Agenda Reports Pack (Public) 15/10/2012, 19.00 - Meetings ...

3.16. The Task Group did note that the Council has an obligation under the LocalDevelopment Framework to assess the impact of flooding risk. It was felt that anyapplication the Council felt merited additional scrutiny in terms of its impact onflooding risk should be passed onto Thames Water for their comments. In additionthe Task Group felt it would be highly beneficial if Thames Water conducted a reviewinto their role in the planning process. The Task Group heard that in many casesThames Water had not supported the Council when the planning department hadexpressed reservations in respect to what steps applicants had taken to address theproblems of surface water flooding. Thames Water instead focused on whether thesewer system had sufficient capacity for the proposed development. Unless there isa more joined up approach in respect to planning representations the Task Groupwere concerned that planning applications which did not to include appropriatesustainable drainage systems, and systems to reduce the amount of waterdischarged to the foul water drainage, would be permitted due to a lack ofrepresentations.Recommendation Fifteen: Planning Applications AssessmentsIt is recommended that the Council and Thames Water undertake a review into howthey share information on planning applications, how planning applications flood riskassessments are processed, prioritised for comment and referred. This shouldinclude agreeing the criteria for referral to Thames Water for consultation on specificapplications that warrant a surface water flooding perspective. Additionally both theCouncil and Thames Water, if making representations, should take into account theinterlinking nature of their respective flooding roles and make any representationsthey see fit in this light.ENGAGEMENT: LOCAL RESIDENTSOverview3.17. A study by Norwich Union of 1,500 UK residentsliving in areas hit by the summer 2007 floodsrevealed that people had done little or nothing toreduce the risk of future damage. Some 83% ofpeople living in Gloucester, Tewkesbury, Hull,Sheffield and Rotherham took the view that therewas nothing they could do to protect their homesfrom flooding, and 95%, at the time of the survey,had not taken any measures to protect theirproperties from flooding. Some 46% of peoplesurveyed said that they had chosen not to makeany changes to their property because they“wanted their home put back exactly as it wasbefore”. 46% said that they did not think it was theirresponsibility to make changes and that thisresponsibility lay with their local council or with the Government. These findings areespecially alarming as the survey was undertaken in severely flood-hit areas not longafter the event. Additionally the Pitt Review found evidence which showed that publicawareness diminishes greatly following a year or so without any flooding –highlighting how difficult it is to get people to change their behaviour.- 30 -Page 189