FLOODING BILL ADVISORY GROUP
Minutes of the meeting held on 27 November 2007
Malmaison Hotel, Edinburgh
Present: Bob Irvine (Scottish Government) Water, Air, Soils and Flooding Division - Chair
Scottish Government - Flooding Policy Team: Gordon Petrie, Stan Irvine, Debi Garft, Frances Conlan, David Seaman, Dr Andrew Black.
Nick Evans (Planning Directorate), Lindsay Henderson (Solicitors Food and Environment Division), Colin Morrison (Geographic Information Service)
Michael Cranston (SEPA), Dr Roy Richardson (SEPA), Stuart Greig (SEPA), Prof. Charles Ainger (MWH), Arthur Philip (Association of British Insurers), Paul Hendy (National Flood Forum), Jim Conlin (Scottish Water) Mike Donaghy (WWF/Environment Link), Andrea Johnstonova (RSPB/Environment Link) Sarah Hutcheon (Scottish Natural Heritage), Catherine MacCulloch (Forrestry Commission Scotland), David Little (Homes for Scotland), Prof. Alan Werritty (University of Dundee), Dr John Riddell (Independent Consultant), Ronnie Falconer (Jacobs), David Bassett, (JBA Consulting), Pat Boyle (The Met Office), Dave Gowans (Moray Council), Stephen Tingle (Renfrewshire Council)
Apologies: Judith Tracey (SG Flooding Policy Team), Jean Erbacher (Water Framework Directive), Joyce Carr (Water Framework Directive), David Faichney (SEPA), Kathy Cameron (COSLA), Ian Hope (Environment Agency), Martin Johnston (SG Agricultural Services) and Jonathan Hall (National Farmers Union Scotland) Alan Corbett ( SG Geographic Information Service)
1. Introduction and purpose of the Bill
Bob Irvine welcomed everyone to the First Flooding Bill Advisory Group Meeting.
The Purpose of the meeting was to assist with the introduction of the Flooding Bill by June 2008. The Bill will modernise the existing legislation and transpose the EC Floods Directive. The Directive requires action to be taken in the following main areas;
A) Production of preliminary flood risk assessments
B) Production of flood hazard and flood risk maps
C) Production of flood risk management plans for areas at significant risk of flooding
The Government was also likely to look for advice on the implementation of the Flooding Bill following its passage through Parliament.
The timetable for the Bill is very tight. The Rural Affairs and Environment Committee Inquiry, which will run concurrently with the Bill consultation, is due to report in March 2008 and may raise issues not already covered in the Bill. This is bound to be a challenge to the timetable.
The purpose of the Bill is to look at the statutory process of the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961 with a view to reform and modernise the Act. There will be no practical restraints put on local authorities to take forward any future catchment management schemes and carry out small scale flood alleviation measures without the full statutory process, where local agreement has been obtained.
The Group was also invited to note that the Spending Review announced on 14 November saw changes made to funding support for Local Authorities. The Scottish Government are in discussion with CoSLA regarding distribution issues.
The Government proposed that it would be helpful to divide the Group and the areas on which the Government would find input and advise in four sub-groups covering the following areas;
1. Catchment Management Planning
2. Flood Risk assessment and Mapping
3. Review of the statutory process
4. Reservoir Safety
The sub-group numbers will be kept small and the work required will be intensive over the next six months. The groups will meet on 4/6 weekly basis. The structure of the groups during this period may change and the work of the group may extend beyond 2008. The government will take steps to convene the Groups at the appropriate time.
2. EC Directive on the Assessment and Management of flood risk
Against that background the Group discussed the broad content proposed for the Bill. A paper was circulated which summarised the Government's current thinking.
The requirement of the Directive is to appoint a competent authority responsible for the application of the principles of the Directive in each river basin district. It was noted that the Government's intention was to nominate SEPA. Some members considered that the reasons stated for this required to be set out more clearly. Much of the discussion focussed on how the competent authority and other bodies interacted. The example of the Water Framework Directive should be kept in mind for this - the EU Floods Directive was based on the structure of that Directive.
If SEPA was named as the competent authority then local authorities, Scottish Water, among others, would be designated as 'Responsible Authorities'. The roles and responsibilities was an area of discussion.
Members were also concerned about the implications of the Government's decision on funding. A number of members considered that there was a case for a national authority with a national strategic plan to guide resource allocation. This would be based on risk exposure. This was not Ministers' preference although the distribution of funding allocated to authorities would take account of risk exposure. Ministers were strongly of the view of the importance of local authorities and interests in flood protection. Standards and guidance could be provided through directions and regulations and the Government would have a continuing role and would work with SEPA as the competent authority to promote an appropriately national approach. However a main object of the Bill would be to seek to remove constraints from local authorities' ability to carry out their existing functions either in terms of process or in terms of definition. Both these were necessary to realise the objectives of the existing duty to promote sustainable flood management.
Members noted that there were a large number of other interests beyond local authorities. The government expected that the Bill would provide that authorities had to involve those interests in the planning process.
A number of members raised issues about funding. It was noted that the Parliamentary Committee was gathering evidence and that its remit included issues relating to funding.
Members noted that consideration required to be given to expert resources at local level - these were scarce.
Following that wide range discussion, Stuart Grieg of SEPA reported on a brief preliminary analysis of current capabilities to meet the requirements of the EU Flood Directive
SEPA's Project aims were to:-
- Examine data requirements of EU Floods Directive
- Review datasets currently available in Scotland and
- Identify gaps and recommendations
The Directive requires action by member states in three main areas; preliminary flood risk assessment; Flood hazard/risk mapping and (Catchment) Flood risk management planning. High quality national data is required to increase public awareness and develop sustainable policies and strategies.
The key findings of the presentation suggested that Preliminary Flood Risk Assessments are broadly supportable using available data/methods. Initial analysis is that both the mandatory and optional requirement of Flood Hazard and Risk Maps can be met.
4. Next Steps
- Comments on the Flooding Bill proposals produce by Judith Tracey, and the workplan and terms of reference are asked to be submitted by Friday 7 December to Frances Conlan
- Notes of interest to form the following sub - groups are required;
1. Catchment Management Planning
2. Flood Risk assessment and Mapping
3. Review of the statutory process
4. Reservoir Safety
- The next meeting of the main Flooding Bill Advisory Group is scheduled for the new year. Members will be advised about the date in due course.
Bob thanked everyone for their time and contribution.