Written evidence submitted by Lincolnshire
County Council
Questions:
— Which of the key issues covered by the
consultation into the draft Flood and Water Management Bill and
by the Walker and Cave reviews should be taken forward as legislative
priorities?
— Which further policies which are required
to ensure flood and water management which delivers optimum social,
economic and environmental outcomes?
— Any issues related to the Flood and Water
Management Act 2010 (including sustainable drainage systems (SUDS)
and the transfer of private sewers and lateral drains)?
RESPONSE FROM
LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY
COUNCIL ON
BEHALF OF
THE LINCOLNSHIRE
FLOOD RISK
AND DRAINAGE
MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
PARTNERSHIP
The draft Bill contained proposals for statutory
nuisance powers. If framed carefully, this could provide a means
to tackle run-off caused by damage or removal of drainage assets.
It would have to avoid penalising landowners where flooding resulted
from extreme weather events overwhelming an existing asset, rather
than from deliberate action having reduced the effectiveness of
the asset.
The Act removes concurrent powers of enforcement
and consenting on ordinary watercourses outside IDB areas, and
transfers these to the Lead Local Flood Authority as its sole
responsibility. However, permissive works powers on these watercourses
are left with District Councils in two-tier areas. As a result,
while the Lead Local Flood Authority would have powers to undertake
works as a consequence of enforcement action, under the Act it
will have no powers to undertake works on a proactive basis in
its own right.
This does not appear consistent with the joined-up
approach that the Act seeks to implement, nor with the concept
of integrated flood risk management implicit in the Local Flood
Risk Management Strategy and the countywide Preliminary Flood
Risk Assessment. Future legislation should amend this position,
to provide the LLFA with permissive powers alongside those of
enforcing and consenting, which in themselves represent the bulk
of resource required for managing ordinary watercourses.
The Act legislates in great detail on SUDS,
down to a requirement that any SUDS connecting two or more properties
must be approved, adopted and maintained by the Lead Local Flood
Authority. This is too prescriptive and represents a level of
focus on operational activity that undercuts the selection of
appropriate and cost-effective drainage methods suitable to the
locality. In addition, the threshold of two properties seems set
too low, with very significant implications for managing and resourcing
the resulting number of SUDS proposals. We would prefer this threshold
to be reviewed to reset at a more appropriate level.
Whilst the Act goes into significant detail
in respect of SUDs the issue of raising revenue for ongoing management
and maintenance has not been addressed. The impact assessment
that accompanied the original Bill has suggested this funding
will not need to be considered until 2018 assuming maintenance
will not be required until then. This is not the case, most SUDs
constructed in line with best practice are essentially landscape
based, which means they will inherently require continual and
ongoing maintenance. Future legislation needs to address this,
particularly in the current climate, to ensure service delivery
in the future under the principals of beneficiary pays.
The issue of private sewers does require re-examination.
The Impact Assessment that accompanied the Draft Bill assumed
a total cost to local authorities nationally of around £50
million, and proposed that transference of these assets to Water
Companies would free this sum for use by local authorities to
implement their new burdens. Local Authorities, working through
the LGA, have generally not accepted the assumptions made about
these costs, and have expressed a strong view that £50 million
is a substantial overestimate of savings to Local Authorities,
in particular there are no savings to upper tier authorities.
Whilst it is understood that transferring private sewers would
impose a significant new burden on Water Companies, the main beneficiary
will be the public at large, not Local Authorities. Given the
state of public finance we would question whether this is appropriate
or affordable at this time. We consider, therefore, that it would
seem prudent to leave the current situation unchanged, and not
to proceed with transferring the assets.
October 2010
| 
