Agenda item

The Committee considered a report of the Director of Policy, Strategy & Communications providing an update on delivery of the 10 recommendations the Overview and Scrutiny Committee made in September 2016, which ultimately formed part of the 2016 Leeds City Region Flood Review developed in response to the 2015 Boxing Day flood events.

The following were in attendance for this item:

·         Justin Wilson, West Yorkshire Combined Authority (Policy Lead)

·         Garry Collins, Yorkshire Water

·         Rosa Foster, Environment Agency

The report and discussion centred on the question of what would be different if the flood events re-occurred in the Winter of 2018 / 19.

After questions and discussion, the Committee made the following observations:

Progress and general improvement:

·         There had been general improvement in cooperation between the 'three arms' of local authorities, the Environment Agency and the water sector compared to three years previously. There have been smaller flood events since the larger 2015 Boxing Day floods and the responses to those events showed promise.

·         The level of public and political spotlight which has been maintained since Boxing Day 2015 has been very encouraging. Previous flood events yielded only short term attention. There is evidence of a bigger focus on flooding in planning and policy making and those councils affected by the floods have created permanent flood partnerships, some of which are Member-led.

Planning matters and developer responsibilities:

·         Responsibility for funding flood resilience and mitigation efforts should be shared by developers if their developments affect existing flood risk levels. The cost is often passed onto the public and councils which are currently under financial stress.

·         The Environment Agency, and other sectoral and utility partners, should seek to provide comments more often, when possible, in planning applications to support flood resilience – even if a brief or standard response.

·         It was felt that the Agency does not comment on planning applications and processes frequently enough. Some Members who have chaired planning committees reported rarely receiving any comments.

·         It was understandable that the number of planning projects requiring Environment Agency comments was large and resource-intensive. It was noted that the Environment Agency's remit is to respond to applications that are within specific proximity to ‘main rivers’ and is not required or expected to respond to all planning applications.

·         Currently, the burden is on councils and Members to challenge developers. Environment Agency comments about flood risks in a development would empower councils and Members to better challenge developers more often and ensure that flood resilience mitigation is achieved at the planning permission stage, rather than as more expensive 'bolt ons' later.

·         In particular, additional support from the Environment Agency could be useful where major developments are being promoted near ‘critical ordinary watercourses’.

Joint Services – police, fire and rescue and military:

·         Supra-regional coordination of police could be further developed. There has been improvement in police coordination and strategy, after Members recalled some communities needing to provide security due to police shortage in some areas, but in geographic-based emergencies, local police forces should be able to draw from police resources from other unaffected geographic areas, similar to the Armed Forces.

·         Resource resilience in joint services is as important as better coordination. Even though Fire and Rescue services were present from the start, it depleted their resource resilience should there have been an incident elsewhere requiring their attention.

Awareness and community outreach:

·         Community engagement, education and public outreach has become an increasing priority for the 'three arms' with the development of volunteer networks, use of flood wardens, and full time engagement staff – but Members reported many of their constituents being unaware of the outreach.

·         Some Members questioned if the method of communication was missing certain target demographics, due to reliance on digital channels. Not everyone can get online easily and during the Boxing Day flood events themselves, the internet and phone lines were not available.

·         It is sometimes difficult to find out exactly what actions are being taken, or projects being developed, at a 'micro' and local level. The Environment Agency was happy to share details of projects in their area with Members to share further with their networks.

Accountability and oversight:

·         Members have an individual responsibility to hold their own councils to account in their performance of day-to-day duties that can mitigate flood risks, such as maintaining council owned or managed infrastructure, such as ensuring drains, street gullies and sewers are cleaned and in working order.

·         The Combined Authority has established a Senior Flood Officers Group made up of representatives from the Combined Authority, partner councils, Yorkshire Water, Environment Agency and a representative from the Yorkshire & Humber Chief Executives Group – Flood Risk Forum. Other strategic partners are also included as required.

·         The flood risk capital investment programme is overseen and governed by the Yorkshire Flood and Coastal Committee. Each Local Authority has an elected member representative on this Committee. The committee is supported by sub-regional (West Yorkshire, North Yorkshire etc.) Flood Risk Partnerships. These are member-led, meet quarterly, and is the primary point of oversight for flood risk in West Yorkshire.

·         Emergency response is overseen and co-ordinated by the Local Resilience Forums (LRF) as required by the Civil Contingencies Act. The LRF is Member led and is supported by several working groups, one of which is a "Severe Weather Group".

·         Statutory protections could have been stronger. Previously public discussions considered making the urban sustainable development document a statutory instrument, but it ultimately became government guidance which did not obligate stakeholders as strongly as statutory requirements might have.

·         It was acknowledged that flood defence is a complex issue that involved many strands of work and expertise. In future, the level of witnesses to the committee had to be considered carefully to either ensure there was representation from all areas, such as planning, local authority drainage or Local Resilience Forums, to support more detailed requirements in that area or an identify an appropriate individual who can represent and be responsible for the entire work streams, such as the chief executive lead for flooding.

The Committee concluded that whereas progress had been made, there was room for improvement and that the lines of inquiry in the future should revisit the following areas:

·         Communications – outreach, community engagement and education before and during flood events

·         Effective coordination of emergency services and response, including police, fire and military

·         The coordination of planning policy and activity within a flood defence context

·         Local authorities properly maintaining council owned or managed infrastructure that can mitigate flood risk 

·         Closer look at delivery against the 10 scrutiny recommendations, separately from the 19 flood review recommendations

Resolved: 

i)     That the report be noted and the Committee's feedback and conclusions be considered further. 

ii)    That the Flood Review be revisited at an appropriate time in the future and focus on the areas highlighted during this session as outlined above.