The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Appendix E: Meeting Notes from Public Consultation Meetings

PANEL MEMBERS

SYNOPSIS OF COMMENTS RAISED

• During the last floods there was a severe lack of sandbags. Should it not be a statutory duty for the local authority to provide sandbags and/or demountable barriers?
• We have no Flood Prevention for the River Nith. There have been 80 events since 1990. These caused lost revenue, lost investments and closures of the hospital. Over the years there has been no significant help from the Council.
• The River Nith floods because gravel has built up on the river bed. LA, SEPA and SNH cannot make their minds up and blame each other. Bill needs to specify who decides and who is responsible in a situation like this.
• Gravel removal should be done in a balanced way. The effects elsewhere should be examined. If there needs to be something done upstream, who will make these decisions in future?
• If land is to be used for inundation, who will compensate land owner, and where will this funding come from? Bill needs to make this clear.
• We need a whole catchment wide response. There should be more capacity for water to flood onto land with poor agricultural purpose.
• There should be a better and more informed warning system in place. Bill should not concentrate solely on soft measures. Hard measures will also be necessary.
• Demountable barriers are effective (they have been in Carlisle). There is no funding for them. These should form part of Flood Prevention strategy in new Bill.
• Consultation would appear to exclude pluvial and sewer flooding. Cannot address Flood Risk Management without addressing these issues.
• Consultation would appear to embody the same existing problems. There is no accountability and no guaranteed outcomes. Would appear that grey areas will still exist, with continued confusion. A clearly marked line of responsibility for Flood Risk Management needs to be outlined in the Bill.
• Funding streams are not defined in the Consultation, and this should not be left as a grey area. Grey areas would appear to suit the involved bodies.
• How will the bill deal with communities which will flood but are deemed to be "not sufficiently at risk?" How will this de defined?
• Bill doesn't address pluvial flooding, and it never will if phrased in the same language as Consultation.
• There must be checks and balances made on funding/expenditure, otherwise nothing will get done. Who will check this?
• Bill doesn't make clear how the Competent Authority will be funded, and who will oversee it. This is necessary for the system to work.
• The Bill needs more "teeth" to enforce things. Not enough to rely on goodwill and assume competence.
• Bill needs to determine how "cross-border" issues will be dealt with.
• River Nith must be dredged. There are sandstone blocks in river, and the islands are growing.
• Authorities should look to older people to inform them of how the river was - say 60 years ago.
• The Bill should be about gathering all relevant experience and making the relevant bodies work together in unison.
• Bill should be about finding ways of stopping the water "up in the hills." Identify places to build dams/reservoirs. Material could be used from dredging river.
• In January 1962, there was a severe flood, and a loch was formed at Heathall/Kirkton. This is the type of measure that should be proposed in new Bill: to allow storage of water up stream in times of excess water levels.
• The Consultation is not clear about how the Bill will affect riparian owners. Previously the obligation for maintenance (of banking, river bed, erosion etc) was removed from the Government/Local Authority, and the onus was put onto the riparian owner. CAR legislation makes the whole issue a nightmare.
• We need clearly defined roles and obligations for these issues.
• In a national plan, or a catchment plan, would it not be possible that smaller Authorities like Dumfries & Galloway would lose influence? How will the bill address giving an equal say and influence to the smaller authorities?
• The term "taken over" when used in the context of returning arable land to wetland is "objectionable." The Bill should not assume the right to step over landowners. The Bill must protect their rights. There must be a realistic reward/compensation system.
• The Bill needs to ensure that there is a Flood "Tsar" to oversee the relevant bodies because of conflicting response.
• River bed gravel is a valuable renewable. The Bill should empower the Local Authorities to "farm" gravel beds, with automatic license from SEPA.
• Are we sure that we can have confidence in new FRMPs? Perhaps new soft measures will be inadequate or will not work, while our present hard measures are inadequate.
• The Bill must incorporate bank erosion, as this very often leads to flooding.
• The Bill must encourage relocation from flood plains, and encourage building away from areas of flood risk.
• The Bill must consider the maintenance of culverts - a grey area at present. Who has the duty? Who pays? Who carries out the work?
• New development must use permeable surfaces and be future proof.
• The Bill should address relaxation of planning regarding listed buildings.
• The Bill must fund reforestation. T his is the key to stopping pluvial flooding.
• The Bill should perhaps understand that we have to learn to live with flooding.

PANEL MEMBERS

SYNOPSIS OF COMMENTS RAISED

• We should learn more from other countries, and study how they deal with flooding issues.
• The bill should include an obligation to inform for all relevant parties, ensuring Open Government.
• The competent authority should not be SEPA but should be discussed more. Perhaps the competent authority should be a part of the Scottish Government.
• The Bill should make sure there are clearer lines to define who has responsibility (e.g. for river banks)
• Who or where to go to for help should be clearer to the general public.
• There should be a presumption against building on flood plains.
• The use of porous materials for e.g. parking spaces should be made more compulsory.
• Why don't we use the American system of levees to protect our settlements?
• We should judge existing buildings for flood resistance, and not just new developments.
• Pavements and roads should be permeable especially in areas of high flooding risk.
• There should be controls on building hard surfaces.
• Although it is more expensive to be "green" market forces will generally level this out as "green" practices become more the "norm"
• One of the key issues in flood alleviation and flood risk management is the one of prioritisation. Who gets what first?
• Water courses should not be allowed to overflow into the sewerage system. This is a major health hazard.
• How is the Bill going to manage the Public's expectations? It should be clearer.
• What resources and what finances are going to be applied to the new Bill?
• Flood alleviation schemes don't get built fast enough. Often it's too late.
• SPP7 should be extended. However, is it sustainable?
• Building on flood plains should be subject to FRMPs.
• Why can't we continue to build on flood plains, build proper flood defences, like in Holland? More housing equals more people equals economic stability.
• The Bill should step up inspection times.
• When culverts are silted up, the Bill should define who is responsible for clearing them, and specify time scales and penalties, or allow the right to sue.
• We never know what the Council are doing about this. There should be a legal requirement to inform and be open about actions and plans. This would create more trust.
• Is it not possible to alleviate flooding by measures upstream instead of defences at point of flooding? Surely old settlements would have been abandoned if they always flooded, so we have caused these floods in other ways.
• Are we getting better at knowing when flooding will occur? If so, we need to make this information available to local authorities and the general public much quicker and more openly.
• The legal process is time-consuming. Would schemes be helped if they were overseen by a more efficient overseeing authority?
• How do other countries deal with it? There must be something better than fire brigades and sandbags.
• The Bill must include the obligation to inform.
• There should be compulsory flood risk assessments by developers.
• How are we going to decide when we can create a neutral flood risk at one point but that creates a flood risk elsewhere?
• We need porous surfaces for roads and parking areas such as superstores.
• How are we going to upgrade our Victorian sewerage and drainage systems?
• There must be a legal requirement for delineation and agreement between LAs and Scottish Water.
• Scottish Water must work closer with LAs.
• We must have a consistent approach over the whole of Scotland as regards a competent authority.
• Design parameters for plans should have climate change factored in.
• There must be more legal responsibility for the Council to "do something about it." We have been to the Council many times, and they do nothing about it.
• Must be legislation for all building to be flood resilient and have a neutral flood impact.
• Other countries build more on flood plains. What can't we?
• Disagree - should be a presumption against building on historic flood plains. Only exacerbates the situation.
• We shouldn't drain rainwater into the sewerage systems. These should only be for sewerage.
• There must be a clearly defined approach to who has authority and ownership of river. Or at least who controls what needs to be done with it, such as where defences are built, where it should be dredged etc.
• Who is responsible when erosion or sedimentation changes characteristics of river? Should be legal requirement to do something if this causes flooding elsewhere.
• We should be restoring wetlands, forests and woodland. Man has changed all these areas where nature soaked up water.
• Public should be more reliably informed about the arguments over climate change. Is it happening? Who do we believe?
• Don't think we should have a single co-ordinated authority to oversee flood risk management.

PANEL MEMBERS

SYNOPSIS OF COMMENTS RAISED

• Concern was expressed that flood defences' which have been re-designated for another purpose, such as a footpath would not be covered by the Bill;
• There is a need for more joined up working;
• SEPA needs to have a stronger role and be in a position to enforce new requirements, they need to be able to impose sanctions to make things happen;
• The possibility of creating solutions through natural measures upstream should be considered more often;
• SEPA are the most appropriate organisation to enforce flooding requirement;
• SEPA will require sufficient funding to effectively police flooding regulations;
• The Flooding Bill will need to interact with new planning legislation and prevent new development on flood plains;
• Concerned that the Scotland Rural Development Programme may all be spent on flood alleviation measures;
• The council were concerned that under the Bill proposals, that councils will now be responsible for protecting agricultural land from flooding as well as non agricultural. It was felt that this could be extremely costly;
• It was suggested that forestry plantations in the past had increased flooding risk for some areas and that encouraging better natural management upstream and getting the Forestry Commission and land owners to work with councils upstream was the right approach as long as land owners were fairly compensated for lost income;
• Concern was expressed that funding to Local Authorities would be subject to competing demands and difficult decisions would be required. If an overarching body had the ability to impose sanctions if flood risk management wasn't undertaken this would be more effective.
• A catchment based approach was welcome;
• Will flooding plans be linked to measures/plans to alleviate droughts as this can be a problem too;
• Concern was expressed that cross border issues do not seem to be covered in the consultation;
• It was suggested that to encourage land managers to carry out natural flood management measures, a longer term financial incentive would need to be offered rather than the current 5 year agri-environment agreements.
• Is there any European funding to assist with the cost of implementing the Directive;
• The definition of flooding is really important so that no types of flooding are excluded including tidal flooding.
• It was suggested that insurance companies could fund flood prevention measures
• It was suggested that sometimes spending a small amount of money could make a big difference and concern was expressed why some of these projects which had been identified as beneficial had not been undertaken locally.
• Concern was expressed about flooding prevention funding and how it will be allocated and prioritised in the future. It is impossible for councils to address flooding issues without funding.
• Concern was expressed about new developments and the SUDS which are being created not being of a sufficient capacity to cope with flooding events.

PANEL MEMBERS

Also in Attendance:

Bob Irvine - Scottish Government
Bernadette Malone - CEO Perth and Kinross Council
Susan Veich - Perth and Kinross Council
John Thomson - Perth and Kinross Council
Charles Haggart - Perth and Kinross Council
Graham Esson - Perth and Kinross Council
Phil Gaskell - Scottish Natural Heritage
Jim Conlin - Scottish Water
Michael MacConnachie - SEPA

Cllr Ian Miller opened the meeting introducing the top table and the experts present in the front row.

The Minister explained the purpose of the consultation meeting was to develop new flooding legislation. Flooding will always happen and the reform of the old Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961 was now necessary to bring it in line with the current day living. Climate change must be taken into consideration. Scotland has seen a sustained increase in rainfall over the last 30 years. It is the Scottish Government's intention to speed up the flood prevention procedural process. Legislation is required to be more transparent. New flood prevention schemes would look into the wider picture and take account of river catchment areas. The Bill would also look into Reservoir Safety. He asked the floor for input and questions.

A local farmer from the Bridge of Earn area complained about the very short notice given for the meeting. His concerns were that since the floods of 1932 and 1990 his flood banks had burst twice in the last 2 years. He felt the main blame lay through the ditches in the forests that were causing flash floods. Building on flood plains, land use and climate change too all contributed to the problem.

SPP7 planning guidance policy was explained. New developments initially are a matter for planning authorities and developers. The authorities are required by Regulation to consult with SEPA if the proposed development increases the number of buildings at risk being damaged from flooding. If SEPA advises against planning permission and the planning authority wishes to approve the application must be referred to the Scottish Ministers for scrutiny.

( SEPA) said that in the last 30 years there was 32% less days of snow lying. Climate change was having its effect. Intensive rain too was becoming a more regular occurrence throughout Scotland. The River Earn can rise in volume by 50%. The west coast and east coast now differed in the levels of rainfall.

Concerns were made over building on flood plans. There are proposals in Almond Valley village to build 1800 new houses with 16 ponds to mop up the surface water. A householder from the area has real flooding concerns as she expects the new development will increase her houses flood risk. Recent flooding events have seen the water levels reach the bottom of her garden; her house lies only one foot higher). If the proposed development is permitted, more frequent and higher flash floods will occur through the extra surface water. She has insurance concerns too especially if she gets flooded regularly. Concerns were made over the length of time taken from the 1993 floods to the length of time the Almondbank Flood Prevention scheme has been considered and has yet to be built. She supports new legislation to implement fully the EC legislation.

The 16 ponds are SUD ponds to provide alternative space for water and compensate the run off from the hard surface areas. They do not however provide a Flood Prevention scheme.

The floor supports SPP7 planning policy and it is felt that SEPA needs more powers and money.

The Council felt that building on flood plains is madness and should not be encouraged. In planning issues where SEPA, Scottish Water and local authorities are in dispute there is a need for a local decision maker - the Minister.

A call to emphasise better information in flooding areas was asked for. Raising awareness of Flood Risk areas could be disclosed within the new housing information packs that are to be introduced in December 2008.

Old infrastructure and old drainage systems too can exacerbate flooding problems.

Scottish Water called for future planning ahead and a need to working closer with local authorities. This is a call for the need for better integration between the local authorities and Scottish Water.

British Insurers felt Scotland was in a better position than in England on the development of flood plains. Insurance companies take account of run off areas as surface water drainage is a big problem. Sustainable drainage systems should be in place. A policy to avoid all new development on flood plains is required. A higher flood risk to properties will result in higher insurance premiums. Pilot studies for improving house flood defences have taken place to minimise flood damage. Houses that are regularly flooded have been made more resilient so that when they are flooded again, they can then be washed down with minimum damage. Making houses more resilient to flooding does mean the premiums will go up.

The forestry angle, hydrology, agriculture embankments and climate change policies all need to be included within the Flooding Bill.

Attention was drawn to the 1993 Perth flood where a drain at Perth Prison and Craigiehall ditch were found completely chocked, increasing the flooding problem. The amount of flooding would not have been as bad had the drainage system been kept clear by Perth and Kinross Council. Perth and Kinross Council now have telemetry which monitors the drainage problem.

Farmers are not encouraged through legislation to clear out blocked ditches.

A suggestion for Building regulations and building standards (A guide into making properties more flood resilient) should be included within the Flooding Bill.

New houses should not be built in areas with a history of flood risk.

A question was asked whether the local authority would take responsibility if a house gets flooded through a new housing development. The planning system must be robust enough to stop this from happening. The Council will follow the 1 in 200 years flood event guidelines. This limit though may not be high enough.

SEPA are receiving more pressures on flood risk.

Rural Affairs and Environmental Report has just been published.

PANEL MEMBERS

SYNOPSIS OF COMMENTS RAISED

• With regards to sewerage flooding in October 2007, why is urban drainage not tied in to, and co-ordinated with the Council's Flood Risk Management? It is seen that Scottish Water, SEPA and the Council should have a more co-ordinated vision and approach, and that they should be able to work and respond together in a more efficient manner.
• We don't care if the flooding is "pluvial or whatever". It is flooding, and it affects us and something should be done about it.
• You are spending millions in Rothes in the summer on flooding defences. "What is the point if the drains aren't upgraded?"
• I would be happy to see Moray Council and Scottish Water working better together, and will be glad if this is a part of the new Bill.
• Why it is necessary for rainwater excess and sewerage to use the same pipes? This has led to problems with sewerage flooding in some areas.
• In the new Bill there should be a legal duty on all organisations to work together and co-operate.
• Is there some way that the financial streams can be changed in the short term until the Bill has been passed? This is in order to allow Moray Council to deal with existing schemes that it has planned.
• There is no mention in the Consultation about compensation for Land Owners if they are required to return agricultural land to wetland. Would this come from the Block Grant or the SRDP?
• I think that SEPA and Moray Council are not knowledgeable enough compared to the Environment Agency. They will need external consultants. Who will pay for this expertise?
• What will SEPA's role be? The consultation is unclear about this. Believe that SEPA or the competent authority should have "teeth"/powers/financing.
• Should consider increasing the powers of SEPA, or maybe consider giving all powers to the Local Authority.
• Would like to see the local authority, SNH, SW & SEPA all represented in a group which acts as the competent authority. This would ensure a broad outlook with no vested interests or bias.
• We have experienced problems when working with SEPA. Due to a change of staff in SEPA, the "processes" that the Community Council were dealing with had to start again, because the new people in SEPA knew nothing about the previous discussions. Therefore SEPA needs to be better organised and some continuity needs to be in place.
• Under the planning process SEPA can object to every phase in the process. There should be a much more streamlined approach, with less need for stages of objection (although there is still a need for an opportunity for individuals/businesses to object). Agencies should work together.
• How are SUDS going to be introduced in existing developments? Is this not an insurmountable challenge?
• With regards to Flash Flooding/Pluvial Flooding, who has responsibility? SW and SEPA (Local Authorities?) both try to give responsibility to the other.
• My experience is that there is no lack of expertise in the Local Authorities.
• If SEPA is to identify and draw up FRMPs, who will get the funding? Will SEPA decide who gets the funding? How will they prioritise where the funding goes on a national, and a local level?
• Pleased that we are going from a reactive to a proactive response. Everything however, will be outcome based. If there are no plans, there will be no funding.
• How will shared costs across authorities be determined? Who will decide on the level of funding for a specific plan? Worried that the legislative process will not end up streamlined, and will end up quite the opposite.
• Think that Bill will end up with available resources spread more thinly.
• Last year there were 22 pluvial events. Will this mean a separate FRMP for each one?
• Existing skill base should be shared by all. Surely SEPA has knowledge that it can pass on to the Local Authorities.
• At present the work of Local Authority hydrologists must be checked by SEPA and SW.
• How can we bring the urban issues and the rural issues together? There is a need for "joined up " thinking.
• How do we envisage persuading a farmer to give up his land "for the greater good?"
• Are we thinking of involving the farming community in FRMP process?
• NFUS are keen to help the process.
• We must take a "top-down" approach, and consider businesses. How do we deal with issues of funding?
• We have to make sure that SEPA does what it needs to with regards to CAR.
• We must consider insurance implications for businesses.
• It is important that there is transparency in the Bill process so that businesses can plan for the future.
• There are differing standards for Environmental Impact Assessments. Some aren't "worth the paper they are written on," and there is a lack of consistency. Perhaps EIAs should be standardised. The new legislation should be consistent with these views.

« Previous | Contents | Next »