Memorandum submitted by the Local Government
Association (DFWMB 16)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. The Local Government Association (LGA) welcomes
the publication of the draft Bill and recognises the achievement
of central government in producing the draft to a very tight timetable.
We welcome the central role for local authorities in the draft
Bill and in the Pitt recommendations. This submission is based
on an initial reading of the draft Bill and consultation with
member authorities. The LGA will be pleased to offer the Committee
a more detailed consideration of the Inquiry questions, once members
have been able to digest the very extensive and detailed proposals.
At first reading and discussion, we welcome the emphasis in the
draft Bill on:
— A risk based approach to flood management.
— Co-operation and strategic partnership working.
— Promoting SUDs as a first, rather than
last, choice.
— The expertise and potential of IDBs
to play a more central role in Flood Risk Management (FRM).
— Support for adaptation and resilience
measures.
2. It is recognised that effective flood risk
management requires clear roles, responsibilities and accountability.
It is right that local government has been given the lead role
in co-ordinating flood risk management activity at the local level.
We believe councils will embrace the opportunity to work closely
with the Environment Agency and other partners to actively reduce
flood risk and improve the management of water resources.
3. In its response to the Pitt Review, the Government
stated that there would be no net new burdens on local government.
This has been repeated since the publication of the Draft Bill.
The LGA welcomes this intention. However, we have serious concerns
over the financing of the lead role. Insufficient work has been
undertaken by any of the organisations involved in flood risk
management to be certain of the costs involved. Thus the assumptions
that have been made on the cost of resourcing the additional work
must be treated with caution. So, in contrast to statements in
the draft and the impact assessment, we would contest that there
are very few savings and a great deal more expenses connected
to both the lead role and to technical issues around implementing
Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDs). At best there may be
some avoidance of cost of recovery in future flood scenarios.
However, since these are anticipated future costs they cannot
contribute to the expenditure that will be incurred.
4. The LGA has serious concerns around current
and future skills gaps and training needs. We believe that even
with more collaborative working, authorities and their partners
in the public and private sector are very likely to suffer a skills
shortage.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
ASSOCIATION
5. The Local Government Association (LGA) represents
466 authorities in England and Wales; together these councils
speak for over 50 million people and spend £113 billion a
year delivering services on their behalf.
CONTEXT
6. In this submission we have set out some general
points about the key issues in the draft Bill. This is followed
by our headline responses to the Inquiry questions.
A LEAD ROLE
FOR LOCAL
AUTHORITIES
7. Co-ordination of the main drainage players
should not be a problem, provided they all come to the table with
a positive attitude. There will need to be strong leadership from
the co-ordinator. This is a new role and will require additional
capacity within the lead councils.
8. The roles of preparing a Surface Water Management
Plan (SWMP) and local flood risk co-ordination must be adequately
funded with new money. There is also a case for those contributing
to co-ordination groups to be funded with new money.
9. The LGA will give further thought to the way
in which the roles of co-ordination can be implemented effectively.
It may be that those assigned from each drainage organisation
to be on the local co-ordination group should have sufficient
authority to commit their organisations to strategies and incur
expenditure. To ensure partnerships are effective we recommend
an annual audit or scrutiny process.
10. The LGA will consider further how major capital
schemes should be funded. There should be a differentiation between
those schemes that are of more than local significance and those
that may have strong, local community benefits.
TWO TIER
ISSUES
11. Defra has maintained its previously published
stance on how the lead role should be undertaken in two tier areas.
The planning function of district councils and their varying expertise
and experience need to be taken into account in determining how
local government should exercise its leading role in any two-tier
area. We propose that the lead role and delivery of particular
functions should be agreed locally. There should be a very clear
requirement that there is an accountable body and that all roles
and responsibilities are set out clearly. This should be within
a set timeframe and we accept that there should be a default position
whereby the county council takes this role if agreement is not
reached. Agreement, rather than delegation, is the key to ensuring
an effective strategic partnership for managing local flood risk
and making sure that all partners prioritise this work. Local
Area Agreements are a good example of effective cross-authority
partnership working and provide a useful model for strategic management
of local flood risk in 2 tier areas.
SKILLS AND
TRAINING
12. The skills gap will take some considerable
time to fill and will not be filled by collaborative working alone.
There are widely acknowledged skills and knowledge gaps which
will need to be addressed urgently. On developing and implementing
SWMPs, this includes technical knowledge on all the hard and soft
issues involved with benefit/cost calculations and general scheme
feasibility. A good technical knowledge base is also essential
to ensure all authorities are able to complete funding application
forms to best advantage. This will also ensure that those authorities
starting from a lower base are not consistently disadvantaged.
SUSTAINABLE URBAN
DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
(SUDS)
13. Whilst the LGA supports the Pitt recommendations
on SUDs and the emphasis in the draft Bill on more sustainable
drainage solutions, we would stress that SUDS are not a panacea
and can have some technical difficulties depending on ground conditions.
In some places, positive drainage (surface water sewers and drainage
channels) will be the preferred solution. SUDs should be seen
within the context of a whole management system. Permeable surfacing
is being talked about without an acknowledgement of some of the
technical issues. The LGA will encourage technical bodies and
professional associations to work together to provide appropriate
national standards.
14. There are still many uncertainties around
long term SUDs maintenance costs, which to date has held some
SUDs schemes back. LGA advisers do not see any evidence of the
planning process itself holding back SUDs, except in the agreement
of commuted sums for their maintenance.
15. SUDs associated with new development are
dependent to a large degree on the recession lifting and construction
re-starting. Growth areas and therefore the introduction of SUDs
will not be consistent around the country. We also need to consider
how we encourage more retro-fit SUDs and more property-level solutions.
16. Major issues of concern in relation to the
objective of bringing about more SUDs schemes include:
— Short, medium and long term resources.
— Technical knowledge gaps and how
these will be addressed quickly.
17. The impact of Climate Change, particularly
on rainfall intensity will have a significant impact on the ability
of any drainages systems to perform adequately.
INQUIRY QUESTIONS
Are the powers in the Draft Flood and Water Management
Bill sufficient to enable full implementation of the Pitt Review
recommendations?
18. We expect that some of the proposed powers
will need to be supported by effective partnership agreements
and detailed work locally. For example, the duty on utilities
and others to co-operate with local authorities will require agreements
on the detail of how data should be shared between different organisations,
format, timescales etc. We are not confident that all the proposed
powers afford adequate engagement and functionality for Local
Authorities.
Does the draft bill achieve the right balance
between protecting the environment and protecting homes and businesses
from flooding?
19. The stated aims of the draft Bill attempt
to achieve this balance, with an emphasis on the impacts of climate
change and the need to future proof the country. The choice of
words used in the drafting suggests a bias away from houses and
businesses. The LGA would be concerned if the public felt that
the intent of the Bill was to place greater emphasis on wildlife
habitat protection than flood prevention.
Are the proposals contained in the draft bill
necessary, workable, efficient and clear? Are there any important
omissions in the Bill?
20. We agree that the proposals are necessary
and timely. Collaborative working, a risk based approach, greater
awareness of protecting water resources and support for more sustainable
communities and lifestyles at national and local level will help
to underpin the priority of flood risk management activity.
21. The workability of parts of the draft Bill
is questionable as persuasion by and of local authorities is not
a reliable lever and so may not be enough to make the proposals
effective and as a consequence will result in inefficiencies.
Some issues around funding, co-operation and investment in skills
and training require urgent attention. This will ensure authorities
are clear about the cost of the proposals and the support they
will receive from government and partners in undertaking additional
activity.
22. The LGA will urge its members to get on with
the job and to learn from those authorities that are leading the
way in managing local flood risk. However, we believe that without
confidence that key issues are being addressed, many local authorities
are unlikely to make the swift progress with proposals that is
expected.
23. The proposal for SUDs Approving Bodies to
be a county function (in 2 tier areas) when there is a lack of
relevant experience in counties is a concern. Whilst in theory
national standards for SUDs appear a good idea, there is concern
that such standards may not properly deal with local ground conditions
if they are applied inappropriately by developers. We would be
concerned if the development of national standards slowed down
development. It will be necessary for standards to take account
of likely climate change impacts. It is essential in the meantime
that developers do not propose SUDS that are inadequate as an
alternative to tried and tested positive drainage techniques.
24. Some of the elements that we consider are
missing include:
— A lack of analysis of the skills
and training needs across public and private sector and a clear
plan for filling skills gaps.
— Clarity on the financial and capacity
implications for local authorities.
— Any indication of future funding
support.
— Robust plans to address funding shortfalls.
— Compulsion on sewerage undertakers
to share data needed for SWMPs.
— Flexibility in developing and implementing
SWMPs.
— Detail of how national standards
will be applied given the variance of local topography and situation.
— Clear direction on who will be responsible
for ensuring important aspects of SUDs designs are completed.
Is the proposed institutional framework appropriate
and sufficient for the enforcement of measures contained in the
draft bill?
25. The LGA does have doubts about this, for
the reasons given in answer to Q1 and Q3. The institutional context
is important but our opinion is that the culture surrounding the
relationships between the parties is the most important factor.
We will work with the Government to get the best model but we
recognise that building relationships between organisations at
a national and local level is likely to have the greatest impacts.
People who feel that they have been forced to a table rarely work
well together. Local authorities may need some powers to require
organisations to do things as a last resort.
Is the balance struck between what has been included
on the face of the draft bill, and what goes into Regulations
and the Code of Practices right?
26. The LGA does have doubts about this, for
the reasons given in answer to Q1 and Q3. This may be a matter
of parliamentary time. The LGA would prefer to see those elements
of the Pitt report that are essential to effective operation to
be on the face of the Bill. Those things where there is some uncertainty,
such as the application of SUDS would be best left to regulations
and codes of practice so that changes can be made easily as knowledge
improves.
What are the likely financial resource implications
of the draft bill?
27. Member authorities have made it clear that
the stepped change suggested by Pitt and reflected in the draft
Bill is not self-financing and is likely to have higher overall
costs implications from the onset.
28. Generally, the draft Bill does not acknowledge
either the initial costs for local authorities of taking on additional
responsibilities or some of the long term costs. To suggest that
the leadership role will be cost neutral is extremely unrealistic,
when it is clear that local authorities will be taking on significant
new burdens, including the need to expand existing teams, set
up and administer strategic partnerships and undertake skills
and training to meet co-ordination roles etc.
29. We are concerned that even where it is acknowledged
that there may be additional costs (eg with long term maintenance
of SUDs), the assertion that these costs will need to be considered
as part of future spending reviews alongside other priorities
and pressures, will not induce confidence or enthusiasm amongst
cash-strapped authorities.
30. Member authorities see very few savings in
the proposals. Those that exist are saved in districts and incurred
in counties. What are mainly cited as savings are from a budget
perspective, namely cost avoidance rather than cost-savings. Councils
do not budget for the sort of clear-ups that have occurred after
recent floods. Other things do not get done—apart from some
contingency money. The reality is that individual householders
whether consumers, council tax payers or tax payers will incur
more expenditure.
31. The LGA would like to see a much clearer
evidence base for the presumed cost savings for local authorities
in managing local flood risk.
32. We agree that better flood risk management
will produce some cost savings in the short and medium term. However,
the initial costs for local authorities in taking on the lead
role for flood management could be significant. We are not aware
of what cost benefit analysis has been used to inform some of
the assumptions that local authorities will be able to make short
or medium term cost savings by investing in flood risk management.
Some of the impact assessments are difficult to understand and
make unsubstantiated leaps of faith.
33. Understanding local flood risk, most notably
by drawing up a Surface Water Management Plan, will help authorities
and their partners prioritise work that needs to be done and will
have a clear cost benefit. However, the benefit may not be obvious
to council tax payers and may be either long-term or save individuals,
businesses, the insurance industry or central government money,
rather than produce cost savings for the council. When members
are making difficult decisions about which services to prioritise
for additional funding, these factors need to be considered.
34. We know from the autumn 2008 LGA/Defra survey
of all local authorities in England (257 or 66% of authorities
responded) that almost 60% of authorities are already unable to
fund their current flood risk management responsibilities. Furthermore,
the same survey indicated serious gaps in planning and engineering
capacity with more than a quarter of authorities finding it difficult
to attract suitably qualified or experienced staff. The County
Surveyor's Society, in association with the LGA, IDeA and Institute
of Civil Engineers is planning some more detailed research this
summer on the funding and capacity implications of the Pitt recommendations
and draft Bill proposals. This will inform responses to the draft
Bill consultation.
35. In order to write and implement Surface Water
Management Plans, many local authority areas will need to recruit
additional staff or train up existing staff. Identifying the work
that needs to be done is essential in understanding and managing
flood risk but it requires funding to be available to the local
authority to undertake that work. Whilst the £15 million
set aside for developing the plans in priority areas is welcome,
we would argue that the start up costs are potentially huge and
will affect all authorities, not just those in priority areas.
36. Furthermore, the proposal that local authorities
take on the ownership and maintenance of new SUDs will potentially
also create huge costs. We need pump-priming to build capacity
and a knowledge base on SUDs. To ensure the widest possible uptake
of SUDS, it has to be anticipated that this will develop into
a substantial funding requirement. Without a sustainable financing
mechanism this will become a significant strain upon local government
finances. We would assume that the owners of properties drained
to SUDS would therefore not be offered this form of drainage as
a "free good", funded from taxation, whilst owners of
properties draining to sewer continue to pay charges. The LGA
thinks that the most appropriate mechanism would be to require
all properties to continue to pay a surface water drainage charge.
(To avoid complications for property owners, it might be appropriate
that this continue to be paid to the relevant water company and
for the local authority to able to obtain the appropriate customer
payment from the water company. This would be very simple to operate
and be akin to the single customer payment mechanism employed
where "water only" and "sewerage only" operate
in the same area.)
37. The draft Bill states (212) that "From
April 2011, local authorities are expected to benefit substantially
from savings arising from the transfer of private sewers to the
sewerage companies". Member authorities advise that the costs
involved in managing private sewers are not always significant,
indeed some local authorities have very few if any private sewers.
It is unclear what calculations have been used to balance the
costs of responsibility for private sewers with adoption and maintenance
of SUDs. A typical large district has calculated the transfer
would save 0.25 of a full time Environmental Health Officer. This
council has 1.5 FTE drainage engineers and technicians currently
promoting and adopting SUDs and managing flood risk. With the
new lead role and increase in the take up of SUDs, it will need
to add substantially to this team.
38. It is unclear in several areas where the
cost benefit analysis comes from and difficult to understand assumptions
made. We need Defra to provide more evidence on likely costs and
the justification for calculating that taking on this task will
be cost neutral.
39. The costs of developing and maintaining SUDs
will depend on the type of SUDs scheme chosen, what kind of maintenance
will be expected and the details of what the national standards
will be. The standards themselves, how they will apply in different
situations and delegated responsibilities might create all sorts
of costs, skills needs and other issues for local authorities.
40. We do not see any difficulty with SUDs being
linked to NPIs provided the indicator is couched in terms of,
for example, "the number of new dwellings served by SUDs
as a percentage of the total number of new dwellings constructed."
41. The £15 million to be made available
to (some) authorities to fund the development of SWMPs could help
to fund the initial costs of an SWMP manager/local flood risk
co-ordinator, but recruiting and retaining such experts depends
on long term funding being available.
42. We assume that funding for larger capital
schemes will continue to have to be bid for. Smaller revenue schemes
including where enforcement is considered the best means of dealing
with an issue will need the funding authorisations to be streamlined.
The LGA will consider further how major capital schemes should
be funded. There should be a differentiation between those schemes
that are of more than local significance and those that may have
strong, local community benefits.
Has the Government analysed the effects of the
draft bill adequately, and has it taken sufficient account of
consultation?
43. We agree that the drafting covers the essence
of what is needed. The workability of what is proposed to instigate
and support a stepped change is presently problematical and will
need meaningful consultation with local authorities before the
proposed legislation is finalised.
CONCLUSION
44. This will be an important Bill and the LGA
welcomes the aims and applauds the scope and ambition of the proposals
in the draft. Nevertheless, we are concerned about the workability
of the proposals for many local authorities. The assumption that
the lead role for local authorities in managing local flood risk
will be cost neutral is not shared by our members. Without confidence
that there will be additional resources for flood risk management,
it will be difficult for local authorities to make the initial
investment required. The LGA agrees that measures to reduce flood
risk will result in a cost benefit in the future. However, the
benefits will vary according to each area and the nature of flood
risk is that actual flooding may not happen for many years and
councils will need to continually justify investment in flood
risk management against other more immediate and on-going spending
pressures, such as children's services or care for the elderly.
Central government will need to make flood and coastal erosion
risk management and protection of our water resources a very clear
and continued national priority to help support councils in the
often difficult task of making flood risk management a local priority.
May 2009
| 
