Memorandum submitted by West Lindsey District
Council (FL 135)
1. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
1.1 This document sets out the main issues
arising out of the flooding that affected the district of West
Lindsey during the summer of 2007. The district of West Lindsey
covers the area immediately north of Lincoln and forms the north
west gateway to Lincolnshire. A number of areas across the district
experienced varying degrees of flooding; the most severely affected
were the wards of Scotter, Ingham, Nettleham and Glentham. In
response to the flooding West Lindsey District Council decided
to hold an Inquiry in order to reduce the impact of a similar
event in the future. Stage one of the Inquiry involved sending
a survey to every household and business in the district in August
2007. The purpose of this was to gather evidence of how residents
were affected and how well they felt the Council and other agencies
responded. In conjunction with this, a number of informal focus
groups were organised between Parish/Town, District and Lincolnshire
County Councillors. This allowed officers and community representatives
to discuss a number of issues around flooding in severely affected
areas. All of the information gathered will be used as evidence
for a Citizens' Jury to be held in January 2008 which forms the
second part of the Inquiry. The Jury will be a chance to consider
evidence and senior officers from both the Council and various
agencies will be invited to account for their response to the
flooding and outline what action will be taken to lessen the impact
of future flooding.
2. ISSUES RAISED
AS A
RESULT OF
THE FLOODING
2.1 A number of perceived issues have become
apparent from the evidence gathered by the Council so far. These
are set out below:
2.2 Lack of co-ordination between agencies—residents
reported being passed from "pillar to post" by the various
agencies when trying to get a query resolved. This caused confusion
as to who was responsible for what and in some cases, made residents'
situations worse as they didn't know who to turn to for the help
they needed.
2.3 Lack of, or problems with, communication—many
residents reported being given little or no information from the
Environment Agency as to the severity of the flood warning in
their area which residents felt left them unable to adequately
prepare. Some reported being unable to access the Environment
Agency's website for information as well as being unable to get
through on the telephone. Residents also said that they were given
contradictory evidence from the various agencies. In one example,
a resident in Nettleham was told that the flood risk was low and
there was no need to evacuate. He was then told two hours later
that severe flooding was "almost certain" and the area
would have to be evacuated immediately, therefore allowing no
time to rescue belongings.
2.4 Confusion over who is responsible
for drains, pipes and verges—there was widespread confusion
over who is responsible for maintaining verges and dykes, as well
as who is responsible for becks, waterways and drainage systems.
Residents requested a "map" of who is responsible for
what so that they can be held to account, or made aware of their
duty to maintain waterways etc.
2.5 Waterways not being dredged and cleaned—an
overwhelming number of residents reported that waterways had not
been dredged for periods of time ranging from ten to 30 years.
They felt that this caused the flooding to some extent and that
there should be a return to the annual programme of dredging and
cleaning waterways.
2.6 Planning Issues—many residents
voiced concerns that poor planning decisions by the Council and
new housing with inadequate drainage were responsible for the
recent flooding. Questions were asked as to how old the drainage
pipes were as it was felt that they were too antiquated and too
small to cope with the sudden deluge of water.
3. NEXT STEPS
3.1 It is anticipated that, as part of the
Council's own Inquiry, a number of lessons will emerge for both
the Council and partner agencies to take into account. As part
of the national Inquiry, West Lindsey District Council asks that
the following be considered in order to lessen the impact of flooding
in the future:
3.2 A clear definition of roles and responsibilities
for each agency so that:
(a) members of the public are clear on who
they should contact in the event of flooding; and
(b) each agency is clear about their duties
so that they can undertake these accordingly.
3.2 That contingency plans are put in place
so that agencies telephone lines and internet sites can cope with
the surge in demand caused by severe weather.
3.3 One single agency to be responsible
for publicising flood warnings and giving advice to residents
re evacuation as early as possible.
3.4 That consideration is given to providing
extra funding for local authorities to allow waterways to be dredged
on an annual basis.
3.5 That the issues around planning are
considered as part of the national Inquiry.
West Lindsey District Council
October 2007
| 
