Summer 2007 Floods Joint Scrutiny Task Group. Thursday 22 April 2010, 3.00pm, County Hall NOTES

Transcription

1 Summer 2007 Floods Joint Scrutiny Task Group Thursday 22 April 2010, 3.00pm, County Hall NOTES Present: Councillors: Worcestershire County Council Malvern Hills District Council Redditch Borough Council Worcester City Council Wyre Forest District Council Also present: Liz Tucker Mike Biddle Mike Chalk Geoff Williams (Chairman) Fran Oborski Lucy Hodgson Worcestershire County Council Officers: Ian Bamforth Highways and Countryside Manager Nick Riding Emergency Planning Manager Suzanne O'Leary Overview and Scrutiny Manager Stella Wood Overview and Scrutiny Officer Available Papers: Agenda paper and appendices Item 2: Appendix 1 - a table showing when each local authority considered the scrutiny report; and Appendix 2 - responses received to the scrutiny report's recommendations, collated to form the progress report 2010; and, Item 3: Appendix 1 - comments on lessons learned. 1. Welcome, apologies and introductions Action The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting. Apologies were received from Martin King (Wychavon District Council) and David Pardoe (Bromsgrove District Council). 2. Progress on findings and recommendations, and arrangements locally for managing flood risk. As outlined in the Task Group's Flooding 2007 scrutiny report (paragraph 9.3), the Task Group had reconvened to: a) review the outcomes from its findings and recommendations, and b) consider arrangements locally for managing flood risk. Ian Bamforth, the County Council's Highways and Countryside Manager and Nick Riding, the County Council's Emergency Planning Manager, have been invited to attend the meeting to assist the Task Group in these discussions. 1

2 Progress on accepted recommendations The local authorities, central government (Defra and OFWAT), insurance industry, Severn Trent Water, the Highways Agency, and the Local Resilience Forum had each been asked to provide an update on progress made on relevant recommendations. The responses received were shown in the progress report 2010, which was attached to the agenda item at Appendix 2. The Task Group was asked to consider whether it was content with progress made, and whether it wished to make any comments to the relevant organisations. As requested by the Chairman, the Countryside and Emergency Planning managers provided a brief overview of progress made since the 2007 summer floods scrutiny, during which the following main points were raised. Overall good progress had been made although it was acknowledged there was still more to do. The Land Drainage Partnership had been set up within weeks of the floods and identified priorities. Over 380 projects had been completed to date, to solve flooding problems. Severn Trent were now on board. Three Districts had produced Multi Agency Flood Plans. There had been a focus on helping the parishes most affected by flooding - communication was improving with 3 Officers acting as points of contact about drainage issues, in conjunction with the Hub. The Flooding and Water Management Act had received royal assent although it would still be some months before guidance is produced. Whilst the County Council was the Lead Authority for flooding in two tier areas, it was not responsible for all drainage issues. It was hoped that detailed new guidance would clarify whether the County or district councils had, for example, lead responsibility for flood risk mapping and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) etc. Funding had been secured to support students studying land drainage and flooding. 100k funding had been secured to help with flood risk mapping in the county. The Council was now confident in its knowledge of areas likely to flood and locations with drainage problems. The Task Group then considered the progress report 2010 page by page. Members were in the main content with most of the responses received to their recommendations and focussed on outstanding issues. During the ensuing discussion, the following main points were raised: Please note that paragraph numbers in square brackets refer to the original paragraph numbers in the Summer Floods 2007 scrutiny report. [re paragraph 3.23] Fire and Rescue Authority (FRA) The Task Group was reassured that Hereford and Worcestershire Fire 2

3 and Rescue Authority had already established 3 specialist water rescue units in Evesham, Hereford and Worcester and approved 6 additional first responder units to be strategically placed throughout the service area. The Fire and Rescue Authority (FRA) has recently agreed to write to Government further supporting the need for a statutory duty for Fire and Rescue Services to provide flood rescue, in accordance with Sir Michael s recommendation. The Emergency Planning Manager agreed to find out what progress has been made and feedback. NR [paragraph 4.7] LRF Communication The Task Group was assured that communication between partner organisations of the LRF, the relationship between 24/7 organisations and non routinely 24/7 organisations, and who attends the LRF routinely and who attends Gold command in an emergency, was now clear. [paragraph 4.19] LRF Media The Group's recommendation that local radio car/s should be physically stationed in close proximity to Silver Control so that updates on a situation can be delivered immediately had not been implemented. The Group still felt that this would be one of the best ways of providing up to date information for the public. However, Members were assured that systems were now in place to ensure that the public would get up to date information. The Communications team would be present during any emergency and would ensure that local radio received timely information. The Group agreed not to pursue this further. [paragraph 4.23] The Group had recommended that the LRF review how it provides information to the public via the media, recognising the role of local radio in keeping the public informed and prioritising information to local radio in advance of the national media where appropriate. The Group was advised that a series of workshops have been held across the WMLRF to consider ways of warning and informing the public in an emergency (for both geographic areas or for vulnerable people) attended by representatives from the media. The outcomes were being considered in the planned review of Communications planning arrangements. The Task Group asked the Emergency Planning Manager to forward the outcomes of this. [paragraph 4.37] Highways Agency In relation to more needing to be done to avoid people becoming trapped on a motorway and to help them on occasions that they are, the Group was advised that diversionary routes (indicated by a square and diamond) were in place. Evacuation of the motorway was a last resort and the preference was that people should stay in their cars. It was understood that the Highways Agency was exploring with voluntary sector organisations such as the Red Cross and Women's Volunteer Centre, possible ways of helping stranded motorists. The Emergency Planning Manager agreed to report back on any NR NR 3

4 progress. [paragraph 7.25] Severn Trent The Group were assured that an appropriate representative at the right level was fully committed to participating in the Land Drainage Partnership and had attended the last three meetings. Members were advised that Severn Trent had learned from experience and were now much more resilient. [paragraph 5.7] Hublets The use of hublets had been seen as beneficial particularly as it ensured a local dissemination of vital information. The Group had recommended the further development of this approach (including their staffing and location). It was confirmed that the Hublets would be staffed with personnel drawn from all partner agencies, not just the County Council. [paragraph 7.8] Drainage Technical Responsibility and Capability The Group had recommended that the County and each District Council ensure that suitably qualified officers in each district can take the lead responsibility for checking the condition of drainage assets (watercourse and ditches), feeding information in to the drainage condition and assets map and sharing information with the Land Drainage Partnership. Members were advised that technical capability in some of the Districts needed further consideration. One experienced drainage engineer had been on a period of sick leave and others were approaching retirement. In the short term, both the County and other Districts' experienced drainage engineers, had been assisting those Districts where specific issues arose. An enforcement protocol had been created so that each district would follow the same process in relation to ditch clearance. Some parishes were unaware that Districts could help with such work and it was acknowledged that the responsibilities for drainage between parishes and districts needed to be quantified in some areas. There had been a good take up of a EA/DEFRA student training scheme resulting in funding for 2 students at the County Council and Wyre Forest. It was confirmed that Redditch Borough Council would also take up the EA/DEFRA Student Training Scheme opportunity. The Group was advised that the County Council's student would be involved in mapping drainage issues in Malvern. Members suggested that it might be helpful for the students to work for a while in different Districts. [paragraph 7.37] Drainage Technical Capability on Planning Committees The Group had also recommended that each district council assess whether they had sufficient technical capability and if necessary ensure that a suitably qualified individual is available to advise District Planning Committees about drainage issues and flood risk implications for each development. 4

5 Members were advised that technical capability in some of the Districts still required further development. Discussions were ongoing on how this would be addressed. In the short term, both the County and other Districts' very experienced officers had been assisting those Districts where specific technical issues arose. Members wanted to find out how proactive each district was in ensuring sufficient technical capability on district planning committees and agreed this should be followed up after the meeting. Responses would be fed into an annual report on managing flood risk. In the meantime, training, organised through the County and District Council Planning Officers Group, was planned on Sustainable Urban Draining Systems, Development Contracts and Sustainable Development. It was hoped that detailed new guidance to accompany the Flood and Water Management Act would clarify whether the County or district councils had, for example, lead responsibility for Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) etc. Members asked whether the Environment Agency would still act as a statutory consultee on developments in areas of flood risk. However it was noted that currently, if the Environment Agency did not comment on a development, it did not necessarily mean (as in the past) that that development was safe from flooding, as the Environment Agency's responsibility was mainly for flood risk from rivers and main water courses as opposed to flash flooding from surface water runoff. It was anticipated that further progress against these recommendations would be made once the roles and responsibilities of Councils is clarified in the expected guidance to accompany the Flood and Water Management Act. It was suggested that further information on some of the recommendations could be sought from David Throup at the Environment Agency. District Planning Committees could also consult with the water company (Severn Trent) on local drainage issues if appropriate. The Group member from Malvern confirmed this already happened in Malvern Hills District Council. Local arrangements for managing flood risk The Task Group had supported the Pitt Review's recommendation 91 which required upper tier local authorities' scrutiny committees to have an annual summary of actions taken locally to manage flood risk. The responses to and progress made on the scrutiny's recommendations set out in Appendix 2 - incorporating issues raised at this meeting and any further responses from Districts and the Environment Agency - provided much of the information on which to base a summary of actions being taken locally to manage flood risk. It 5

6 was therefore suggested that, following this meeting, an annual summary be drafted with support from the County Council's scrutiny team. SO'L/ SW/IB In future years it was suggested that a summary of actions taken locally to manage flood risk would be prepared by relevant officers working in that field and produced with input from partners. The summary could then be submitted to each authority's relevant scrutiny committee. Any operational or new issues could be fed in as they arose to individual officers in the county or district as appropriate. 3. Evaluation of the Scrutiny An independent evaluation of Worcestershire County Council's scrutiny function had been carried out by the Centre for Public Scrutiny (CfPS) in Autumn It had recommended that members should consider lessons learned following each scrutiny. Also, in anticipation of the new duty on local authorities to scrutinise progress of LAA targets, this joint scrutiny could inform the process for future joint scrutinies. Members and Officers had therefore been asked for their views on how the scrutiny was carried out. The comments received were attached to the agenda as an Appendix. In summary, the Joint County & Districts Scrutiny was seen as a positive step in developing joint working arrangements. There was good co-operation and ample opportunity to ask questions of a wide range of witnesses. It was agreed that greater consideration of the following issues should be used to help inform future joint exercises: the right level of professional expertise and technical support an independent Chairman best practice on joint working testing recommendations particularly with external organisations restrict meetings to 2 hours a brief précis of meetings to help members feedback updates sufficient range of witnesses and public involvement clarity on how different organisations were expected to respond to recommendations an expected 'way of working' protocol. The Task Group agreed that these lessons learned should be shared at a county and district scrutiny chairmen meeting. SO'L The meeting ended at 4.00pm 6