Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses - Nottinghamshire County Council

Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses
Final Report – July 2008

Flooding Drainage & Watercourses
Final Report
Contents
Members of the Select Committee
Reasons for review
Overview of the summer floods
Sandbags policy
Newark & Sherwood Resilience Programme
Highway Drainage
The Environment Agency
Severn Trent
Newark Area Internal Drainage Board
Representation from Parish Councils
Lowdham Village Site Visit
North Leverton with Habblesthorpe Visit
Summary
Recommendations
Appendix

Members of the Select Committee
Councillor Yvonne Davidson Chaired the Select Committee with Councillor Andy
Stewart the Vice-Chair.
Seven other County Councillors made up the Select Committee:
• John Carter
• John Clarke
• Thomas Pettengell
• Ken Rigby
• Sue Saddington
• Dave Shaw
• Yvonne Woodhead
There were three further co-opted members of the Select Committee:
• Councillor Michael Bennett - Bassetlaw District Council
• Councillor Melvyn Shaw - Newark & Sherwood District Council
• Councillor Melvyn Shepherd - Gedling Borough Council
Support to the Select Committee was provided by:
• Martin Gately, Scrutiny Officer, Nottinghamshire County Council
• Paul Davies, Principal Administration Officer, Nottinghamshire County
Council
• Ashley Jackson, Research and Information Officer, Nottinghamshire
County Council
• Andy Wallace, Drainage Manager, Nottinghamshire County Council
4

Flooding Drainage & Watercourses
Reasons for the review
1. On 10 December 2007, further to a resolution of County Council, the
Overview and Scrutiny Committee commissioned a Select Committee to
examine the issue of flooding issues, particularly as they relate to the
maintenance of drainage systems and watercourses.
2. The aim of the review was stated to be “To consider why areas of
Nottinghamshire were so badly affected by flooding in July; if the effects
could have been less severe or prevented through better maintenance of
local drainage systems and watercourses and what measures can be put in
place to prevent a reoccurrence in the future. To look at what systems were
in place to assist those affected and how these could be improved in the
future should high levels of flooding happen again.”
Overview of the Summer Floods
3. On 28 January 2008, the Select Committee received a briefing from John
McGuigan, Emergency Planning Manager which provided an overview of the
summer floods of 2007 in Nottinghamshire. Mr McGuigan explained the
widespread nature of this pluvial flooding (i.e. flooding from severe rain)
which overwhelmed drains and watercourses resulting in substantial damage
to domestic properties, businesses, schools and the local infrastructure, such
as, roads, electrical substations and sewage works.
4. Mr McGuigan gave numerous examples of the misery caused by this
unprecedented flooding, including North Leverton with Habblesthorpe where
an electrical substation was flooded, members of the public had to be
evacuated from their homes and the local primary school has still not reopened.
5. In Little Carlton, flood damage to homes was made worse by sewage
backing up into properties; while at Southwell Races the racetrack was “torn
up” by the effect of the water, resulting in severe financial loss. Another of
the worst hit villages was Lowdham where over 200 properties were flooded.
6. Across the whole county the number of flooded properties was as follows:
• Ashfield DC 61
• Broxtowe BC 6
• Bassetlaw DC 801
• Gedling BC 53
• Newark & Sherwood DC 470
• Mansfield DC 20
• Rushcliffe BC 0
7. Mr McGuigan also pointed out that fat being put down drains was a problem
that could exacerbate flooding. In addition there was a need to develop a
sandbag policy with district councils (see section on sandbag policy below).
5

8. Further to this presentation, on 25 February Mr McGuigan briefed the select
committee on the multi-agency response to the summer floods. Some
agencies have a pro-active responsibility to prevent flooding taking place
others are reactive and reduce the damage caused by flooding. By
concentrating on being pro-active the response phase may be lessened. The
responsibilities of the various agencies are detailed below:
9. Nottinghamshire Police:
• Coordinate the emergency response
• Assist in rescue/recovery of casualties
• Assist with evacuation of property
• Establish appropriate cordons
• Coordinate the response to the media
• Close the highway where necessary
• Protection and security of evacuated premises
• Traffic management
• Casualty Bureau
• Conduct criminal investigation when necessary
The casualty bureau can be set up as necessary and is based at Hucknall
Police Station. Police resources utilised during the summer floods included
the helicopter used at North Leverton. The police also took action regarding
a farmer who went missing in Attenborough.
10. Nottinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service:
• Save life, rescue and assist in recovery of casualties
• Pump out premises/land where appropriate
• Support incident command
• Provide health and Safety
• Support Media Response
One of the difficulties encountered by the Fire and Rescue Service during the
summer floods was that there was nowhere to pump the water – one
instance of this took place in Lowdham.
11. Nottinghamshire County Council:
• Planning and preparation
• NCC Incident co-ordination
• Warning and informing
• Managing accommodation for evacuees
• Responsible for surface water drainage
• Providing sandbags / pumps for flood alleviation / clear drains / culverts
• Provide boats on request
• Identifying vulnerable people
• Co-ordinate recovery.
The County Council is responsible for the multi-agency flood plan. The
County Council does not have a duty to provide sandbags to all domestic
properties at risk of flooding.
6

12. District/Borough Councils:
• Assist with flood alleviation such as issuing sandbags, clearance of
blocked culverts, dealing with flooded roads and traffic diversions
• Provide equipment, information, personnel and expertise to assist the
emergency services
• Provide emergency care for those who have been evacuated or those
affected by flooding but remaining in their home
• Provide environmental health advice
• Support the recovery of the community.
One of the most vital aspects of the function of Districts and Boroughs is
around environmental health advice – particularly relevant to home owners
who have suffered from backed up sewage.
13. The Environment Agency:
• Issue flood warnings
• Maintain flood defences
• Provide pumps when necessary
• Liaise with community via Flood Wardens
• Monitor water levels and advise as necessary
• Support the media response
• Support incident command.
The Environment Agency can also assist with the provision of sandbags,
subject to availability of resources not otherwise engaged on the above
priority areas of work (note – The Environment Agency has no responsibility
to provide sandbags to the general public).
14. Internal Drainage Board:
• Levying of drainage rates, their collection and keeping accounts
• Maintenance of drains, pumping stations and flood defences serving
notices
• Environmental improvement
• Promotion of capital schemes for drainage and flood defence
improvement
• Emergency response during flood by providing staff, resources and local
knowledge
• Public relations
• Dealing with planning applications (discharge consents and flood risk
assessments)
• Flood records and post-flood survey
Internal Drainage Boards have a number of responsibilities under the Land
Drainage Act 1991, including the authority to deepen, widen straighten or
improve watercourses within their area and to serve notice on riparian
owners that they will be carrying out works and charging for them.
15. Utility Companies:
• Secure services and equipment to ensure continuity of supply
7

• Repair services disrupted by flood events
• Provide alternative means of supply during service disruption
• Advise local authorities and communities when services will be reinstated
Utility companies will bring in their own sandbags and pumping resources.
16. The Select Committee noted the complex interlocking nature of the multiagency
response and concluded that agencies’ responsibilities and contact
details should be better publicised.
Sandbags Policy
17. Rob Fisher, Head of Emergency Management and Registration briefed the
select committee on the usage and limitations of sandbags on 25 February.
Mr Fisher re-emphasised that there is no duty for local authorities to protect
properties with sandbags. Sandbags are not the easiest of materials to work
with – the County Council maintains its stock of sandbags for holding down
temporary road signs in the wind. The mass transportation of sandbags into
flooded areas may be problematic in any event. However, sandbags can
divert shallow flowing water – if it has somewhere to go. They can also
protect homes from the wash caused by vehicles driving through floodwater.
During the summer floods over 150,000 sandbags were issued across the
county.
18. West Sussex County Council operates a policy of only supplying sandbags to
residential properties being flooded from the highway. Where properties are
at risk of flooding from a watercourse, residents are directed to procure their
own sandbags from a builders’ merchant.
19. At a Nottinghamshire sandbag depot security guards had to be employed to
prevent members of the public collecting sandbags – the numbers of people
were causing access problems for staff. There have also been instances
where sandbags deployed near watercourses have been removed and placed
by residents outside their homes. There have even been incidents where
people have attempted to sell sandbags on e-bay.
20. In conclusion, Mr Fisher explained that sandbags were not a panacea to
flooding events. There are other products – such as air brick covers and
floodgates which are more effective.
21. Ian Harrison, the Resilience Manager at Newark and Sherwood District
Council also contributed to the select committee’s briefing on sandbags
policy. Mr Harrison stated that although sandbags provided a limited benefit
they were a tangible overt response which helped the confidence of
communities and flood victims. However, with flash flooding there was a
difficulty in deploying sandbags in time. In addition, the deployment policy is
based on risk not request and this presents difficulties in terms of negative
feedback.
22. Newark and Sherwood District Council has also undertaken trial use of
“Acqa” silicon granule sacks, which can be stored flat and dry until needed –
when they can be distributed to isolated and vulnerable properties. “Acqa”
silicon bags cost only £3.
8

23. The select committee noted an area of possible policy development around
the strategic storage of sandbags near where they are likely to have to be
used in order to overcome the logistical problem. There were also awareness
raising issues for the public around the limitations of sandbags (and the
superior alternatives) and the potentially anti-social nature of driving at
speed through floodwater thereby exacerbating the flooding with bow
waves.
Newark & Sherwood Resilience Programme
24. Ian Harrison explained that the resilience programme in Newark and
Sherwood supported principles around “community” and cohesion and can
be used to support resilience to all threats.
25. Corporate promotion of resilience at Newark & Sherwood includes: the
Council’s assessment of strategic risk, strict compliance with planning policy
guidance (e.g. PPG/PPS 25) and building control around business and
domestic development and extensions.
26. Newark and Sherwood’s wider promotion of resilience includes annual risk
and resilience conferences and workshops, events at the Newark & Notts
Show, facilitation of a flood fair in Lowdham, training for volunteers and a
partnership with flood proofing companies.
27. Newark and Sherwood District Council has also entered into a partnership
scheme with DEFRA and the Environment Agency which has resulted in 17
high risk properties in Gunthorpe being flood proofed and £90,000 being
made available for work on 15 properties at risk at Bleasby and Gibsmere
(NB – this scheme relates to properties at risk from river flooding rather
than flash flooding caused by severe rain).
28. Mr Harrison also reported that a Risk and Resilience Conference which took
place on 4 th October 2007 supported the following options:
• Watercourse mapping and condition survey (with maps passed to Parish
Councils
• Watercourse monitoring by local volunteers
• Provide information on who does what
• Deployment of local resources including sandbags, stores, signs etc.
29. The Select Committee noted these options and observed that existing
groups (e.g. Neighbourhood Watch) could provide a ready pool of volunteers
for monitoring watercourses.
Highway Drainage
30. Andy Wallace, Drainage Manager, provided information to the Select
Committee about Highway drainage issues. Mr Wallace explained that
highway gullies are emptied just once a year. The County Council made the
decision to reduce to once a year from twice a year (or even once a quarter
in some areas) in 1998. There is also more debris and litter entering gullies
because of less sweeping by District Councils. The cost of gully emptying
and drain cleaning is put at £600,000 per year.
9

31. Gullies connect into highway drains and then into Severn Trent sewers,
watercourses or soakaways, alternatively they can connect directly into
Severn Trent surface water sewers, combined Severn Trent foul and surface
water systems or directly to private estate systems. There are often no
proper records relating to these systems.
32. The County Council’s Highway Drainage Assets include nine highway
drainage pumping stations – which can be subject to different inspection
regimes – and a large number of culverts carrying watercourses across the
highway. Where there are ditches or drains these are often the responsibility
of the adjacent land-owner.
33. The immediate highway cost in dealing with the flooding was £1,071,000.
The capital highway costs to deal with the consequences of flooding are, for
2007/08, £941,000 and for 2008/09 £1,345,000.
34. In order to address highway drainage issues the County Council has already
appointed a Drainage Manager (in line with recommendations of the Pitt
Review into the summer 2007 floods). In addition, the Authority has
purchased a specialist drain cleaning vehicle which has been used to clear
119 drain blockages (since its introduction in August 2007 up to early March
2008). It is interesting to note that 16 of the 119 problems were caused by
drains being damaged by utility works i.e. utility companies laying cables or
pipes.
35. The outstanding issues for highway drainage are as follows: there is no
investment in capital drainage improvements and a lack of capacity in
existing systems. This is combined with the effects of climate change and
increased intensity and frequency of storms.
36. The Select Committee noted the reduction in the frequency of gully
emptying on cost grounds and felt that there would be great benefit in
instituting a spring and autumn clean of gullies.
37. The Select Committee also noted the lack of capital investment in drainage
improvement as a possible area for recommendation.
The Environment Agency
38. On 31 March, Paul Lockhart, Area Flood Risk Manager for the Environment
Agency briefed the select committee on the Environment Agency’s capital
schemes – the Nottingham Left (North) Bank Flood Alleviation Scheme; this
proposed scheme will protect over 16,000 properties from Sawley near the
M1 to Radcliffe Viaduct at Colwick. Additionally, the £14.7m West Bridgford
scheme, to be largely completed in the summer of 2007, will protect 5600
homes.
39. Mr Lockhart recognised that there was no flooding from the Trent itself
during the summer 2007 foods. The Environment Agency has responsibility
for flooding from “main rivers” and in Nottinghamshire these include: the
Soar, Idle, Trent and Derwent. Other than the Environment Agency, there is
no single body with a strategic overview thus leaving the EA best placed to
engage in a “holistic” approach to managing flooding.
10

40. The Environment Agency works closely with Severn Trent Water and
welcomes the appointment of Andy Wallace at NCC as Drainage Manager.
41. Due to the severe flooding in Lowdham, the Environment Agency has
commissioned consultants to carry out a review of the Lowdham Flood
Alleviation Scheme and suggest options for improvement (the results of
which are due shortly). A working party has been set up to work through the
issues and keep the local community informed.
42. The Environment Agency has also carried out extensive de-silting
throughout Lowdham in conjunction with the Newark Area Internal Drainage
Board.
43. In Woodborough, the Environment Agency has commissioned consultants to
carry out a review and recommend options for improvement while also
removing nearly 100 tonnes of silt from culverts through the village.
44. Further to last summer’s floods, other Environment Agency projects include
a feasibility study on the assessment of river channels and culverts in
Worksop, surveying and cleaning of becks in Retford and the modelling of
the River Greet (including the Potwell Dyke) in Southwell and Rolleston.
Severn Trent
45. Also on 31 March, Margaret Burrup of Severn Trent Water, gave a
presentation on the company’s role. She stated that many private drains
were unadopted, and had never been raised to an adoptable standard.
Public sewers in June/July 2007 had been overwhelmed by the rainfall,
compounded by underlying problems affecting capacity, such as fat deposits
and debris. The public were able to report drainage problems on the
company’s 0800 telephone number. The drains were only designed to cope
with a one in 40 year storm.
46. In relation to home insurance, Severn Trent’s advice to householders is not
to neglect cover for fire and theft even if cover for flooding is not available
to them.
47. The Select Committee noted that ultimately surface water and foul water
drainage systems combined; which meant that surface water was put
through expensive sewage treatment systems and that planning authorities
could ameliorate this by insisting on sustainable urban drainage systems for
new developments.
48. The Select Committee also noted the reluctance on the part of both the
Environment Agency and Severn Trent to engage in expensive litigation and
the tendency to favour negotiated settlement rather than enforcement.
Newark Area Internal Drainage Board
49. On 28 April, Steve Broadhead, Chief Engineer with the Newark Area Internal
Drainage Board briefed the Select Committee on the work of his
organisation. Mr Broadhead has spent the last 30 years – his whole working
life – with the Newark Area Internal Drainage Board. Internal Drainage
Boards (IDBs) are statutory authorities set up since 1936 to provide
drainage in low lying areas. NAIDB covers Nottinghamshire and also parts of
11

Leicestershire and Lincolnshire across eight districts and covering 555
square kilometres. IDBs cover contour based areas defined as eight feet
above highest known flood levels. Their function is to maintain natural open
watercourses – NAIDB maintains 600 kilometres of watercourses. It is
managed by a board of elected members (and local councillors) and meets
four times a year.
50. Funding of the board is through a drainage rate on agricultural land.
£500,000 is also contributed by Newark and Sherwood District Council.
Newark and Sherwood were badly affected by the summer floods –
especially west of the Trent (e.g. Southwell & Lowdham). NAIDB employees
assisted where they could but were not in a position to supply sandbags.
The Board had recently completed 6-9 months weed cutting on watercourses
associated with flooding.
51. Mr Broadhead stated that under the Land Drainage Act, farmers and other
landowners could be compelled to clear watercourses. However, NAIDB has
never taken legal action against anyone for failure to maintain a
watercourse; matters have been resolved by agreement. In the 1970’s
grants were paid by the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food to assist
in the clearance of watercourses.
Representation from Parish Councils
52. The Select Committee wrote to Parish Councils in Bassetlaw, Gedling and
Newark and Sherwood inviting submission of information on the response to
the summer floods (e.g. what went well, where improvements could be
made, and whether or not there was effective partnership working). These
responses are summarised in Appendix A. In addition, a number of Parish
Councils affected by the summer floods made representation to the Select
Committee on 28 April. The following points were raised:
53. Balderton Parish Council (Councillor Angela Jarvis and Mr Bernard Gascoine)
• The backwash of sewage experienced at Staple Lane
• Blockage of a watercourse with a fencepost
• The small size of drains – only nine inches in diameter
• Complex and long-standing issues around the culvert under Warwick
Road
54. North Leverton with Habblesthorpe (Mr Colin Walker) – a quarter of North
Leverton was flooded – the residents are grateful for the reinstatement of
roads and the swift response of John McGuigan from the Emergency
Planning Department. The level of consultation from Nottinghamshire
County Council was good but concerns remained about the length of time
taken to re-open the local primary school that was closed by the flooding
(not due to re-open until December 2008).
55. Mr Walker explained that North Leverton came under Laneham Internal
Drainage Board – which is operated independently by consultants based in
Doncaster - and had suffered worsened flooding as a result of the inundation
of a pump located at the West Burton Power Station. On a point of
clarification, Mr Broadhead of Newark Area Internal Drainage Board (NAIDB)
added that since pumps could be subject to failure and power loss some
12

drainage boards had tractor driven back-ups, but this was dependent on
risk. NAIDB did not suffer flooding as a result of loss of power.
56. Walkeringham (Mr Peter Roberts) – Mr Roberts stated that some people
were still out of their homes, but that the response from Emergency
Planning had been good. However, the Highways Department has “sloping
shoulders” when it comes to taking responsibility for watercourses which
abut the highway.
57. The Select Committee noted the need to more widely educate members of
the public about the responsibilities relating to dykes adjoining the highway
– these are the responsibility of the landowner rather than the highways
department.
58. Southwell (Councillor Beryl Prentice)
• The last residents returned to their homes only three weeks ago
• A modelling exercise will take place on the Potwell Dyke
• The County Council is redrawing the boundaries around the new Minster
School and thereby taking on riparian ownership responsibilities for the
Potwell Dyke
• Emergency Plan is not quite finished but John McGuigan has been very
helpful
• Newark and Sherwood District Council will provide a sandbag store
shortly
59. Burton Joyce (Mrs Julie O’Neil)
• Unprecedented rain resulted in blockages to culverts; the system was
unable to cope
• A large number of outbuildings flooded – this included flooding with
sewage
• More needs to be done to inform landowners of their responsibilities
• Produced an informative leaflet for residents with contact details of
agencies
• The response from local authorities is disappointing and there is a lack of
co-ordination
60. Woodborough (Councillor Margaret Briggs)
• The Environment Agency has removed 50 tons of debris from the Beck
• Nottinghamshire County Council has utilised CCTV in drains and culverts
to identify problems
• A survey is taking place on the feasibility of major flood defence works
61. Lowdham (Councillor David Harper and Mr Martin Shaw)
• Flooded five times last summer
• The Cocker Beck is currently subject to modelling by the Environment
Agency and Severn Trent
• The emergency services appeared to suffer from a lack of co-ordination
and would have benefited from consulting people with local knowledge
• The emergency services “Gold Command” should liaise with the Parish
Council
13

• Sandbags only had limited effect
• There were problems associated with the capacity of the Merevale Bridge
• A large pump brought from Ashfield could not be used [because there
was nowhere to pump the water]
Lowdham Village Site Visit
62. On 6 th May the Select Committee undertook a site visit to Lowdham
accompanied by Andy Wallace, Drainage Manager, NCC, John McGuigan,
Emergency Planning Manager, NCC, Dave Bartram, Environment Agency,
Councillor David Harper and Mr Martin Shaw of Lowdham Parish Council.
63. Members of the Select Committee saw the Cocker Beck – a fairly substantial
watercourse – and heard how the Environment Agency had cleared much of
the overgrowth of plants and weeds from its banks after the flooding events
last summer.
64. Walking along a footpath on the bank of the Cocker Beck, Members were
told that the plastic piles deployed like an underground wall were not
effective and a one metre wall was now planned by the Environment Agency
to protect properties.
65. On the lower part of Main Street there is a bridge over the watercourse with
a low parapet which may exacerbate flooding. This bridge is owned by the
County Council. However, improvement works to the bridge would be
problematic since it is the only access point for the forty or so houses in the
development beyond.
66. At the Lime Tree Gardens Bridge, Members of the Select Committee saw
where the old channel had been partially closed off and a new channel built.
The remnants of the old channel caused problems resulting in unnecessary
erosion to the far bank.
67. In the Blenheim Avenue Estate Members of the Select Committee saw the
Highways Pumping Station and heard how the locks on its access hatches
had been removed and replaced by the Fire and Rescue Service while taking
necessary action during the course of the flood. Unfortunately, the new lock
keys were passed to Severn Trent instead of NCC and this did result in an
access problem. Subsequently, the Fire and Rescue Service have been
informed that the pumping station is a county council asset. In addition, it
was apparent that locating an unfenced pumping station in a housing
development had potential health and safety implications e.g. for trips and
falls/danger to children playing on it. Select Committee Members were also
concerned that some residents might consider the pumping station an
eyesore.
North Leverton with Habblesthorpe Visit
68. On 19 th May, Members of the Select Committee visited North Leverton with
Habblesthorpe – site of some of the most severe flooding in Nottinghamshire
last summer.
69. The Select Committee saw firsthand the complexities of the watercourses in
North Leverton. With the watercourse running along the gardens of domestic
14

properties there were many dozens of riparian owners involved. In some
places the watercourse was narrowed by the construction of ornamental
stonework features (or even the installation of substantial pre-fabricated
concrete walls); in others utility cables crossing the watercourse caused a
restriction to the flow of water.
70. Another issue was sudden changes in the angle of the watercourse; in some
instances floodwater had “hit a bend but carried straight on.”
71. The Select Committee were also shown where the road surface was scoured
away by the force of the floodwater emerging from a public footpath. The
road surface has subsequently been reinstated by the Highways
Department.
72. The Select Committee also saw the catchwater drain, on the outskirts of the
village. A severe overgrowth of vegetation on its banks that had exacerbated
the flooding had now been cut back by Laneham Internal Drainage Board.
73. The Select Committee noted that in the case of both villages that it was
necessary to make a site visit in order to fully understand the scale and
severity of the floods and their effect on residents.
Summary of Findings
74. The frequency of gully emptying has been reduced by local authorities as an
economy measure. Since a free flowing drainage system is essential during
instances of sustained rainfall to prevent flash flooding this may to some
extent be a false economy. There perhaps needs to be an acceptance that
money spent on preventing the misery of flash flooding is money well spent
– this is particularly important since development (and the construction of
patios and non-permeable hard standing driveways) has substantially
reduced natural soak-away and thereby increased the burden on the
drainage system.
75. To be effective, an increased programme of gully emptying would require
targeted communication with local residents where works are to be carried
out to prevent them from parking over highway drain covers when cleansing
vehicle operators require access.
76. The Newark Internal Drainage Board informed the Select Committee that it
had never pursued a riparian owner who had not fulfilled their
responsibilities through the courts. While the Select Committee has no wish
to see organisations unnecessarily mired in expensive litigation, and it is
obviously commendable that the vast majority of problems can be resolved
through negotiation; Drainage Boards and other responsible authorities
should not hesitate to bring the full force of the law against recalcitrant
riparian owners.
77. The responsibility to mitigate the effects of flooding lies both with all of us
individuals and with relevant agencies – for instance we all have a
responsibility not to irresponsibly dispose of cooking fat down our domestic
drains since it can accumulate and even block very substantial drains –
likewise, agencies with a responsibility to manage the effects of flooding
should robustly defend their assets against the “worst case scenario.” An
15

example of this is the pumping station at West Burton Power Station which
was inundated and resulted in worsened flooding in the North Leverton area.
78. Homeowners at risk have a personal responsibility to improve the resilience
of their properties through the installation of self-closing airbricks and
floodgates. The Select Committee hopes that all insurance companies have
the good sense not to penalise homeowners for taking preventative action.
79. At present there seems to be an over-reliance on sandbags and unrealistic
expectations of their effectiveness and a feeling that local authorities should
deliver them to anyone who thinks that they might benefit from them.
80. The transportation of sandbags into areas that have flooded or are in the
process of flooding is problematic. As a matter of commonsense, areas that
are likely to benefit from provision of sandbags should have a local store –
as near as possible to where they will be deployed. This would make
residents aware of the finite provision and would circumvent the need to
make logistical arrangements. It would be ironic indeed if the transportation
of sandbags by heavy goods vehicles caused bow waves which worsened the
flooding for some residents.
81. When flood warden schemes are being set up, existing community groups,
such as Neighbourhood Watch, may prove a valuable source of volunteers
and should perhaps be contacted in the first instance.
82. In the absence of a single over-arching authority responsible for all flooding
issues, people likely to be affected by flooding have a right to know which
services they can expect to receive from which agency or local authority.
Responsibilities and contact details should be clearly presented in a leaflet or
booklet to be made available to residents and businesses.
83. There is an obvious requirement for a central record of riparian ownership
and responsibility. This Authority should ensure that where records exist
they are collated and where they do not exist they are created following
careful research. Ultimately, it might be useful if the final product of this
mapping exercise is made available on-line (as Newark Internal Drainage
Board’s maps are at present). Further, the identification of riparian owners
would allow them to be reminded of their responsibilities in a targeted or
prioritised way; especially those who may be obstructing the flow of water
by serious neglect or unthinking and inappropriate development.
84. Some areas of England, such as Gloucestershire, suffered much more than
Nottinghamshire during last summer’s floods. This would seem to beg the
following questions: What if Nottinghamshire had been at the centre of the
flooding event? What would have been the effect on the critical
infrastructure of the county? The future may not bring a precise recurrence
of the 2007 floods. It may bring other more extreme weather events. It is
not hard to imagine, for example, a severe winter storm which floods the
M1, or other major roads, stranding thousands of motorists; or a coastal
storm surge causing catastrophic flooding in Lincolnshire which results in
requests for assistance to this Authority. Weak points in the critical
infrastructure which could affect Nottinghamshire – especially in terms of
transport and utilities - are worth carefully identifying and it would be useful
for the emergency planning team to ensure that they are aware of them and
16

develop appropriate responses. Weaknesses which fall outside the county’s
geographical boundary but affect the county should also be considered.
85. Ensuring that the critical infrastructure is robustly defended is worthy of
further scrutiny. It is perhaps an issue that Overview and Scrutiny could
commission a topic select committee to look at, when the work programme
allows.
86. The Select Committee welcomes interim conclusion 26 of Sir Michael Pitt’s
report (page 54) which suggests that local authority scrutiny committees
should review Surface Water Management Plans, and other linked plans,
such as Local Development Frameworks and Community Risk Registers. An
ongoing role for Scrutiny around flooding issues would be valuable. While
this report was being finalised Sir Michael Pitt published his final report and
recommendations. The recommendations are attached as Appendix B.
17

Recommendations
Drainage
1
Highways gullies are emptied more frequently. Preferably, a spring and
autumn clean of gullies should take place.
2
Residents should be notified in good time when gully cleansing is due to
take place so that they can avoid parking over gully drainage grates
3
Within the Authority’s budgetary constraints, the funding and
development of a capital programme of prioritised highway drainage
improvements should be considered
Watercourses and Internal Drainage Boards
4
Internal Drainage Boards should more vigorously pursue, through the
legal remedies that are open to them, riparian owners who do not
properly fulfil their obligations
5
Internal Drainage Boards should ensure that they robustly defend their
critical assets from flooding (e.g. pumps) and invest in back-up
measures wherever it is viable to do so
Residents/this Authority/other authorities
6
In association with relevant partners, this Authority should raise
awareness about the severe problems that can be caused by disposing
of cooking fat down drains
7
This Authority should deploy temporary road signs in the approach to
flooded areas warning of the severe “bow wave” effects that can result
from large vehicles driving into floodwater at speed
8
The owners of properties that are susceptible to flooding should put in
place measures to improve the resilience of their property (e.g.
floodgates and self closing airbricks) rather than rely on the delivery of
sandbags
9
Parish and District Councils should consider the strategic storage of
sand bags, silicon granule bags or other alternatives as close as
possible to where they are likely to be required
18

10
Local Authorities (and other organisations) should recognise that
existing community groups (e.g. Neighbourhood Watch) may provide a
valuable resource or pool of potential volunteers for flood warden-type
schemes
11
This Authority in association with District Authorities, the Environment
Agency, Severn Trent and the Internal Drainage Boards should produce
a publication clearly setting out contact details and areas of
responsibility relating to flooding and what support flooded
homeowners can expect
12
The preparation of emergency plans by Parish Councils be recognised
as good practice; and therefore parishes who have not done so should
consider producing a plan and circulating it to relevant agencies and
authorities
Emergency Services
13
The Police and Fire and Rescue Services should liaise more closely with
residents who have in-depth local knowledge (e.g. representatives of
the Parish Council)
Riparian Owners
14
This Authority co-ordinate a thorough mapping of riparian ownership
within the County; collating information held by other organisations,
such as Districts and Parishes and commissioning research to fill gaps
in knowledge with a view to producing a definitive document that is
kept up to date
15
Further to this mapping exercise, all riparian owners should be
reminded of their responsibilities – and, as a priority riparian owners
who have built structures that encroach into watercourses should be
specifically approached and informed of the potentially catastrophic
effect of restricting the flow of water during flash floods
Weak Points in the Critical Infrastructure
16
Emergency Planning Officers carefully consider where the weak points
in Nottinghamshire’s critical infrastructure would be in the event that
Nottinghamshire suffers the sort of massive pluvial flooding
experienced by Gloucestershire last summer
19

17
The Overview and Scrutiny Committee should consider a further
scrutiny review of this authority’s plans for civil contingencies,
especially around weaknesses in the critical infrastructure which might
lead to catastrophic long term failure of utilities and the transport
network
Pitt Review
18
Overview and Scrutiny Committee should receive a briefing on the
implementation of the Pitt Review’s recommendations in nine months
and following that determine what further scrutiny of flooding issues
should be incorporated into the future work programme.
20

APPENDIX A
Flooding (drainage and watercourses)
Parish Council Response
27 affected Parish Councils in Nottinghamshire detailed their experiences of
the 2007 floods – their main concerns, the things that went well, the things
to be improved and the level of partnership working that took place.
The main concern was with poor maintenance - to dykes, ditches, drains
and culverts and the problems of contamination from raw sewage.
Only Bleasby, Caunton and Weston Parish Councils considered that anything
went well and that was the response, both before and after the flooding, of
District and County Councils, the Environment Agency and the Drainage
Board.
The Parish Councils would like to see a faster and better-coordinated
response to the flooding with better co-ordination and communications
between the emergency services and the different authorities. Clarity over
ownership of dykes, culverts and drains - and who has responsibility for
maintenance and repair - would also be a welcome improvement.
Misterton Parish Council reported a ‘top class service’ from the County
Council and Caunton commended Newark & Sherwood District Council for
an ‘excellent job’. However, Dunham on Trent considered the response of
Severn Trent to have been too slow, while Rolleston Parishioners felt
‘isolated and neglected’ and considered that effective partnership working
had not taken place.
21

Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses
Key Issues/ Main Concerns Things that went well Things to Improve If partnership working
took place
Barnby Moor Parish Council
The only flooding the parish council is aware of is two houses where the front gardens flood. Residents sand bag their air vent bricks.
Soak away drains cleaned regularly.
Beckingham cum Saunby Parish Council
Flooded twice on 25.06.07 and 21.01.08. Several roads flooded limiting vehicular movement in and out of village.
• Emergency numbers
• Co-ordination between
agencies
Bleasby Parish Council
23 properties flooded, 9 households vacated. A charter on responsibilities produced.
Partnership working
Drains etc now more likely
to cope.
Burton Joyce Parish Council
24 households flooded garages, outbuilding and gardens also affected. Guide on flood prevention produced.
• Landowners taking
responsibility as riparian
owners, and considering
developments to own
properties.
Yes
Yes, in particular Newark
and Sherwood DC and
Newark Area Internal
Drainage Board very helpful
Yes
22

Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses
• Inform their obligations and for a
regulatory authority to enforce
action when appropriate
Calverton Parish Council
Lack of dyke and culvert
maintenance.
• Identifying responsible bodies.
• Swifter action may have been
forthcoming if the right people had
been contacted earlier.
Cromwell Parish Meeting
Garages, outbuildings and gardens submerged.
Dykes and ditches not properly
maintained
Failure of sewer. (Raw sewage)
Caunton Parish Council
Only one house badly damaged.
Neglect of ditches in the county, lack
of maintenance
Partnership working Newark and Sherwood DC
responded promptly and
“did an excellent job”
Highways Dept v quick
Dunham on Trent with Ragnall, Darlton and Fledborough Parish Council
Many homes in Ragnall had severe flooding as did St Oswalds Park, Dunham on Trent. The amount of rainfall at that time was extreme and so
sudden; it would be difficult to plan how to respond should this happen again.
Drains unable to cope with excess
rain water.
Authorities did not respond in a
reasonable time.
Severn Trent were slow to
respond.
23

Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses
Dunham on Trent faced with floating
raw sewage.
Dunham on Trent pumping station was
a key issue.
Edwinstowe Parish Council
Flooding is usually confined to excessive rainfall scenarios.
Egmanton Parish Meeting
Flooding occurred between 23 – 25 June. Questionnaire circulated to 100 residents. 36 responses received. Of these about half experienced
flooding in their houses and of these, half had to move out.
Culverts, bridges and driveways over
the dykes seem to have limited the flow
and diverted water up onto the roads.
State of the surrounding field ditches
contributed to surface water flooding.
Better drainage may have allowed more
water to flow away prior to the flood.
A list of emergency services.
Improved drainage in the area.
Creation of an emergency plan and
nominated emergency co-ordinators.
Newark and Sherwood
District Council.
Fire Brigade
Epperstone Parish Council
The Dover Beck flooded.
The Dover Beck between Woodborough
and Epperstone was not dredged out to
its former level.
Sewage entered the Beck at
Woodborough and Epperstone
resulting in contaminated fields.
Environment Agency
Newark Internal Drainage
Board
24

Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses
Everton Parish Council
Several properties flooded, one badly. Cellars and gardens under water.
Drains backed up, sewage floating
about.
Problem believed to be excessive
water draining from nearby fields.
• Would be helpful if someone with
expertise in this area could provide
advice on the cause, the remedial
work required to minimise future
risk and implementation of this.
Contacted Severn Trent,
Environment Agency, the
local drainage board and
Notts County Council.
Difficult to get anyone to
accept responsibility.
Headon-cum- Upton, Grove and Stokeham Parish Council
The parish have experienced on-going drainage problems, not helped by last summer’s floods.
Excessive water flowing from
landowners field across Thorpe Street.
Lack of dyke maintenance.
Have been in contact with
Notts County Council.
Hodsock Parish Council
Some of the Langold residents are still not in their homes after nearly a year of repairs.
Main problem – drains in the village
of Langold were extremely blocked.
Filled in culvert contributed to flooding.
Linby Parish Council
Several homes on Wighay Road, Hucknall were flooded.
Clearing of culverts.
Problems of excess surface water
appear greater than ever.
• Better understanding of who is
responsible for what.
• Introduction of a mapping system
for streams to establish the
ownership of the stream and liability
25

Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses
for upkeep and maintenance.
Lowdham Parish Council
Suffers flash flooding from a watercourse (the Cocker Beck). Flooding also caused by a clear water sewer unable to take heavy volumes of
water.
Previous poor maintenance of the
Cocker Beck.
• Emergency services were poorly
informed and appeared to have no
plan of action.
• Sandbags not delivered
promptly.
Misson Parish Council
No domestic or business premises were flooded. Only extensive areas of arable farm land.
• Dredging the River Idle would
increase the rivers flow and lessen
any future flooding problems.
Yes, frequently with the
Drainage Board,
Environment Agency,
Notts County Council and
Severn Trent.
Misterton Parish Council
Summer floods caused serious problems for many residents, however flooding by water and raw sewage is a regular occurrence.
Sewage flooding is a problem in
several parts of Misterton.
Access through the village is not
available on the main road and
diversions have to be set in place
“Top class service” by
Nottinghamshire County
Council Bolham Lane
Highways Depot.
Newstead Parish Council
Existing drains on Station Ave,
Newstead Village not cleared on a
regular basis.
• Adequate maintenance of drains.
26

Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses
Cleaning of culverts
North Muskham Parish Council
Unaffected by the 2007 summer floods. The River Trent, whilst very high did not cause any flooding beyond its initial flood plain.
• Regular cleansing of Highways
drainage systems.
• NCC Highways Dept make a robust
assessment of the impact of all new
development on existing drainage
capacity and the risk of surface
water flooding risk.
• Surface water flooding risks are
included in any assessment for new
Housing/ Development land
assessment.
Keen to work with
Community Resilience
programmes and Newark
and Sherwood DC
North and South Wheatley Parish Council
The village beck lies in a valley, after any heavy rainfall the village is frequently flooded. Village school flooded four times, still awaiting
refurbishment.
No-one will take responsibility for the
maintenance of the beck.
Road drains in need of a deep clean.
Better drainage of road surfaces.
Antiquated drainage systems.
Provision of sandbags was poor.
Written an emergency plan and “help
aged and infirm”
Bassetlaw District Council
Contacted Severn Trent to
improve drainage systems,
but had no reply.
27

Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses
Norwell Parish Council
Dykes, ditches and land drains have
been poorly maintained.
Gully cleaning reduced from 4 times
a year to once.
Increased number of properties in
Norwell however outflow capacity
remains the same.
Rampton Parish Council
A number of properties were flooded.
Untreated sewage flowing back up
pipes and into homes.
Raw sewage seen in dyke.
• A more powerful pump for the
sewage system.
Severn Trent
28

Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses
Rolleston Parish Council
Fortunately neither the River Trent nor Greet burst their banks. One property flooded, six gardens, electrical failure including the pumping
station, several roads were flooded.
Blocked ditches and dykes.
Failure of pumping station.
• Have been working with agencies
listed opposite to ensure a more
co-ordinated approach in the
future.
Do not consider effective
partnership working took
place and several
parishioners felt isolated
and neglected.
Newark and Sherwood DC
Environment Agency
Severn Trent
Newark Area Internal
Drainage Board.
Shireoaks Parish Council
Some houses
Lack of drain cleaning in the area.
Lack of maintenance of drainage
ditches.
• Road not closed soon enough.
• Lack of communication between
emergency services, the District
and County Councils.
• Access to sandbags was
“patchy”, and residents taking
them to unaffected areas.
29

Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses
Thurgarton Parish Council
19 properties and the church were flooded in June and July 2007.
Failing field drains and neglected
ditches.
Blocked highways drains.
Raw sewage in homes causing
illness.
Rainfall exceeded capacity of the Beck
Thorsby Estates
Newark and Sherwood DC
NCC Highways Dept
Severn Trent
Environment Agency
Only NSDC and NCC
Highways have responded.
.
Weston Parish Council
Flooding not widespread, though several properties were affected.
Blocked ditches, dykes and drains Partnership working.
aggravated the problem as surface
water was unable to escape.
Pipes were too small in diameter for the
flow of water.
Post flood response was
very good.
Sandbags and a skip were
provided.
Internal drainage board
addressed problems with
ditches and dykes ensuring
they were clear and free
flowing.
30

Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses
Nottingham and Nottinghamshire LRF
Pitt Review - Recommendations and
progress - Appendix B
RECOMMENDATION RESPONSIBILITY PROGRESS COMPLETION DATE COMMENTS
Recommendation 1:
Given the predicted increase in the range of future extremes of
weather, the Government should give priority to both adaptation and
mitigation in its programmes to help society cope with climate
change.
Recommendation 2:
The Environment Agency should progressively take on a national
overview of all flood risk, including surface water and groundwater
flood risk, with immediate effect.
Recommendation 3:
The Met Office should continue to improve its forecasting and
predicting methods to a level which meets the needs of emergency
responders.
Recommendation 4:
The Environment Agency should further develop its tools and
techniques for predicting and modelling river flooding, taking account
of extreme and multiple events and depths and velocities of water.
Recommendation 5:
The Environment Agency should work with partners to urgently take
forward work to develop tools and techniques to model surface water
flooding.
Recommendation 6:
31

Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses
The Environment Agency and the Met Office should work together,
through a joint centre, to improve their technical capability to forecast,
model and warn against all sources of flooding.
Recommendation 7:
There should be a presumption against building in high flood risk
areas, in accordance with PPS25, including giving consideration to all
sources of flood risk, and ensuring that developers make a full
contribution to the costs both of building and maintaining any
necessary defences.
Recommendation 8:
The operation and effectiveness of PPS25 and the Environment
Agency’s powers to challenge development should be kept under
review and strengthened if and when necessary.
Recommendation 9:
Householders should no longer be able to lay impermeable surfaces
as of right on front gardens and the Government should consult on
extending this to back gardens and business premises.
Recommendation 10:
The automatic right to connect surface water drainage of new
developments to the sewerage system should be removed.
Recommendation 11:
Building Regulations should be revised to ensure that all new or
refurbished buildings in high flood-risk areas are flood-resistant or
resilient.
Recommendation 12:
All local authorities should extend eligibility for home improvement
grants and loans to include flood resistance and resilience products
for properties in high flood-risk areas.
32

Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses
Recommendation 13:
Local authorities, in discharging their responsibilities under the Civil
Contingencies Act 2004 to promote business continuity, should
encourage the take-up of property flood resistance and resilience by
businesses.
Recommendation 14:
Local authorities should lead on the management of local flood risk,
with the support of the relevant organisations.
Recommendation 15:
Local authorities should positively tackle local problems of flooding by
working with all relevant parties, establishing ownership and legal
responsibility.
Recommendation 16:
Local authorities should collate and map the main flood risk
management and drainage assets (over and underground), including
a record of their ownership and condition.
Recommendation 17:
All relevant organisations should have a duty to share information
and cooperate with local authorities and the Environment Agency to
facilitate the management of flood risk.
Recommendation 18:
Local Surface Water Management Plans, as set out under PPS25
and coordinated by local authorities, should provide the basis for
managing all local flood risk.
Recommendation 19:
Local authorities should assess and, if appropriate, enhance their
technical capabilities to deliver a wide range of responsibilities in
relation to local flood risk management.
33

Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses
Recommendation 20:
The Government should resolve the issue of which organisations
should be responsible for the ownership and maintenance of
sustainable drainage systems.
Recommendation 21:
Defra should work with Ofwat and the water industry to explore how
appropriate risk-based standards for public sewerage systems can be
achieved.
Recommendation 22:
As part of the forthcoming and subsequent water industry pricing
reviews, Ofwat should give appropriate priority to proposals for
investment in the existing sewerage network to deal with increasing
flood risk.
Recommendation 23:
The Government should commit to a strategic long-term approach to
its investment in flood risk management, planning up to 25 years
ahead.
Recommendation 24:
The Government should develop a scheme which allows and
encourages local communities to invest in flood risk management
measures.
Recommendation 25:
The Environment Agency should maintain its existing risk-based
approach to levels of maintenance and this should be supported by
published schedules of works for each local authority area.
Recommendation 26:
The Government should develop a single set of guidance for local
authorities and the public on the use and usefulness of sandbags and
other alternatives, rather than leaving the matter wholly to local
discretion.
34

Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses
Recommendation 27:
Defra, the Environment Agency and Natural England should work
with partners to establish a programme through Catchment Flood
Management Plans and Shoreline Management Plans to achieve
greater working with natural processes.
Recommendation 28:
The forthcoming flooding legislation should be a single unifying Act
that addresses all sources of flooding, clarifies responsibilities and
facilitates flood risk management.
Recommendation 29:
The Government and the insurance industry should work together to
deliver a public education programme setting out the benefits of
insurance in the context of flooding.
Recommendation 30:
The Government should review and update the guidance Insurance
for all: A good practice guide for providers of social housing and
disseminate it effectively to support the creation of insurance with rent
schemes for low income households.
Recommendation 31:
In flood risk areas, insurance notices should include information on
flood risk and the simple steps that can be taken to mitigate the
effects.
Recommendation 32:
The insurance industry should develop and implement industry
guidance for flooding events, covering reasonable expectations of the
performance of insurers and reasonable actions by customers.
Recommendation 33:
The Environment Agency should provide a specialised site-specific
flood warning service for infrastructure operators, offering longer lead
times and greater levels of detail about the velocity and depth of
flooding.
35

Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses
Recommendation 34:
The Met Office and the Environment Agency should issue warnings
against a lower threshold of probability to increase preparation lead
times for emergency responders.
Recommendation 35:
The Met Office and the Environment Agency should issue joint
warnings and impact information on severe weather and flooding
emergencies to responder organisations and the public.
Recommendation 36:
The Environment Agency should make relevant flood visualisation
data, held in electronic map format, available online to Gold and
Silver Commands.
Recommendation 37:
The Environment Agency should work with its partners to
progressively develop and bring into use flood visualisation tools that
are designed to meet the needs of flood-risk managers, emergency
planners and responders.
Recommendation 38:
Local authorities should establish mutual aid agreements in
accordance with the guidance currently being prepared by the Local
Government Association and the Cabinet Office.
Recommendation 39:
The Government should urgently put in place a fully funded national
capability for flood rescue, with Fire and Rescue Authorities playing a
leading role, underpinned as necessary by a statutory duty.
Recommendation 40:
36

Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses
Defra should amend emergency regulations to increase the minimum
amount of water to be provided in an emergency, in order to reflect
reasonable needs during a longer-term loss of mains supply.
Recommendation 41:
Upper tier local authorities should be the lead responders in relation
to multi-agency planning for severe weather emergencies at the local
level and for triggering multi-agency arrangements in response to
severe weather warnings and local impact assessments.
Recommendation 42:
Where a Gold Command is established for severe weather events,
the police, unless agreed otherwise locally, should convene and lead
the multi-agency response.
Recommendation 43:
Gold Commands should be established at an early stage on a
precautionary basis where there is a risk of serious flooding.
Recommendation 44:
Category 1 and 2 responders should assess the effectiveness of their
emergency response facilities, including flexible accommodation, IT
and communications systems, and undertake any necessary
improvement works.
Recommendation 45:
The Highways Agency, working through Local Resilience Forums,
should further consider the vulnerability of motorways and trunk roads
to flooding, the potential for better warnings, strategic road clearance
to avoid people becoming stranded and plans to support people who
become stranded.
Recommendation 46:
37

Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses
The rail industry, working through Local Resilience Forums, should
develop plans to provide emergency welfare support to passengers
stranded on the rail network.
Recommendation 47:
The Ministry of Defence should identify a small number of trained
Armed Forces personnel who can be deployed to advise Gold
Commands on logistics during wide-area civil emergencies and,
working with Cabinet Office, identify a suitable mechanism for
deployment.
Recommendation 48:
Central government crisis machinery should always be activated if
significant wide-area and high-impact flooding is expected or occurs.
Recommendation 49:
A national flooding exercise should take place at the earliest
opportunity in order to test the new arrangements which central
government departments are putting into place to deal with flooding
and infrastructure emergencies.
Recommendation 50:
The Government should urgently begin its systematic programme to
reduce the disruption of essential services resulting from natural
hazards by publishing a national framework and policy statement
setting out the process, timescales and expectations.
Recommendation 51:
Relevant government departments and the Environment Agency
should work with infrastructure operators to identify the vulnerability
and risk of assets to flooding and a summary of the analysis should
be published in Sector Resilience Plans.
Recommendation 52:
38

Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses
In the short-term, the Government and infrastructure operators should
work together to build a level resilience into critical infrastructure
assets that ensures continuity during a worst-case flood event.
Recommendation 53:
A specific duty should be placed on economic regulators to build
resilience in the critical Infrastructure.
Recommendation 54:
The Government should extend the duty to undertake business
continuity planning to infrastructure operating Category 2 responders
to a standard equivalent to BS 25999, and that accountability is
ensured through an annual benchmarking exercise within each
sector.
Recommendation 55:
The Government should strengthen and enforce the duty on Category
2 responders to share information on the risks to their infrastructure
assets, enabling more effective emergency planning within Local
Resilience Forums.
Recommendation 56:
The Government should issue clear guidance on expected levels of
Category 2 responders’ engagement in planning, exercising and
response and consider the case for strengthening enforcement
arrangements.
Recommendation 57:
39

Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses
The Government should provide Local Resilience Forums with the
inundation maps for both large and small reservoirs to enable them to
assess risks and plan for contingency, warning and evacuation and
the outline maps be made available to the public online as part of
wider flood risk information.
Recommendation 58:
The Government should implement the legislative changes proposed
in the Environment Agency biennial report on dam and reservoir
safety through the forthcoming flooding legislation.
Recommendation 59:
The Risk and Regulation Advisory Council should explore how the
public can improve their understanding of community risks, including
those associated with flooding, and that the Government should then
implement the findings as appropriate.
Recommendation 60:
The Government should implement a public information campaign
which draws on a single definitive set of flood prevention and
mitigation advice for householders and businesses, and which can be
used by media and the authorities locally and nationally.
Recommendation 61:
The Environment Agency should work with local responders to raise
awareness in flood risk areas and identify a range of mechanisms to
warn the public, particularly the vulnerable, in response to flooding.
Recommendation 62:
The Environment Agency should work urgently with
telecommunications companies to facilitate the roll-out of opt-out
telephone flood warning schemes to all homes and businesses liable
to flooding, including those with ex-directory numbers.
Recommendation 63:
40

Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses
Flood risk should be made part of the mandatory search
requirements when people buy property, and should form part of
Home Information Packs.
Recommendation 64:
Local Resilience Forums should continue to develop plans for doorknocking,
coordinated by local authorities, to enhance flood warnings
before flooding and to provide information and assess welfare needs
once flooding has receded.
Recommendation 65:
The Met Office and the Environment Agency should urgently
complete the production of a sliding scale of options for greater
personalisation of public warning information, including costs,
benefits and feasibility.
Recommendation 66:
Local authority contact centres should take the lead in dealing with
general enquiries from the public during and after major flooding,
redirecting calls to other organisations when appropriate.
Recommendation 67:
The Cabinet Office should provide advice to ensure that all Local
Resilience Forums have effective and linked websites providing
public information before, during and after an emergency.
Recommendation 68:
Council leaders and chief executives should play a prominent role in
public reassurance and advice through the local media during a
flooding emergency, as part of a coordinated effort overseen by Gold
Commanders.
41

Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses
Recommendation 69:
The public should make up a flood kit – including personal
documents, insurance policy, emergency contact numbers (including
local council, emergency services and Floodline), torch, battery or
wind-up radio, mobile phone, rubber gloves, wet wipes or
antibacterial hand gel, first aid kit and blankets.
Recommendation 70:
The Government should establish a programme to support and
encourage individuals and communities to be better prepared and
more self-reliant during emergencies, allowing the authorities to focus
on those areas and people in greatest need.
Recommendation 71:
The Department of Health and relevant bodies should develop a
single set of flood-related health advice for householders and
businesses which should be used by all organisations nationally and
locally and made available through a wide range of sources.
Recommendation 72:
Local response and recovery coordinating groups should ensure that
health and wellbeing support is readily available to those affected by
flooding based on the advice developed by the Department of Health.
Recommendation 73:
The Government, the Association of British Insurers and other
relevant organisations should work together to explore any
technological or process improvements that can be made to speed up
the drying out and stabilising process of building recovery after a
flood.
42

Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses
Recommendation 74:
The monitoring of the impact of flooding on the health and wellbeing
of people, and actions to mitigate and manage the effects, should
form a systematic part of the work of Recovery Coordinating Groups.
Recommendation 75:
For emergencies spanning more than a single local authority area,
Government Offices should ensure coherence and coordination, if
necessary, between recovery operations.
Recommendation 76:
Local authorities should coordinate a systematic programme of
community engagement in their area during the recovery phase.
Recommendation 77:
National and local Recovery Coordinating Groups should be
established from the outset of major emergencies and in due course
there should be formal handover from the crisis machinery.
Recommendation 78:
Aims and objectives for the recovery phase should be agreed at the
outset by Recovery Coordinating Groups to provide focus and enable
orderly transition into mainstream programmes when multi-agency
coordination of recovery is no longer required.
Recommendation 79:
Government Offices, in conjunction with the Local Government
Association, should develop arrangements to provide advice and
support from experienced organisations to areas dealing with
recovery from severe flooding emergencies.
Recommendation 80:
All central government guidance should be updated to reflect the new
arrangements for recovery and Local Resilience Forums should plan,
train and exercise on this basis.
43

Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses
Recommendation 81:
There should be an agreed framework, including definitions and
timescales, for local-central recovery reporting.
Recommendation 82:
Following major flooding events, the Government should publish
monthly summaries of the progress of the recovery phase, including
the numbers of households still displaced from all or part of their
homes.
Recommendation 83:
Local authorities should continue to make arrangements to bear the
cost of recovery for all but the most exceptional emergencies, and
should revisit their reserves and insurance arrangements in light of
last summer’s floods.
Recommendation 84:
Central government should have pre-planned rather than ad-hoc
arrangements to contribute towards the financial burden of recovery
from the most exceptional emergencies, on a formula basis.
Recommendation 85:
Local Recovery Coordination Groups should make early
recommendations to elected local authority members about longerterm
regeneration and economic development opportunities.
Recommendation 86:
The Government should publish an action plan to implement the
recommendations of this Review, with a Director in Defra overseeing
the programme of delivery and issuing regular progress updates.
Recommendation 87:
44

Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses
The Government should establish a Cabinet Committee with a remit
to improve the country’s ability to deal with flooding and implement
the recommendations of this Review.
Recommendation 88:
The Government should establish a National Resilience Forum to
facilitate national level multi-agency planning for flooding and other
emergencies.
Recommendation 89:
The EFRA Select Committee should review the country’s readiness
for dealing with flooding emergencies and produce an assessment of
progress in implementation of the Review’s recommendations after
12 months.
Recommendation 90:
All upper tier local authorities should establish Oversight and Scrutiny
Committees to review work by public sector bodies and essential
service providers in order to manage flood risk, underpinned by a
legal requirement to cooperate and share information.
Recommendation 91:
Each Oversight and Scrutiny Committee should prepare an annual
summary of actions taken locally to manage flood risk and implement
this Review, and these reports should be public and reviewed by
Government Offices and the Environment Agency.
Recommendation 92:
Local Resilience Forums should evaluate and share lessons from
both the response and recovery phases to inform their planning for
future emergencies.
45

Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses
The Select Committee received evidence from the following individuals and
organisations:
Ian Harrison, Resilience Manager, Newark and Sherwood District Council
Paul Lockhart, Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency
Morgan Wray, Asset Systems Management Team Leader, Environment Agency
Margaret Burrup, Sewer Flooding Manager, Severn Trent
Martin Shaw, Lowdham Parish Council
Councillor David Harper, Lowdham Parish Council
Julie O’Neill, Burton Joyce Parish Council
Councillor Margaret Briggs, Woodborough Parish Council
Peter Roberts, Walkeringham Parish Council
Colin Walker, North Leverton with Habblesthorpe Parish Council
Councillor Angela Jarvis, Balderton Parish Council
Bernard Gascoine, Balderton Parish Council
Councillor Beryl Prentice, Southwell Town Council
Steve Broadhead, Chief Engineer, Newark Area Internal Drainage Board
The Select Committee thanks all of the above for their contributions and also
thanks Andy Wallace, Drainage Manager, Rob Fisher, Head of Service for
Emergency Management and Registration, John McGuigan, Emergency Planning
Manager and the Emergency Planning Team.
The Select Committee took evidence on:
• 28 January 2008
• 25 February 2008
• 31 March 2008
• 28 April 2008
• 30 June 2008
46

Contacting us
Email martin.gately@nottscc.gov.uk
Phone 0115 977 2826
Fax 0115 977 3030
Post Scrutiny Team, Chief Executive’s Department,
County Hall, West Bridgford, Nottingham, NG2 7QP
Internet www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk
Published July 2008