Agenda item

(To receive a presentation from David Hickman (Growth and Environment Commissioner) and Mark Welsh (Flood Risk and Development Manager) which gives an introduction to the roles and responsibilities of all agencies involved in flood risk and drainage in the county)

The Committee received a presentation which provided an overview of the roles and responsibilities of all agencies involved in flood risk and drainage in the county.

David Hickman (Growth and Environment Commissioner) provided an overview of role of the Flood and Water Management Scrutiny Committee and Lincolnshire County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) which covered the following areas:-

·       21F of Local Government Act 2000 – Overview and Scrutiny Committee:  Flood Risk management;

·       Joint Scrutiny Committee reflecting the Flood Risk and Water Management Partnership;

·       Flood and Water Management Scrutiny Committee Terms of Reference;

·       Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) Partners;

·       A map of Lincolnshire's potential flood risk areas;

·       Flood management systems;

·       Local flood risk included surface water, groundwater and ordinary watercourses;

·       LLFA responsibilities;

·       Joint Flood Risk and Drainage Management Strategy;

·       Flood investigations under Section 19 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010;

·       Capital works;

·       Lincolnshire County Council Asset Register;

·       Responsibilities within the Land Drainage Act;

·       Flood emergency response within Lincolnshire;

·       Community Risk Register – 4 of the top 9 'enduring' risks were reported as flood related;

·       Planning process consultees;

·       Lincolnshire County Council provided an integrated service Flood Risk and Highways and a 'single point of contact' approach for Development Management.  It was particularly noted that this was the only lead council doing this out of 22 lead authorities within this area which was impressive;   

·       LCC are not the decision making authority witin the planning process but a Statutory Consultee;

·       Consideration to Surface Water Flooding; and

·       Consideration of SuDS (Sustainable Drainage Systems) on Major Developments (10+ properties);

Partners of the Committee were invited to give a brief introduction to their own areas:-

Environment Agency

Deborah Campbell, Flood and Coastal Risk Manager, explained that the main areas of responsibility for the Environment Agency in Lincolnshire were Coastal Defence; Main Rivers; National overview of flood risk management; and Floodline – flood warning system.  It was the responsibility of the Environment Agency to cascade information on flood issues across the relevant areas of the country.  They also have strong links with the Local Resilience Forum.

Internal Drainage Boards (IDBs)

It was explained that there were fourteen Internal Drainage Boards within Lincolnshire which were responsible for draining low lying areas (40% within Lincolnshire); land drainage (in particular agricultural land but also some urban areas); and water level management.  It was reported that high quality water was currently being drained into the sea but it was suggested that in times of drought this water could be used so there was a need to manage this better.

Water Companies

Jonathan Glerum, Flood Risk Manager, explained the role of Anglian Water within the partnership.  The main responsibilities were to supply water; remove and treat foul water (foul and combined sewers and treatment works); and surface water drainage of developed areas (surface water and combined sewers).  A yearly water management plan was developed which considered how water could be better used within the county. Every five years all water companies must also complete a business plan.

District Councils

District Councils were also key partners as the local planning authority and were also to undertake anomalous S14 works on ordinary watercourses outside IDB areas.  The county council had all other Land Drainage Act responsibilities which caused some confusion on occasion but the intent when developing this Act had been to encourage partnership working.

Members were invited to ask questions during which the following points were noted:-

·       The Public Inquiry investigation in relation to the Boston Barrier was complete and it was reported that the final report was expected sometime in the Autumn.  It was also confirmed that the preferred bidder for this work would be announced within the next two weeks;

·       In relation to riverside land ownership, the Environment Agency issued guidance to all owners so that they were aware of their own rights and responsibilities.  Members were assured that this type of ownership was unusual on new developments unless there is a pre-existing land ownership pattern.  The guidance could be found on the Environment Agency website using the following link:-

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/riverside-ownership-rights-and-responsibilities

·       The Committee was assured that all new developments would not have combined sewers.  There was also a programme in place to provide upgrades to public sewers.  Work was ongoing with partners to find a solution to remove surface water without the need to increase the size of existing sewers;

·       Clarity was sought on monitoring of SuDS compliance and it was explained that advice was provided to local planning authorities to enable them to make the final decision on the application.  It was agreed that this part of the legislation was cause for concern but that this authority was in a better position than most due to the good working relationship with water companies.  The Committee was advised that SuDS applications would be recorded on the Asset Register in future, even if responsibility is unknown, to enable better monitoring;

·       Further concern was raised that the Statutory Consultee could suggest a within planning application that SuDS was sufficient which made it difficult for the planning authority to object to an application on those grounds.  It was acknowledged that it would be inappropriate to undermine another authority but it may be that more detailed discussions between developmental management officers and district council planning officers was necessary; and

·       The majority of pipes had a self-cleansing velocity and where land was particularly flat, a vacuuming system was also used.  Although this type of drainage was more complex and challenging, the Committee was assured that septicity was minimised within pipes due to this system.

The Chairman thanked officers for the presentation.

RESOLVED

          That the presentation and comments be noted.