Written evidence submitted by Somerset
County Council
1.0 EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
1.1 Somerset County Council is a lead local
flood authority (LLFA) in an administrative area that has three
tiers of local governance; county council, five district councils
and parish and town councils. The County Council has responded
proactively to the emerging legislation and taken an active leadership
role in addressing flood risk together with our risk management
partners.
1.2 Whilst the County Council is keen to
succeed in addressing flood risk, there remain areas of legislation
that could be examined and amended to strengthen our ability to
deliver a successful and well-managed flood risk service to our
citizens.
2.0 TRANSFER
OF PRIVATE
SEWERS
2.1 The County Council does 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.
3.0 FUNDING
3.1 The Flood and Water Management 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. Is there an opportunity to reconsider
the balance of funding between the aforementioned functions and
river and coastal activities? Funding should be considered against
a risk management framework that takes into account contributory
elements of flood risk.
3.2 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
million 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. This will inevitably expose risks to LLFA's as a better
understanding of flood risk emerges from studies such as Surface
Water Management Plans and Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment.
3.3 The national funding proposal of £36
million 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. It may
be the development of the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments act
as a catalyst to inform of the national financial burden for managing
flood risk and this could be used as the tool for advising government
on funding requirements.
4.0 SELF-HELP
RESILIENCE AND
RIPARIAN OWNERSHIP
ROLES AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
4.1 LLFA's 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. The cooperation and participation of
riparian owners is a critical success factor in managing flood
risk. Whilst it is expected that most riparian owners will cooperate,
inevitable persuading less cooperative owners may be a challenge.
It would be helpful to have effective powers of enforcement to
ensure flood risk is tackled.
5.0 SUSTAINABLE
URBAN DRAINAGE
SYSTEMS (SUDS)
5.1 It is not expected that provisions on
SUDs in the Flood and Water Management Act will commence before
April 2012, but lead flood authorities will need to develop their
capability ahead of this.
5.2 The Act indicates all SUDs serving more
than one property will be adopted and maintained by the lead local
flood authority. Not only is this potentially a large increase
in asset stock, it does not allow the LLFA to act in a strategic
sense for adoption and maintenance, the threshold perhaps needs
to be higher.
5.3 The 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.
5.4 The County Council has concerns that
there is no mention of commuted sums in the Act. A robust and
effective maintenance funding mechanism needs to be developed
to ensure the liability is not passed on to the taxpayer.
October 2010
| 
