« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report was produced by MWH on behalf of the Scottish Government. It reports the responses to the public consultation document 'The Future of Flood Risk Management in Scotland'. The consultation paper presented recommendations for new flooding legislation, which the Scottish Government believes will enable Scotland to take a sustainable approach to flood risk management.
The aim of the consultation was to enable the Scottish Government to receive feedback on the new flooding legislation proposals. It also invites comments on proposals from the Flooding Issues Advisory Committee to define the term 'sustainable flood management'. The Scottish Government believes that an agreed definition of sustainable flood management is essential to ensure that this provision is implemented effectively and consistently.
The proposals for the draft Bill include:
- Reforming the current legislation covering flood protection and prevention;
- Transposing the EC Directive on the Assessment and Management of Flood Risks (the Floods Directive);
- Simplifying the procedures necessary to develop and implement measures to manage flood risk;
- Creating a framework for a sustainable, catchment focused approach to flood risk management;
- Setting out proposals to transfer responsibility for enforcement of the Reservoirs Act 1975 in Scotland from local authorities to a single enforcement authority.
This report describes:
- Details of feedback received on the consultation document itself;
- The findings of 3 consultation workshops carried out with key stakeholders;
- Feedback from public consultation meetings which were held at 5 locations across the country.
A total of 143 written responses were analysed for the purposes of this report. As discussed in Section 1.3, six consultation responses were removed from the original total; two responses received related to the SEA process, and four responses were duplicates.
Respondents were asked for their opinion of the proposed definition of Sustainable Flood Management during the consultation process. The majority of the respondents were positive about the proposal, but highlighted that it may have to be 'fine tuned'. The main concern was that the definition was too technical and would not be easily understood by the general public. The need for demonstration sites and guidance were highlighted as being essential to the process.
The next section of the report described questions relating to flood risk management planning. The majority of respondents agreed that it was appropriate to appoint a single competent authority for the purposes of the Floods Directive and that it should be the Scottish Environment Protection Agency ( SEPA). The majority agreed with the list of suggested responsible authorities contained in the consultation. The most popular suggestions for other responsible authorities were British Waterways, Transport Scotland, Network Rail, National Farmers Union and Port Authorities. The majority of the respondents also agreed that the existing role of local authorities should be maintained. There was mainly a positive response to the proposed Local Flood Risk Management Plans ( LFRMPs) and the proposed hierarchical approach was generally positively received. However, the issues of available expertise and funding were consistently raised as concerns. The preferred option was to let the partners decide who should be lead authority for these plans, but with Ministers retaining a role to resolve any disputes. Concerns were expressed over the availability and accuracy of information available to inform these plans. 67% of respondents agreed that responsible authorities should have a duty to work together within flood advisory groups to produce plans.
Half of the people who responded felt the proposals to support wider stakeholder and community engagement in the flood risk management planning process were unclear and did not go far enough. There was no consensus of opinion on whether the flood risk management planning process should be similar to that for River Basin Management Plans ( RBMPs). The majority view agreed that Ministers should have the power to approve or reject Area Flood Risk Management Plans. The question over whether integrated urban drainage plans should be included as part of LFRMP received an overwhelmingly positive response, with 96% of respondents supporting the idea.
When asked whether Flood Risk Management Plans ( FRMPs) should inform development plans, or whether there should be a stronger link than this, the majority of respondents, and the majority of local authorities, favoured the latter option. There was strong support across the responses for a requirement to have regard to FRMPs in the production of development plans.
The third section of the report dealt with the options available for simplifying the statutory process. The consultation included a discussion on whether this could be simplified through a local authority or Scottish Minister led process. The two options provided for simplifying procedures were:
- that Ministerial confirmation should carry deemed planning permissions; or
- for a local authority based process which would remove the need for Ministerial approval. The proposal is that this process would also carry deemed planning consent.
The majority of the respondents, 80%, stated that they thought the idea of the local authority led process should be taken forward. It was felt that this was a logical continuation of the changes to the funding arrangements for flood risk management. It was also seen to be in line with the Planning (Scotland) Act 2006. There were, however, some alternative suggestions for the process including the introduction of a two-tier system where there is a differentiation between large and small schemes/measures.
There was also discussion over the way in which suitable expertise can be made available to responsible authorities. There was general consensus that the pooling of experts from different local authorities would be useful, however SEPA were clear that they did not want to be responsible for managing this. It was acknowledged that there would still be a need for consultants. Several respondents mentioned the need to provide specialist skills, knowledge and expertise which may no longer be available in local authorities.
There was a general consensus (80%) that there were also benefits to be obtained from streamlining the CAR (Controlled Activities Regulations) process with the promotion of flood measures and the planning system through better guidance. A minority suggested that a new approach to integrating processes was needed; there was some suggestion that a combined single process could be developed.
Of the 143 replies to the consultation, 78 consultees (55%) responded to the questions on reservoir safety. Of these respondents, an overwhelming majority (90%) agree that the transfer of responsibility for enforcement of the Reservoirs Act 1975 would ensure a uniform and efficient application of legislative powers throughout Scotland. The majority of these respondents agreed that SEPA are the appropriate organisation for this role, particularly if they are appointed as the competent authority for the Floods Directive, as this dual responsibility would enable the integration of flood risk management, RBMP, CAR and reservoir risk management.
Those respondents against the appointment of SEPA believed that there would be a potential conflict of interest between SEPA's remits (i.e. environmental interests vs. public safety) and inadequate resources and capability (i.e. in managing resources, and water and structural engineering) to successfully undertake this role. Alternative existing organisations suggested for this role included the Scottish Government and Health & Safety Executive ( HSE), while other respondents suggested the formation of a new body dedicated to reservoir safety or the creation of a 'Flood Commissioner' responsible for enforcing the Reservoir Act 1975.
The majority of the respondents (60%) were content with the proposal to assess reservoir safety as part of a preliminary flood risk assessment under the Floods Directive. However, a significant number (40%) believe that the Act should be amended to impose a duty on reservoir undertakers to produce separate inundation maps and flood plans. Although this may increase the burden on some reservoir undertakers (e.g. angling clubs), respondents suggested a range of mechanisms to overcome this issue, such as outsourcing the preparation of the plans, financial assistance to smaller owners (e.g. subsidy for this work), lesser requirements for smaller reservoir owners and imposing a duty based on the potential risk, rather than the size of the reservoir (i.e. no absolute duty on all owners/undertakers).
Furthermore, a majority of respondents on reservoir issues (91%) believed that the Reservoir Act 1975 should be amended to extend the enforcement powers under the Act, introduce post incident reporting and remove Crown immunity.
Accordingly, the general consensus across the consultation was that the proposals contained within the flooding bill consultation paper are a significant step towards ensuring more effective and sustainable flood management across Scotland.
« Previous | Contents | Next »