LOCAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR HERTFORDSHIRE
CONSULTATION REPORT
October 2012
Index
1.Consultation Approach
1.1Introduction
1.2Notification
1.3Publicity
1.4External Workshops
1.5HCC Citizens Panel
1.6Written Representations
2.Summary of Responses
2.1Written Representations
2.1.1Question 1
2.1.2Question 2
2.1.3Question 3
2.1.4Question 4
2.1.5Question 5
2.1.6Question 6
2.1.7Question 7
2.1.8Question 8
2.1.9Question 9
2.1.10Question 10
2.1.11Other Comments
2.2Workshop Findings
2.2.1RMA Workshop
2.2.2Parish Council Workshop
2.3Citizen Panel Findings
2.3.1Defining ‘Significant’ Flood Risk
2.3.2Raising Public Awareness
2.3.3Managing Flood Risk Information
2.3.4Flood Warnings
2.3.5Describing Flood Risk
2.3.6Time Horizons
2.3.7Measures to Manage Flood Risk
2.3.8Community Education
2.3.9Planning
2.310Other measures
3.Strategic Environmental Assessment
4.Equalities Impact Assessment
Appendix 1Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Workshops Attendance
Appendix 2Consultation Respondents
1.Consultation Approach
1.1Introduction
Hertfordshire County Council in its new role as a Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) is required under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to produce a Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (LFRMS) for Hertfordshire. The strategy outlines how local flood risk will be managed and coordinated inthe County. This includes setting out the roles and responsibilities of the Risk Management Authorities (RMAs) in the area (i.e. the Environment Agency, District Councils, Highways Authorities, Water and Sewage Companies and the Internal Drainage Board).
The focus of the strategy is flooding from surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses (a smaller watercourse not designated as ‘MainRiver’, such as ditches and streams). As part of its co-ordination role, the strategy also considers interactions with main rivers and sewers, as they are all part of an interlinked system. Flood risk management from main rivers and sewers is the primary responsibility of the Environment Agency and water & sewerage companies respectively.
The strategy is now at the final draft stage. In late 2011, the Council consulted key stakeholders on the issues and options for the strategy and the first stage of the Strategic Environmental Assessment. Since then, a Habitats Regulation Assessment screen has been carried out in order to understand the potential impact of the Strategy on Natura 2000 sites in the county. An Equalities Impact Assessment was also carried out and its findings reported below.
This report brings together the findings from a number of consultation strands on the draft strategy (formal written responses, stakeholder events and information gathered from the public via the HCC citizen’s panel). These findings will be used to further refine the strategy.
1.2Notification
In early summer, emailswere sent out to over 130 stakeholders, notifying them that the draft Strategy was out for consultation. Those consulted included the Risk Management Authorities, key infrastructure stakeholders e.g. the National Grid, the Canal and Rivers Trust (formerly British Waterways), and the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority, wildlife and conservation organisations, statutory consultees under the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Habitats Regulations, and parish and town councils. Neighbouring Lead Local Flood Authorities and internal staff were also consulted.
The consultation period was stretched over 12 weeks to ensure plenty of time to consider the strategy over the summer period. The consultation period closed on the 7 September.
As soon as the final draft SEA report was received, and the Habitats Regulation Assessment Draft Screening report was approved by Natural England, notification was also sent around that these were out for a 7 week consultation.
1.3Publicity
All documents and supporting information related to the consultation on the LFRMS was made available via the Hertsdirect web site.
1.4External Workshops
As this is a new statutory function, and to ensure that as many people as possible were engaged in the consultation process, two external workshops were held.
The workshops were held in Stevenageon the 5th of September, in the morning and afternoon. The purpose of these workshops was to try and engage as many key stakeholders as possible in the strategy development process; resolve outstanding issues surrounding funding and partnerships from the issues and options consultation; and explore any new issues that were emerging.
The morning workshop was targeted at the RMAs and had eight attendees. The second workshop in the afternoon was targeted at parish councils and wider stakeholders. This workshop had six attendees. The findings of the workshops are included below. A list of attendees is included in appendix 1.
1.5HCC Citizens Panel
The County Council also approached Opinion Research Services (ORS),who have the contract to run the HCC Citizens Panel, to run three consultation events using citizen’s panel participants and to inform panel members directly of the consultation. All members of the Panelwhere contacted(approximately 1800 members),stating the purpose of the strategy and how it could affect individuals. Three direct replies from individuals were received as a result of this direct communication.
As a second strand of more targeted public consultation,we held threecommunity forums with members of the Citizens Panel. ORS was commissioned to convene and facilitate three community forums, in Watford, Hatfield and Stevenage on the 10,11 and 12 September.
The forums were designed to inform and engage participants using a ‘deliberative’ approach to encourage them to reflect in depth about the issues under consideration. The meetings lasted for 2.5 hours. In total, there were 53 participants at the three forums, from a diverse range of backgrounds.
1.6Written Representations
Twenty-six written representations were received. Of these ten were from the RMAs, six from parish and town councils, and four from environmental organisations including statutory consultees. Six were received from individuals, including three from individuals on the Citizens Panel.
2.Summary of Responses
2.1Written Representations
The responses received have been summarised below under each of the consultation questions. Other more general comments are summarised at the end of the section.
2.1.1Question 1
Do you agree with the approach, as set out in policy 1, to be taken by the Lead Local Flood Authority to the management of flood risk?
Overview of consultation responses
Almost all of the respondents thought that the overall approach, as set out in Policy 1, was acceptable. Some sought further refinement of the details of the policy, in terms of actions HCC would carry out in their role of LLFA.
There was some discussion of the approach of the LLFA in managing flood risk from new developments, with several respondents querying consistency of approach throughout the document. Several respondents thought that the approach of the LLFA to flood risk from new development should be included here, or in a new policy.
Several respondents wanted the last bullet point on opportunities for further benefits expanded upon further.
Recommendation
The details of the policy will be reviewed in line with national guidance with regard to the role and activities of the LLFA, and to ensure consistency throughout the strategy with the national guidance on new development.
The policy will be further refined to include more detail on opportunities for further benefits (also a recommendation from the SEA).
2.1.2Question 2
Do you agree with the criteria set out in procedure 1 for determining when flooding events are to be investigated as per the approach set out in policy 2?
Should any criteria be added or deleted for the purpose of deciding where and when to investigate flooding incidents?
Overview of consultation responses
Most respondents generally agreed with the criteria proposed.
Several felt that just one instance of internal flooding was sufficient to justify an investigation into its cause, due to the low number of flood events in Hertfordshire.
Other respondents thought that business premises should be a lower priority than residential premises, due to the business and employment premises being classified as ‘less vulnerable’ in the flood areas by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
Multiple respondents suggested a tiered approach, whereby a simple flood incident of a single property was investigated via a phone call, and a more detailed investigation undertaken when necessary.
Some respondents considered that more detail was required and others thought the criteria should be simplified and able to be flexibly applied, or even used as guidelines.
The term ‘transport link’ was considered to be open to quite wide interpretation.
Recommendation
We will further explore the practicalities of taking a tiered approach to flood investigations. This is consistent with our guiding principle of a proportionate, risk based approach. A tiered approach will also allow more flood events to be investigated, including after a single instance of internal flooding.
The term ‘transport link’ will be defined.
2.1.3Question 3
What considerations should be taken into account in Policy 3 and Procedure 2 when determining if a structure or feature is significant and should be included on the public register?
Overview of consultation responses
There was a wide range of divergent responses to this question.
It was generally agreed that flood risk, and flood risk if the structure failed, should be the determining factors in whether a structure or feature was significant, which would include an assessment of severity and probability.
Many thought that more work was required to further develop how the register would be used in practice. A number of respondents thought that more guidance in the procedure on how to use a matrix such as the example set out in Figure 1 was required.
Considerations that came up more than once included:
- Ownership of the asset
- Maintenance of the asset
- Accessibility to and ‘Hidden’ assets
- Vulnerability of the ‘receptor’ i.e. the nature of the receiving area that would flood
Many respondents raised issues about the day to day management of the register, e.g. who would have access to it, and how the data would be held.
There was some confusion about how Policy 3 and Policy 6 related to each other.
Recommendation
Further work will be carried out on the definition of a significant structure or feature,based on flood risk. The effect of the structure or feature on infrastructure will certainly be considered in the definition of significant,as this has a wider impact than the immediate locality and is consistent with the findings of the Citizens Panel. The definition will need to draw on the limited information currently available, and will therefore need to be reviewed regularly, in the wake of new information.
Procedure 2 will be further developed following the comments received. The procedure will outline the general process to be followed in making an entry on the register.
The effect of the structure or feature on flood risk is assessed as part of the matrix procedure detailed in Figure 1, and further guidance will be provided on how to use this sort of matrix. Guidance on the matrix will form part of the detailed instructions attached to the register and are necessary to ensure consistency of approach. This will be developed following publication of the Strategy.
2.1.4Question 4
Do you agree with the Lead Local Flood Authorities proposals to adopt a risk based approach to the consenting and enforcement activities in respect of its responsibilities on ordinary watercourses?
What factors do you think should be included in this assessment of risk?
Overview of consultation responses
There was strong support for a risk-based approach amongst respondents. Many felt that this was the most sensible way forward given current pressures on resources. The vulnerability of the receiving area, including flood impact as a proportion of settlement size, was considered to be an important part of the assessment of risk, as it was in responses to Question 3. Community disruption was mentioned more than once as a factor that should be included in any assessment of risk.
The Bedford Group of Drainage Boards noted that consenting and enforcement of ordinary watercourses was a duty and not a permissive power and suggested a risk based approach may not reflect this.
Recommendation
A comprehensive risk-based approach will be followed ensuring that nay duty is duly discharged. The assessment of risk will include the vulnerability of the receptor, and intangibles such as community cohesion where practicable.
2.1.5Question 5
Do you agree with the approach being taken to the implementation ofconsenting for SuDS schemes by the Lead Local Flood Authority?
Overview of consultation responses
There was a range of views on the approach taken to SuDS. Difficulties due to delayed implementation were recognised as creating a challenging context in which to work.
There was concern that the focus of the policy was on new development, therefore excluding opportunities for retrofitting. Several respondents considered there was a need to get some sort of guidance out in the near future to help create certainty and clarity for developers.
Many raised questions regarding the resourcing of the function and the impact on, and interrelationship with, the planning function.
Recommendation
Policy 5 will be amended by removing the word ‘new’ so that redevelopment proposals are also included. Engagement and partnership working with Local Planning Authorities has been, and will continue to comprise, a key component of the SuDSfunction.
Guidance is currently being prepared by HCC for this function and should be finalised shortly.
2.1.6Question 6
What factors do you think should be taken into account whendeciding whether to designate a flood risk management structure or feature?
Overview of consultation responses
This also produced a range of varied responses. Several stated that a structure should be designated if it affected flood risk and there was a suggestion that existing SuDS should be designated if they are deemed to have a significant effect on flood risk.
Others cross-referenced their response to Question 3 and how Figure 1 could be used.
The Environment Agency advised that since the consultation began new powers to designate structures or features under Schedule 1 of the F&WM Act 2010 have been enacted and an advice note has been issued on designation which is available at:
Recommendation
Policy 6 and Procedure 5 will be updated in accordance with the new government advice above and in accordance with the recommendations arising from Question 3.
SuDS will be included on the register if they meet the criteria of significant.
2.1.7Question 7
Do you agree with the proposals to make all relevant local flood risk information publicly accessible?
If you agree:
What information do you think should be made publicly available?
If you disagree:
What information do you think should not be published and why?
Overview of consultation responses
Almost all respondents agreed that some flood information should be publicly accessible, and was necessary in order to increase awareness of flood risk. Many respondents suggested that information should be released alongside information or advice on how to interpret it, or else the potential for mis-interpretation was high.
The importance of accurate data was raised by several respondents, as were issues with getting owner’s consent and public disclosure. Almost all respondents were wary of making all information freely accessible, as they were aware of the implications that this could have on property values; and the potential for litigation.
Several respondents considered that information which would identify individual properties or individual names should not be published. It was also suggested that information that could have security implications or was commercially sensitive should not be released.
Recommendation
The resolution of issues surrounding information gathering and sharing is a key component of the proposed Work Programme (2012-2017).
Accuracy of data appears to be a widely held concern(also evidenced in the Citizens Panel). This will require further work given surface flood risk management is a relatively new policy area, with limited data underpinning it.
2.1.8Question 8
Do you agree with the timetable for the development of Surface Water Management Plans?
If not what other factors should be taken into account in determining this programme?
Overview of consultation responses
Although one respondent thought the timetable was ambitious, there was general recognition that the proposed timetable was realistic and reflected current resource constraints.
Prioritisation according to number of houses at risk was acceptable to most, although questions were posed about the ability to review this, if circumstances such as a local flood event occurred.
Recommendation
Timetable for the initiation of Surface Water Management plans will be as in the proposed Work Programme. Responses to other questions stressed that the proportion of houses affected in a settlement was as important as the total number is maintaining community cohesion and viability and this will be further considered.
2.1.9Question 9
Do you agree with the proposals for establishing appropriate flood risk partnerships in Hertfordshire with one strategic level partnership and then local based partnerships where appropriate?
At what level do you think local partnerships should be based?
Overview of consultation responses
There appeared to be broad consensus for the proposal to establish a flood risk partnership in Hertfordshire. Some felt that this would work fine at Director level but if it was lower, it would need greater district representation.
Some respondents had reservations about the limited level of district council representation. Several also considered that annual meetings were not regular enough for informed decision-making. One respondent suggested the RMAs should be responsible for the implementation of the Strategy while the LLFA provided governance.
Parish and town councils were generally keen to be included decision-making at the local level.
Questions were raised about the level of duplication between the levels of partnership; how wider stakeholders would be able to input into the decision-making process and how districts would be selected for representation at the higher level.
Recommendation
Strategic partnership will occur at level proposed, but all districtswill have the option of being represented. Meetings will be held at least biannuallyto ensure consistency in representation, informed discussion and actions are being progressed be participants in a timely manner.