The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

3.3 Statutory Processes and the CAR Regulations

Question 15: Do you think that the granting of deemed planning permissions at the end of the statutory process for flood risk management will deliver a more streamlined approach to the delivery of flood risk management?

Question 16: Should Ministerial confirmation be made necessary even where features of a scheme do not require planning permission?

Question 17: Is the present procedure for Ministerial confirmation satisfactory for this new purpose or are there revisions e.g. to timescale which should be considered?

Question 18: Do you think that the option to rely on a local authority based process in a similar way as to other local authority development activity should be taken forward?

Question 19: What would be appropriate timescales for notification and response?

Question 20: Would it be appropriate for such a process to carry deemed planning consent?

Question 21: How should the issue of technical expertise and capacity to ensure the necessary technical standards are observed, be addressed?

Question 22: Are there any additional alternatives to the options outlined above which would simplify procedures?

Questions 15 to 22 dealt with simplifying statutory processes and CAR regulations.

There was difficulty in assessing responses to these questions in that the online submission form differed in structure from the set of questions in the consultation document.

This set of questions was based around two main proposals for simplifying procedures:

• Option 1 - Ministerial Approval to also grant deemed planning permission;
• Option 2 - Relying on a local authority based procedure.

While no clear question was asked over which option was preferable, the clearest indication comes from Question 18 - whether the option of a local authority based process should be taken forward. This will be discussed further for that particular question. It should be noted that some respondents, where there was a clear preference for one option or the other, declined to answer questions relating to their less preferred option.

The consultation paper stated, in section 3.58, four main issues which needed to apply whichever option was pursued, namely:

• That the rights of those entitled to object under planning law and those entitled to object under the 1961 Act are maintained;
• The flood risk management measure would have to be submitted with sufficient details for the planning issues to be considered;
• The flood risk management "permissible limits of deviation' would have to be accommodated in the deemed planning consent;
• The requirements of the environmental impact assessment directive were met. A number of respondents made comments relating to these points; in an effort to maintain clarity in this report these points will not be listed where they have been re-iterated by respondents.

These issues were re-iterated in several responses, however for clarity they are not discussed further.

Question 15: Do you think that the granting of deemed planning permissions at the end of the statutory process for flood risk management will deliver a more streamlined approach to the delivery of flood risk management?

A total of 78 consultees responded to this question, a summary is provided in Table 22.

Table 22 - Q15 Summary of responses

Figure 23 - Respondents opinions on whether the granting of deemed planning permissions will deliver a more streamlined approach to the delivery of flood risk management

Of the 63 who gave a clear answer to this question the majority, 81%, thought that granting deemed planning permission will deliver a more streamlined approach (Figure 23). Two points should be noted, however:

• Some of these positive respondents considered Option 2 to be preferable to Option 1;
• While agreeing the process was more 'streamlined' they still had reservations about the deemed planning consent process.

There were 26 responses to this question received from local authorities, the majority of whom (80%) considered that a more streamlined approach would be achieved. However, responses to this question were complex as in several cases the question was answered 'Yes' but qualified with the statement that a local authority led process was preferred.

A number of local authorities raised the concern that the adoption of this approach would run counter to the Planning etc (Scotland) Act 2006 which removes deemed planning consent for other types of development. It was noted by one respondent that the analogy of this approach to that contained within Section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act (for wind farms) was erroneous. This respondent, along with others, considered that flood management should be considered as any other type of planning.

Several local authorities raised concerns that Ministerial deemed planning consent would remove local democracy. This point of view was supported by the suggestion that a key facet of sustainable flood management was increased involvement and awareness of the local community and householders. There was also mention that the move towards block funding of local authorities should be matched by the devolution of flooding responsibilities.

A small number of local authorities suggested that the streamlining of the planning and Flood Management processes was favourable, but may prove difficult when alignment with other processes ( CAR, conservation areas, scheduled monuments and listed building) was attempted.

Some positive responses considered that a system of Ministerial deemed planning consent may be favourable, especially in cases where there are cross-boundary considerations. This was supported by suggestions that a two-tier approach may be required whereby measures on a large and cross-boundary scale (or identified as being of national importance) may fall under the remit of Ministers. Smaller scale, more locally implemented measures could then fall within the remit of local authorities.

There were five responses from statutory consultees, all of which answered 'Yes' to the question. SEPA stated that they were in principle supporting of this approach and highlighted that elements of CAR, flood protection orders and planning could be aligned. Scottish Water re-iterated their preference for a Ministerial led approach. Historic Scotland pointed out that there may be issues around other types of permission (such as Scheduled Monument and Listed Buildings) which would need careful consideration before any type of 'one stop solution' was identified.

There were few responses from non-governmental organisations, however a few points were raised. It was suggested that the current process should be maintained with a call-in of cases where there are unresolved objections. Of respondents who answered 'Yes' it was noted that this approach might reduce duplication of effort, but that the notification system would have to be enhanced. RSPB used this question to raise concerns that there was a need to ensure that there is maintenance of the right to provide oral evidence at inquiry (given their recent experience that Reporters are tending to accept oral evidence only on issues raised by statutory consultees).

Other respondent groups reinforced the need to maintain local democracy, and to ensure a call-in process in cases of dispute. Similar to other responses it was noted that it might be difficult to integrate with other permissions which might be required including Traffic Orders.

Response from Workshops

There were no additional points raised during the workshops in addition to those discussed above.

Issues Raised at Public Meetings

There were no significant points raised at the public meetings in relation to this question.

Question 16: Should Ministerial confirmation be made necessary even where features of a scheme do not require planning permission?

72 consultees responded to this question, a summary is shown in Table 23.

Table 23 - Q16 Summary of responses

Figure 24 - Respondents views on whether Ministerial confirmation should be made necessary even when features of a scheme do not require planning permission

There were 60 clear responses to this question, a small minority (52%) considered that Ministerial confirmation should not be made necessary where features of a scheme do not require planning permission (Figure 24). A small number of respondents suggested that the situation was unlikely to occur and so should not be considered differently to a standard approach.

Issues raised by respondents

There were 24 responses to this question received from local authorities with a majority (54%) considering that Ministerial confirmation should not be necessary. This view was qualified by statements that it would require sufficient design guidance from the Scottish Government, and that suitable technical checks would need to be in place.

One issue consistently raised in favour of Ministerial confirmation in all cases was the suggestion that consideration should be given to a complete package of measures - some sections of which may not require planning permission. This approach is in keeping with the general spirit of SFM.

Following from the suggestions for Question 15 it was suggested by some local authorities that a two-tier approach might be required in which case the requirement for Ministerial confirmation would be retained for all parts of large scale, cross boundary schemes. The confirmation would not be required for small scale measures - however there was no indication on how measures/schemes might be classified.

One local authority respondent made the point that measures falling into the category would be few. For this reason it may not be useful to create a 'grey area' given that any increased workload to confirm this small number would be relatively insignificant. Another local authority opined that there should not be a requirement for Ministerial confirmation in such cases if there was any risk of increasing the timescales between design and implementation.

There were five responses from statutory consultees. SEPA stated that their preference was for Option 2, the local authority led process, however if the Ministerial approach was adopted then requiring confirmation in all cases would ensure due regard in flood risk management for other plans. SNH suggested that all cases should require confirmation otherwise some elements of a scheme may not be consulted upon, removing scope for local consultation. Requiring confirmation would also offer an opportunity to consider CAR and Natura at the same time.

Only a small number of non-governmental organisations responded to this question. Most responses reinforced the argument that schemes should be considered in their entirety. One responded suggested that this confirmation should be retained for large schemes only.

Responses from other consultees raised a number of additional points:

• That Ministerial approval should be retained where there are cross boundary issues and local authorities involved cannot reach agreement;
• That requiring this confirmation may unduly delay minor maintenance, repair or upgrading; and
• There should be no requirement for small schemes.

Response from Workshops

There were no additional points raised during the workshops in addition to those discussed above.

Issues Raised at Public Meetings

There were no significant points raised at the public meetings in relation to this question.

Question 17: Is the present procedure for Ministerial confirmation satisfactory for this new purpose or are there revisions e.g. to timescale which should be considered?

47 consultees provided responses to this question. However, the answers provided were not simple 'Yes/No' answers but rather raised a range of opinions relevant to the question. For this reason it was not practical to produce a graphical illustration of responses.

A small number of local authority respondents considered the current procedure to be satisfactory and offered no additional comments; the majority highlighted where revisions could be made. Most comments were in regard to timescale. Many respondents wanted shortened or fixed timescales. It was suggested that improvements could be gained through:

• Removing the need for Ministerial confirmation;
• Early engagement with stakeholders;
• The use of approved flood risk maps;
• Reduction of timescales to match planning.
• A system whereby unfounded/spurious objections can be identified and dismissed before resulting in a public enquiry

There were few points raised by statutory consultees. SEPA stated that the present system for ministerial confirmation should be aligned with the principles of the current planning appeals modernising consultation where they relate to national and major developments.

There were few additional points raised by non-governmental organisations other than to highlight that timescales should be reduced in urgent cases of social and financial suffering.

A number of points were raised by other respondents including:

• There should be scope for small changes to flood management schemes after submission;
• To avoid the need for a Local Public Inquiry if only one objection remains;
• Fast tracking of small measures;
• A single set of drawing to satisfy flood management, planning and CAR.

There were also concerns over the removal of ring fencing of local authority funding. One suggestion was to put in place a minimum level of flood risk management which every local authority should attain.

Several respondents referred to a draft flow chart which was circulated at the first stakeholder workshop in Glasgow. These respondents felt that this flowchart (largely) provided an effective system although might require minor amendments (Figure 25).

Figure 25 - Suggested approval structure (Note: provisional draft for discussion only)

Response from Workshops

There were no additional points raised during the workshops in addition to those discussed above except for endorsement of a process similar to that in the flowchart.

Issues Raised at Public Meetings

There were no significant points raised at the public meetings in relation to this question.

Question 18: Do you think that the option to rely on a local authority based process in a similar way as to other local authority development activity should be taken forward?

As stated previously this question gave respondents the clearest opportunity to express a preference between the two options presented in the consultation paper.

79 consultees responded to this question, a summary of responses is described in Table 24.

Table 24 - Q18 Summary of responses

Figure 26 - Respondents opinions on whether the option to rely on a local authority based process in a similar way as to other local authority development activity should be taken forward

Of the 71 consultees who gave a clear answer to this question the majority (80%) considered that the option to rely on local authorities should be taken forward (Figure 26).

Issues raised by respondents

Of the 27 individual local authorities who responded 25 explicitly stated their view that this option should be taken forward, with only Midlothian and West Dumbartonshire Councils providing the opposite opinion.

A large number of local authority respondents were of the opinion that following the removal of block grants to Local Authorities, by a similar logic the responsibility for flood risk management should also be managed at this level.

Concerns were raised by South Ayrshire Council that the lack of ring fencing may result in less investment in FRM given the competing responsibilities for local authorities. Several respondents were also concerned that local authorities had insufficient expertise and resources to fulfil this role.

Several respondents thought, similarly to previous questions, that a two-tier approach may be appropriate whereby local authorities would take responsibility for small scale measure whereas cross-border measures would be better handled by a central authority or by Ministers. Additionally it was suggested that there may be an alternative centrally controlled funding process for large scale schemes.

Several local authority respondents included comments relating to Compulsory Purchase Orders ( CPO). This relates to the previous point made on maintaining the rights of land owners. There was a suggestion that the planning approval and CPO processes are decoupled, with compulsory powers being maintained as under the 1961 Act.

There were a number of respondents who still identified a need for an overseeing body. It was also suggested that if Option 2 were to be pursued there would still need to be a means by which Ministers could call in measures where there were unresolved objections. However, if this were to be the case then the legislation would need to make clear in what cases this call-in was likely to be exercised.

The responses from statutory consultees were mixed in their views. Scottish Water stated that they did not consider this option should be pursued, however this was mainly because they felt that Option 1 was more in line with their existing funding process. SEPA suggested that this was a logical continuation of the change in funding processes for local authorities. SNH asked for clarification over what would lead to schemes being called in by Ministers.

There were a range of responses from other stakeholder groups, however many contained similar points to those already discussed. A number of additional points were raised.

It was felt by a small number of respondents that there were other benefits to a Local Authority led process. This approach may lead to greater innovation, and also to the increased flexibility of local authorities to adopt return periods for design based on their local situation.

There were concerns, however, from a small number of respondents who felt that the needs of private companies and landowners would be less well represented under a local authority based approach.

Response from Workshops

Feedback from the workshops suggested that there was greater interest in the local authority led process, however with similar issues raised to those discussed above.

Issues Raised at Public Meetings

There were no points raised at the public meetings in addition to those detailed above.

Question 19: What would be appropriate timescales for notification and response?

61 consultees provided responses to this question. However, the answers provided were not simple 'Yes/No' answers but rather raised a range of opinions relevant to the question. For this reason it was not practical to produce a graphical illustration of responses.

Issues raised by respondents

From the local authority responses 17 indicated that timescales for notification and response should be in line with those for planning at present. While there was considerable variation from local authorities in their views on appropriate timescales, the majority tended towards 28 days for notification and 28 days for response.

Across other respondent categories there was little commonality. A small minority of respondents simply wanted shorter timescales to those which exist at present. There was a general view that timescales should be shorter than three months; a small number of respondents suggested timescales of 60 days, 90 days and the maximum period suggested was 6 months.

Response from Workshops

There were no additional views on timescales presented at workshops which have not been summarised above.

Issues Raised at Public Meetings

There were no significant points raised at the public meetings in relation to this question.

Question 20: Would it be appropriate for such a process to carry deemed planning consent?

86 consultees responded to this question, a summary of responses is described in Table 26.

Table 25 - Q20 Summary of responses

Figure 27 - Respondents view on whether it would be appropriate for such a process to carry deemed planning consent

Of the 78 respondents who gave a clear answer to this question the majority (58%) considered that this process, if adopted, should carry deemed planning consent (Figure 27). Within the local authority responses this majority increased to 73%.

While the responses from local authorities were broadly in favour of deemed planning consent the issues of integration with the Planning Act 2006, local accountability and consultation were again raised. Some alternative approaches were presented including the suggestion that local authority planners may be able to set up specific procedures for flood prevention to include some procedures required under the 1961 Act, which would allow planning and confirmation to be rolled into a single process. It was also reiterated that flood management should be considered as just another type of development.

The majority of local authorities supported the proposals, but a number of qualifications were included. It was suggested that there might be an upper threshold on deemed consent, over which a planning application would be required and it was also suggested that large schemes could be referred to Scottish Ministers or to a public enquiry. It was also suggested that this approach was suitable as long as the scope of application was sufficient to meet planning issues. As in previous questions there was also a note that there should be a degree of flexibility for minor amendments to schemes.

Responses to this question from statutory consultees were mixed. Again there was reference to the Planning Act 2006 principles. SEPA, while in favour of deemed consent, based this on a system of appropriate scrutiny and consistency with FRMPs, national planning policy/advice, development plans and regulatory regimes.

Few responses were received from non-governmental organisations, however they were mixed. There were concerns that the ability to object must be obtained. There was also comment that there must be adequate advertising and notifications at the initiation of the review of a scheme.

Responses from other categories were mixed. Many of the views expressed have already been summarised. There was a suggestion that planning and building standards procedures currently offer a process for assessing the acceptability of measures in terms of technical and environmental aspects.

Response from Workshops

Points raised at the workshops in relation to this issue were few, but mainly revolved around the incompatibility with the Planning 2006 Act.

Issues Raised at Public Meetings

There were no significant points raised at the public meetings in relation to this question.

Question 21: How should the issue of technical expertise and capacity to ensure the necessary technical standards are observed, be addressed?

It should be noted that there was a difference between the published consultation document questions and the online response form for Questions 21to 23. Table 26 summarises these differences.

Table 26 - Summary of Questions 21 to 23

For the purposes of analysis the Consultation Document has been taken as the authority. It can be seen that in the online form Question 21 was split into two parts and Question 22 was omitted entirely. Answers that were submitted online to Questions 21 and 22 have been combined for analysis. However, this error means that those who answered online had no opportunity to offer an answer to the actual Question 23. There were 22 respondents who used the online form and who were not offered the ability to respond to Question 23.

69 consultees provided responses to this question. However, the answers provided were not simple Yes/No answers but rather raised a range of opinions relevant to the question. For this reason it was not practical to produce a graphical illustration of responses.

A large number of respondents thought that the pooling of expertise from local authorities offered a means to ensure expertise was available to all local authorities. There was a suggestion that this would be administered by the competent authority however in their response SEPA stated explicitly that they have no wish to manage this process.

An alternative suggestion was that the expertise pool could be managed through a virtual delivery company created by the Local Authorities. It was noted, however, that sharing of local authority expertise may have issues which need resolving (for example insurance, where effectively work would be carried out for another local authority). There was a suggestion that the pool of expertise could be integrated in some way with the FLAGs. There was also a suggestion that a single national expert, or set of experts, could be appointed responsible for overseeing flood management schemes.

A number of respondents suggested that there would always be a role for consultants in this area and local authorities would continue to make use of both in-house and external expertise. However, it was felt that local authorities would need to increase their in-house capacity and a number of respondents stated that increased resources would be needed to ensure this occurred. There was a suggestion that a local authority based planning approach may offer a means to secure funding from developers to support a pool of expertise.

A panel system of engineers was also proposed by a number of respondents similar in fashion to the system for reservoirs.

A number of respondents were in favour of stronger links to academia, possibly with academic input to specialist pools. There was also an identified need to promote new education and courses within Scotland.

On the issue of technical standards several respondents suggested that national guidance on technical requirements is required. The response received from Jacobs suggested the creation of a Scottish Flooding Advisory Committee who could provide technical standards in partnership with the competent authority.

Response from Workshops

Many of the points already discussed were covered in the workshop. Primary amongst these was the lack of technical expertise within local authorities, and the lack of engineering expertise within SEPA. It was suggested that their reliance on external consultants was likely to increase.

Issues Raised at Public Meetings

There were no significant additional points raised at the public meetings in relation to this question.

Question 22: Are there any additional alternatives to the options outlined above which would simplify procedures?

This was an open-ended question, and responses were only received from 29 consultees in reference to it. This is largely because views on alternative arrangements had largely been covered in other consultation questions.

Some of the additional suggestions raised for simplifying procedures were:

• A means of streamlining small, universally accepted measures;
• A forum of expertise, possibly formed under SNIFFER, to share expertise;
• Complete integration of planning and flood management into a single process;
• Two tier system with a clear definition, and different procedures, between small and large schemes;
• More examples of good practice;
• Temporary powers of entry for local authorities at the design stage;
• The use of single outcome agreements to encourage partnership working;
• Clarification of rules on maintenance of watercourses or culverts, and ability to carry out tasks without full process;
• Use of insurance industry maps.

Response from Workshops

There are no additional points raised at workshops that have not already been discussed.

Issues Raised at Public Meetings

There were no significant points raised at the public meetings in relation to this question.

Question 23: Do you consider local authorities' powers are sufficient to take necessary action to avert danger to life and property?

58 consultees responded to this question, a summary of responses is described in Table 27.

Table 27 - Q23 Summary of responses

Figure 28 - Respondents views on whether local authorities' powers are sufficient to take necessary action to avert danger to life and property

Of the 56 who gave a clear answer to this question the majority (57%) stated that local authorities' powers to take action to avert danger to life and property are limited and that further powers are required, 29% stated local authorities have sufficient powers, whereas 14% were unsure of the extent of local authority powers (Figure 28).

There were 29 responses to this question received from local authorities, the majority of whom (72%) considered that current legislation severely limits the ability of local authorities to act to avert danger to life and property. The main reasons for this response are listed below:

Almost all the respondents raised the issue of being able to recover 'reasonable costs' where action has been carried out by local authorities. Respondents stressed that there should be some mechanism in place by which they can recover the costs of remedial or maintenance actions; these actions include removal of debris and obstructions from privately owned riparian land (resulting in reduced risk of flooding). Most respondents felt that funding issues constrain them from taking the action necessary to prevent flooding.

One of the major problem areas brought out in the responses was that, currently, there is little scope for local authorities to implement small scale flood prevention measures and to carry out minor works. In order to carry out simple operations that would help prevent dangerous flooding, like increasing pipe sizing, realigning systems etc., local authorities have to raise these under a formal Flood Prevention Scheme. Some respondents suggested minor works up to an agreed threshold should be allowed.

Another major issue raised by local authority respondents was access rights. Notification to access land in order to address poor maintenance or to take remedial action currently hampers local authorities' abilities to be able to avert threat to life and property.

Many local authorities also stressed that there should be stricter penalisation procedures in place for private landowners who exacerbate the risk of flooding through poor maintenance of land and by placing restrictions on water courses.

Many respondents reported that current legislation considers only tidal and river flooding, while other types of flooding should be considered as well. A recurring problem for many local authorities is overland flooding from agricultural and adjacent open land.

It was also reported by many respondents that currently only non agricultural land is considered, whereas agricultural land should also be included under legislation.

Of the respondents that believe that local authorities currently have sufficient power to avert danger to life and property, the reasons stated were varied. One respondent mentioned local authorities are not 'flood rescue services' and that it is impractical to expect local authorities to take responsibility for all flooding impacts. Other respondents agreed with the question but pointed out improvements: that they should be able to recharge private landowners for flood prevention and remedial action, and that better clarification of responsibilities post flooding episodes should be provided to ensure better integration of departments so that local authorities can recover costs.

There were 8 responses from statutory consultees: only two responded to this question, but both indicated they had no clear answer. Both these responses contained the point that better integration among flood risk partners is necessary in order to respond to flooding incidents.

There were 8 responses to this question from non-governmental organisations which provided a clear answer. Of these 5 agreed with the question, and 2 disagreed, whereas one respondent was unsure.

The responses were fairly uniform in that both respondents who agreed and disagreed with the questions raised issues dealt with in previous sections, specifically that riparian land owner responsibilities should be clarified. Some of the respondents also mentioned that if there was doubt about local authority powers being sufficient, a review should be carried to investigate the situation, and powers should be given to local authorities if necessary.

The majority of other respondent groups reported that they do not think local authority powers are sufficient to act in order to avert danger to life and property. The response from the Society of Chief Officers of Transport in Scotland illustrated some of the points raised above by listing a number of key areas where powers of local authorities are currently limited. These include:

• Delays due to a 14 day notification period for entry to land;
• The inability of local authorities to carry out improvement works that may assist without raising a flood prevention order (minor improvements should be allowed);
• Power to serve notices to landowners (mentioned previously);
• Lack of clarity over terminology relating to "watercourses", "maintenance", "assess condition", "from time to time" etc;
• Control over surface water sewers - inspection and maintenance.

A few respondents from the professional group also stated that though local authorities should be given more power, they should be able to prove the danger did exist when recovering costs from private landowners.

Response from Workshops

Few additional points to those outlined above were raised during the workshops. There were a few statements to the effect that local authorities currently have no mechanism by which to recover costs of emergency action taken to lower flood risk, or mitigate the effects of flooding.

Issues Raised at Public Meetings

There were no significant points raised at the public meetings in relation to this question.

Question 24: Do you agree that streamlining the CAR and flooding/planning processes can be managed through better guidance?

71 consultees responded to this question, a summary of responses is described in Table 28.

Table 28 - Q24 Summary of responses

Figure 29 - Respondents view on whether streamlining the CAR and flooding/planning processes can be managed through better guidance

Of the 71 respondents who gave a clear answer to this question the majority (80%) agree that better guidance can help streamline CAR and flooding/planning related procedures, whereas 20% disagree with the question and believe that better guidance alone is not enough (Figure 29).

There were 25 responses received from local authorities, the majority of whom (68%) agreed with the question, and thought that better guidance can lead to better streamlining of CAR and other planning/regulatory procedures. However, most respondents also stressed that the quality of the guidance provided will determine how effective it would be in streamlining CAR procedures. A list of suggestions that came from the local authority responses are summarised as follows:

Many respondents stressed that planning, application and permission progress, goes hand in hand with CAR authorisation. Hence when planning permission is given for a project, CAR authorisation should be given as well, or at least be deemed with attached conditions.

Another procedure brought up by many respondents was Environmental Impact Assessments ( EIAs). A few respondents felt that where a project requires a full scale EIA, CAR authorisation should either be automatic or relaxed. Another suggestion was that as a statutory consultee for EIA's, SEPA can raise CAR issues during the EIA process making future CAR authorisation unnecessary.

Some responses mentioned that better collaboration between SEPA flood risk advisers and CAR regulators would ensure that CAR provisions are taken into account from the beginning of projects, and do not become an issue at implementation stage.

A few respondents also mentioned that better guidance and accompanied secondary regulation would ensure that CAR procedures are streamlined properly with other processes.

Of the local authority respondents that disagreed with the question, the overall feeling was that due to the range of legislation that exists, streamlining CAR with other regulatory processes would require more than just guidance. These respondents mentioned that the guidance, though necessary, will need to have some legislative support, either in the form of new secondary legislation or by amending current secondary legislation. One suggestion that emerged was that CAR should be incorporated into both RBMP and FRMPs, while another respondent suggested that actual processes would need to be changed in order to facilitate the CAR streamlining process.

Five responses to this question were received from the statutory organisations (a category which includes SEPA); these were unanimous in their agreement that better guidance would help streamline CAR with other procedures. Some of the respondents stated that their organisations would support the streamlining of CAR with other processes by simplifying the various regulatory processes, and by ensuring that timescales for Flood Protection orders, CAR authorisation and planning procedures overlap.

The response from SEPA was positive in reference to this question. They stated that SEPA would support a streamlined process that relies on a planning authority based procedure (Option 2 in questions 15-18). SEPA believe that CAR provides an important link between management of the Water Environment (through River Basin Management Plans) and Flood Risk Management. They stated that running appropriate elements of the new statutory process and the CAR in parallel would further simplify the regulation of flood protection measures and reduce the overall timescales.

There were 15 clear responses to this question from non-governmental organisation respondents, of which 14 agreed that better guidance is necessary. There were few additional points to the ones mentioned above, and some respondents mentioned that the guidance should be written in clear language, with the responsibilities of different concerned parties clearly stated.

Across other categories of respondents, some of the points outlined in previous sections were brought out. Within the private sector respondents there was a clear feeling that better collaboration between CAR regulators and planning authorities was necessary, whereas some respondents from the consultancy respondents brought out that consistency in CAR application across the country would be required.

Response from Workshops

One of the issues raised during the workshops was that time needs to be invested in reviewing how CAR and other flooding related legislation will fit together. Another suggestion made about the actual streamlining process was that a map of how this would unfold in the coming future should be a necessary part of the guidance.

Issues Raised at Public Meetings

There were no significant points raised at the public meetings in relation to this question.

Question 25: Do you think there is anything further SEPA, the Scottish Government or others should be doing to promote joined-up regulation?

67 consultees responded to this question, a summary of responses is described in Table 29.

Table 29 - Q25 Summary of responses

Figure 30 - Respondents views on whether there is anything further SEPA, the Scottish Government or others should be doing to promote joined up regulation

Of the 66 who gave a clear answer to this question the majority (83%) affirmed that there is more that SEPA, Scottish Government and others should be doing to promote more joined up regulation, whereas a minority of respondents (17%) stated that there is nothing further necessary on the part of the concerned parties to promote joined up regulation (Figure 30).

There were 23 responses from local authorities to this question, the majority of which stated that there is more the Scottish Government and SEPA need to be doing to promote more joined up regulatory processes. Many suggestions for what more the concerned parties need to be doing came out of these responses, and are outlined below.

One of the most commonly recurring statements from local authority respondents was that a comprehensive review of the different regulation regimes (flooding, planning and CAR) is essential both to reduce the number of submissions necessary and to promote joined up regulation.

Many respondents stated that clarity in language, and making the different regulation more 'user-friendly' would be most beneficial to local authorities.

A few respondents raised concerns with the issue of sewers and their relation to flooding. One response outlined that a critical review of Sewers for Scotland 2 is needed to remove inconsistencies with SPP7, while another respondent stressed that it is necessary that Scottish Water be involved in LFRMPs and therefore in joint flood problem investigations with regard to sewers.

There was a general feeling among respondents that SEPA's approach to CAR authorisation and application has shown great inconsistencies, both geographically and during the development of a particular project. These inconsistencies need to be addressed if joined up regulation is to be achieved.

There were also many responses that favoured the consolidation of flooding, planning and CAR regulation. Some of the respondents suggested that Area FRMPS and LFRMPS should take into account planning and CAR issues at the outset to avoid difficulties during the development of these plans. Other respondents claimed better procedural guidance was imperative in situations where both CAR and planning consent is needed. Another respondent suggested that if SEPA accepted the FRMP as a statutory document which must be complied with, then CAR would become a formality.

One of the responses pointed out that there is a gap in the regulation that needs to be addressed. Land Drainage for new developments on non agricultural land is not covered by any of the competent authorities, and subsequently poses flood risk problems for local authorities, which initially should have been dealt with by the developer.

Some of the responses asserted that there should be a duty to assist at all levels instated for all the competent authorities.

There were also suggestions that a programme of awareness was necessary to focus landowners/homeowners attention to their responsibilities in relation to flood alleviation.

Of the four responses to this question from statutory organisations, two believed that the competent authorities need do no further to promote joined up regulation whereas two respondents thought the opposite. SNH suggested that some consideration needs to be taken of how to assess plans and programmes on Natura sites, and how CAR regulations apply to these sites.

There were 18 responses from non-governmental respondents, 15 of which supported the statement that competent authorities need to do more to promote joined up regulation. Many of the points outlined above, and in Question 24 were repeated. Overall there was a general feeling from these respondents that procedures should be simplified, and 'red tape' needs to be minimised. There was also suggestion from several respondents that there is a need to shift away from a 'silo mentality' on flooding, planning and CAR and towards a more holistic approach whereby other processes are also aligned (for example, those relating to sewerage, roads, agriculture, climate change, health etc). Many non-governmental respondents mentioned that an education and awareness raising programme for public, landowners and managers would be most beneficial.

Issues that arose from other respondent groups are similar to those outlined in the sections above. One of the suggestions that came from the private sector respondents was the need for an emphasis on breaking down institutional barriers by promoting workshops, guidance and networking opportunities for those in the field. There was also a suggestion that facilities for information sharing and knowledge management need to be strengthened through targeted seminars and conferences. One of the suggestions from the professional organisation group was that a change of style was required from SEPA, to shift from a regulatory role into a role based around advising practitioners.

Response from Workshops

Few additional points to those outlined above were raised during the workshops.

Issues Raised at Public Meetings

There were no significant points raised at the public meetings in relation to this question.

Question 26: Do you think that there is an alternative approach to simplifying the process of promoting flood measures to those discussed above which the Government should consider?

51 consultees responded to this question, a summary of responses is described in Table 30.

Table 30 - Q26 Summary of responses

Figure 31 - Respondents view on whether there is an alternative approach to simplifying the process of promoting flood measures

As described in Figure 31, of the 51 responses to this question the answers were almost equally divided between suggestions for an alternative approach to simplifying the process of promoting flood measures (47%), and responses that stated that the programme for simplifying the process as outlined in the consultation document was satisfactory (53%).

A majority of the local authority respondents stated that the current approach to simplifying flooding processes is satisfactory, but of those respondents who disagreed there were a number of issues that were raised.

One the major suggestions that emerged from these respondents was the need to empower local authorities. Many of the respondents believed that an alternative to the procedures outlined in the consultation document was to renew emphasis on local decision making, and enabling of local authorities by ensuring that all Scottish Government bodies assist at all levels. Several respondents also suggested that a progressive approach would be to devolve further responsibilities to local authorities, providing an 'enabling' culture whereby local authorities can take an innovative approach to solving problems with clear support from Scottish Government.

Another recurring issue was that there needs to be a framework which is a need to distinguish between smaller and larger scale schemes. One of the respondents suggested a matrix approach could be used to allow a quick assessment of the scale of the measure. Then smaller scale measures could be fast tracked through the planning and CAR system so as to avoid putting these schemes through the full set of procedures.

Other suggestions included some of the points outlined in the summaries to Questions 24 and 25 - there should be more integration of planning, CAR and flood risk management procedures to shorten timescale, a clearer definition of duties would be useful, there should be better guidance for the streamlining of CAR and other processes.

The majority of the statutory organisations consulted with this question, agreed that the current approach to simplifying procedures is the best way forward.

Of the 9 responses that emerged from the non-governmental organisation responses, only a handful of respondents (3) supported an alternative approach. One of the suggestions that arose from this group of respondents was the idea of Area Plans whereby in large urban areas where there are complex problems and in cross-border areas there may be a need to develop cross-boundary flood committees offering a platform through which local authorities can share resources and funding.

Of the other respondent groups few additional issues arose. One of the suggestions from the public respondents was that an alternative approach would be to create a new National Flood Authority to oversee the processes. Another suggestion which came from the private sector respondents was that there is a need for new approaches to remote data collection and local community message broadcasting

Response from Workshops

There were no significant points raised at the workshops in relation to this question.

Issues Raised at Public Meetings

There were no significant points raised at the public meetings in relation to this question.

Question 27: Do you agree that the form and content of the biennial reports should be more systematic, and subject to direction from Ministers?

80 consultees responded to this question, a summary of responses is described in Table 31.

Table 31 - Q27 Summary of responses

Figure 32 - Respondents views on whether the form and content of the biennial reports should be more systematic, and subject to direction from Ministers

Of the 79 who gave a clear answer to this question the majority, 82%, agree that a standard, more systematic format of the biennial reports is necessary, whereas 14% disagree as they believe that local authorities should be given autonomy with respect to biennial reports (Figure 32). 4% of the respondents neither agree nor disagree with the question, and believe the entire system of reports should be removed.

There were 29 responses to this question received from local authorities. From those respondents in favour of more systematic and Ministerial led document form and content determination, there were a number of issues mentioned.

Most of the local authority responses stressed that a change from the current system of reporting should not add excess administrative burden on the local authorities. Most responded that though they agreed that a more systematic approach would be useful, it was important that the new approach be simple and does not create excessive paperwork.

Another recurring point was that the new standard format should be flexible enough to take account of the range in scale, variety and severity in flooding events across local authorities in Scotland. Keeping the format flexible, it was mentioned, will ensure the reports do not lose their 'local flavour'.

Most local authorities also responded that it is important that the biennial reports remain simple as they should be a means of communication between local authorities and their residents. Many responses stressed this point by mentioning that there should be less 'jargon' and 'confusing language'.

It was also stressed by majority of the respondents that the reports should be in electronic form.

There were quite a few suggestions as to what the biennial reports should and shouldn't include. Some responses mentioned that the reports should contain links to the FRMPs; others mentioned that local authorities should be responsible for determining the content of the reports, whereas the form of the report could be predetermined. Two of the local authority responses referenced a study by Professor Werrity of Dundee University, which has provided recommendations about a more systematic approach to the biennial reports.

Respondents not in favour of a standardised Ministerial led biennial report format, commonly suggested that this was due to the range of flooding incidents in the country. Implementing a standard report format would result in a loss in local information; therefore they suggested autonomy should be provided to the local authorities in terms of format and content. Other suggestions were that there should be a standard format for the collection and storage of data, but not for the report in itself, or that the reports should be abandoned altogether.

A few of the local authority respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with the question, but firmly stated that the entire system of biennial reports should be abandoned.

There were four responses to this question from statutory consultees of which three agreed with a standard template for biennial reports, whereas one disagreed. The remaining response gave no clear answer. There were no other significant additional issues mentioned which have not been identified previously.

There were 17 responses to this question from non-governmental organisations which provided a clear answer. Of these 15 backed the idea of a standard, Ministerial led approach to the biennial reports, whereas 2 were against the idea. The rest of the responses gave no clear answer.

Many of the responses repeated what has been stated under the local authority response section, that the standard should allow flexibility, reports should be linked to FRMPs and clarity of language must be maintained. Additional points raised by the non-governmental organisation responses include centralised storage of flood data, and some suggestions as to what the reports should include. The idea of centralised flood data storage was raised on recurring occasions, the respondents believe that the information on flooding instances collected for the report should be stored centrally. There was also a suggestion that a national flood event database should be instigated which would allow for easy reporting using GIS. Some of the respondents suggested that reports should include information on the consultation process for measures and how measures integrate with national plans and other local plans.

Across other categories of respondents, the support for a standard format is tangible with a majority of respondents backing the idea. Among the responses from the public, there was a lot of stress on keeping the reports free from unnecessarily complicated language, and the need to make the reports electronically available. Other points raised have been outlined in the above sections.

Response from Workshops

There were no significant points raised during the workshops in relation to this question.

Issues Raised at Public Meetings

There were no significant points raised at the public meetings in relation to this question.

Question 28: Do consultees agree that the proposals as outlined will improve flood risk management and ensure Scotland is equipped to implement sustainable flood management?

76 consultees responded to this question, a summary of responses is described in Table 32.

Table 32 - Q18 Summary of responses

Figure 33 - Respondents views on whether they agree that the proposals as outlined will improve flood risk management and ensure Scotland is equipped to implement sustainable flood management

Of the 74 consultees who gave a clear answer to this question the majority (95%) considered that the proposals will improve flood risk management in Scotland (Figure 33).

There were relatively few additional comments in response to this question. The majority of detailed answers came from local authorities.

A recurring theme from a range of responses was the need for increased, adequate resources to address the increased responsibilities under the proposals. These additional resources would be for both local authorities and for SEPA.

It was noted that the proposals should extend to cover all types of flooding; this is especially concerning in regard to sewer flooding and drainage.

While the proposals were seen as largely positive several respondents commented that there were deficiencies in certain areas, most notably overland flow from agricultural land and the need for addressing responsibilities in Integrated Urban Drainage Plans.

There was also a request for additional information and guidance on the topics of rural land managers and climate change.

In particular, East Renfrewshire Council believe that this proposal is an ideal opportunity to provide Councils with the powers to promote good management of watercourses in non-agricultural areas, which they see as currently suffering from neglect. While Local Authorities currently have a duty to carry out work which is considered necessary to mitigate flooding, council assert that there is insufficient funding to enable Local Authorities to do so. In addition, the duty does not address the detritus and waste material currently present in many watercourses which could increase flood risk.

East Renfrewshire Council also believe that most riparian owners are unaware of their principal responsibility for maintaining their watercourse, or choose to ignore their responsibilities. Council suggest that policing powers be provided to Local Authorities to inspect watercourses and require owners to attend to their watercourses, or have councils undertake the necessary work and recharge the owners. According to Council, abandoned land drainage systems should also be removed from the definition contained in the 1997 Flood Prevention and Land Drainage (Scotland) as it is unrealistic to expect Local Authorities to continue to inspect and maintain such systems in non-agricultural areas where they have been abandoned at the time of development.

Response from Workshops

There were no significant additional points raised at the workshops in relation to this question.

Issues Raised at Public Meetings

There were no significant additional points raised at the public meetings in relation to this question.

Question 29: Do consultees feel that this is enough to ensure that flood risk is addressed or should local authorities have a new duty to promote measures to alleviate flooding?

76 consultees responded to this question, a summary of responses is described in Table 33.

Table 33 - Q29 Summary of responses

Figure 34 - Respondents views on whether this is enough to ensure that flood risk is addressed or should local authorities have a new duty to promote measures to alleviate flooding

Of the 59 consultees who gave a clear answer to this question the majority (66%) considered that there was no need for a new duty on local authorities. This view was marked in the responses from local authorities themselves (Figure 34). Of the 28 who responded only two considered that a new duty was required. It was qualified with the requirement that sufficient additional funding was provided to support this. 21 of the local authorities clearly stated that a new duty was not required.

Issues raised by respondents

The main issue raised from both those in favour of, and those against, a new duty was that it would require considerable additional resources to support it.

« Previous | Contents | Next »