Written evidence submitted by Devon County
Council
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
0.1 Devon County Council (DCC) is LLFA for Devon
(excluding Torbay and Plymouth) in a two tier local government
arrangement. DCC seeks to bring to the attention of the EFRA Committee
concerns over funding of the F&WM Act, SuDs and the powers
required to ensure suitable land management.
1. GENERAL
1.1 Clarification is required over the difference
between Flood Management Plans and Surface Water Management Plans
(SWMP). At the draft bill stage reference was given towards SWMPs
but now reference is given to Flood Management Plans for individual
flood risk areas. Is one higher level or more detail than the
other? How are they intended to feed into each other?
1.2 DCC feels that the LLFA should have greater
powers to ensure land management and riparian responsibilities
are enforced along with powers of entry and recharge should any
necessary works be carried out by a LLFA.
2. FUNDING
2.1 The F&WM Act only places a responsibility
on LLFAs for "Local Flood Risk" which is defined as
surface water, ground water and ordinary watercourses under Section
9(2) of the Act. Therefore it is difficult to see why the disproportional
split in the UK is weighted towards river and coastal.
2.2 Whilst it is accepted that in some circumstances
there can be an interaction between river and surface water flooding
(eg swollen rivers preventing surface water from entering) current
national funding for England is mainly directed towards the 2.4
mllion people at risk of river and coastal flooding in flood zone
2 & 3, whilst there is no dedicated funding stream for the
2.1 million people at high or moderate risk of surface water flooding.
2.3 This leads on to a wider debate on whether
the existing (significant) funding for river and coastal flood
risk that the EA currently receives should be added to the new
funding for surface water, ground water and ordinary watercourse
flood risk to create a single total "Flood Risk Management"
Pot. This pot could then be distributed based upon both flood
zone risk and surface water vulnerability. This would help to
ensure better outcomes for the public as limited resources could
be better directed to deal with the greater risk whether it is
from river, coastal or surface water flooding.
2.4 In comparing the figures for flood zone
2 & 3 to moderate & high surface water risk for England
in the recent Defra consultation on funding shows that although
£36 million is being proposed for LLFAs it falls way short
of the current £570 million historically spent on river and
coastal flooding per annum. With a 46%/54% split on different
flood risk responsibilities it appears illogical to only propose
to fund the new burden with 6% of the funding [subject to CSR
20 October].
2.5 Quote from the EA website "At the moment
the Environment Agency, Local Authorities and Internal Drainage
Boards are spending £570 million to build and maintain flood
and coastal defences...We estimate that a further £150 million
per year may be required to manage surface water flood risk by
2035."
2.6 Diagram showing data from recent Defra consultation
compared to current funding proposals.
National Flood Risk on Surface Water compared
to River and Coastal
2.7 Typically maintaining an asset register
is a massive undertaking for the authority, requiring the necessary
investment to ensure the function is carried out correctly and
the correct staff employed to fulfil the function. We require
clarification on the level of detail that is expected in the register
of flood related assets. Previous asset experience within highways
indicates that this will be an enormous task with huge cost implications.
2.8 The LLFA is required to deliver modelling,
produce plans, buy software & surveying equipment and importantly
implement physical measures on the ground. Clearly this funding
is inadequate and will not deliver the benefits that the Pitt
Review envisaged. More importantly it is not sufficient to deliver
the meaningful action to reduce flood risk which the public is
expecting through the implementation of the Act.
2.9 The national funding proposal appears to
be a distribution of limited funding, rather than an effective
analysis of how much it will actually cost each authority to implement
the new burdens resulting from the Act. Perhaps it is envisaged
that separate capital grants will be made available in the future
for implementing capital works relating to managing surface water
flood risk however no indication has been given to date from Defra
that this will be the case—indeed verbally it has been suggested
that this money will be the only source of funding.
3. SUDS
3.1 In the Act all SuDs serving more than one
property will be adopted and maintained by the lead authority.
We feel that this does not allow the LLFA to act in a strategic
sense for adoption and maintenance, the threshold needs to be
much higher.
3.2 The freestanding application process described
allows SuDs to be adopted retrospectively; we do not view this
favourably, as the LLFA may adopt SuDs where no construction inspection
has been carried out, which could result in a major maintenance
liability and the fact the SuDs may not perform satisfactorily.
This may result on official commencement many will apply to the
LLFA to retrospectively adopt SuDs serving more than one property.
3.3 We have a concern that there is no mention
of commuted sums in the Act, there is a lot of research on cost
of SuDS maintenance in CIRIA C697 (2007). This could be brought
up to date and used to agree commuted sums with developers. However,
it is not anticipated that a developer would agree to commuted
sums for more than a 25 year maintenance period. We do not believe
that Defra accurate assessment of the full cost of maintaining
adopted SUDS.
3.4 We do not support the view that this will
be funded by savings by the transfer of private sewers. In a two
tier council arrangement the LLFA would receive no savings from
such a transfer.
3.5 We do not believe that oversized sewers,
underground attenuation or devices should be included within the
definition of SUDS. These systems should be viewed as being part
of the piped sewer network and should not require assessment and
adoption by the SAB.
6 October 2010
| 
