Written evidence submitted by the Local
Government Association
INTRODUCTION
1. The LGA welcomes the opportunity to submit
evidence to this EFRA Committee Inquiry. The LGA and our member
authorities have worked closely with Defra, the Environment Agency
and CLG in developing the Flood and Water Management Act (FWMA)
and are providing on-going input to guidance and capacity building.
Given this close involvement in legislation, and the pivotal role
of local authorities in flood and water management, the LGA is
very keen to give oral evidence to this inquiry.
PROGRESS BY
AUTHORITIES IN
IMPLEMENTING FLOOD
AND WATER
LEGISLATION
2. Local authorities are making good progress
in preparing for the new legislation, reflecting commitment to
their new role, despite current economic challenges. Local strategic
partnerships are being set up in all areas, alongside regional
groupings of flood managers (e.g South West Strategic Flood Managers
Group) and regional learning alliances (e.g Yorkshire and Humber
Learning Alliance).
UNRESOLVED ISSUES
FROM FWMA
3. The LGA favours a unified FWMA, as originally
envisaged by Sir Michael Pitt and we look forward to future legislative
proposals that will deliver this. However, this submission will
concentrate on issues connected to the FWMA.
Funding
4. The LGA and its member authorities were very
supportive of the Pitt recommendations and the aims of the Flood
and Water Management Bill. We were however critical of the Impact
Assessment for the draft Bill and were pleased to see the report
of a previous EFRA Committee Inquiry into the draft Bill, which
concluded that the funding assessment was not robust. Disappointedly,
Defra did not address this or other recommendations made by the
EFRA Committee.
5. In this new Inquiry, we hope the Committee
will look at:
— how the Impact Assessment was conducted
and whether the proposals on funding provide sufficient support
for lead local flood authorities
— whether a revised assessment should be
conducted, based on up to date information from all local authorities
— whether presumed efficiency savings and
savings from better flood risk management should have been factored
into the assessment.
Private Sewers Transfer
6. Defra's Impact Assessment stated that the
costs of the new lead role and maintenance of adopted SuDS (until
2018) could be funded through savings to local authorities from
the transfer of private sewers to water companies. The LGA and
its members do not believe the Impact Assessment stands up to
scrutiny and think it should be revisited using recent information
from all local authorities.
— Defra's Impact Assessment is based on
a 2002 Atkins survey of local authorities, conducted for a separate
purpose to which only 12% of authorities were able to provide
mainly estimated figures.
— Both Atkins and Defra stated that the
figures "can only be used as a guide", However,
the Impact Assessment ignored this and used the base data to conclude
that authorities are spending over £50 million pa on private
sewers.
— Local authorities do not recognise these
figures and remain unconvinced by Defra's methodology. Most local
authorities recover all their costs on private sewers. Leeds City
Council 2008-09 Environmental Health spend on private sewers was
£28k, whilst Defra estimate Leeds spend was £760k pa
in total. Such huge discrepancies must be investigated.
— Since 2002 there have been significant
amounts of housing (an average of 37%) that have gone out of local
authority control, so even if some authorities were spending large
sums on private sewers in 2002, they are no longer spending these
sums.
— Only private sewers drained to lateral
drains are included in the transfer. Private sewers drained to
watercourses or to septic tanks are not included. The cost of
doing this work is disproportionally greater as they tend to be
in more rural areas, so the savings will be significantly less
than assumed.
— Under s.43 of the Act, lead authorities
must now investigate all flooding incidents, so they will still
be called out to private sewer flooding incidents. Because most
private sewers are unmapped, the source of flooding and the responsibility
for the sewer will not be known until it is investigated, so it
is likely that there will be continuing costs.
Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDs)
7. Although the parts of the Act concerning
SUDs are not expected to be implemented until 2012, local authorities
need certainty over the phasing of implementation, the approval
process, and a robust funding mechanism for the maintenance of
SUDs.
8. The LGA agrees that local government should
be responsible for the development of SUDs, and that we establish
a close link between drainage and the planning process to the
wider local flood risk management strategy, the scrutiny process
and local amenity. We agree that adoption and maintenance of SUDs
should be agreed locally and delegated where relevant. Water companies
could have a role in the approval process, but we must maintain
the link between sustainable drainage and spatial planning if
we are to implement the Pitt recommendations effectively.
9. To support the desired expansion of SUDs,
it is essential that we have a sustainable funding mechanism for
long term maintenance and replacement. The LGA has proposed that
the surface water drainage charge for all properties drained sustainably
is used to fund long term maintenance. Such a system has the following
advantages:
— It is efficient and flexible
— It is based on "polluter pays"
and standard utility bill payment culture
— It fully funds the LLFAs for maintenance
— It uses money that is already in the
system
10. In contrast, the preferred Government model—that
local authorities are paid to deliver this function from grant
or taxation or private sewers transfer "savings":
— Is not sustainable ("savings"
from private sewers will run out after 8 years)
— Is unfair—tax payers draining surface
water to sewers would subsidise customers which drain surface
water to SUDS
— Is not a secure and expanding funding
stream and therefore does not provide incentives to authorities
(or WASCs) to expand the number of SUDs and it might encourage
the cheapest rather than the most appropriate solutions.
Reservoirs
11. Despite repeated lobbying by LGA and a recommendation
in the EFRA Committee report into the draft Bill, there is still
no appropriate mechanism for the recovery of emergency planning
costs. There are already existing models that have been successfully
used for some time, COMAH being one, and LGA recommends that this
Inquiry looks again at the advantages of applying this model.
INSURANCE COVER
FOR FLOOD
RISK
12. Finally, the LGA wish to highlight the danger
that if current levels of investment in flood risk management
are not maintained, the insurance industry may withdraw its agreement
to provide flood risk cover. It is essential that the 5.5m properties
in flood risk areas are protected by affordable insurance. Without
this, we are in danger of creating blight, unbalancing the housing
market and undermining social cohesion. Alongside any new flood
and water legislation, we must develop a system of insurance that
incentivises protection and resilience.
7 October 2010
| 
