Memorandum submitted by Engineering Services,
Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council, West Yorkshire (FL 147)
1. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
This submission examines three aspects of flooding
and flood risk which are considered to be key issues in a wide
ranging subject.
1.1 Insurance
Developments in the insurance industry need
to be addressed by government and insurers to work out an equitable
way forward regarding properties at risk of flooding.
1.2 Records
The lack of records of ordinary watercourses
(especially those which are piped or culverted) hampers engineers
investigating operational problems and those engaged in development
control. It requires some agency to be given the funding and the
duty to establish & maintain records.
1.3 Development Control
There is conflicting advice and insufficient
specifics in the guidance being produced to help Local Planning
Authorities control run-off and promote the use of SUDS. Enforcement
is not affordable except for the most serious breaches of planning
law neither is it a practical proposition without improved documentary
process.
1.4 Conclusions
The submission concludes that further reviews
of law, regulation, guidance and funding are needed to empower
and support those responsible for operating national flood prevention
policies and managing the non-main river infrastructure which
in most cases are local authority drainage managers or engineers.
2. INSURANCE
2.1 It was brought to our attention, by
a contractor acting on behalf of insurers on a case in Halifax,
that a change of attitude to claims is taking place. A meeting
was held with a Senior Claims Manager at one of the companies
involved (Halifax Insurance) to discuss the matter and gain first
hand knowledge. He confirmed that his company is moving (or may
already have done so) to a position in which they only consider
claims from householders for damage to watercourses if they serve
the insured "buildings" to dispose of surface water.
2.2 Our case in point, which has massive
cost potential for the residents, would not be covered under the
policy terms, which he described.
2.3 There was further confirmation of hardening
attitudes in a news report on 10 October 2007 in which insurers
were threatening to withdraw cover entirely in flood risk areas
unless more central funding is made available for flood protection.
2.4 Although there must be a commercial
limit to what the industry and its customers will stand it seems
the original purpose of insurance (spreading financial liability)
is being forgotten as certain risks increase.
3. RECORDS
3.1. Lack of statutory records of ordinary
watercourses causes a number of problems.
3.2 Responsibility for land drainage has
always rested with riparian owners in areas with no Internal Drainage
Boards and as the Land Drainage Body's powers are all permissive
there has been little or no impetus and no funding for anyone
to keep records of watercourses, in particular enclosed watercourses.
3.3 Until relatively recently these systems
were essential for drinking, agriculture, power and industrial
process (including draining mining operations) and used to be
managed by the owners of mills and other properties served by
them who obviously had a keen vested interest in their maintenance.
As the majority of these uses have now decayed the systems are
falling into disrepair and local knowledge disappears with the
demise of the engineers who used to care for them.
3.4 Consequently there are few if any records
kept from which to identify conflicts during development. Experience
shows that we cannot rely on developers bringing their existence
to our attention and co-operating with reasonable requirements
to deal with them. Poor quality diversions and built over culverts
are all too common.
3.5 When it comes to operational problems
we often have to rely on exhaustive investigation to identify
problems and bring them to the attention of the relevant riparian
owners, most of whom had no idea of their responsibilities and
often insufficient funds/insurance to cover costs.
3.6 When the land on which the problem is
located is not registered the Council has a choice of do nothing
or incur mounting costs, which it is unlikely ever to recoup.
3.7 There is no legal requirement for vendors
to point out the existence of watercourses to purchasers unless
there is a known and unresolved flooding problem. It is doubtful
whether even this requirement is complied with in many low profile
cases.
3.8 Given the wise move to bring private
sewers and lateral drains under the control of the Water and Sewerage
Companies it is somewhat incongruous that the land drainage infrastructure
(which is on average much older and in worse condition than the
sewer network) should remain entirely in private ownership with
no duty placed upon any public body to keep records or police
the activities of riparian owners and the funding to manage these.
3.9 The Environment Agency's Flood and Coastal
Defence Database might be cited as an opportunity to address this
situation. However, it does not have the capacity to hold records
of minor watercourses and it is unlikely to be the most suitable
repository. A simple GIS based mapping application is what is
needed.
3.10 Furthermore if the duty, and adequate
funding to populate a record are not lodged with a suitable statutory
body nothing will progress.
4. DEVELOPMENT
CONTROL
4.1 Protecting watercourses
Maintaining adequate control of development
affecting watercourses is very difficult. First we have to know
that the development is taking place. This is very difficult to
keep track of as the planning system does not require commencement
notices. Then we have to know that there is a watercourse at risk,
which without records relies purely on local knowledge if it is
already culverted. The landowner may be the best source of local
knowledge but he/she may have an initial vested interest in not
disclosing the information.
4.2 Enforcement
Enforcement of planning conditions is both very
difficult and expensive because:
— The conditions are made on the advice
of a host of consultees.
— There is no clear starting date for
development under a planning approval, no commencement notice
etc.
— Development is often delayed for
years after an approval (especially an outline) consequently it
is not feasible to "monitor" all cases.
— If the work affecting watercourses
is done without planning permission of course (permitted development
or minor engineering works not requiring PP) the first the Land
Drainage Body may know of the matter is when it blocks or collapses
which may be years after the work. The same may apply to development
for which the building control function is "contracted out".
4.3 Sustainable development
4.3.1 There is a wealth of information available
to developers and planners (and their consultees) to guide us
on how to produce sustainable development for the future.
4.3.2 However the uptake is very slow. Developers
are unlikely to voluntarily provide sustainable drainage if it
is more expensive or complex to procure without specific controls
assigned to planners. This is further exacerbated in some areas
by incompatibility between Water Company and Highway Authority
policies in relation to soakaways for highway drainage.
4.3.3 The cornerstone of these matters in
planning terms and the document most often referred to is PPS25.
However this has missed an opportunity to set standards in detail
and has left things somewhat uncertain. The recent Practice Guide
does little to turn this around and is such a large and detailed
document that small developers in particular are unlikely to become
quickly familiar with its content—good or bad.
4.3.4 We find ourselves often having to
re-iterate the need for Flood Risk Assessments of "other
risks" and defending our position in relation to brownfield
developments.
4.3.5 The industry still takes its lead
from the EA's comments and the EA is understandably very much
tuned into fluvial flooding. Some Councils are producing local
guidance which tries to address this but changing perceptions
is a slow process.
4.3.6 There is little specific guidance
on how to manage run-off from brownfield sites and what is there
is inconsistent. Many developers believe after reading PPS25 that
it is sufficient to demonstrate no detriment or just marginal
improvement to comply with Government guidelines and there is
good evidence to support that stance.
4.3.7 For example in PPS 25:
Key Planning Objectives " . . . reducing
risk to and from new development".
Responsibilities—Owner/Developer "
. . . designs which reduce the flood risk to the development and
elsewhere".
Appendix E2 " . . . should where practicable
reduce flood risk".
Appendix F6 "should as far as is practicable,
be managed in a sustainable manner to mimic the surface water
flows across the site prior to the proposed development".
Appendix F10 " . . . peak flow rates of
surface water leaving a developed site are no greater that rates
prior to development . . .".
4.3.8 and in the PPS 25 Practice Guide
at paragraph 4.9 off-site impacts " . .
. the developed rate of run-off should be no greater than the
existing rate of run-off . . .".
4.3.9 However at the tail of 4.9 there is
referral to a CIRIA document (EA/DEFRA/ W5-074/A), which partially
counters these weak statements as follows:
"In the case of brownfield sites, drainage
proposals will be measured against the existing performance of
the site (although it is preferable for solutions to provide run-off
characteristics, which are similar to greenfield behaviour)".
" . . . run-off discharged from urban developments
to replicate or achieve a reduction from the greenfield response
of the site . . .".
4.3.10 Developers and some consenting and
implementing authorities have yet to show genuine enthusiasm for
this guidance.
4.3.11 In order to produce sustainable development
for the next generations to enjoy we must in the PPS 25 Practice
Guide (next edition) or in some other national standards framework:
(a) Make some directive to WASCs and Highway
Authorities to overcome policy / specification clashes in the
matter of SUDS.
(b) Set firm targets for reduction of peak
discharge from all sites. Greenfield rate (or even less)
is the preferred option.
(c) There are of course practical limitations
on attenuation. A minimum physical dimension for detention devices
(say 75mm) would be an aid to operational efficiency. This would
naturally lead to a minimum impermeable area to which attenuation
might be applied of around 300 square metres.
(d) We should allow only a few exceptions
to this in relation to brownfield development.
One might be a development with excellent existing
infrastructure, which requires no intervention to service the
proposal and in which it is not physically possible to introduce
attenuation to the system owing to site constraints.
Without such firm guidance we will not maximise
the opportunities to make a difference, which are presenting themselves
every day in our Planning Offices.
4.4 Conclusions
4.4.1 A review of the law, regulation and
responsibilities for ordinary watercourses is urgently needed
to support Land Drainage Bodies trying to make their input to
reducing flood risk.
4.4.2 PPS 25 needs amendment to include
some specific levels of control of surface water run-off.
4.4.3 These changes are needed urgently
if we are to make a difference.
David Turner
Group Engineer
Howard Glenn
Land Drainage Engineer
Engineering Services
Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council, West Yorkshire
November 2007
| 
