TAG - Local Government Technical Advisors Group

TAG News

Flooding Alliance of Networks and Advisers note of meeting on 4th June

07th Nov 2008

Attendees Cllr Andrew Gravells, Gloucestershire and LGA Environment Board Cllr Carl Minns, Hull CC Graham Fairhurst, Telford Mark Vigor, Cambs CC Paul Shaffer, Landform Ron Eckersley, TAG Committee on coastal and fluvial flooding Dr Jean Venables, Association of Drainage Authorities Justin Taberham or colleague, CIWEM Martin Wheatley, Vanessa Goodchild-Bradley, LGA Apologies Tom Griffin; Richard Davies; Richard Wills; Graham Fairhurst; Don Norris; Jim Bagley Coastal SIG: Cllr Roger Thomas; Alex Tait Flood Defence Group: Alan Thomas POS: Stephen Tapper TAG Committee: John Riby; Martin Wright Background The LGA had called the meeting to discuss how we can capture the existing expertise and knowledge of officer networks, LGA advisers and members, and work together to develop a strong and united local government voice on flooding, water management and coastal erosion. The meeting agreed that it is crucial that we develop clear lobbying positions, to help influence the Defra work programme (Making Space for Water Programme Board), implementation of the Pitt Report and forthcoming Floods Bill. The principal driver for LGA work on flooding, water management etc is community well being. The meeting agreed we need a strong local government view on the right structure to deliver improvement - sufficient powers, duties and flexibilities, at the right level: – counties able to delegate down without having to put out to tender – compulsion on all stakeholders to work with local authorities and share data – action plan to take forward recommendations – investment mechanisms to ensure success Issues raised Utilities: Agreed that utilities need to share information Need for greater investment Accountability for how the levy for surface water management plans is spent Review of utilities’ emergency planning standards, planning, resources and maps (Glos. reported severe problems with distribution of water by water companies in 2007 floods) Water catchment areas: Difficulty of boundaries – need cross local authority co-operation Capacity Lack of expertise in some authorities Flood resilience How do we increase flood resilience of properties/provide incentives to reduce flood risk and damage? Delivering Pitt recommendations We need clear mechanisms to deliver Pitt and support in the final report to enable councils to take on a leading role on surface water management and drainage. Agreed priority areas for further research Floods Bill Funding and shaping next spending review Capacity building - training and competency Scrutiny – encouraging councils to improve and learn from best practice: Capturing expertise and evidence Catchment based regional co-operation, councils working together, Role for networks – forums to engage, build knowledge and share learning Water cycle studies to bring everyone together at catchment level LGA Alliance of networks, advisers and members It was agreed to create a Strategic Overview Group from the alliance of networks, advisers and members. This would: – Commission task groups – Develop LGA policy positions – Respond to Pitt Final Report – Influence Floods Bill Proposed priority task groups 1. Funding - to look at all mechanisms to fund better flood risk management (to include LGA finance policy colleagues) 2. Policy and legal framework for local government leadership – To look at what we want in the Floods Bill – Do we need to review IDB boundaries? 3. Supporting councils on flood risk / water management / coastal erosion – Skills – Capacity – Commuication – Role for members in driving action – Systems Meeting agreed that LGA would formalise the LGA Strategic Flood Risk Management Group as an alliance of networks, advisers and members, representing key local government interests in flooding, water management and coastal erosion, but would also be cross cutting. The Group would comprise members of • Flood Defence Group • Coastal SIG • Association of Drainage Authorities • Planning Officers Society • Landform (Local Authority Network on Drainage & Flood Risk Management) • TAG Coastal and Fluvial Management Committee • LGA advisers • LGA Environment Board and member representative(s) The Group would: – Contribute to the response to Pitt – Develop LGA positions on Floods Bill and other Defra work programmes – Commission more detailed work on eg Finance; Local Delivery Architecture; Capacity and Skills; Legislation Meeting with Pitt Review Team: Roger Hargreave Matthew Clarke David Gledhill Kirsty Lord-Smith Aram Wood Roger Hargreaves (Head of PR Team) reported that Sir Michael Pitt is very keen that the Final Report works for local authorities and communities and reflects what he thinks local government is able to achieve. RH set out (below) some of the main findings and recommendations that will be included in the Final Report. Delivery The report will include a section on delivery, setting out expectations, including a recommendation that Defra set out an Action Plan for delivery and that Government draws up a very quick series of promises with a timetable. Stakeholders A National Flooding Framework brings all stakeholder organisations together. A Cabinet Committee on Flooding is recommended. This will be a cross sector forum to ensure momentum across several departments, providing visible leadership but bringing in other relevant issues. An action plan will give focus and direction. There is also a recommendation for a National Resilence Forum, to bring together and provide a voice for local government and other organisations. Testing the recommendations The FRT has looked more at existing good practice and are not now thinking of recommending that a small group of authorities test out the recommendations. Interaction with Defra work on flooding The Pitt Review has influenced the Defra process for deciding what to include in the Floods Bill. It reinforces issues that Defra has already identified as needing legislative attention. Other Pitt Review recommendations may be picked up in the review of the Civil Contingencies Act. The aim is to pull all the existing legislation into a Floods Bill. There is no specific outline in the Report for the legislation, as it concentrates more on how to achieve objectives. Content of the Final Report includes: Funding for leadership Clarity on roles and responsibilities Co-operation from others, including: – Degree of compulsion – Role of the regulator – Need for utilities to do more – Mix of economic incentives and legal compulsion Need to drive up standards of protection More effective emergency response: – Better information sharing – Better engagement Better stakeholder engagement – Water companies to see themselves as key players Roles and Responsibilities Defra in charge EA strategic overview Local authorities: – Co-ordination of flood risk management – Drainage – Making connections to planning – Emergency leads in LRFs in relation to flooding Surface Water Management Plans – Recommendations on what they should include to help understanding of risk and what needs to be done to deliver better outcomes Role of Planning, including importance of planning and emphasis on outcomes and having the right tools to address flood risk Resources Review concludes that extra resources are required and technical areas are in need of additional specialists, which will have financial implications for councils Very clear that we can’t achieve long term outcomes without additional resources. Scale of extra resources, additional to current plans, will need to be demonstrated in LGA representations to the next spending review. The Review wants local government to seize the leadership role and begin the process of a more strategic overview of surface water management and local drainage, whilst continuing dialogue on securing additional funding. The meeting discussed other mechanisms for funding, including community levies, raising council tax for specific improvements agreed by local ballot etc. It was agreed that the costs and benefits of investment need to be clearly linked. Members suggested that Pitt referred to environmental justice arguments and powers in other countries (eg New Zealand) to fund above normal standards of protection, where agreed by local communities. The Review Team have put a ballpark figure on how much it would cost for all authorities to put in place the additional staff and actions that Leeds City Council has achieved to take forward their Strategic Flood Risk work (a cost to the council of around £1m). Defra has £34m put aside to implement Pitt recommendations and we agreed that there are potentially much bigger costs associated with implementing Pitt and a lot of work needs to be done on identifying both the potential costs for local authorities and possible mechanisms to lever in extra funding. We stressed that government will need to acknowledge that additional work by local authorities will bring extra costs and that the next spending review will need to identify the priority and cost of improving flood risk management. Nb: A subsequent conversation with the Flood Recovery Team at CLG has agreed that it would be helpful to coordinate any work on finance undertaken by an LGA task group with the analysis they are currently doing on likely costs of both the Pitt recommendations and the Making Space for Water programme.

« back