39,879 South Shropshire District Council West Midlands 127,732 95,286 32,446 Wiltshire & Swindon Fire Authority South West 31,014 31,014 North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority the Humber 27,423 27,423 Buckinghamshire & Milton Keynes Fire Authority South East 20,428 20,428 South Oxfordshire District Council South East 19,035 19,035 Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council West Midlands 15,756 15,756 South Northamptonshire Council East Midlands 37,832 23,000 14,832 Shropshire & Wrekin Fire & Rescue Authority West Midlands 13,377 13,377 High Peak Borough Council East Midlands 12,412 12,412 Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council West Midlands 137, ,735 6,269 Cleveland Fire Authority North East 6,000 6,000 Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Council North East 4,262 4,262 Amber Valley Borough Council East Midlands 3,867 3,867 Nuneaton and Bedworth Borough Council West Midlands 1,567-1,567 -

18 16 The Summer 2007 Flood Restoration Fund: The Approach and Methodology Applied in Determining Allocations Annex B Data collection form Costs incurred (see sheet 2 for definitions) General expenditure Section 138 grants/loans (a) Setting up temporary premises, including associated costs(b) Additional vehicles, plant, machinery (c) Removal of all trees and timber (d) Repair or removal and/or replacement of street furniture (e) Land drainage work (f) Expenses on specific flood defence/ coastal protection works ABOVE budget allocated amounts and not refunded by DEFRA, where such works were to recover from the June/ July floods (ie not preventative works) Safeguard dangerous structures (g) Evacuation from dangerous structures (h) Emergency supplies/provisions (i) Maintaining key communications (j) Military Assistance to the Civil Community Scheme (k) Additional temporary employees or contractors, overtime, non staff costs associated with overtime (l) Expenditure Relating to June/July 2007 Floods Optional: Notes (please use this section if you would like to provide any narrative on your costs)

19 Annex B Data collection form 17 Costs incurred (see sheet 2 for definitions) Internal trading organisations expenditure (m) Flood water pumping Reinstatement of publicly owned sports facilities (eg public sports pitches or leisure centres), open land (eg parks and spaces in public ownership) to a condition allowing their use by the general public Lost council tax income for uninhabitable properties, or for rebates offered in respect of flooded properties (include loss of income for reduced council tax rates and Non Domestic Business Rates) Lost income other than council tax (eg parking or leisure centre fees due to closed facilities) Payments made under Mutual Aid Sub-total General expenditure 0 Expenditure Relating to June/July 2007 Floods Optional: Notes (please use this section if you would like to provide any narrative on your costs) Highways Measures Work to clear debris, eg removal of debris causing obstruction or damage to highways, pavements and footpaths, excluding removal of trees or timber Repairs to highways, pavements and footpaths (n) Reinstatement of public rights of way: repair to paths, fences, gates, stiles, bridges or lighting on public rights of ways to allow rights of way to be used by the general public Sub-total Highways measures 0

20 18 The Summer 2007 Flood Restoration Fund: The Approach and Methodology Applied in Determining Allocations Costs incurred (see sheet 2 for definitions) Expenditure Relating to June/July 2007 Floods Optional: Notes (please use this section if you would like to provide any narrative on your costs) Recovery Measures Grant payments made directly from local authority to flood affected individuals (including hardship grants or grants to make resilient repairs. This can include money paid out to individuals from flood recovery grant but not council tax relief which is covered above) Set up and running of advice centres including Information management providing assurance and advice following the floods (eg producing leaflets, holding flooding events or procuring advertising in local media) Grant payments made directly from local authority to community organisations or charitable organisations or businesses (including grant money passed to charitable organisations for distribution to individuals or local businesses) Resources made available to flood affected residents, such as laundry facilities, skips or clean up packs Measures to make flooded homes and businesses safer in the immediate aftermath of the floods (ie not preventative measures), such as checking and making safe/removing electrical equipment, removal of damaged furniture or white goods, assisting with clear up Sub-total Recovery measures 0

21 Annex B Data collection form 19 Costs incurred (see sheet 2 for definitions) Expenditure Relating to June/July 2007 Floods Optional: Notes (please use this section if you would like to provide any narrative on your costs) Schools Reinstatement of schools (inc repairs and replacement of contents) Additional temporary classrooms/ other additional accommodation costs Support services for pupils affected by flooding eg counselling services additional to normal levels of provision Sub total Schools cost 0 Social Services Reinstatement of properties (inc repairs and replacement of contents) Extra cost of alternative accommodation (eg if out of area placements were necessary) Lost income, eg being unable to deliver charged for services such as Meals on Wheels Evacuation of elderly social care clients to PCT beds Extra services needed in flooded areas eg extra support services due to increased levels of domestic violence Sub total Social Services cost 0

22 20 The Summer 2007 Flood Restoration Fund: The Approach and Methodology Applied in Determining Allocations Costs incurred (see sheet 2 for definitions) Expenditure Relating to June/July 2007 Floods Optional: Notes (please use this section if you would like to provide any narrative on your costs) Housing Additional repairs to council houses, over and above repairs normally eligible for the period Alternative accommodation for flood displaced people (eg caravans and other temporary accommodation) Lost rental income, over and above normal void losses for the period Security costs of temporarily empty buildings Sub total Housing cost 0 Waste Additional land fill costs including disposal of waste from damaged houses (eg electric goods) Increase in LATS liability (penalties incurred as a result in the increase of non-recyclable debris left by flooding) Lost income due to loss of fees through closures of civic amenity sites Sub-total Waste 0 Total Flooding Expenditure 0

23 Letter 21 Dear Colleague The Restoration Fund data collection Following the consultation exercise carried out between 6-29 May 2008, today we are launching the data collection exercise for the Restoration Fund. You have received this letter because you indicated that your local authority wished to make an application for funding. This form is also available for download on the Flood Recovery page on the Communities and Local Government website. The deadline for making your data return is 27 June Your completed pro forma should be sent to your relevant Government Office contact. A list of Government Office contacts is attached. The Restoration Fund is a new one-off fund which has been made available for local authorities affected by the floods of June and July In England, 30.6 million has been made available for distribution to local areas. Once the data collection exercise has been concluded, we will calculate an amount ( the relevant amount ) for each relevant authority. This would be done by subtracting from the authority s financial data the amount of specific funding that the authority had already received from central government in relation to the floods. Bellwin Funds Emergency Capital Highway Maintenance Flood Repair Scheme from DfT Flood Recovery Grant from DCSF Flood Recovery Grant from Communities and Local Government These relevant amounts would then be used as the basis for distributing the Fund on a proportionate basis. Ministers may wish to take a view on whether or not to take into account the proportion of an authority s relevant amount compared to its budget when deciding how the Fund should be distributed. Ministers may also wish to focus funding on those authorities which have suffered the largest financial impact. Ministers may wish to do this either based on the absolute level of authorities relevant amounts, or on those relevant amounts expressed as a proportion of the authorities overall budgets. Grant determinations under section 31 of the Local Government Finance Act 2003 will be made to those authorities who are awarded part of the Restoration Fund. The Fund will not be ringfenced, so local authorities will be free to decide how they spend any award they receive, in line with their own priorities.

24 22 The Summer 2007 Flood Restoration Fund: The Approach and Methodology Applied in Determining Allocations Data requirements We are asking local authorities to submit details of spend (Option B) incurred in their area to their Government Office by 27 June 2008, using the form attached. We are proposing to collect global sums, broken down into the categories on the attached spreadsheet. Please note, some of the categories and definitions have changed as a result of the consultation so you should read both the spreadsheet and guidance notes carefully. Costs do not need to be broken down into capital and revenue costs, however if local authorities find it easier to do so, they may insert a separate column into the spreadsheet. Please note, you do not need to send any supporting documentation. We are not asking for information on funding received from central government: we will take this information from centrally held records. We are aware that the DfT scheme closes for information on the 13 June so for the purposes of this scheme we will use the final estimate costs provided. When completing the pro-forma you should take care to ensure that only expenditure relation to the June and/or July flooding 2007 is included, and only expenditure incurred directly by your authority; so, for example, if you have recovered costs from another authority, it is the other authority which should claim the expenditure. For clarity, the method of collection is Option B: the total spend of relevant authorities; that is, the total amount of expenditure incurred by an authority as a direct result of the floods. However, following consultation we have amended and widened the definition of spend. You should complete the proforma providing data relating to expenditure incurred in 2007/08 in the defined categories, where such expenditure is complete, or has been contractually committed, by the end of June For the avoidance of doubt, please include all expenditure incurred within the categories, regardless of whether or not you have claimed for them under the Bellwin or DfT schemes, or have them covered by insurance. Please read the Q&A that follows this letter for further clarity. If you have any queries on the data collection, please contact your Government Office contact copying us in at restoration.consultation@communities.gsi.gov.uk

25 Letter 23 Next steps The attached form must be filled in and sent to your local Government Office (see annex for contact details) by 27 June 2008 and should be retuned to them in an electronic format. If you are not able to provide electronic signatures, please still send the spread sheet to the Government Office, but follow it up with a separate hard copy. Your data return will need to be signed off by your section 151 officer, who will be required to state that he or she has shown the financial information to the chief internal auditor and that they have confirmed that the basis of calculation is reasonable and that the amounts have been taken from our accounting records (NB: we do not require that figures are checked by external auditors). The Government Office will then contact you if they have any queries on your figures, before returning them to central government. Your data will then be forwarded to Communities and Local Government. They will make a calculation of outstanding spend by subtracting any grant received towards the costs of the floods from your total. The resultant figure will be used as a proxy, and Ministers will decide how to allocate the Fund. It is our intention to make announcements on funding allocations before the Parliamentary Summer Recess. The consultation exercise We are grateful to all those who responded so positively to the consultation exercise. The comments we received were generally very helpful and as a result of some comments we have made changes to the data collection pro-forma. You may be interested to know that we received over 100 responses to the consultation paper and the majority of respondents who expressed a preference selected Option B (60%). Where possible we have amended the pro-forma and guidance to include or clarify categories as arising from the feedback we received. Some general queries were received and we thought it might be helpful to share some of the main questions and our responses. These are attached at the end of this letter. Yours sincerely

26 24 The Summer 2007 Flood Restoration Fund: The Approach and Methodology Applied in Determining Allocations Restoration Fund Q&A Q: Will the cost of pursuing landowners to correct failed watercourses be included as a cost? A: We do not think that this is a cost which is easy to quantify as an absolute sum, especially as in some cases the council may recoup expenditure at a later date for example through a charge on the land. Q: Why does the pro-forma not include categories relating to prevention? A: The data collection exercise focuses on expenditure relating to the immediate aftermath and subsequent recovery from the June and July floods of We have not included preventative measures as these are in many cases unspecified and can be open ended. However any money allocated to authorities will not be ringfenced and they may choose to spend it on preventative measures if they wish. Q: Can costs for other floods be included? A: No, Ministers are clear that this fund is potentially available to support local authorities who incurred costs relating to the summer 2007 floods. Q: Can other bodies (not local authorities) claim from this fund? A: No, but some local authorities may wish to share any award of the Restoration Fund with other local bodies. Q: Will you issue guidance on how the Restoration Fund will be spent? A: No. We feel that local authorities are best placed to decide on what is best for their areas. Local authorities may chose to use any funding they are awarded to defray their own costs, to make it available to communities, to invest in preventative measures, or on any other item it feels is appropriate. Q: Why aren t both capital and revenue costs being collected separately? A: The Restoration Fund will be paid out as revenue, and as such it will be up to councils to decide whether it is spend on capital or revenue items; therefore we have no need of the data in a separate form. If however local authorities would find it easier to separate out the data we are happy to receive it in this way.

27 Restoration Fund Q&A 25 Q: Will Bellwin or other thresholds apply? A: Ministers may decide to set a de-minimis threshold, but this will only be assessed after data have been collected and will not be based on existing scheme thresholds. Q: Why are you taking account of the Communities and Local Government Flood Recovery Grant when it was just paid out to individuals? A: Councils dealt with their Flood Recovery Grant in different ways, however we have expanded a category to allow local authorities to account for funds paid out to individuals. Q: Why is there no category for insurance? A: We have decided not to collect data on either income from or expenditure on insurance, however we are collecting data on items which are normally insurable. Q: Why doesn t the form mirror Bellwin? A: We are aware that local authorities have incurred a wider range of expenditure than has been accounted for via Bellwin; however some of the categories are the same and wherever possible we have sought to use similar definitions. Q: The form seems to require too much detail. A: We have broken down the categories into subheadings as we need to ensure that there is sufficient read across between local authorities to ensure that we are assessing expenditure on a like for like basis this has meant that we have had to exclude headings that could be open to a wide interpretation. The majority of respondents did not feel that the proforma would be difficult for them to complete. Q: Why are you only covering 2007/08 expenditure? A: The majority of those who expressed a preference opted for the 2007/08 spend. In seeking an option to collect data we are cautious of not placing unreasonable burdens on local authorities, many of whom said that they did not have estimates of future (2008/09) spend available at this time. We also need to bear in mind that the data collected are a proxy for allocating the Restoration Fund, not a reimbursement of actual expenditure, therefore we need to balance the data collection against the potential gains from the fund. We have, however, widened our definition of spend as a result of the consultation.

28 ISBN ISBN: