Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses - Nottinghamshire County Council
Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses - Nottinghamshire County Council
Flooding: Drainage & Watercourses - Nottinghamshire County Council
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>Flooding</strong>: <strong>Drainage</strong> & <strong>Watercourses</strong><br />
Final Report – July 2008
<strong>Flooding</strong> <strong>Drainage</strong> & <strong>Watercourses</strong><br />
Final Report<br />
Contents<br />
Members of the Select Committee<br />
Reasons for review<br />
Overview of the summer floods<br />
Sandbags policy<br />
Newark & Sherwood Resilience Programme<br />
Highway <strong>Drainage</strong><br />
The Environment Agency<br />
Severn Trent<br />
Newark Area Internal <strong>Drainage</strong> Board<br />
Representation from Parish <strong>Council</strong>s<br />
Lowdham Village Site Visit<br />
North Leverton with Habblesthorpe Visit<br />
Summary<br />
Recommendations<br />
Appendix
Members of the Select Committee<br />
<strong>Council</strong>lor Yvonne Davidson Chaired the Select Committee with <strong>Council</strong>lor Andy<br />
Stewart the Vice-Chair.<br />
Seven other <strong>County</strong> <strong>Council</strong>lors made up the Select Committee:<br />
• John Carter<br />
• John Clarke<br />
• Thomas Pettengell<br />
• Ken Rigby<br />
• Sue Saddington<br />
• Dave Shaw<br />
• Yvonne Woodhead<br />
There were three further co-opted members of the Select Committee:<br />
• <strong>Council</strong>lor Michael Bennett - Bassetlaw District <strong>Council</strong><br />
• <strong>Council</strong>lor Melvyn Shaw - Newark & Sherwood District <strong>Council</strong><br />
• <strong>Council</strong>lor Melvyn Shepherd - Gedling Borough <strong>Council</strong><br />
Support to the Select Committee was provided by:<br />
• Martin Gately, Scrutiny Officer, <strong>Nottinghamshire</strong> <strong>County</strong> <strong>Council</strong><br />
• Paul Davies, Principal Administration Officer, <strong>Nottinghamshire</strong> <strong>County</strong><br />
<strong>Council</strong><br />
• Ashley Jackson, Research and Information Officer, <strong>Nottinghamshire</strong><br />
<strong>County</strong> <strong>Council</strong><br />
• Andy Wallace, <strong>Drainage</strong> Manager, <strong>Nottinghamshire</strong> <strong>County</strong> <strong>Council</strong><br />
4
<strong>Flooding</strong> <strong>Drainage</strong> & <strong>Watercourses</strong><br />
Reasons for the review<br />
1. On 10 December 2007, further to a resolution of <strong>County</strong> <strong>Council</strong>, the<br />
Overview and Scrutiny Committee commissioned a Select Committee to<br />
examine the issue of flooding issues, particularly as they relate to the<br />
maintenance of drainage systems and watercourses.<br />
2. The aim of the review was stated to be “To consider why areas of<br />
<strong>Nottinghamshire</strong> were so badly affected by flooding in July; if the effects<br />
could have been less severe or prevented through better maintenance of<br />
local drainage systems and watercourses and what measures can be put in<br />
place to prevent a reoccurrence in the future. To look at what systems were<br />
in place to assist those affected and how these could be improved in the<br />
future should high levels of flooding happen again.”<br />
Overview of the Summer Floods<br />
3. On 28 January 2008, the Select Committee received a briefing from John<br />
McGuigan, Emergency Planning Manager which provided an overview of the<br />
summer floods of 2007 in <strong>Nottinghamshire</strong>. Mr McGuigan explained the<br />
widespread nature of this pluvial flooding (i.e. flooding from severe rain)<br />
which overwhelmed drains and watercourses resulting in substantial damage<br />
to domestic properties, businesses, schools and the local infrastructure, such<br />
as, roads, electrical substations and sewage works.<br />
4. Mr McGuigan gave numerous examples of the misery caused by this<br />
unprecedented flooding, including North Leverton with Habblesthorpe where<br />
an electrical substation was flooded, members of the public had to be<br />
evacuated from their homes and the local primary school has still not reopened.<br />
5. In Little Carlton, flood damage to homes was made worse by sewage<br />
backing up into properties; while at Southwell Races the racetrack was “torn<br />
up” by the effect of the water, resulting in severe financial loss. Another of<br />
the worst hit villages was Lowdham where over 200 properties were flooded.<br />
6. Across the whole county the number of flooded properties was as follows:<br />
• Ashfield DC 61<br />
• Broxtowe BC 6<br />
• Bassetlaw DC 801<br />
• Gedling BC 53<br />
• Newark & Sherwood DC 470<br />
• Mansfield DC 20<br />
• Rushcliffe BC 0<br />
7. Mr McGuigan also pointed out that fat being put down drains was a problem<br />
that could exacerbate flooding. In addition there was a need to develop a<br />
sandbag policy with district councils (see section on sandbag policy below).<br />
5
8. Further to this presentation, on 25 February Mr McGuigan briefed the select<br />
committee on the multi-agency response to the summer floods. Some<br />
agencies have a pro-active responsibility to prevent flooding taking place<br />
others are reactive and reduce the damage caused by flooding. By<br />
concentrating on being pro-active the response phase may be lessened. The<br />
responsibilities of the various agencies are detailed below:<br />
9. <strong>Nottinghamshire</strong> Police:<br />
• Coordinate the emergency response<br />
• Assist in rescue/recovery of casualties<br />
• Assist with evacuation of property<br />
• Establish appropriate cordons<br />
• Coordinate the response to the media<br />
• Close the highway where necessary<br />
• Protection and security of evacuated premises<br />
• Traffic management<br />
• Casualty Bureau<br />
• Conduct criminal investigation when necessary<br />
The casualty bureau can be set up as necessary and is based at Hucknall<br />
Police Station. Police resources utilised during the summer floods included<br />
the helicopter used at North Leverton. The police also took action regarding<br />
a farmer who went missing in Attenborough.<br />
10. <strong>Nottinghamshire</strong> Fire and Rescue Service:<br />
• Save life, rescue and assist in recovery of casualties<br />
• Pump out premises/land where appropriate<br />
• Support incident command<br />
• Provide health and Safety<br />
• Support Media Response<br />
One of the difficulties encountered by the Fire and Rescue Service during the<br />
summer floods was that there was nowhere to pump the water – one<br />
instance of this took place in Lowdham.<br />
11. <strong>Nottinghamshire</strong> <strong>County</strong> <strong>Council</strong>:<br />
• Planning and preparation<br />
• NCC Incident co-ordination<br />
• Warning and informing<br />
• Managing accommodation for evacuees<br />
• Responsible for surface water drainage<br />
• Providing sandbags / pumps for flood alleviation / clear drains / culverts<br />
• Provide boats on request<br />
• Identifying vulnerable people<br />
• Co-ordinate recovery.<br />
The <strong>County</strong> <strong>Council</strong> is responsible for the multi-agency flood plan. The<br />
<strong>County</strong> <strong>Council</strong> does not have a duty to provide sandbags to all domestic<br />
properties at risk of flooding.<br />
6
12. District/Borough <strong>Council</strong>s:<br />
• Assist with flood alleviation such as issuing sandbags, clearance of<br />
blocked culverts, dealing with flooded roads and traffic diversions<br />
• Provide equipment, information, personnel and expertise to assist the<br />
emergency services<br />
• Provide emergency care for those who have been evacuated or those<br />
affected by flooding but remaining in their home<br />
• Provide environmental health advice<br />
• Support the recovery of the community.<br />
One of the most vital aspects of the function of Districts and Boroughs is<br />
around environmental health advice – particularly relevant to home owners<br />
who have suffered from backed up sewage.<br />
13. The Environment Agency:<br />
• Issue flood warnings<br />
• Maintain flood defences<br />
• Provide pumps when necessary<br />
• Liaise with community via Flood Wardens<br />
• Monitor water levels and advise as necessary<br />
• Support the media response<br />
• Support incident command.<br />
The Environment Agency can also assist with the provision of sandbags,<br />
subject to availability of resources not otherwise engaged on the above<br />
priority areas of work (note – The Environment Agency has no responsibility<br />
to provide sandbags to the general public).<br />
14. Internal <strong>Drainage</strong> Board:<br />
• Levying of drainage rates, their collection and keeping accounts<br />
• Maintenance of drains, pumping stations and flood defences serving<br />
notices<br />
• Environmental improvement<br />
• Promotion of capital schemes for drainage and flood defence<br />
improvement<br />
• Emergency response during flood by providing staff, resources and local<br />
knowledge<br />
• Public relations<br />
• Dealing with planning applications (discharge consents and flood risk<br />
assessments)<br />
• Flood records and post-flood survey<br />
Internal <strong>Drainage</strong> Boards have a number of responsibilities under the Land<br />
<strong>Drainage</strong> Act 1991, including the authority to deepen, widen straighten or<br />
improve watercourses within their area and to serve notice on riparian<br />
owners that they will be carrying out works and charging for them.<br />
15. Utility Companies:<br />
• Secure services and equipment to ensure continuity of supply<br />
7
• Repair services disrupted by flood events<br />
• Provide alternative means of supply during service disruption<br />
• Advise local authorities and communities when services will be reinstated<br />
Utility companies will bring in their own sandbags and pumping resources.<br />
16. The Select Committee noted the complex interlocking nature of the multiagency<br />
response and concluded that agencies’ responsibilities and contact<br />
details should be better publicised.<br />
Sandbags Policy<br />
17. Rob Fisher, Head of Emergency Management and Registration briefed the<br />
select committee on the usage and limitations of sandbags on 25 February.<br />
Mr Fisher re-emphasised that there is no duty for local authorities to protect<br />
properties with sandbags. Sandbags are not the easiest of materials to work<br />
with – the <strong>County</strong> <strong>Council</strong> maintains its stock of sandbags for holding down<br />
temporary road signs in the wind. The mass transportation of sandbags into<br />
flooded areas may be problematic in any event. However, sandbags can<br />
divert shallow flowing water – if it has somewhere to go. They can also<br />
protect homes from the wash caused by vehicles driving through floodwater.<br />
During the summer floods over 150,000 sandbags were issued across the<br />
county.<br />
18. West Sussex <strong>County</strong> <strong>Council</strong> operates a policy of only supplying sandbags to<br />
residential properties being flooded from the highway. Where properties are<br />
at risk of flooding from a watercourse, residents are directed to procure their<br />
own sandbags from a builders’ merchant.<br />
19. At a <strong>Nottinghamshire</strong> sandbag depot security guards had to be employed to<br />
prevent members of the public collecting sandbags – the numbers of people<br />
were causing access problems for staff. There have also been instances<br />
where sandbags deployed near watercourses have been removed and placed<br />
by residents outside their homes. There have even been incidents where<br />
people have attempted to sell sandbags on e-bay.<br />
20. In conclusion, Mr Fisher explained that sandbags were not a panacea to<br />
flooding events. There are other products – such as air brick covers and<br />
floodgates which are more effective.<br />
21. Ian Harrison, the Resilience Manager at Newark and Sherwood District<br />
<strong>Council</strong> also contributed to the select committee’s briefing on sandbags<br />
policy. Mr Harrison stated that although sandbags provided a limited benefit<br />
they were a tangible overt response which helped the confidence of<br />
communities and flood victims. However, with flash flooding there was a<br />
difficulty in deploying sandbags in time. In addition, the deployment policy is<br />
based on risk not request and this presents difficulties in terms of negative<br />
feedback.<br />
22. Newark and Sherwood District <strong>Council</strong> has also undertaken trial use of<br />
“Acqa” silicon granule sacks, which can be stored flat and dry until needed –<br />
when they can be distributed to isolated and vulnerable properties. “Acqa”<br />
silicon bags cost only £3.<br />
8
23. The select committee noted an area of possible policy development around<br />
the strategic storage of sandbags near where they are likely to have to be<br />
used in order to overcome the logistical problem. There were also awareness<br />
raising issues for the public around the limitations of sandbags (and the<br />
superior alternatives) and the potentially anti-social nature of driving at<br />
speed through floodwater thereby exacerbating the flooding with bow<br />
waves.<br />
Newark & Sherwood Resilience Programme<br />
24. Ian Harrison explained that the resilience programme in Newark and<br />
Sherwood supported principles around “community” and cohesion and can<br />
be used to support resilience to all threats.<br />
25. Corporate promotion of resilience at Newark & Sherwood includes: the<br />
<strong>Council</strong>’s assessment of strategic risk, strict compliance with planning policy<br />
guidance (e.g. PPG/PPS 25) and building control around business and<br />
domestic development and extensions.<br />
26. Newark and Sherwood’s wider promotion of resilience includes annual risk<br />
and resilience conferences and workshops, events at the Newark & Notts<br />
Show, facilitation of a flood fair in Lowdham, training for volunteers and a<br />
partnership with flood proofing companies.<br />
27. Newark and Sherwood District <strong>Council</strong> has also entered into a partnership<br />
scheme with DEFRA and the Environment Agency which has resulted in 17<br />
high risk properties in Gunthorpe being flood proofed and £90,000 being<br />
made available for work on 15 properties at risk at Bleasby and Gibsmere<br />
(NB – this scheme relates to properties at risk from river flooding rather<br />
than flash flooding caused by severe rain).<br />
28. Mr Harrison also reported that a Risk and Resilience Conference which took<br />
place on 4 th October 2007 supported the following options:<br />
• Watercourse mapping and condition survey (with maps passed to Parish<br />
<strong>Council</strong>s<br />
• Watercourse monitoring by local volunteers<br />
• Provide information on who does what<br />
• Deployment of local resources including sandbags, stores, signs etc.<br />
29. The Select Committee noted these options and observed that existing<br />
groups (e.g. Neighbourhood Watch) could provide a ready pool of volunteers<br />
for monitoring watercourses.<br />
Highway <strong>Drainage</strong><br />
30. Andy Wallace, <strong>Drainage</strong> Manager, provided information to the Select<br />
Committee about Highway drainage issues. Mr Wallace explained that<br />
highway gullies are emptied just once a year. The <strong>County</strong> <strong>Council</strong> made the<br />
decision to reduce to once a year from twice a year (or even once a quarter<br />
in some areas) in 1998. There is also more debris and litter entering gullies<br />
because of less sweeping by District <strong>Council</strong>s. The cost of gully emptying<br />
and drain cleaning is put at £600,000 per year.<br />
9
31. Gullies connect into highway drains and then into Severn Trent sewers,<br />
watercourses or soakaways, alternatively they can connect directly into<br />
Severn Trent surface water sewers, combined Severn Trent foul and surface<br />
water systems or directly to private estate systems. There are often no<br />
proper records relating to these systems.<br />
32. The <strong>County</strong> <strong>Council</strong>’s Highway <strong>Drainage</strong> Assets include nine highway<br />
drainage pumping stations – which can be subject to different inspection<br />
regimes – and a large number of culverts carrying watercourses across the<br />
highway. Where there are ditches or drains these are often the responsibility<br />
of the adjacent land-owner.<br />
33. The immediate highway cost in dealing with the flooding was £1,071,000.<br />
The capital highway costs to deal with the consequences of flooding are, for<br />
2007/08, £941,000 and for 2008/09 £1,345,000.<br />
34. In order to address highway drainage issues the <strong>County</strong> <strong>Council</strong> has already<br />
appointed a <strong>Drainage</strong> Manager (in line with recommendations of the Pitt<br />
Review into the summer 2007 floods). In addition, the Authority has<br />
purchased a specialist drain cleaning vehicle which has been used to clear<br />
119 drain blockages (since its introduction in August 2007 up to early March<br />
2008). It is interesting to note that 16 of the 119 problems were caused by<br />
drains being damaged by utility works i.e. utility companies laying cables or<br />
pipes.<br />
35. The outstanding issues for highway drainage are as follows: there is no<br />
investment in capital drainage improvements and a lack of capacity in<br />
existing systems. This is combined with the effects of climate change and<br />
increased intensity and frequency of storms.<br />
36. The Select Committee noted the reduction in the frequency of gully<br />
emptying on cost grounds and felt that there would be great benefit in<br />
instituting a spring and autumn clean of gullies.<br />
37. The Select Committee also noted the lack of capital investment in drainage<br />
improvement as a possible area for recommendation.<br />
The Environment Agency<br />
38. On 31 March, Paul Lockhart, Area Flood Risk Manager for the Environment<br />
Agency briefed the select committee on the Environment Agency’s capital<br />
schemes – the Nottingham Left (North) Bank Flood Alleviation Scheme; this<br />
proposed scheme will protect over 16,000 properties from Sawley near the<br />
M1 to Radcliffe Viaduct at Colwick. Additionally, the £14.7m West Bridgford<br />
scheme, to be largely completed in the summer of 2007, will protect 5600<br />
homes.<br />
39. Mr Lockhart recognised that there was no flooding from the Trent itself<br />
during the summer 2007 foods. The Environment Agency has responsibility<br />
for flooding from “main rivers” and in <strong>Nottinghamshire</strong> these include: the<br />
Soar, Idle, Trent and Derwent. Other than the Environment Agency, there is<br />
no single body with a strategic overview thus leaving the EA best placed to<br />
engage in a “holistic” approach to managing flooding.<br />
10
40. The Environment Agency works closely with Severn Trent Water and<br />
welcomes the appointment of Andy Wallace at NCC as <strong>Drainage</strong> Manager.<br />
41. Due to the severe flooding in Lowdham, the Environment Agency has<br />
commissioned consultants to carry out a review of the Lowdham Flood<br />
Alleviation Scheme and suggest options for improvement (the results of<br />
which are due shortly). A working party has been set up to work through the<br />
issues and keep the local community informed.<br />
42. The Environment Agency has also carried out extensive de-silting<br />
throughout Lowdham in conjunction with the Newark Area Internal <strong>Drainage</strong><br />
Board.<br />
43. In Woodborough, the Environment Agency has commissioned consultants to<br />
carry out a review and recommend options for improvement while also<br />
removing nearly 100 tonnes of silt from culverts through the village.<br />
44. Further to last summer’s floods, other Environment Agency projects include<br />
a feasibility study on the assessment of river channels and culverts in<br />
Worksop, surveying and cleaning of becks in Retford and the modelling of<br />
the River Greet (including the Potwell Dyke) in Southwell and Rolleston.<br />
Severn Trent<br />
45. Also on 31 March, Margaret Burrup of Severn Trent Water, gave a<br />
presentation on the company’s role. She stated that many private drains<br />
were unadopted, and had never been raised to an adoptable standard.<br />
Public sewers in June/July 2007 had been overwhelmed by the rainfall,<br />
compounded by underlying problems affecting capacity, such as fat deposits<br />
and debris. The public were able to report drainage problems on the<br />
company’s 0800 telephone number. The drains were only designed to cope<br />
with a one in 40 year storm.<br />
46. In relation to home insurance, Severn Trent’s advice to householders is not<br />
to neglect cover for fire and theft even if cover for flooding is not available<br />
to them.<br />
47. The Select Committee noted that ultimately surface water and foul water<br />
drainage systems combined; which meant that surface water was put<br />
through expensive sewage treatment systems and that planning authorities<br />
could ameliorate this by insisting on sustainable urban drainage systems for<br />
new developments.<br />
48. The Select Committee also noted the reluctance on the part of both the<br />
Environment Agency and Severn Trent to engage in expensive litigation and<br />
the tendency to favour negotiated settlement rather than enforcement.<br />
Newark Area Internal <strong>Drainage</strong> Board<br />
49. On 28 April, Steve Broadhead, Chief Engineer with the Newark Area Internal<br />
<strong>Drainage</strong> Board briefed the Select Committee on the work of his<br />
organisation. Mr Broadhead has spent the last 30 years – his whole working<br />
life – with the Newark Area Internal <strong>Drainage</strong> Board. Internal <strong>Drainage</strong><br />
Boards (IDBs) are statutory authorities set up since 1936 to provide<br />
drainage in low lying areas. NAIDB covers <strong>Nottinghamshire</strong> and also parts of<br />
11
Leicestershire and Lincolnshire across eight districts and covering 555<br />
square kilometres. IDBs cover contour based areas defined as eight feet<br />
above highest known flood levels. Their function is to maintain natural open<br />
watercourses – NAIDB maintains 600 kilometres of watercourses. It is<br />
managed by a board of elected members (and local councillors) and meets<br />
four times a year.<br />
50. Funding of the board is through a drainage rate on agricultural land.<br />
£500,000 is also contributed by Newark and Sherwood District <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
Newark and Sherwood were badly affected by the summer floods –<br />
especially west of the Trent (e.g. Southwell & Lowdham). NAIDB employees<br />
assisted where they could but were not in a position to supply sandbags.<br />
The Board had recently completed 6-9 months weed cutting on watercourses<br />
associated with flooding.<br />
51. Mr Broadhead stated that under the Land <strong>Drainage</strong> Act, farmers and other<br />
landowners could be compelled to clear watercourses. However, NAIDB has<br />
never taken legal action against anyone for failure to maintain a<br />
watercourse; matters have been resolved by agreement. In the 1970’s<br />
grants were paid by the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food to assist<br />
in the clearance of watercourses.<br />
Representation from Parish <strong>Council</strong>s<br />
52. The Select Committee wrote to Parish <strong>Council</strong>s in Bassetlaw, Gedling and<br />
Newark and Sherwood inviting submission of information on the response to<br />
the summer floods (e.g. what went well, where improvements could be<br />
made, and whether or not there was effective partnership working). These<br />
responses are summarised in Appendix A. In addition, a number of Parish<br />
<strong>Council</strong>s affected by the summer floods made representation to the Select<br />
Committee on 28 April. The following points were raised:<br />
53. Balderton Parish <strong>Council</strong> (<strong>Council</strong>lor Angela Jarvis and Mr Bernard Gascoine)<br />
• The backwash of sewage experienced at Staple Lane<br />
• Blockage of a watercourse with a fencepost<br />
• The small size of drains – only nine inches in diameter<br />
• Complex and long-standing issues around the culvert under Warwick<br />
Road<br />
54. North Leverton with Habblesthorpe (Mr Colin Walker) – a quarter of North<br />
Leverton was flooded – the residents are grateful for the reinstatement of<br />
roads and the swift response of John McGuigan from the Emergency<br />
Planning Department. The level of consultation from <strong>Nottinghamshire</strong><br />
<strong>County</strong> <strong>Council</strong> was good but concerns remained about the length of time<br />
taken to re-open the local primary school that was closed by the flooding<br />
(not due to re-open until December 2008).<br />
55. Mr Walker explained that North Leverton came under Laneham Internal<br />
<strong>Drainage</strong> Board – which is operated independently by consultants based in<br />
Doncaster - and had suffered worsened flooding as a result of the inundation<br />
of a pump located at the West Burton Power Station. On a point of<br />
clarification, Mr Broadhead of Newark Area Internal <strong>Drainage</strong> Board (NAIDB)<br />
added that since pumps could be subject to failure and power loss some<br />
12
drainage boards had tractor driven back-ups, but this was dependent on<br />
risk. NAIDB did not suffer flooding as a result of loss of power.<br />
56. Walkeringham (Mr Peter Roberts) – Mr Roberts stated that some people<br />
were still out of their homes, but that the response from Emergency<br />
Planning had been good. However, the Highways Department has “sloping<br />
shoulders” when it comes to taking responsibility for watercourses which<br />
abut the highway.<br />
57. The Select Committee noted the need to more widely educate members of<br />
the public about the responsibilities relating to dykes adjoining the highway<br />
– these are the responsibility of the landowner rather than the highways<br />
department.<br />
58. Southwell (<strong>Council</strong>lor Beryl Prentice)<br />
• The last residents returned to their homes only three weeks ago<br />
• A modelling exercise will take place on the Potwell Dyke<br />
• The <strong>County</strong> <strong>Council</strong> is redrawing the boundaries around the new Minster<br />
School and thereby taking on riparian ownership responsibilities for the<br />
Potwell Dyke<br />
• Emergency Plan is not quite finished but John McGuigan has been very<br />
helpful<br />
• Newark and Sherwood District <strong>Council</strong> will provide a sandbag store<br />
shortly<br />
59. Burton Joyce (Mrs Julie O’Neil)<br />
• Unprecedented rain resulted in blockages to culverts; the system was<br />
unable to cope<br />
• A large number of outbuildings flooded – this included flooding with<br />
sewage<br />
• More needs to be done to inform landowners of their responsibilities<br />
• Produced an informative leaflet for residents with contact details of<br />
agencies<br />
• The response from local authorities is disappointing and there is a lack of<br />
co-ordination<br />
60. Woodborough (<strong>Council</strong>lor Margaret Briggs)<br />
• The Environment Agency has removed 50 tons of debris from the Beck<br />
• <strong>Nottinghamshire</strong> <strong>County</strong> <strong>Council</strong> has utilised CCTV in drains and culverts<br />
to identify problems<br />
• A survey is taking place on the feasibility of major flood defence works<br />
61. Lowdham (<strong>Council</strong>lor David Harper and Mr Martin Shaw)<br />
• Flooded five times last summer<br />
• The Cocker Beck is currently subject to modelling by the Environment<br />
Agency and Severn Trent<br />
• The emergency services appeared to suffer from a lack of co-ordination<br />
and would have benefited from consulting people with local knowledge<br />
• The emergency services “Gold Command” should liaise with the Parish<br />
<strong>Council</strong><br />
13
• Sandbags only had limited effect<br />
• There were problems associated with the capacity of the Merevale Bridge<br />
• A large pump brought from Ashfield could not be used [because there<br />
was nowhere to pump the water]<br />
Lowdham Village Site Visit<br />
62. On 6 th May the Select Committee undertook a site visit to Lowdham<br />
accompanied by Andy Wallace, <strong>Drainage</strong> Manager, NCC, John McGuigan,<br />
Emergency Planning Manager, NCC, Dave Bartram, Environment Agency,<br />
<strong>Council</strong>lor David Harper and Mr Martin Shaw of Lowdham Parish <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
63. Members of the Select Committee saw the Cocker Beck – a fairly substantial<br />
watercourse – and heard how the Environment Agency had cleared much of<br />
the overgrowth of plants and weeds from its banks after the flooding events<br />
last summer.<br />
64. Walking along a footpath on the bank of the Cocker Beck, Members were<br />
told that the plastic piles deployed like an underground wall were not<br />
effective and a one metre wall was now planned by the Environment Agency<br />
to protect properties.<br />
65. On the lower part of Main Street there is a bridge over the watercourse with<br />
a low parapet which may exacerbate flooding. This bridge is owned by the<br />
<strong>County</strong> <strong>Council</strong>. However, improvement works to the bridge would be<br />
problematic since it is the only access point for the forty or so houses in the<br />
development beyond.<br />
66. At the Lime Tree Gardens Bridge, Members of the Select Committee saw<br />
where the old channel had been partially closed off and a new channel built.<br />
The remnants of the old channel caused problems resulting in unnecessary<br />
erosion to the far bank.<br />
67. In the Blenheim Avenue Estate Members of the Select Committee saw the<br />
Highways Pumping Station and heard how the locks on its access hatches<br />
had been removed and replaced by the Fire and Rescue Service while taking<br />
necessary action during the course of the flood. Unfortunately, the new lock<br />
keys were passed to Severn Trent instead of NCC and this did result in an<br />
access problem. Subsequently, the Fire and Rescue Service have been<br />
informed that the pumping station is a county council asset. In addition, it<br />
was apparent that locating an unfenced pumping station in a housing<br />
development had potential health and safety implications e.g. for trips and<br />
falls/danger to children playing on it. Select Committee Members were also<br />
concerned that some residents might consider the pumping station an<br />
eyesore.<br />
North Leverton with Habblesthorpe Visit<br />
68. On 19 th May, Members of the Select Committee visited North Leverton with<br />
Habblesthorpe – site of some of the most severe flooding in <strong>Nottinghamshire</strong><br />
last summer.<br />
69. The Select Committee saw firsthand the complexities of the watercourses in<br />
North Leverton. With the watercourse running along the gardens of domestic<br />
14
properties there were many dozens of riparian owners involved. In some<br />
places the watercourse was narrowed by the construction of ornamental<br />
stonework features (or even the installation of substantial pre-fabricated<br />
concrete walls); in others utility cables crossing the watercourse caused a<br />
restriction to the flow of water.<br />
70. Another issue was sudden changes in the angle of the watercourse; in some<br />
instances floodwater had “hit a bend but carried straight on.”<br />
71. The Select Committee were also shown where the road surface was scoured<br />
away by the force of the floodwater emerging from a public footpath. The<br />
road surface has subsequently been reinstated by the Highways<br />
Department.<br />
72. The Select Committee also saw the catchwater drain, on the outskirts of the<br />
village. A severe overgrowth of vegetation on its banks that had exacerbated<br />
the flooding had now been cut back by Laneham Internal <strong>Drainage</strong> Board.<br />
73. The Select Committee noted that in the case of both villages that it was<br />
necessary to make a site visit in order to fully understand the scale and<br />
severity of the floods and their effect on residents.<br />
Summary of Findings<br />
74. The frequency of gully emptying has been reduced by local authorities as an<br />
economy measure. Since a free flowing drainage system is essential during<br />
instances of sustained rainfall to prevent flash flooding this may to some<br />
extent be a false economy. There perhaps needs to be an acceptance that<br />
money spent on preventing the misery of flash flooding is money well spent<br />
– this is particularly important since development (and the construction of<br />
patios and non-permeable hard standing driveways) has substantially<br />
reduced natural soak-away and thereby increased the burden on the<br />
drainage system.<br />
75. To be effective, an increased programme of gully emptying would require<br />
targeted communication with local residents where works are to be carried<br />
out to prevent them from parking over highway drain covers when cleansing<br />
vehicle operators require access.<br />
76. The Newark Internal <strong>Drainage</strong> Board informed the Select Committee that it<br />
had never pursued a riparian owner who had not fulfilled their<br />
responsibilities through the courts. While the Select Committee has no wish<br />
to see organisations unnecessarily mired in expensive litigation, and it is<br />
obviously commendable that the vast majority of problems can be resolved<br />
through negotiation; <strong>Drainage</strong> Boards and other responsible authorities<br />
should not hesitate to bring the full force of the law against recalcitrant<br />
riparian owners.<br />
77. The responsibility to mitigate the effects of flooding lies both with all of us<br />
individuals and with relevant agencies – for instance we all have a<br />
responsibility not to irresponsibly dispose of cooking fat down our domestic<br />
drains since it can accumulate and even block very substantial drains –<br />
likewise, agencies with a responsibility to manage the effects of flooding<br />
should robustly defend their assets against the “worst case scenario.” An<br />
15
example of this is the pumping station at West Burton Power Station which<br />
was inundated and resulted in worsened flooding in the North Leverton area.<br />
78. Homeowners at risk have a personal responsibility to improve the resilience<br />
of their properties through the installation of self-closing airbricks and<br />
floodgates. The Select Committee hopes that all insurance companies have<br />
the good sense not to penalise homeowners for taking preventative action.<br />
79. At present there seems to be an over-reliance on sandbags and unrealistic<br />
expectations of their effectiveness and a feeling that local authorities should<br />
deliver them to anyone who thinks that they might benefit from them.<br />
80. The transportation of sandbags into areas that have flooded or are in the<br />
process of flooding is problematic. As a matter of commonsense, areas that<br />
are likely to benefit from provision of sandbags should have a local store –<br />
as near as possible to where they will be deployed. This would make<br />
residents aware of the finite provision and would circumvent the need to<br />
make logistical arrangements. It would be ironic indeed if the transportation<br />
of sandbags by heavy goods vehicles caused bow waves which worsened the<br />
flooding for some residents.<br />
81. When flood warden schemes are being set up, existing community groups,<br />
such as Neighbourhood Watch, may prove a valuable source of volunteers<br />
and should perhaps be contacted in the first instance.<br />
82. In the absence of a single over-arching authority responsible for all flooding<br />
issues, people likely to be affected by flooding have a right to know which<br />
services they can expect to receive from which agency or local authority.<br />
Responsibilities and contact details should be clearly presented in a leaflet or<br />
booklet to be made available to residents and businesses.<br />
83. There is an obvious requirement for a central record of riparian ownership<br />
and responsibility. This Authority should ensure that where records exist<br />
they are collated and where they do not exist they are created following<br />
careful research. Ultimately, it might be useful if the final product of this<br />
mapping exercise is made available on-line (as Newark Internal <strong>Drainage</strong><br />
Board’s maps are at present). Further, the identification of riparian owners<br />
would allow them to be reminded of their responsibilities in a targeted or<br />
prioritised way; especially those who may be obstructing the flow of water<br />
by serious neglect or unthinking and inappropriate development.<br />
84. Some areas of England, such as Gloucestershire, suffered much more than<br />
<strong>Nottinghamshire</strong> during last summer’s floods. This would seem to beg the<br />
following questions: What if <strong>Nottinghamshire</strong> had been at the centre of the<br />
flooding event? What would have been the effect on the critical<br />
infrastructure of the county? The future may not bring a precise recurrence<br />
of the 2007 floods. It may bring other more extreme weather events. It is<br />
not hard to imagine, for example, a severe winter storm which floods the<br />
M1, or other major roads, stranding thousands of motorists; or a coastal<br />
storm surge causing catastrophic flooding in Lincolnshire which results in<br />
requests for assistance to this Authority. Weak points in the critical<br />
infrastructure which could affect <strong>Nottinghamshire</strong> – especially in terms of<br />
transport and utilities - are worth carefully identifying and it would be useful<br />
for the emergency planning team to ensure that they are aware of them and<br />
16
develop appropriate responses. Weaknesses which fall outside the county’s<br />
geographical boundary but affect the county should also be considered.<br />
85. Ensuring that the critical infrastructure is robustly defended is worthy of<br />
further scrutiny. It is perhaps an issue that Overview and Scrutiny could<br />
commission a topic select committee to look at, when the work programme<br />
allows.<br />
86. The Select Committee welcomes interim conclusion 26 of Sir Michael Pitt’s<br />
report (page 54) which suggests that local authority scrutiny committees<br />
should review Surface Water Management Plans, and other linked plans,<br />
such as Local Development Frameworks and Community Risk Registers. An<br />
ongoing role for Scrutiny around flooding issues would be valuable. While<br />
this report was being finalised Sir Michael Pitt published his final report and<br />
recommendations. The recommendations are attached as Appendix B.<br />
17
Recommendations<br />
<strong>Drainage</strong><br />
1<br />
Highways gullies are emptied more frequently. Preferably, a spring and<br />
autumn clean of gullies should take place.<br />
2<br />
Residents should be notified in good time when gully cleansing is due to<br />
take place so that they can avoid parking over gully drainage grates<br />
3<br />
Within the Authority’s budgetary constraints, the funding and<br />
development of a capital programme of prioritised highway drainage<br />
improvements should be considered<br />
<strong>Watercourses</strong> and Internal <strong>Drainage</strong> Boards<br />
4<br />
Internal <strong>Drainage</strong> Boards should more vigorously pursue, through the<br />
legal remedies that are open to them, riparian owners who do not<br />
properly fulfil their obligations<br />
5<br />
Internal <strong>Drainage</strong> Boards should ensure that they robustly defend their<br />
critical assets from flooding (e.g. pumps) and invest in back-up<br />
measures wherever it is viable to do so<br />
Residents/this Authority/other authorities<br />
6<br />
In association with relevant partners, this Authority should raise<br />
awareness about the severe problems that can be caused by disposing<br />
of cooking fat down drains<br />
7<br />
This Authority should deploy temporary road signs in the approach to<br />
flooded areas warning of the severe “bow wave” effects that can result<br />
from large vehicles driving into floodwater at speed<br />
8<br />
The owners of properties that are susceptible to flooding should put in<br />
place measures to improve the resilience of their property (e.g.<br />
floodgates and self closing airbricks) rather than rely on the delivery of<br />
sandbags<br />
9<br />
Parish and District <strong>Council</strong>s should consider the strategic storage of<br />
sand bags, silicon granule bags or other alternatives as close as<br />
possible to where they are likely to be required<br />
18
10<br />
Local Authorities (and other organisations) should recognise that<br />
existing community groups (e.g. Neighbourhood Watch) may provide a<br />
valuable resource or pool of potential volunteers for flood warden-type<br />
schemes<br />
11<br />
This Authority in association with District Authorities, the Environment<br />
Agency, Severn Trent and the Internal <strong>Drainage</strong> Boards should produce<br />
a publication clearly setting out contact details and areas of<br />
responsibility relating to flooding and what support flooded<br />
homeowners can expect<br />
12<br />
The preparation of emergency plans by Parish <strong>Council</strong>s be recognised<br />
as good practice; and therefore parishes who have not done so should<br />
consider producing a plan and circulating it to relevant agencies and<br />
authorities<br />
Emergency Services<br />
13<br />
The Police and Fire and Rescue Services should liaise more closely with<br />
residents who have in-depth local knowledge (e.g. representatives of<br />
the Parish <strong>Council</strong>)<br />
Riparian Owners<br />
14<br />
This Authority co-ordinate a thorough mapping of riparian ownership<br />
within the <strong>County</strong>; collating information held by other organisations,<br />
such as Districts and Parishes and commissioning research to fill gaps<br />
in knowledge with a view to producing a definitive document that is<br />
kept up to date<br />
15<br />
Further to this mapping exercise, all riparian owners should be<br />
reminded of their responsibilities – and, as a priority riparian owners<br />
who have built structures that encroach into watercourses should be<br />
specifically approached and informed of the potentially catastrophic<br />
effect of restricting the flow of water during flash floods<br />
Weak Points in the Critical Infrastructure<br />
16<br />
Emergency Planning Officers carefully consider where the weak points<br />
in <strong>Nottinghamshire</strong>’s critical infrastructure would be in the event that<br />
<strong>Nottinghamshire</strong> suffers the sort of massive pluvial flooding<br />
experienced by Gloucestershire last summer<br />
19
17<br />
The Overview and Scrutiny Committee should consider a further<br />
scrutiny review of this authority’s plans for civil contingencies,<br />
especially around weaknesses in the critical infrastructure which might<br />
lead to catastrophic long term failure of utilities and the transport<br />
network<br />
Pitt Review<br />
18<br />
Overview and Scrutiny Committee should receive a briefing on the<br />
implementation of the Pitt Review’s recommendations in nine months<br />
and following that determine what further scrutiny of flooding issues<br />
should be incorporated into the future work programme.<br />
20
APPENDIX A<br />
<strong>Flooding</strong> (drainage and watercourses)<br />
Parish <strong>Council</strong> Response<br />
27 affected Parish <strong>Council</strong>s in <strong>Nottinghamshire</strong> detailed their experiences of<br />
the 2007 floods – their main concerns, the things that went well, the things<br />
to be improved and the level of partnership working that took place.<br />
The main concern was with poor maintenance - to dykes, ditches, drains<br />
and culverts and the problems of contamination from raw sewage.<br />
Only Bleasby, Caunton and Weston Parish <strong>Council</strong>s considered that anything<br />
went well and that was the response, both before and after the flooding, of<br />
District and <strong>County</strong> <strong>Council</strong>s, the Environment Agency and the <strong>Drainage</strong><br />
Board.<br />
The Parish <strong>Council</strong>s would like to see a faster and better-coordinated<br />
response to the flooding with better co-ordination and communications<br />
between the emergency services and the different authorities. Clarity over<br />
ownership of dykes, culverts and drains - and who has responsibility for<br />
maintenance and repair - would also be a welcome improvement.<br />
Misterton Parish <strong>Council</strong> reported a ‘top class service’ from the <strong>County</strong><br />
<strong>Council</strong> and Caunton commended Newark & Sherwood District <strong>Council</strong> for<br />
an ‘excellent job’. However, Dunham on Trent considered the response of<br />
Severn Trent to have been too slow, while Rolleston Parishioners felt<br />
‘isolated and neglected’ and considered that effective partnership working<br />
had not taken place.<br />
21
<strong>Flooding</strong>: <strong>Drainage</strong> & <strong>Watercourses</strong><br />
Key Issues/ Main Concerns Things that went well Things to Improve If partnership working<br />
took place<br />
Barnby Moor Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
The only flooding the parish council is aware of is two houses where the front gardens flood. Residents sand bag their air vent bricks.<br />
Soak away drains cleaned regularly.<br />
Beckingham cum Saunby Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Flooded twice on 25.06.07 and 21.01.08. Several roads flooded limiting vehicular movement in and out of village.<br />
• Emergency numbers<br />
• Co-ordination between<br />
agencies<br />
Bleasby Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
23 properties flooded, 9 households vacated. A charter on responsibilities produced.<br />
Partnership working<br />
Drains etc now more likely<br />
to cope.<br />
Burton Joyce Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
24 households flooded garages, outbuilding and gardens also affected. Guide on flood prevention produced.<br />
• Landowners taking<br />
responsibility as riparian<br />
owners, and considering<br />
developments to own<br />
properties.<br />
Yes<br />
Yes, in particular Newark<br />
and Sherwood DC and<br />
Newark Area Internal<br />
<strong>Drainage</strong> Board very helpful<br />
Yes<br />
22
<strong>Flooding</strong>: <strong>Drainage</strong> & <strong>Watercourses</strong><br />
• Inform their obligations and for a<br />
regulatory authority to enforce<br />
action when appropriate<br />
Calverton Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Lack of dyke and culvert<br />
maintenance.<br />
• Identifying responsible bodies.<br />
• Swifter action may have been<br />
forthcoming if the right people had<br />
been contacted earlier.<br />
Cromwell Parish Meeting<br />
Garages, outbuildings and gardens submerged.<br />
Dykes and ditches not properly<br />
maintained<br />
Failure of sewer. (Raw sewage)<br />
Caunton Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Only one house badly damaged.<br />
Neglect of ditches in the county, lack<br />
of maintenance<br />
Partnership working Newark and Sherwood DC<br />
responded promptly and<br />
“did an excellent job”<br />
Highways Dept v quick<br />
Dunham on Trent with Ragnall, Darlton and Fledborough Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
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<br />
sudden; it would be difficult to plan how to respond should this happen again.<br />
Drains unable to cope with excess<br />
rain water.<br />
Authorities did not respond in a<br />
reasonable time.<br />
Severn Trent were slow to<br />
respond.<br />
23
<strong>Flooding</strong>: <strong>Drainage</strong> & <strong>Watercourses</strong><br />
Dunham on Trent faced with floating<br />
raw sewage.<br />
Dunham on Trent pumping station was<br />
a key issue.<br />
Edwinstowe Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
<strong>Flooding</strong> is usually confined to excessive rainfall scenarios.<br />
Egmanton Parish Meeting<br />
<strong>Flooding</strong> occurred between 23 – 25 June. Questionnaire circulated to 100 residents. 36 responses received. Of these about half experienced<br />
flooding in their houses and of these, half had to move out.<br />
Culverts, bridges and driveways over<br />
the dykes seem to have limited the flow<br />
and diverted water up onto the roads.<br />
State of the surrounding field ditches<br />
contributed to surface water flooding.<br />
Better drainage may have allowed more<br />
water to flow away prior to the flood.<br />
A list of emergency services.<br />
Improved drainage in the area.<br />
Creation of an emergency plan and<br />
nominated emergency co-ordinators.<br />
Newark and Sherwood<br />
District <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
Fire Brigade<br />
Epperstone Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
The Dover Beck flooded.<br />
The Dover Beck between Woodborough<br />
and Epperstone was not dredged out to<br />
its former level.<br />
Sewage entered the Beck at<br />
Woodborough and Epperstone<br />
resulting in contaminated fields.<br />
Environment Agency<br />
Newark Internal <strong>Drainage</strong><br />
Board<br />
24
<strong>Flooding</strong>: <strong>Drainage</strong> & <strong>Watercourses</strong><br />
Everton Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Several properties flooded, one badly. Cellars and gardens under water.<br />
Drains backed up, sewage floating<br />
about.<br />
Problem believed to be excessive<br />
water draining from nearby fields.<br />
• Would be helpful if someone with<br />
expertise in this area could provide<br />
advice on the cause, the remedial<br />
work required to minimise future<br />
risk and implementation of this.<br />
Contacted Severn Trent,<br />
Environment Agency, the<br />
local drainage board and<br />
Notts <strong>County</strong> <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
Difficult to get anyone to<br />
accept responsibility.<br />
Headon-cum- Upton, Grove and Stokeham Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
The parish have experienced on-going drainage problems, not helped by last summer’s floods.<br />
Excessive water flowing from<br />
landowners field across Thorpe Street.<br />
Lack of dyke maintenance.<br />
Have been in contact with<br />
Notts <strong>County</strong> <strong>Council</strong>.<br />
Hodsock Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Some of the Langold residents are still not in their homes after nearly a year of repairs.<br />
Main problem – drains in the village<br />
of Langold were extremely blocked.<br />
Filled in culvert contributed to flooding.<br />
Linby Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Several homes on Wighay Road, Hucknall were flooded.<br />
Clearing of culverts.<br />
Problems of excess surface water<br />
appear greater than ever.<br />
• Better understanding of who is<br />
responsible for what.<br />
• Introduction of a mapping system<br />
for streams to establish the<br />
ownership of the stream and liability<br />
25
<strong>Flooding</strong>: <strong>Drainage</strong> & <strong>Watercourses</strong><br />
for upkeep and maintenance.<br />
Lowdham Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Suffers flash flooding from a watercourse (the Cocker Beck). <strong>Flooding</strong> also caused by a clear water sewer unable to take heavy volumes of<br />
water.<br />
Previous poor maintenance of the<br />
Cocker Beck.<br />
• Emergency services were poorly<br />
informed and appeared to have no<br />
plan of action.<br />
• Sandbags not delivered<br />
promptly.<br />
Misson Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
No domestic or business premises were flooded. Only extensive areas of arable farm land.<br />
• Dredging the River Idle would<br />
increase the rivers flow and lessen<br />
any future flooding problems.<br />
Yes, frequently with the<br />
<strong>Drainage</strong> Board,<br />
Environment Agency,<br />
Notts <strong>County</strong> <strong>Council</strong> and<br />
Severn Trent.<br />
Misterton Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Summer floods caused serious problems for many residents, however flooding by water and raw sewage is a regular occurrence.<br />
Sewage flooding is a problem in<br />
several parts of Misterton.<br />
Access through the village is not<br />
available on the main road and<br />
diversions have to be set in place<br />
“Top class service” by<br />
<strong>Nottinghamshire</strong> <strong>County</strong><br />
<strong>Council</strong> Bolham Lane<br />
Highways Depot.<br />
Newstead Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Existing drains on Station Ave,<br />
Newstead Village not cleared on a<br />
regular basis.<br />
• Adequate maintenance of drains.<br />
26
<strong>Flooding</strong>: <strong>Drainage</strong> & <strong>Watercourses</strong><br />
Cleaning of culverts<br />
North Muskham Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Unaffected by the 2007 summer floods. The River Trent, whilst very high did not cause any flooding beyond its initial flood plain.<br />
• Regular cleansing of Highways<br />
drainage systems.<br />
• NCC Highways Dept make a robust<br />
assessment of the impact of all new<br />
development on existing drainage<br />
capacity and the risk of surface<br />
water flooding risk.<br />
• Surface water flooding risks are<br />
included in any assessment for new<br />
Housing/ Development land<br />
assessment.<br />
Keen to work with<br />
Community Resilience<br />
programmes and Newark<br />
and Sherwood DC<br />
North and South Wheatley Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
The village beck lies in a valley, after any heavy rainfall the village is frequently flooded. Village school flooded four times, still awaiting<br />
refurbishment.<br />
No-one will take responsibility for the<br />
maintenance of the beck.<br />
Road drains in need of a deep clean.<br />
Better drainage of road surfaces.<br />
Antiquated drainage systems.<br />
Provision of sandbags was poor.<br />
Written an emergency plan and “help<br />
aged and infirm”<br />
Bassetlaw District <strong>Council</strong><br />
Contacted Severn Trent to<br />
improve drainage systems,<br />
but had no reply.<br />
27
<strong>Flooding</strong>: <strong>Drainage</strong> & <strong>Watercourses</strong><br />
Norwell Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Dykes, ditches and land drains have<br />
been poorly maintained.<br />
Gully cleaning reduced from 4 times<br />
a year to once.<br />
Increased number of properties in<br />
Norwell however outflow capacity<br />
remains the same.<br />
Rampton Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
A number of properties were flooded.<br />
Untreated sewage flowing back up<br />
pipes and into homes.<br />
Raw sewage seen in dyke.<br />
• A more powerful pump for the<br />
sewage system.<br />
Severn Trent<br />
28
<strong>Flooding</strong>: <strong>Drainage</strong> & <strong>Watercourses</strong><br />
Rolleston Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Fortunately neither the River Trent nor Greet burst their banks. One property flooded, six gardens, electrical failure including the pumping<br />
station, several roads were flooded.<br />
Blocked ditches and dykes.<br />
Failure of pumping station.<br />
• Have been working with agencies<br />
listed opposite to ensure a more<br />
co-ordinated approach in the<br />
future.<br />
Do not consider effective<br />
partnership working took<br />
place and several<br />
parishioners felt isolated<br />
and neglected.<br />
Newark and Sherwood DC<br />
Environment Agency<br />
Severn Trent<br />
Newark Area Internal<br />
<strong>Drainage</strong> Board.<br />
Shireoaks Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Some houses<br />
Lack of drain cleaning in the area.<br />
Lack of maintenance of drainage<br />
ditches.<br />
• Road not closed soon enough.<br />
• Lack of communication between<br />
emergency services, the District<br />
and <strong>County</strong> <strong>Council</strong>s.<br />
• Access to sandbags was<br />
“patchy”, and residents taking<br />
them to unaffected areas.<br />
29
<strong>Flooding</strong>: <strong>Drainage</strong> & <strong>Watercourses</strong><br />
Thurgarton Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
19 properties and the church were flooded in June and July 2007.<br />
Failing field drains and neglected<br />
ditches.<br />
Blocked highways drains.<br />
Raw sewage in homes causing<br />
illness.<br />
Rainfall exceeded capacity of the Beck<br />
Thorsby Estates<br />
Newark and Sherwood DC<br />
NCC Highways Dept<br />
Severn Trent<br />
Environment Agency<br />
Only NSDC and NCC<br />
Highways have responded.<br />
.<br />
Weston Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
<strong>Flooding</strong> not widespread, though several properties were affected.<br />
Blocked ditches, dykes and drains Partnership working.<br />
aggravated the problem as surface<br />
water was unable to escape.<br />
Pipes were too small in diameter for the<br />
flow of water.<br />
Post flood response was<br />
very good.<br />
Sandbags and a skip were<br />
provided.<br />
Internal drainage board<br />
addressed problems with<br />
ditches and dykes ensuring<br />
they were clear and free<br />
flowing.<br />
30
<strong>Flooding</strong>: <strong>Drainage</strong> & <strong>Watercourses</strong><br />
Nottingham and <strong>Nottinghamshire</strong> LRF<br />
Pitt Review - Recommendations and<br />
progress - Appendix B<br />
RECOMMENDATION RESPONSIBILITY PROGRESS COMPLETION DATE COMMENTS<br />
Recommendation 1:<br />
Given the predicted increase in the range of future extremes of<br />
weather, the Government should give priority to both adaptation and<br />
mitigation in its programmes to help society cope with climate<br />
change.<br />
Recommendation 2:<br />
The Environment Agency should progressively take on a national<br />
overview of all flood risk, including surface water and groundwater<br />
flood risk, with immediate effect.<br />
Recommendation 3:<br />
The Met Office should continue to improve its forecasting and<br />
predicting methods to a level which meets the needs of emergency<br />
responders.<br />
Recommendation 4:<br />
The Environment Agency should further develop its tools and<br />
techniques for predicting and modelling river flooding, taking account<br />
of extreme and multiple events and depths and velocities of water.<br />
Recommendation 5:<br />
The Environment Agency should work with partners to urgently take<br />
forward work to develop tools and techniques to model surface water<br />
flooding.<br />
Recommendation 6:<br />
31
<strong>Flooding</strong>: <strong>Drainage</strong> & <strong>Watercourses</strong><br />
The Environment Agency and the Met Office should work together,<br />
through a joint centre, to improve their technical capability to forecast,<br />
model and warn against all sources of flooding.<br />
Recommendation 7:<br />
There should be a presumption against building in high flood risk<br />
areas, in accordance with PPS25, including giving consideration to all<br />
sources of flood risk, and ensuring that developers make a full<br />
contribution to the costs both of building and maintaining any<br />
necessary defences.<br />
Recommendation 8:<br />
The operation and effectiveness of PPS25 and the Environment<br />
Agency’s powers to challenge development should be kept under<br />
review and strengthened if and when necessary.<br />
Recommendation 9:<br />
Householders should no longer be able to lay impermeable surfaces<br />
as of right on front gardens and the Government should consult on<br />
extending this to back gardens and business premises.<br />
Recommendation 10:<br />
The automatic right to connect surface water drainage of new<br />
developments to the sewerage system should be removed.<br />
Recommendation 11:<br />
Building Regulations should be revised to ensure that all new or<br />
refurbished buildings in high flood-risk areas are flood-resistant or<br />
resilient.<br />
Recommendation 12:<br />
All local authorities should extend eligibility for home improvement<br />
grants and loans to include flood resistance and resilience products<br />
for properties in high flood-risk areas.<br />
32
<strong>Flooding</strong>: <strong>Drainage</strong> & <strong>Watercourses</strong><br />
Recommendation 13:<br />
Local authorities, in discharging their responsibilities under the Civil<br />
Contingencies Act 2004 to promote business continuity, should<br />
encourage the take-up of property flood resistance and resilience by<br />
businesses.<br />
Recommendation 14:<br />
Local authorities should lead on the management of local flood risk,<br />
with the support of the relevant organisations.<br />
Recommendation 15:<br />
Local authorities should positively tackle local problems of flooding by<br />
working with all relevant parties, establishing ownership and legal<br />
responsibility.<br />
Recommendation 16:<br />
Local authorities should collate and map the main flood risk<br />
management and drainage assets (over and underground), including<br />
a record of their ownership and condition.<br />
Recommendation 17:<br />
All relevant organisations should have a duty to share information<br />
and cooperate with local authorities and the Environment Agency to<br />
facilitate the management of flood risk.<br />
Recommendation 18:<br />
Local Surface Water Management Plans, as set out under PPS25<br />
and coordinated by local authorities, should provide the basis for<br />
managing all local flood risk.<br />
Recommendation 19:<br />
Local authorities should assess and, if appropriate, enhance their<br />
technical capabilities to deliver a wide range of responsibilities in<br />
relation to local flood risk management.<br />
33
<strong>Flooding</strong>: <strong>Drainage</strong> & <strong>Watercourses</strong><br />
Recommendation 20:<br />
The Government should resolve the issue of which organisations<br />
should be responsible for the ownership and maintenance of<br />
sustainable drainage systems.<br />
Recommendation 21:<br />
Defra should work with Ofwat and the water industry to explore how<br />
appropriate risk-based standards for public sewerage systems can be<br />
achieved.<br />
Recommendation 22:<br />
As part of the forthcoming and subsequent water industry pricing<br />
reviews, Ofwat should give appropriate priority to proposals for<br />
investment in the existing sewerage network to deal with increasing<br />
flood risk.<br />
Recommendation 23:<br />
The Government should commit to a strategic long-term approach to<br />
its investment in flood risk management, planning up to 25 years<br />
ahead.<br />
Recommendation 24:<br />
The Government should develop a scheme which allows and<br />
encourages local communities to invest in flood risk management<br />
measures.<br />
Recommendation 25:<br />
The Environment Agency should maintain its existing risk-based<br />
approach to levels of maintenance and this should be supported by<br />
published schedules of works for each local authority area.<br />
Recommendation 26:<br />
The Government should develop a single set of guidance for local<br />
authorities and the public on the use and usefulness of sandbags and<br />
other alternatives, rather than leaving the matter wholly to local<br />
discretion.<br />
34
<strong>Flooding</strong>: <strong>Drainage</strong> & <strong>Watercourses</strong><br />
Recommendation 27:<br />
Defra, the Environment Agency and Natural England should work<br />
with partners to establish a programme through Catchment Flood<br />
Management Plans and Shoreline Management Plans to achieve<br />
greater working with natural processes.<br />
Recommendation 28:<br />
The forthcoming flooding legislation should be a single unifying Act<br />
that addresses all sources of flooding, clarifies responsibilities and<br />
facilitates flood risk management.<br />
Recommendation 29:<br />
The Government and the insurance industry should work together to<br />
deliver a public education programme setting out the benefits of<br />
insurance in the context of flooding.<br />
Recommendation 30:<br />
The Government should review and update the guidance Insurance<br />
for all: A good practice guide for providers of social housing and<br />
disseminate it effectively to support the creation of insurance with rent<br />
schemes for low income households.<br />
Recommendation 31:<br />
In flood risk areas, insurance notices should include information on<br />
flood risk and the simple steps that can be taken to mitigate the<br />
effects.<br />
Recommendation 32:<br />
The insurance industry should develop and implement industry<br />
guidance for flooding events, covering reasonable expectations of the<br />
performance of insurers and reasonable actions by customers.<br />
Recommendation 33:<br />
The Environment Agency should provide a specialised site-specific<br />
flood warning service for infrastructure operators, offering longer lead<br />
times and greater levels of detail about the velocity and depth of<br />
flooding.<br />
35
<strong>Flooding</strong>: <strong>Drainage</strong> & <strong>Watercourses</strong><br />
Recommendation 34:<br />
The Met Office and the Environment Agency should issue warnings<br />
against a lower threshold of probability to increase preparation lead<br />
times for emergency responders.<br />
Recommendation 35:<br />
The Met Office and the Environment Agency should issue joint<br />
warnings and impact information on severe weather and flooding<br />
emergencies to responder organisations and the public.<br />
Recommendation 36:<br />
The Environment Agency should make relevant flood visualisation<br />
data, held in electronic map format, available online to Gold and<br />
Silver Commands.<br />
Recommendation 37:<br />
The Environment Agency should work with its partners to<br />
progressively develop and bring into use flood visualisation tools that<br />
are designed to meet the needs of flood-risk managers, emergency<br />
planners and responders.<br />
Recommendation 38:<br />
Local authorities should establish mutual aid agreements in<br />
accordance with the guidance currently being prepared by the Local<br />
Government Association and the Cabinet Office.<br />
Recommendation 39:<br />
The Government should urgently put in place a fully funded national<br />
capability for flood rescue, with Fire and Rescue Authorities playing a<br />
leading role, underpinned as necessary by a statutory duty.<br />
Recommendation 40:<br />
36
<strong>Flooding</strong>: <strong>Drainage</strong> & <strong>Watercourses</strong><br />
Defra should amend emergency regulations to increase the minimum<br />
amount of water to be provided in an emergency, in order to reflect<br />
reasonable needs during a longer-term loss of mains supply.<br />
Recommendation 41:<br />
Upper tier local authorities should be the lead responders in relation<br />
to multi-agency planning for severe weather emergencies at the local<br />
level and for triggering multi-agency arrangements in response to<br />
severe weather warnings and local impact assessments.<br />
Recommendation 42:<br />
Where a Gold Command is established for severe weather events,<br />
the police, unless agreed otherwise locally, should convene and lead<br />
the multi-agency response.<br />
Recommendation 43:<br />
Gold Commands should be established at an early stage on a<br />
precautionary basis where there is a risk of serious flooding.<br />
Recommendation 44:<br />
Category 1 and 2 responders should assess the effectiveness of their<br />
emergency response facilities, including flexible accommodation, IT<br />
and communications systems, and undertake any necessary<br />
improvement works.<br />
Recommendation 45:<br />
The Highways Agency, working through Local Resilience Forums,<br />
should further consider the vulnerability of motorways and trunk roads<br />
to flooding, the potential for better warnings, strategic road clearance<br />
to avoid people becoming stranded and plans to support people who<br />
become stranded.<br />
Recommendation 46:<br />
37
<strong>Flooding</strong>: <strong>Drainage</strong> & <strong>Watercourses</strong><br />
The rail industry, working through Local Resilience Forums, should<br />
develop plans to provide emergency welfare support to passengers<br />
stranded on the rail network.<br />
Recommendation 47:<br />
The Ministry of Defence should identify a small number of trained<br />
Armed Forces personnel who can be deployed to advise Gold<br />
Commands on logistics during wide-area civil emergencies and,<br />
working with Cabinet Office, identify a suitable mechanism for<br />
deployment.<br />
Recommendation 48:<br />
Central government crisis machinery should always be activated if<br />
significant wide-area and high-impact flooding is expected or occurs.<br />
Recommendation 49:<br />
A national flooding exercise should take place at the earliest<br />
opportunity in order to test the new arrangements which central<br />
government departments are putting into place to deal with flooding<br />
and infrastructure emergencies.<br />
Recommendation 50:<br />
The Government should urgently begin its systematic programme to<br />
reduce the disruption of essential services resulting from natural<br />
hazards by publishing a national framework and policy statement<br />
setting out the process, timescales and expectations.<br />
Recommendation 51:<br />
Relevant government departments and the Environment Agency<br />
should work with infrastructure operators to identify the vulnerability<br />
and risk of assets to flooding and a summary of the analysis should<br />
be published in Sector Resilience Plans.<br />
Recommendation 52:<br />
38
<strong>Flooding</strong>: <strong>Drainage</strong> & <strong>Watercourses</strong><br />
In the short-term, the Government and infrastructure operators should<br />
work together to build a level resilience into critical infrastructure<br />
assets that ensures continuity during a worst-case flood event.<br />
Recommendation 53:<br />
A specific duty should be placed on economic regulators to build<br />
resilience in the critical Infrastructure.<br />
Recommendation 54:<br />
The Government should extend the duty to undertake business<br />
continuity planning to infrastructure operating Category 2 responders<br />
to a standard equivalent to BS 25999, and that accountability is<br />
ensured through an annual benchmarking exercise within each<br />
sector.<br />
Recommendation 55:<br />
The Government should strengthen and enforce the duty on Category<br />
2 responders to share information on the risks to their infrastructure<br />
assets, enabling more effective emergency planning within Local<br />
Resilience Forums.<br />
Recommendation 56:<br />
The Government should issue clear guidance on expected levels of<br />
Category 2 responders’ engagement in planning, exercising and<br />
response and consider the case for strengthening enforcement<br />
arrangements.<br />
Recommendation 57:<br />
39
<strong>Flooding</strong>: <strong>Drainage</strong> & <strong>Watercourses</strong><br />
The Government should provide Local Resilience Forums with the<br />
inundation maps for both large and small reservoirs to enable them to<br />
assess risks and plan for contingency, warning and evacuation and<br />
the outline maps be made available to the public online as part of<br />
wider flood risk information.<br />
Recommendation 58:<br />
The Government should implement the legislative changes proposed<br />
in the Environment Agency biennial report on dam and reservoir<br />
safety through the forthcoming flooding legislation.<br />
Recommendation 59:<br />
The Risk and Regulation Advisory <strong>Council</strong> should explore how the<br />
public can improve their understanding of community risks, including<br />
those associated with flooding, and that the Government should then<br />
implement the findings as appropriate.<br />
Recommendation 60:<br />
The Government should implement a public information campaign<br />
which draws on a single definitive set of flood prevention and<br />
mitigation advice for householders and businesses, and which can be<br />
used by media and the authorities locally and nationally.<br />
Recommendation 61:<br />
The Environment Agency should work with local responders to raise<br />
awareness in flood risk areas and identify a range of mechanisms to<br />
warn the public, particularly the vulnerable, in response to flooding.<br />
Recommendation 62:<br />
The Environment Agency should work urgently with<br />
telecommunications companies to facilitate the roll-out of opt-out<br />
telephone flood warning schemes to all homes and businesses liable<br />
to flooding, including those with ex-directory numbers.<br />
Recommendation 63:<br />
40
<strong>Flooding</strong>: <strong>Drainage</strong> & <strong>Watercourses</strong><br />
Flood risk should be made part of the mandatory search<br />
requirements when people buy property, and should form part of<br />
Home Information Packs.<br />
Recommendation 64:<br />
Local Resilience Forums should continue to develop plans for doorknocking,<br />
coordinated by local authorities, to enhance flood warnings<br />
before flooding and to provide information and assess welfare needs<br />
once flooding has receded.<br />
Recommendation 65:<br />
The Met Office and the Environment Agency should urgently<br />
complete the production of a sliding scale of options for greater<br />
personalisation of public warning information, including costs,<br />
benefits and feasibility.<br />
Recommendation 66:<br />
Local authority contact centres should take the lead in dealing with<br />
general enquiries from the public during and after major flooding,<br />
redirecting calls to other organisations when appropriate.<br />
Recommendation 67:<br />
The Cabinet Office should provide advice to ensure that all Local<br />
Resilience Forums have effective and linked websites providing<br />
public information before, during and after an emergency.<br />
Recommendation 68:<br />
<strong>Council</strong> leaders and chief executives should play a prominent role in<br />
public reassurance and advice through the local media during a<br />
flooding emergency, as part of a coordinated effort overseen by Gold<br />
Commanders.<br />
41
<strong>Flooding</strong>: <strong>Drainage</strong> & <strong>Watercourses</strong><br />
Recommendation 69:<br />
The public should make up a flood kit – including personal<br />
documents, insurance policy, emergency contact numbers (including<br />
local council, emergency services and Floodline), torch, battery or<br />
wind-up radio, mobile phone, rubber gloves, wet wipes or<br />
antibacterial hand gel, first aid kit and blankets.<br />
Recommendation 70:<br />
The Government should establish a programme to support and<br />
encourage individuals and communities to be better prepared and<br />
more self-reliant during emergencies, allowing the authorities to focus<br />
on those areas and people in greatest need.<br />
Recommendation 71:<br />
The Department of Health and relevant bodies should develop a<br />
single set of flood-related health advice for householders and<br />
businesses which should be used by all organisations nationally and<br />
locally and made available through a wide range of sources.<br />
Recommendation 72:<br />
Local response and recovery coordinating groups should ensure that<br />
health and wellbeing support is readily available to those affected by<br />
flooding based on the advice developed by the Department of Health.<br />
Recommendation 73:<br />
The Government, the Association of British Insurers and other<br />
relevant organisations should work together to explore any<br />
technological or process improvements that can be made to speed up<br />
the drying out and stabilising process of building recovery after a<br />
flood.<br />
42
<strong>Flooding</strong>: <strong>Drainage</strong> & <strong>Watercourses</strong><br />
Recommendation 74:<br />
The monitoring of the impact of flooding on the health and wellbeing<br />
of people, and actions to mitigate and manage the effects, should<br />
form a systematic part of the work of Recovery Coordinating Groups.<br />
Recommendation 75:<br />
For emergencies spanning more than a single local authority area,<br />
Government Offices should ensure coherence and coordination, if<br />
necessary, between recovery operations.<br />
Recommendation 76:<br />
Local authorities should coordinate a systematic programme of<br />
community engagement in their area during the recovery phase.<br />
Recommendation 77:<br />
National and local Recovery Coordinating Groups should be<br />
established from the outset of major emergencies and in due course<br />
there should be formal handover from the crisis machinery.<br />
Recommendation 78:<br />
Aims and objectives for the recovery phase should be agreed at the<br />
outset by Recovery Coordinating Groups to provide focus and enable<br />
orderly transition into mainstream programmes when multi-agency<br />
coordination of recovery is no longer required.<br />
Recommendation 79:<br />
Government Offices, in conjunction with the Local Government<br />
Association, should develop arrangements to provide advice and<br />
support from experienced organisations to areas dealing with<br />
recovery from severe flooding emergencies.<br />
Recommendation 80:<br />
All central government guidance should be updated to reflect the new<br />
arrangements for recovery and Local Resilience Forums should plan,<br />
train and exercise on this basis.<br />
43
<strong>Flooding</strong>: <strong>Drainage</strong> & <strong>Watercourses</strong><br />
Recommendation 81:<br />
There should be an agreed framework, including definitions and<br />
timescales, for local-central recovery reporting.<br />
Recommendation 82:<br />
Following major flooding events, the Government should publish<br />
monthly summaries of the progress of the recovery phase, including<br />
the numbers of households still displaced from all or part of their<br />
homes.<br />
Recommendation 83:<br />
Local authorities should continue to make arrangements to bear the<br />
cost of recovery for all but the most exceptional emergencies, and<br />
should revisit their reserves and insurance arrangements in light of<br />
last summer’s floods.<br />
Recommendation 84:<br />
Central government should have pre-planned rather than ad-hoc<br />
arrangements to contribute towards the financial burden of recovery<br />
from the most exceptional emergencies, on a formula basis.<br />
Recommendation 85:<br />
Local Recovery Coordination Groups should make early<br />
recommendations to elected local authority members about longerterm<br />
regeneration and economic development opportunities.<br />
Recommendation 86:<br />
The Government should publish an action plan to implement the<br />
recommendations of this Review, with a Director in Defra overseeing<br />
the programme of delivery and issuing regular progress updates.<br />
Recommendation 87:<br />
44
<strong>Flooding</strong>: <strong>Drainage</strong> & <strong>Watercourses</strong><br />
The Government should establish a Cabinet Committee with a remit<br />
to improve the country’s ability to deal with flooding and implement<br />
the recommendations of this Review.<br />
Recommendation 88:<br />
The Government should establish a National Resilience Forum to<br />
facilitate national level multi-agency planning for flooding and other<br />
emergencies.<br />
Recommendation 89:<br />
The EFRA Select Committee should review the country’s readiness<br />
for dealing with flooding emergencies and produce an assessment of<br />
progress in implementation of the Review’s recommendations after<br />
12 months.<br />
Recommendation 90:<br />
All upper tier local authorities should establish Oversight and Scrutiny<br />
Committees to review work by public sector bodies and essential<br />
service providers in order to manage flood risk, underpinned by a<br />
legal requirement to cooperate and share information.<br />
Recommendation 91:<br />
Each Oversight and Scrutiny Committee should prepare an annual<br />
summary of actions taken locally to manage flood risk and implement<br />
this Review, and these reports should be public and reviewed by<br />
Government Offices and the Environment Agency.<br />
Recommendation 92:<br />
Local Resilience Forums should evaluate and share lessons from<br />
both the response and recovery phases to inform their planning for<br />
future emergencies.<br />
45
<strong>Flooding</strong>: <strong>Drainage</strong> & <strong>Watercourses</strong><br />
The Select Committee received evidence from the following individuals and<br />
organisations:<br />
Ian Harrison, Resilience Manager, Newark and Sherwood District <strong>Council</strong><br />
Paul Lockhart, Area Flood Risk Manager, Environment Agency<br />
Morgan Wray, Asset Systems Management Team Leader, Environment Agency<br />
Margaret Burrup, Sewer <strong>Flooding</strong> Manager, Severn Trent<br />
Martin Shaw, Lowdham Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
<strong>Council</strong>lor David Harper, Lowdham Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Julie O’Neill, Burton Joyce Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
<strong>Council</strong>lor Margaret Briggs, Woodborough Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Peter Roberts, Walkeringham Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Colin Walker, North Leverton with Habblesthorpe Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
<strong>Council</strong>lor Angela Jarvis, Balderton Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
Bernard Gascoine, Balderton Parish <strong>Council</strong><br />
<strong>Council</strong>lor Beryl Prentice, Southwell Town <strong>Council</strong><br />
Steve Broadhead, Chief Engineer, Newark Area Internal <strong>Drainage</strong> Board<br />
The Select Committee thanks all of the above for their contributions and also<br />
thanks Andy Wallace, <strong>Drainage</strong> Manager, Rob Fisher, Head of Service for<br />
Emergency Management and Registration, John McGuigan, Emergency Planning<br />
Manager and the Emergency Planning Team.<br />
The Select Committee took evidence on:<br />
• 28 January 2008<br />
• 25 February 2008<br />
• 31 March 2008<br />
• 28 April 2008<br />
• 30 June 2008<br />
46
Contacting us<br />
Email martin.gately@nottscc.gov.uk<br />
Phone 0115 977 2826<br />
Fax 0115 977 3030<br />
Post Scrutiny Team, Chief Executive’s Department,<br />
<strong>County</strong> Hall, West Bridgford, Nottingham, NG2 7QP<br />
Internet www.nottinghamshire.gov.uk<br />
Published July 2008