The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

3.2 Flood Risk Management Planning

Question 3: Do you agree with the conclusion as set out in paragraph 3.17?

Paragraph 3.17 outlined the Scottish Government's proposal that a single competent authority with a national remit for implementing the Floods Directive should be identified, and the current role of local authorities in implementing flood defence works and engaging at a local level would be maintained.

There were a total of 99 responses to this question (refer Table 8), but we were unable to determine whether 5 of the responses were providing a yes or no answer, due to lack of clarity in their explanations.

Table 8 - Q3 Summary of responses

The majority of the respondents agreed with this proposal (86 out of 99 responses) and felt that a national overview and leadership was required, whilst highlighting the need for local implementation.

A more detailed analysis of the responses is included as Figure 7. This suggests that the majority of representatives from each organisation were in favour of the proposals. A total of 29 local authority representatives provided a response, with only 2 disagreeing with the proposals. The overall response from non-governmental organisations was similar, with 21 out of the 23 (91%) who replied supporting the proposals. There was an overwhelming support from the private sector, with all of the 9 responses agreeing with the conclusions set out in paragraph 3.17.

Figure 7 - Respondents views on whether they agree with the conclusion set out in paragraph 3.17

Many felt that local authorities played an important role in engaging with communities and implementing measures. However, many raised concerns over the proposals being resource intensive and therefore appropriate funding (11 responses) and expertise (11 responses) would be essential. Appropriate dissemination of information was also considered crucial in ensuring focus and consistency. Scottish Water agreed with the framework, but raised concerns over resources. They also highlighted the importance of addressing long term capital maintenance funding for local authorities.

Figure 8 describes the main issues raised by the respondents to this question.

Figure 8 - Issues raised in Question 3

Two local authorities raised the issue that consideration should be given to catchment strategy planning and the need for areas which are assigned to be realistic, in particular for areas such as the Western Isles and Shetland, which may need a large degree of autonomy in budget and project scheduling.

Existing legislation was also raised as an issue, which may need to be reviewed in light of this new legislation to ensure there is no conflict. It was also considered important that all bodies deal with flood management at all levels of their administrative structure. The British Red Cross felt it was important that the competent authority had a remit which included humanitarian resilience, not just resilience which refers to the built environment or the economy. It was suggested that the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment ( PFRA) should include humanitarian hazard mapping which would be based on potential risk to people, such as being in a position to receive provisions. The Bill does not deal with emergency responses but resilience is specifically referred to and the Civil Contingencies Act does not refer to flooding specifically.

Several respondents suggested that the Flooding Bill covered more than just the Flood Directive and therefore a dual competent authority would be unavoidable. There were mixed opinions on the success of the existing RBMP structure, some felt it was successful and would provide a good basis for the LFRMP structure. In contrast others felt it was cumbersome.

Other issues which were raised included:

• Funding for National Parks if they are responsible for implementing FRMPs in areas of high risk;
• Procedure for dealing with contentious issues;
• Flood Risk and Hazard maps will only show the extent of flooding and not the depth of velocity, which was considered an opportunity lost;
• Mapping and management plans need to extent to all sources of flooding;
• Necessary to ensure full co-operation and co-ordination of all accountable authorities;
• Wording in the consultation is confusing as it gives the impression that local authorities will produce forestry plans.

Response from workshop

Concerns were raised at all of the workshops over the lack of technical expertise available to implement the proposed framework. It was mentioned on several occasions that there should be a push by universities to enrol hydrologists. Funding was also raised as a recurrent issue, along with the importance of consistency.

Issues Raised at Public Meetings

It was raised during the Rothes and Dumfries workshops that the consultation was unclear about SEPA's role and that competent authority must have sufficient power and funding to ensure it was successful.

Question 4: Do you agree that there should be a single competent authority with a national remit for implementing the Floods Directive, and that it should be SEPA?

Question 4 was considered a two-part question, asking whether the respondents agreed with the proposal that there should be a single competent authority with a national remit for implementing the Floods Directive and whether that authority would be SEPA. A total of 91 people responded to this question. Details of the responses are provided in Table 9.

Table 9 - Q4 Summary of responses

The majority considered it was appropriate to appoint a single competent authority for the purposes of the Floods Directive and that this organisation should be SEPA (64 out of 91 responses).

Figure 9 - Respondents views on whether there should be a competent authority and that it should be SEPA

Figure 9 provides a breakdown of the findings for Question 4. The results indicate that the majority of local authorities agree with the proposal to form a competent authority and that this should be SEPA (79% of local authorities). A further 2 agreed that a competent authority would be required but this should not be SEPA. A total of 4 suggested that a competent authority was not required. The majority of non-governmental organisations also felt it would be beneficial to create a competent authority and that this should be SEPA. The statutory stakeholders had more of a mixed opinion, but the majority still believed SEPA were the correct organisation to become the competent authority.

SEPA itself considered it should be the competent authority, as they already have relevant national role in terms of the Water Framework Directive competent authority, scientific, hydrometric, flood mapping and flood warning capabilities.

Figure 10 - Issues raised in response to Question 4.

Scottish Water also agreed with the proposals, but raised concerns that SEPA may not currently have the expertise or resources to fulfil this role.

Figure 10 describes more detailed analysis of the responses. Although the responses were mainly positive, numerous respondents (10 responses) felt SEPA was a regulatory organisation and therefore would need to adopt a different approach and attitude. Several major stakeholders suggested that they would only support this proposal if SEPA works in a more collegiate fashion. Three respondents considered essential that SEPA's accountability to the general public on this matter is addressed in the legislative proposals.

Many respondents raised concerns that SEPA do not have the resources (15 responses) or expertise (10 responses) to deal with this new role. SEPA have traditionally dealt with fluvial flooding and doubts were raised that they had the technical expertise to deal with more complex issues. Knowledge of other forms of flooding including defences, urban drainage, pluvial flooding and surface water management will be needed. Funding of this new role was also raised on numerous occasions.

A concern which was raised was whether this role would conflict with SEPA's existing duties, i.e. CAR (Controlled Activity Regulations), habitat enhancement and protecting wildlife, and whether this would jeopardise their regulatory independence (4 responses).

An issue which was considered important by one of the respondents was whether SEPA was the correct authority to respond to or implement the humanitarian aspects of the flooding. It was suggested that the Red Cross should be included in the debate over who is best placed.

One respondent raised the issue that these proposals might result in conflicts in dealing with reservoirs. SEPA already licences water abstractions and impoundments through CAR, therefore it already has control over water use flood management. It was suggested that it may be counter productive to have complete control.

Other issues which were raised included:

• The need for an independent commissioner to resolve any conflicts;
• Inaccuracy of flood maps;
• One respondent was unenthusiastic about the term 'competent', as it implies that others are less competent;
• SEPA will need strong links with the responsible authorities who currently have the capacity in urban drainage, engineering, coastal protection and local knowledge.

Response from Workshops

One of the first points raised in Workshop 1 was that by definition SEPA are a regulator, therefore the role of competent authority will be very new to them and it is likely that they would need to appoint new staff with relevant expertise. These issues were also raised consistently throughout the 2 subsequent workshops.

Issues Raised at Public Meetings

A person who attended the Newmilns meeting suggested that the competent authority should not be SEPA and further discussion was required to agree where this responsibility should lie. It was also suggested during this workshop that a consistent approach was required through the creation of a competent authority, providing a joined up approach.

During the Rothes meeting it was suggested that SEPA and Moray Council do not have the expertise compared with the Environment Agency in England and Wales and that expensive consultants may have to be employed. One person suggested that they would like a competent authority which consists of local authorities, SNH, Scottish Water and SEPA.

Question 5: Do you agree that this is a sound basis for the development of Local Flood Risk Management Plans ( LFRMPs)? If not what alternative do you propose?

The proposals evolved over the consultation period for this set of questions. The amended proposals involve the omission of Area Flood Risk Management Plans, which have been replaced by District Flood Risk Management Plans. The amendments were included as part of the workshop discussions. It should be noted that some respondents still referred to Area Flood Risk Management Plans and a three tier system in their submissions and therefore the findings of this report is based upon on the questions posed in the original consultation document.

Table 10 - Q5 Summary of responses

As Table 10 shows, 87 people responded to this question. 50 out of the 87 respondents agreed that the proposals present a sound basis for developing LFRMP, whilst only 7 specifically stating they disagreed with the proposals. It should be noted that other respondents discussed the proposals but did not provide a definitive view on whether they were in favour or against the proposals.

There was repetition in the answers from previous questions including the issues of expertise, funding and the importance of guidance.

The hierarchical approach was well received. However, several respondents suggested that success will depend on how stakeholders approach the task and that better integration and collaboration is required.

Figure 11 - Respondents opinions on whether the proposals are a sound basis for Local Flood Risk Management Plans

Further analysis of the results (Figure 11) suggested that 16 out of the 20 relevant local authority responses (these that included Yes/No answers) felt that the proposals were a sufficient basis for LFRMPs. All non-governmental organisations, the public, the private sector representatives and consultants provided a consistently positive view of the proposals. Only a small number of local authorities (4) and 2 statutory consultees were not in favour.

SEPA suggested that they would support the basis of the FRMP and SFM, if supported by a duty for all responsible authorities to cooperate and that funding was made available. This must include collaboration to deliver the objectives and measures identified in the flood management plans.

Scottish Water also agreed that LFRMPs should be developed this way, through cooperation among local authorities and for areas of significant flood risk. However, issues were raised with how future funding could be aligned to existing mechanisms. The inclusion of Sustainable Urban Drainage plans in the LRMPs was seen as a positive step.

Figure 12 - Issues raised consistently by respondents

Figure 12 describes the issues which were consistently raised by respondents. Funding was raised on 16 occasions and was identified as being one of the most important issues, especially with the removal of grant funding. A total of 7 respondents specifically stated that they would prefer to see this money ring fenced. The issue of how Scottish Water's funding mechanism would need to be aligned was also raised. If Scottish Water is to be funded to contribute to specific flooding schemes, Flood Management Plans and costed solutions would have to be developed in Scottish Water's Business Plan 2 years prior to start of the regulatory period.

The need for technical expertise was also raised as being essential to the process (10 responses), which reflects the findings of previous questions.

Numerous respondents (9 responses) highlighted the importance of ensuring the LFRMPs are based upon the best available information and they are consistent on how they deal with this information. The plans will require sufficient input from all responsible authorities. Concerns were expressed by several respondents (5 responses) that flood risk and hazard maps will be based on SEPA's Flood Maps and will not show flooding from sewers, overland flow and other sources of flooding. It was therefore considered essential that mapping is generated on a bottom up approach utilising local knowledge, as well as a top down approach. Several respondents believed that it should be compulsory for Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems ( SUDS) master plans to be included in LFRMPs.

A small number of respondents considered the 2 tier system over-bureaucratic (with local authorities being faced with another statutory plan), while other suggested an intermediate level was required, where area plans could be applied in large urban areas with complex flood risk, administered by multiple local authorities and other responsible authorities.

Several respondents highlighted the need for 'flood committees' where catchments cross one or more local authority boundaries and for funding to be aggregated across these areas. This would involve local authorities being required to work together and share funding. It was suggested the proposed advisory groups should be termed 'River Basin Flood Management Groups' in recognition of their function. Two respondents highlighted the need for the term 'significant risk' to be defined.

Other issues which were raised included:

• Timescales need agreement for the production of LFRMPs;
• Concerns over the number of plans which will produced;
• The criteria for determining risk should mirror that used in the Civil Contingencies legislation where risk is assessed according to likelihood and impact;
• Concern that limited resources may be directed towards urban centres with large populations;
• One respondent suggested that it would be prudent to reserve the power for Ministers to designate a lead authority within a catchment area where local authorities have been unable to do so.

Response from Workshops

The issue of funding was raised at all of the workshops, in particular concerns over prioritisation of funding and how the various groups with identified roles would be funded. The importance of maintaining a two-way exchange of information was highlighted in the workshops, as well as in the written responses. Many highlighted the need for a top down as well as a bottom up approach. It was suggested that a strategic overview was required in the national plan, which will set the requirements of local plans. Concerns were also raised over the skills shortage at all workshops.

The importance of using the best available information was also raised at both the Glasgow and Aberdeen workshops, more specifically the fact that local authorities may have better flooding information than the SEPA flood maps and it is therefore important that this is communicated.

Issues Raised at Public Meetings

Funding was again consistently raised at all of the public meetings, reflecting the results of the workshops and the responses to the written consultation. The need for cooperation between stakeholders was also raised on numerous occasions (refer to Section 1.5 for further detail).

Question 6: Should Ministers or SEPA have the power to designate a lead authority within a local area, or should it be left to the partners?

A total of 83 people responded to this question. Details of the responses are shown in Table 11.

Table 11 - Q6 Summary of responses

The majority considered it was practical for the partners to have the power to designate a lead authority (54 out of 83 responses). However, many respondents suggested that fall back powers may be required in event of disagreement. The most appropriate arbitration mechanism was considered to be Ministerial intervention (27 responses). Several respondents (2) considered SEPA should have arbitration powers, while 5 suggested it should be either SEPA or Ministers and were unable to provide a definitive answer.

Figure 13 - Respondents views on whether Ministers or SEPA should have the power to designate lead authorities or whether it should be left for partners

As indicated in Figure 13, the majority of local authorities (22 out of 25 responses) supported the view that partners should have this responsibility. This is also reflected in the responses from consultants, emergency services, non-governmental organisations, the public, professional organisations and statutory consultees. Only the public sector were unable to provide a consensus of opinion, with 2 respondents suggesting that Ministers should have these powers, 2 suggesting SEPA and a further 2 suggesting that it should be partners. Many of the respondents suggested that should a dispute occur, there should be a fall back position. Figure 14 describes the suggestions for the mechanism should arbitration be required.

Figure 14 - Respondents suggestions for an arbitration mechanism

The results suggest that the preferred method of intervention should be Ministerial intervention (27 responses).

SEPA and Scottish Water suggested that the responsibility should be left to partners with Ministerial intervention should agreement not be reached.

Response from Workshops

The need for an arbitration mechanism was raised at the Aberdeen workshop. If agreement cannot be reached on the LFRMPs then it was suggested that there would be a need for a designated authority to make the final decision and resolve any differences.

Issues Raised at Public Meetings

No specific issues were raised for this question at any of the meetings.

Question 7: Do you agree that Local Authorities, Scottish Water, the Forestry Commission, and SNH should be identified as responsible authorities?

101 consultees responded to this question with a summary of responses is described in Table 12.

Table 12 - Q7 Summary of responses

Figure 15 indicates the majority of respondents (68) agreed with the responsible authorities put forward. A total of 5 respondents agreed that local authorities and Scottish Water should be identified as responsible authorities but disagreed with SNH and the Forestry Commission being identified as responsible authorities. 4 of respondents agreed with Scottish Water, SNH and the Forestry Commission being responsible authorities but suggested that local authorities should be identified as competent authorities.

Analysis of the responses by category showed that though the majority of local authorities agreed with the proposed responsible authorities, four put forward the suggestion that they should form a joint competent authority, and a further two local authorities put forward that they should be the competent authority instead of SEPA.

As the proposed responsible authorities have differing roles in flood management there would need to be clarity surrounding their roles and responsibilities. It was suggested that a legal duty would need to be placed on responsible authorities to ensure that adequate financial resources were made available by responsible authorities to allow plans to progress. This suggestion was echoed during the public meetings where it was suggested that a legal duty would be required to enable funding streams from the various responsible authorities to be spent on flood risk solutions.

Concerns were raised surrounding the skill and competency of the responsible authorities put forward, particularly relating to their knowledge of hydrology and engineering. To allow SNH and the Forestry Commission to be involved in the process, a suggestion was to form a 'consultee' role, which would sit below the responsible authorities roles. These organisations would then be consulted where necessary. It was suggested that there was no clear justification for proposing SNH and the Forestry Commission as responsible authorities.

Other respondents felt that given the current role of local authorities in flood risk management they should be designated as competent authorities rather than responsible authorities, and SEPA should be designated as a responsible authority. In addition to this some respondents felt that SEPA and local authorities could form a joint competent authority.

The two tier approach proposed was criticized: having a competent authority and then responsible authorities, would lead to overlap and duplication of effort in achieving SFM goals. It was also suggested that it should be structured how FLAGs are at the moment, with cross border groups for catchments which cover more than one local authority boundary. Concern over cross border working was brought up both in the public meetings and workshops. It was felt that this had not been addressed in the bill, even though the need was recognised for catchment wide flood risk management solutions.

Response from Workshops

The respondents to the consultation raised the issue of the skills and competency of the proposed responsible authorities. During the workshops this point was taken further, with participants questioning the competency of local authorities in relation to their knowledge of hydrology and SEPA in relation to their engineering knowledge. It was suggested that there could be a requirement for consultants to bridge this skills gap. However, local authorities raised concerns that this would result in a loss of resources when local authorities are already stretched.

A further issue that was raised at the Dunfermline workshop was that there needs to be a legal requirement to ensure that responsible authorities cooperate with the competent authority. It is believed that there needs to be a clear mechanism for the competent authority to engage with stakeholders and that they must have clearly defined roles.

Issues Raised at Public Meetings

Concern over cross border working was brought up both in the public meetings and workshops. It was felt that this had not been addressed in the Bill, even though the need was recognised for catchment wide flood risk management solutions. It was also raised that someone needs to be appointed to oversee the responsible bodies in case of conflicting opinions.

Question 8: Which other bodies should be identified as responsible authorities?

129 consultees responded to this question, a breakdown of the answers is described in Table 13.

Table 13 - Q8 Summary of responses

A total of 31 different, specific organisations were put forward by 52 respondents, a breakdown of responses is shown in Table 14.

Table 14 - Suggestions for responsible authorities

The most popular suggestions were British Waterways, Transport Scotland, Network Rail, National Farmers Union and Port Authorities. Some respondents highlighted specific sectors as opposed to specific organisations. These are summarised in Table 15.

Table 15 - Sectors suggested for inclusion as responsible authorities

As described in Table 15 organisations with responsibility for critical infrastructure were put forward by respondents as responsible authorities. With these suggestions experience from the summer floods of 2007 in England and the subsequent review by Sir Michael Pitt was also highlighted, along with themes of private sector resilience against flooding. Some respondents did not highlight specific organisations or sectors, but just that anyone with experience or expertise in flooding should be included.

Respondents stated that the organisations put forward as responsible authorities should be politically accountable and that they needed to be established on catchment scale rather than local authority boundaries. This would ensure that river catchments which do cross boundaries still have an integrated approach to flood management.

Response from Workshops

One issue raised at the Glasgow workshop was that landowners have a key role to play in strategic flood risk management, particularly in rural areas. While attendees at the workshop believed that landowners could not be considered as responsible authorities, it was stated that they should be involved in the preparation of FRMPs.

Question 9: Do you agree that responsible authorities should have a duty to work together within Flood Advisory Groups to produce plans?

127 consultees responded to this question, a summary of responses is described in Table 16

Table 16 - Q9 Summary of responses

68% of respondents agreed that responsible authorities should have a duty to work together within flood advisory groups to produce plans. Figure 16 provides a breakdown of the category of respondent who agreed that a duty should be placed on responsible authorities to work together within FLAGs to produce plans.

Figure 16 - Breakdown by category of respondent who agreed that a duty should be placed on responsible authorities to work together within FLAGs to produce plans

Figure 17 - Respondents views on whether responsible authorities should have a duty to work together within Flood Advisory Groups to produce plans

As described in Figure 17, the majority of local authorities, non-governmental organisations, statutory organisations, public sector responses and consultants all favoured the proposals. The only sector which was split was the members of the public, where 7 were against the proposals and 10 provided a positive view.

Although the majority of respondents agreed that a duty needed to be placed on responsible authorities the following concerns were highlighted.

• Cross border working where catchments cover different local authority boundaries;
• Resources involved in producing plans;
• Resources involved in creating sustainable flood management solutions;
• 'Make up' of Flood Advisory Groups including effectiveness/ competency of responsible authorities;
• Actual delivery of flood risk management plans.

A detailed analysis of the range of arguments presented surrounding the highlighted issues is provided below.

Although paragraph 3.35 stated that 'where there is a requirement to develop Local Flood Risk Management Plan for a catchment crossing a local authority boundary, the relevant groups would have a duty to collaborate in the production of that plan', concerns were still raised by two local authorities over how this would work in practice. They were concerned that if the solution to the flood risk problem was in a different local authority boundary to the actual flooding problem itself which local authority would provide the resource for the work, the 'flooded' authority or the 'attenuating' authority.

Paragraph 3.34 proposed that for the production of Area Flood Risk Management Plans, flood risk management advisory groups would be formed and to support the integration of flood risk with the Water Framework Directive, these groups would be subgroups of the Advisory Groups established under the 2003 Act.

The Water Framework Directive 200/60 EC requires all member states to put in place systems for managing water environments based on their natural river basin districts. The WFD applies to all water in the natural environment (rivers, coastal waters, lochs, groundwater etc). For each river basin district a strategic management plan needs to be drawn up highlighting the environmental problems and what needs to be done to achieve 'good ecological status'. As the plans are on a river basin district this ensures a catchment approach. Though achieving good ecological status is one of the primary objectives the WFD seeks to control all impacts on water bodies, this includes pollutants as well as physical impacts, for example impacts of in stream structures including flood control infrastructure.

The WFD was transposed into primary legislation in Scotland by means of the Water Environment and Water Services Act 2003. Through the WEWs (Scotland) Act 2003 advisory groups were set up, consisting of a number of responsible authorities to enable delivery of the WFD.

Concerns were raised by one private individual over the proposals that flood risk management advisory groups would be subgroups of the advisory groups set up to deliver requirements of the WFD. This was because it implied that 'flood risk advisory groups would be sub-ordinate to groups created to coordinate WFD issues, this gives the impression that flora and fauna is valued above flood risk and human life'.

Many more respondents from Local Authorities, NGOs and statutory consultees welcomed however the proposals to align the production of flood risk management plans with the WFD, as this represented a 'co-ordinated management of the water environment'.

Private individuals particularly those who had experienced flooding had a negative opinion on the proposals. This centred on the effectiveness of the authorities responsible for flooding.

Though issues and concerns were highlighted by respondents to this question some also put forward potential solutions, these are summarised below.

• Service Level Agreement to be placed on responsible authorities to ensure plan delivery as well as production of plans;
• Use a similar model for the production of Local Flood Risk management Plans as the existing planning process , Planning Act (Scotland) etc 2006;
• Formation of 'Flood Committees' to work together irrespective of local authority boundaries.

Response from Workshops

The workshops raised the issue that there needs to be an integrated approach and that Scottish Water should have a duty to assist in the preparation of plans. It was also raised that FLAGs should be used to bring together political spheres.

It was also stated that the FRMP process should be auditable and require clear objectives. The focus of the group also needs to be clearly defined.

Attendees at the workshops also stated that the existing FLAG Groups have an important role as they are area specific and involve relevant regional stakeholders. It is believed that these groups enable local authorities to work together with stakeholders at a more strategic level. However, the issue of persuading senior staff to attend meeting of these groups, funding and resources was also raised.

Issues Raised at Public Meetings

Discussion in the public meeting included the belief that the proposals should be aimed at gathering all relevant experience and making the relevant bodies work together to promote strategic flood risk management.

Question 10: Do you agree the proposals are sufficient to support wider stakeholder and community engagement in the flood risk management planning process?

128 consultees responded to this question. A summary of the responses is included in Table 17.

Table 17 - Q10 Summary of responses

47% of respondents thought that the proposals were sufficient to support wider stakeholder and community engagement and 27% of respondents thought that the proposals were not sufficient.

Figure 18 describes the findings by category of organisation.

Figure 18 - Respondents views on whether the proposals are sufficient to support wider stakeholder and community engagement in the flood risk management planning process

Figure 18 shows that opinions were split between private individuals, non-governmental organisations and some private sector companies on whether the proposals were sufficient. Local authorities were generally supportive with 22 out of 28 providing a positive response.

Of those respondents that stated that stakeholder and community engagement was not required in the FRM planning process the reasons for this centred around concerns that this would slow up the FRM planning process. These responses came largely from the private sector. There was also the view that communities that are at risk from flooding but have not been subject to flooding are reluctant to actively participate in planning and it would be difficult to engage them in this process.

There appears to be two distinct schools of thought emerging from the respondents on this question. Some believed that community and stakeholder engagement was not necessary, while many other respondents called for active participation. The key to achieving genuine stakeholder and community engagement was thought to lie in plan ownership. It was suggested that the National Flood Forum in England could provide guidance on achieving this.

Some respondents highlighted that the proposals outlined were not sufficient, did not go far enough and required clarification; and also that stakeholder and community engagement was not just a 'tick box' exercise. To strengthen the current proposals it was suggested that a 'Participation Statement' be drawn up for all involved in FRMP consultation, as well as a duty placed on them to participate.

Many respondents did agree that proposals were sufficient and that local authorities should take the lead with the engagement process. The reasons stated for this was not only do they have democratic and local accountability, but also established, robust systems for consultation and communication. This school of thought was presented by the local authorities themselves, who see it as their role to undertake community and stakeholder engagement as the delivery methods for this are already in place.

Scottish Water agreed with the proposals requiring stakeholder engagement. SEPA also provided a positive response and highlighted the importance of maximizing the use of existing stakeholder mechanisms available to all responsible authorities.

Response from Workshops

Attendees at the workshops stated that stakeholder involvement and public consultation is key to strategic flood management and that there needs to be more effort for stakeholder engagement than there has been in the past.

Question 11: Do you agree that the Bill should set out a process similar to that for River Basin Management Planning for the preparation by SEPA of area flood risk management plans?

A total of 126 consultees responded to this question. A summary of the responses is provided in Table 18.

Table 18 - Q11 Summary of responses

Figure 19 - Respondents views on whether the Bill should set out a process similar to that for River Basin Management Planning for the preparation by SEPA of area flood risk management plans

As indicated in Table 18 and Figure 19, the majority of respondents welcomed that a process for preparation of FRMPs should be similar to the RMBP process. Only 7 out of the 31 local authority responses were negative about the proposals.

Many considered that that the existing model of the RMBP process worked and also that it would enable linkages with the WFD process.

Some respondents agreed that the bill should propose a process similar to that for RMBP, but lessons needed to be learned from this process, with consideration being given to how the plans could link together to ensure an integrated approach to water management. The respondents stated that the effectiveness of the proposals would depend on time and resources available. There was also concern over the duplication of effort in producing FRMPs.

14 respondents disagreed with the similar approach for FRMP preparation as for RBMPs. The suggested reason for this concern was the objectives of RBMPs and FRMPs differ and therefore it may not be an appropriate model to base this process on. In addition, as FRMPs will only be required for catchments with significant flood risk, the elaborate approach required for RBMPs was not required.

Concerns were also raised that the RBMP process was extremely 'top down' and there should be a 'bottom up' approach, with aspirations identified by responsible authorities reflecting the assessment of local flood requirements. The issue of national boundaries was also highlighted, and that the proposals should make provision for the Tweed & Solway river catchments which cross national boundaries.

Response from Workshops

Attendees at the Aberdeen workshop believed that River Basin Management Planning provides SEPA with powers to ensure that their requirements are met. It was suggested that in relation to the Flooding Bill, there needs to be a similar level of authority to ensure that all parties meet the specified requirements.

Question 12: Do you agree that Ministers have the power to approve, reject or modify Area Flood Risk Management Plans?

125 consultees responded to this question. A summary of the results is described in Table 19.

Table 19 - Q12 Summary of responses

Figure 20 - Respondents views on whether Ministers should have the power to approve, reject or modify Area Flood Risk Management Plans

A total of 89 respondents agreed that Ministers should have the power to approve reject or modify Area FRMPs. The majority went on further to say that Ministers must however justify their decisions and have the necessary technical support to make such decisions, as well as ensuring their decisions are transparent and accountable. It was also suggested that if plans were to be modified that this should be done in consultation with the organisation who has prepared the plans.

As shown in Figure 20, local authorities provided a mainly positive response to this question, with 29 out of the 33 responses suggesting that they would support the proposals. The emergency services, public sector and statutory consultees all fully supported the proposals.

Although only a small percentage of respondents objected to the proposals, some strong opinions were also voiced. This was particularly relating to modern government which it was suggested should empower and not control, and that area FRMPs should be approved by the competent authority. There were also concerns raised that if Ministers had overall approval for plans that they could then be utilised for political gain. These views were put forward by 4 local authorities and 2 private individuals.

Scottish Water and SEPA supported the proposals and suggested that the RBMP process was an appropriate approach.

Response from Workshops

A number of issues relating to this question were raised at the Aberdeen workshop. It was generally accepted that someone must have the ability to accept or reject plans.

Two respondents believed that there should be an independent review of the plans and a process for call in by Ministers. Alternatively, it was suggested that this be one of the roles of a flooding advisory group.

One respondent raised the issue that the plans should not be reviewed by SEPA if they are involved in the production of the plans.

A further issue raised was whether Ministerial approval would be undemocratic and/or lead to a lack of accountability. It would therefore be vital to retain the right to object to proposals on planning grounds.

Question 13: Do you think that integrated urban drainage plans should be included as part of a Local Flood Risk Management Plan?

A total of 131 consultees responded to this question. A summary of the responses is provided in Table 20.

Table 20 - Q13 Summary of responses

There was an overwhelmingly positive reaction to the proposals for integrated Urban Drainage Plans being included in local FRMPs (Figure 21). None of respondents were against the proposal. Many suggested that the key to achieving sustainable flood management was that flood management plans needed to address flooding from all sources.

One of the main issues raised was in relation to the clarity and responsibilities over the management of surface water flooding and the need for the proposals to go further to address these 'grey areas'. The differing design standards between drainage (1 in30 year return period) and fluvial (1 in 200 year return period) and also highway drainage (1 in 5 year return period) were mentioned by respondents and those who attended the consultation workshops.

An issue which was identified was that of who has the responsibility when surface water sewers surcharge for storms greater than a 1 in 30 year event. It was suggested that revised design standards should be created for new developments, surface water systems assessed and solutions retrofitted. The 2nd Edition of Sewers for Scotland was also criticised for lack of reference to the use of SUDS.

Most respondents mentioned SUDS, with suggestions that there was a lack of data on SUDS and this meant that public confidence in their ability to reduce flood risk was low.

It was also highlighted that rural drainage should be considered as well as urban drainage. Respondents stated that timescales and resources for the preparation of these plans required consideration as it was thought these would be more onerous than preparation of FRMPs.

The Sustainable Urban Drainage Scottish Working Party ( SUDSWP) stated they support the Scottish Government's approach to integrating urban drainage and the proposal that standard agreements between Scottish Water and other statutory authorities, typically local authorities, be included as part of a FRMP. However, they did suggest that such standard agreements may be influenced by local circumstances. They also suggested that it must be recognised that integrated urban drainage will consider matters beyond flood mitigation, for example water quality, social and amenity aspects. SUDWP members believe that FRMPs should be a statutory requirement which should inform decisions on potential land use within the development plans and that flood routing and the dual use of amenity area and flood storage must be clearly identified.

SEPA suggested that legislation must support an integrated approach to urban drainage that enables coordination of effort and measures by local authorities and Scottish Water. They suggested that the Metropolitan Glasgow Strategic Drainage Plan provides a valuable template. SEPA also suggested that Integrated Urban Drainage Plans must be part of Catchment Flood Management Plans and that sewer flooding should be an important component of the FRMP. In urban areas it was suggested that pluvial flooding, coastal flooding, fluvial flooding and sewer flooding were all part of the interconnected problem which generates the flood risk.

Response from Workshops

The workshops raised the issue that 'urban drainage' should be defined, and also to include in this definition who is responsible for urban drainage.

One discussion group at the Dunfermline workshop agreed that it was essential that integrated urban drainage plans be included as part of LFRMPs. However, another disagreed with this opinion, and suggested that these plans are usually based on a 5 year cycle which is not long enough and are mainly local in terms of area. It was also noted that it is important to consider rural as well as urban plans.

Issues Raised at Public Meetings

Views from the consultation responses were echoed in the public meetings. However, discussion in the public meetings went further and specifically highlighted that 'pluvial' and 'sewer' flooding were not implicitly mentioned in the proposals.

Question 14: Should Flood Risk Management Plans inform the way that development plans are prepared, or should there be a stronger linkage such as a requirement on planning authorities to show that they have regard to the FRMPs?

92 consultees responded to this question, a summary of responses is described in Table 21.

Table 21 - Q14 Summary of responses

Figure 22 - Respondents views on whether FRMPs should inform the way development plans are prepared

As described in Figure 22 , of the 84 who gave a clear answer to this question the majority, 80%, thought that there should either be a requirement on planning authorities or that there should be a stronger linkage. 18% felt that FRMPs should only inform on development plans.

27 local authorities responded to this question. Generally there was a strong feeling amongst them that there was a direct need for FRMPs to inform on development plans. Many felt that this would support a consistent approach across Scotland and would ensure that FRMPs are put into place. It was felt that development plans are a key tool in the delivery of FRMPs in ensuring that inappropriate development does not occur. It was felt that there was a need for a strong link between flood mitigation and planning and that this should be made clear in legislation. Where developments departed from the development plan they could be identified by the competent authority for referral to Ministers. It was noted, however, that there would be a need for a mechanism whereby this regard could be demonstrated.

It was noted that at present the identification of sites for inclusion in development plans comes from the SEPA Indicative Flood Maps. These maps have limitations and a greater degree of detail will be required for FRMPs; it was noted that it was sensible for this detail to be carried over into the preparation of development plans.

The stronger linkage between FRMPs and development plans would also offer additional benefits. It would justify the storage of studies and data on flooding in a common spatial planning format. It was also noted that the role of the planning authority could extent to securing other improvement through planning gain which could contribute to reducing flood risk. This approach could also contribute to integrated partnership working.

It was noted by one respondent that there may be procedural issues relating to timing in that FRMPs need to be available to inform on drafts of the development plan.

It was noted that there appears to be little consideration being given to pluvial and sewer flooding which are an integral part of flood risk management.

Several local authority respondents noted that either in parallel with the development of the new Flooding Bill, or soon afterwards, there would be a need for a significant review of Scottish Planning Policy 7: Planning and Flooding ( SPP7). This would lead to greater clarity in the recommendations from this policy with particular regard to development on flood plains.

One respondent noted there should be enhanced recognition that leaving an area undeveloped in order to provide storage and attenuation of flood waters could be sufficient justification alone for not allocating a site for development, or for refusing planning permission.

Of those respondents who did not endorse a stronger linkage there was a minority who explicitly stated that informing on development plans was sufficient. Some respondents suggested that legislation requiring regard of FRMPs was too strong and that the benefits could be achieved through a review of SPP7 alone.

It was noted in one response that in some instances the development of a particular site may be of overriding social or economic need, and may be deemed more important than for FRMP purposes. For this reason it was stated that there should be a reciprocal relationship whereby development plans also inform on FRMPs.

There were seven responses from statutory consultees to this question. Six of these showed a clear preference for a requirement to have regard to FRMPs and one thought a stronger linkage was required. There were no significant additional issues mentioned which have not been identified previously.

There were 19 responses to this question from non-governmental organisations. Of these, 17 suggested a requirement or stronger link between development plans and FRMPs.

The opportunities available to local authorities to obtain additional funding for projects through the planning process (such as structures provided at the expense of developers) to mitigate against flood risk was again highlighted - possibly through the use of 'mitigation projects' as used in other fields. Again a review of SPP7 was mentioned, and specifically that this should be brought in line with Planning Policy Statement 25 ( PPS25) in England. Mentioned in particular were the options for 'Exception Testing' and the increased consideration of sustainable land raising opportunities. The Exception Test in PPS 25 can be applied in areas of flood high risk, where development may be permitted when sustainability benefits outweigh the flood risk issues.

Of the two responses who felt that there should be a lesser requirement the only point raised was that SPP7 currently provided a suitable system.

Across other respondent groups the support for a stronger relationship between FRMPs and development plans was also widespread. Among responses from the public there was especially strong support for a stronger linkage. Few points in addition to those raised previously were mentioned.

Response from Workshops

Comments received at the workshops were generally in line with the suggestion that there should be a requirement to have regard to FRMPs when developing local plans.

Issues Raised at Public Meetings

Few issues were mentioned at the public meetings in relation to this issue. It was again noted, however, that there seemed to be insufficient consideration of pluvial and sewer flooding in the consultation.

« Previous | Contents | Next »