ITEM EN8
ENVIRONMENT & ECONOMY SCRUTINY COMMITTEE – 21 MAY 2008
‘MITIGATING AND CO-ORDINATING THE RISK OF FUTURE FLOODS’: PROGRESS UPDATE
Background
The Review was prompted by a history of severe flooding in various parts of the county over the last ten years, culminating in the worst case in July 2007.
The specific objectives of the review were detailed in the scoping document. In short the Lead Member Review Group were asked to form a view on the factors which contributed to, or exacerbated, the flooding in July 2007 and to make clear recommendations on practical actions which should be taken by each and all, responsible agencies, to improve flood prevention, reduce the impact of flooding and reassure residents that action has been taken in response to the floods.
The Environment & Economy Scrutiny Committee was tasked with commissioning the review and appointed four County Councillors to carry it out (Cllrs. Greene, Lamont, Mathew and Purse). The Review has considered; the legislative, political and procedural framework; written submissions from interested parties; and heard evidence from witnesses. A detailed list of the written and oral evidence considered by the review group is attached as Appendix 1 (download as .doc file).
The Lead Member Review Group will be making numerous recommendations to the Cabinet and partner organisations in light of their findings. It is hoped that a final draft report will be submitted to the Environment and Economy Scrutiny Committee meeting of 16 July 2008.
Summary of key findings to-date
1. During the evidence gathering process it has become clear that whilst we can seek to mitigate the effects of flooding, it is beyond the powers of any agency to prevent flooding occurring. Any flood defences that are installed, or preventative measures that are taken, will have an impact in another area; for example stopping flooding in an urban area may lead to increased flooding of farmland, and this therefore has a direct impact on the farmer’s livelihood.
2. The Lead Member Review Group are keen to emphasise that no two flooding events are the same, the rate and location of rainfall will vary across the country and the impact of this cannot be predicted. Because of the unpredictable nature of flooding events it is vital that all residents at risk from flooding are prepared in case such an event occurs.
3. There is no single approach to reducing flood risk; multiple steps must be taken. A co-ordinated approach from all organisations involved in water management is vital to ensure effective flood mitigation. If efforts between organisations and individuals are not co-ordinated then this may have a negative impact either within a locality or further down river, for example it may bring forward the time of an event, or increase the impact of an event in another locality downstream. This is a key area where partnership working would be fruitful and could be strengthened. Oxfordshire County Council could take a lead in co-ordinating partnership working in order to safeguard the strategic facilities in the county. It must be emphasised that it is not the role of the County or District Councils to protect private property from potential flood damage.
4. The co-ordination required to tackle flood risk management is made more difficult as responsibilities for land drainage and flood alleviation form a complex web, which cut across agencies and local authority boundaries.
A number of observers, including the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Parliamentary Select Committee investigation into flooding and the Pitt Review are concluding that this division of responsibility and the resulting way in which permissive powers operate actually increase the risks of suffering flood damage for many people.
5. The Lead Member Review Group are concerned about instances where foul water sewage and flood water mix during flood events and are then deposited within domestic and business properties. Currently there are two types of sewer systems that operate in Oxfordshire, one of which caters for just foul water and the other which is designed to cope with foul and rainwater (combined sewer). The combined sewers are dated and many go back to the Victorian period. Neither type of sewers have the capacity to cope with the additional connections to the system arising from new houses that are built, and the increased rain run-off and water usage. The members would like to see the appropriate authorities moving away from combined sewers by updating, where possible, these systems to ensure that foul and rain water are kept separate in order to minimise the chances of foul water damage to domestic properties. They also wish to endorse the use of separate systems in new developments.
6. The Information available to the general public and riparian owners (owning land on the boundary of a river or watercourse) needs to be improved. All relevant bodies need to ensure that riparian owners are aware of their responsibilities and carry them out. Currently the City and District Councils as the Drainage Authority can undertake work on the behalf of a riparian owner and then recharge them for the work. The County Council can undertake work on behalf of a riparian owner but cannot recharge for it. In the majority of cases riparian owners are reminded of the work that needs to be undertaken and carry it out as directed. The Lead Member Review Group consider that both the County Council and the City and District Councils should take a lead to ensure that all ditches and watercourses that they are responsible for are clear, and also publicise this once the work has been undertaken.
7. A co-ordinated re-education of the general public is needed to ensure that their actions do not increase the likelihood of flooding in their locality and beyond. For example, Thames Water has highlighted cases where individuals disposing of inappropriate substances into drains can cause blockages, which in turn may impact on the level of flooding an area may experience in the future. There are members of the general public who dispose of garden waste into ditches without any consideration of what future impact this may have on their own property and their neighbours. A countywide information drive to promote flood protection products and to inform the public of theirs and others responsibilities in respect of flooding should be undertaken as a priority; for example through the use of the Oxfordshire magazine that the County Council distributes.
8. The use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) should become common practice across the county, especially in any area within a floodplain or indeed whenever any new development is constructed. Examples of SUDS products include; green roofs, porous paving and the adoption of larger scale schemes such as swales and detention basins.
9. Local Authorities in Oxfordshire should take a lead and set an example by using porous materials whenever and wherever they are involved in any developments e.g. building of new car parks, schools, etc.
10. The Lead Member Review Group consider that all future developments on the floodplain should be strongly opposed. Building within the floodplain limits the possible area in which flood water may pool and this will in turn increase the likelihood and impact of flooding in the local area and further downstream. Where development is deemed to be necessary the City and District Councils, as the planning authorities, have a vital role to play in ensuring developers building in high risk flood areas put the necessary measures in place to reduce the impact of surface water and river flooding on local residents. The more land that is paved over with impermeable products the greater the likelihood of surface water flooding occurring as there are less opportunities for water to run-off into the water table. This type of activity will also increase the pressure on the current drainage and sewage systems.
11. Central government plans to introduce legislation which only permits householders’ to pave over their front garden without planning permission if the surface they use is porous, such as permeable paving or gravel. This legislation will be introduced in late 2008. The current practice of paving with non porous materials reduces the area of ground able to absorb rainwater and increases run-off and the risk of localised surface water flooding.
12. Planning enforcement is of some concern due to the limited resources available to the City and District Councils in Oxfordshire. Although during the planning application stage a developer may state that permeable paving materials will be used, there are not enough resources available for a continuous enforcement programme to be undertaken. This raises the question of if the government are to alter the right to pave over front gardens without planning permission, are extra resources going to made available to the City and District Councils to ensure that this can be enforced to an appropriate level?
13. Another form of SUDS is to increase the opportunities for capturing and reusing water. An example of one such measure is to encourage and incentivise the use of water butts in individual gardens; this is a practical step the general public can take to assist in reducing the likelihood of localised flooding in their area. Additionally during times of water scarcity the captured water can be utilised to decrease usage from the mains water supply and assist in drought prevention. Water butts are currently available at a subsidised rate of £24.95 from Thames Water.
14. Flood warnings are vital in alerting the general public that a flooding events may be about to occur. At present to receive flood warnings from the Environment Agency members of the general public must opt in to the scheme. The Lead Member Review Group consider that this situation should be reversed and people should have to opt out of receiving warnings. This would increase the preparedness of the general public considered to be at risk of flooding. One reason highlighted to the Lead Member Review Group for not having an opt out scheme is the sensitivities around freedom of information in relation to accessing phone numbers of private residents. The current reluctance to sign up to the warnings stems from the perception that being part of the scheme would increase insurance premiums or decrease the value of people’s properties. This is a myth however as insurance companies are fully aware of which properties are at highest risk of flooding as they can access the flood risk maps available on the Environment Agency’s public website.
15. The flood warning system cannot cater for all types of flooding, it can only cover coastal and river flooding. Any surface water flooding (flash flooding) that may take place would not be subject to a flood warning as such events are less predictable and not under the jurisdiction of the Environment Agency.
16. It was not the purpose of the review to examine the emergency response into the July 2007 flood event, although the Lead Member Review Group regards this as being a very successful operation. The level and effects of flooding will vary from event to event and will impact on different areas of the county in variable levels. Ensuring that deployment of resources from one local authority to another less effected by the floods is a practical and cost effective use of resources that should be maximised in the future; for example if a flood event has had very little impact in Cherwell then equipment could be loaned to Oxford City in order to assist with their flood event.
17. Updating flood defences both fixed and portable is also vital to mitigating the future risk of flooding. The use of flood resilient and resistant products should be highlighted as part of the recommended information drive. A shift is necessary in the public perception of the value of sandbags as a preventative measure. Sandbags are time consuming to fill (it takes 2 people to fill one bag) and unless used properly with a covering plastic sheet they will not stop flood water entering a property over a period of time. They are not reusable and in some cases can be the cause of the spread of disease. Modern alternatives include door guards, air brick covers and door and window seals. Further information on such products is available from the National Flood Forums publication ‘Blue Pages’.
18. Insurance companies and building contractors should encourage householders not to replace or rebuild flood damaged properties with like for like products. There are many advantages to the home owner in making their property more flood resistant and resilient. If a major flooding event does occur the measures put in place will ensure that the time spent out of their home will be reduced, along with the accompanying costs of bringing the household back to a habitable state.
19. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs parliamentary select committees report into Flooding (May 2008) expressed concern that any such move may be hindered by a skills shortage among engineers working in the flooding and drainage fields.
20. The Lead Member Review Group recognises that a lot of work is being done by extremely hardworking staff in a number of agencies, although to some extent this is being undersold as very often people have little or no idea of this activity.
|