FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENT AND MAPPING SUB GROUP
Minutes of the meeting held May 14 2008
1-D44/45, Victoria Quay, Edinburgh
Present:
- David Seaman - Chair (Scottish Government)
- Stuart Greig (Scottish Government)
- Jean Tsang - Minutes (Scottish Government)
- Kirsty Irving (SNIFFER)
- Pascal Lardet (Halcrow)
- Dr Andrew Black (Dundee University)
- Dr Alistair Cargill (SEPA)
- Dr John Riddell (Independent consultant)
- Ronnie Falconer (Jacobs)
- Alistair Mckenzie (Scottish Water)
- Arthur Philp (Association of British Insurers)
- Susan Veitch (Perth and Kinross Council)
Apologies:
- Alan Corbett (Scottish Government)
- Lindsey Henderson (Scottish Government)
- Matthew Lynch (Scottish Government)
- David Faichney (SEPA)
- David Little (Homes for Scotland)
- Bob Stewart (Moray Council)
- Alistair Dyer (Scottish Water)
- David Bassett (JBA Consulting)
1. Welcome and Apologies
1.1 DS welcomed the group and apologised on their being no presentation as agreed last meeting. He emphasised that this meeting needed to take forward partnership working, facilitating this and laying the foundations through case studies and scoping work for the competent and responsible authorities to have an exemplar of the assessments and maps necessary to take forward the Bill.
1.2 There were a few apologies from members. AC was in attendance subbing for DF, as was AM for AD.
2. Report from the FBAG meeting of 1 May 2008
2.1 DS reported FRAM took forward a report from the last meeting to the Flood Bill Advisory Group meeting on 1 May, where it was accepted. He also reminded the group that members of FBAG were not necessarily members of the sub group and that FBAG reflected on the work being done by FRAM. There will be an evaluation of existing sub groups and the Scottish Government would be seeking to create a group which would retain wider stakeholder input: The Stakeholder Group. It was also agreed at the last FBAG meeting that a third party research manager would act on behalf of the group to procure and manage research, probably SNIFFER.
3. Revision of FRAM membership
3.1 Experience and knowledge
3.1.1 DS proposed that competent and responsible authorities should form FRAM membership in the next stages as the Bill was developed. He said that the Scottish Government were conscious of the fact that the group will be commissioning work and therefore it would be inappropriate to have members who would be bidding for it. FBAG will consider this in more detail, but consultancy groups will not be left out of the process. SG added that FRAM would be able to invite additional groups to the meetings at any time and that there would be no restrictions on this.
3.1.2 RF expressed concern over this arrangement. He said that continuity in the membership is important and proposed that groups with conflicts of interest could become members, but leave meetings at certain points when issues, for example regarding bidding for work, came up. He provided an example from NERC Flood Risk from Extreme Events Steering Group where a member is asked to leave the meeting for the period that a bid (or any commercial matter) for which they might be perceived to have a link (however tenuous) is discussed. SG said that membership would be by invitation and that it would be looking to retain the core membership from FRAM at the moment. There would also be an additional group specifically for wider stakeholder issues. KI suggested an examination of the UKTAG membership model to consider this issue; SG replied that this had been considered and it was appreciated that the group would have to go through a transitional stage of membership. DS said there was a need to focus the group and a narrowing of membership to competent and responsible authorities so that when the time came for their knowledge to be drawn upon it could be done as efficiently as possible. AP added that from an insurance industry perspective there would be an interest in involvement. JR observed that the example of the SEPA Indicative Flood Maps project could be learnt from as there should have been wider input into them, not just from end users. AC replied that there was widespread consultation during its inception, but there was a limited amount of time for the project.
3.1.3 SG said the wider stakeholder group could be particularly useful at junctures where significant issues come up at other subgroup meetings in order to have additional input. He explained that FBAG would evolve into an implementation group and the other subgroups would be given other remits, as shown by the papers distributed to FRAM members ahead of this meeting. Decisions to be taken would have to be fielded both to FBAG and subgroups. DS suggested that SNIFFER should have an executive management board or steering group for this theme; KI replied that the FRAM group was seen to be the steering group.
3.1.4 AP commented that "high risk" with regards to flood risk has not been defined unlike in England and Wales, and this could affect the availability of insurance in Scotland.
3.1.5 SG talked through the various groups' structure as outlined in the papers distributed to members (see also diagram attached as Appendix A). FBAG would progressively move towards implementation function, while FRAM and FRMP would move towards responsible authorities. A stakeholder group is complementary to this structure as it would provide a sounding board for ideas. Important decisions would come through FBAG; coordinated research projects are still being considered.
3.1.6 There was further discussion regarding the proposed groups' structure. RF queried whether the stakeholder group could be as large as fifty people, while JR asked if FBAG would disappear after the Bill was drafted and replaced by another form of FIAC. SG replied that this was not the case and that FBAG will become an implementation group, while the stakeholder group will give general flooding advice as a group. The national advice group would be made up of stakeholders. DS explained that the Scottish Government are keen to facilitate decision making by end users and this suggested structure was intended to reflect that.
3.1.7 RF asked why the stakeholder group was limited to stakeholders. SG replied that the group would be stakeholder focused, but it would be able to include other groups. It would have a role directed more towards Bill implementation. SV was asked about stakeholder participation and whether the preparation and knowledge expected would be reasonable from a local authority's perspective.
3.1.8 AC observed that a lot of experience in flooding needed to be retained and the need for continuity within the group. He said SEPA may not be able to do all the work in-house as a competent authority and may need to work with responsible authorities, and asked about the setup of the structure with particular regards to this. SG said that the setup was still being considered and will be expanded upon as more issues are raised.
3.1.9 SG asked RF if he was content with the model proposed. RF said that he was unhappy with the limitation of roles of some groups and still could not agree with the membership proposal.
3.1.10 AP said that quality assurance on what was being developed was needed, as shown by the example of the National Flood Risk and Assessment (NAFRA) undertaken for England and Wales, where the level of detail required has not been developed; more input was needed. SG said the Bill encourages the collaborative process and that the model does take this into account. AC welcomed the model presented and compared it to the situation in Northern Ireland where there was only one responsible body, the Rivers Agency.
3.1.11 AP also commented that he was not sure if exclusion of membership to parties such as consultancy groups was a good thing as local authorities need technical knowledge; although these groups can be invited to meetings to address this need, the anticipating of this could cause problems and there are advantages to having this expertise already in place. RF reiterated his concerns with the proposed membership arrangements. PL and AM both recognised the need to balance expertise with conflicts of interest, PL suggesting that workshops could be used to share knowledge. RF suggested that ad hoc groups could be formed and disbanded as required.
3.2 Skills
3.2.1 DS spoke about the make up of FRAM membership, saying it was anticipated that 12-15 local authorities would join, along with Scottish Water and other responsible authorities. He asked SV as the only representative of SCOTS at the meeting whether this was viable. SV said that about 10 local authorities would probably join. SG added that enough representation from local authorities was important to represent and consider full range of interests and pointed out that the first draft of the Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment was due in 2010. JR commented that only about 10 or 12 out of the 32 local authorities have the in-house expertise in order to contribute to this group and that responsible authorities will have to be amalgamated. AC suggested drawing from WFD model.
3.2.2 RF asked about the maximum number of members in FRAM; SG replied there is no set number, but rather what competent and responsible authorities think is necessary. RF commented that the convening of ad hoc groups would be necessary if the numbers were closer to about 10 local authorities having FRAM membership. DS said that the Flooding Bill could pursue the usual guidance model where legislation is followed by prescriptive guidance only. JR commented there was not a good build up of flooding expertise within local authorities as a result of a lack of financial incentive for those who had acquired specialist knowledge to stay in these posts. RF felt that two thirds of the group should be comprised of end users and suggested a structure along the lines of 4 local authorities, 2 members from SEPA, 2 from Scottish Water and 4 unspecified. SG said there would be further discussions about group composition.
3.2.3 DS asked if everybody could submit suggestions within a week for a model to take forward remit of the Bill from the Flood Risk Assessment side. The remit of the group is in the 1 May paper from the FBAG meeting where it was approved.
3.2.4 AP asked about measuring impact, for example on the environment and housing. SG said this will be worked up through policy and that there will be opportunity to define this in more detail. The WFD model will be drawn upon.
4. Proposals to take forward FRAM - workplan
4.1 Agreements and memoranda
4.1.1 DS felt that this subject could not be discussed at the moment while there is no agreement on FRAM membership. RF said how remit is fulfilled had not been agreed upon yet and that the outline of this would need further work.
4.1.2 There was discussion about the idea of a rolling 6 month chairship within the group between SEPA and the local authorities. SG said this was important to change structure and focus. RF was concerned that the workplan could be too changeable with this in place. DS said that the remit in place would mean that this would not happen. AP queried if SEPA should be permanent chair as it is the competent and mapping authority; they already have to consult with stakeholders to ensure the mapping they do meets requirements. SG said that within the group SEPA would have to be more collaborative than with mapping.
4.1.3 There was further discussion regarding mapping of flood risk areas. AC said stakeholders should be involved with the mapping process, with SEPA taking on a coordinating role to pull together the local knowledge acquired. 2D mapping for urban areas may be required and the advancement of current models and techniques would mean that this could link in with the 1D mapping that has already been undertaken. JR said this proposed mapping process might mean there would be some "buck passing" between the two groups, particularly with technical and accuracy issues once the maps were produced; SG said this was why both parties should be working together from the start of the process. AC said mapping must be agreed to the Catchment Flood Management Plan Process so that it can be effective and that hopefully the situation outlined by JR will not occur as a result of this and quality assurance processes. There were also comments about possible litigation issues with ownership of the maps.
4.1.4 RF said regarding the 6 month chair proposal that the Chair will have to be strong to foster partnership. DS said the Scottish Government's role is to provide a legislative basis to facilitate this and this was precisely why it should not be Chair - the responsibility is on the local and competent authorities.
5. Paper on Significant Flood Risk (prepared by DEFRA)
5.1 SG presented a slideshow reviewing the UK position on Significant Flood Risk with thoughts from the Scottish perspective. This will be driven more by the government, but a group could have a role in this.
5.2 RF said that "readily available" needed to be more defined, an issue raised at the last WGF meeting. It was discussed by all that thresholds should be kept simple, but with scope for review and revision when needed. Piloting using GIS datasets could prove useful. Reference to the distributed papers prepared by the Environment Agency regarding Flood Mapping was made. SG indicated that he could start to develop ideas for these thresholds possibly before the group's next meeting. There was further discussion about the difficulty of defining thresholds.
5.3 AC said that significant natural flood risk will have to be examined as well as areas where manmade flood risk areas (e.g. dams) are as Significant Flood Risk could come from the failure of these structures. SG said that a map showing areas which were and were not at SFR could be risky and that degrees of SFR could be shown instead. AP said Average Annual Damages could be used to help define SFR as there is a correlation between this and economic impact.
5.4 DS asked how would risk be communicated to the public, and suggested that this discussion could be used to produce a technical paper at a later date. RF proposed that an ad hoc group could be set up to produce a paper on SFR. SG suggested this could be pursued at the end of the year. SV said a clear, simple definition of SFR was needed to communicate it to the public as well as SFR mapping being made available in the public domain. RF said a broad boundary of SFR was needed.
5.5 SG said dissemination of SFR could be difficult, especially with regards to the insurance industry. AP expressed concerned regarding industrial properties that cannot be satisfactorily protected from SFR would become uninsurable and asked if the Scottish Government would make any provision for this.
6. AOB
6.1 DS said the Bill will be introduced in September, and the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee will be publishing their report in the next week online. There will be particular interest of what the Committee's opinion on enforcement and implementation of the Bill will be.
6.2 The next FBAG meeting is due to take place in late July at the earliest.
6.3 Consultation on the Bill is now closed; there were no additional responses to what was announced at the FBAG meeting on 1 May. The report on this will be published soon.
6.4 Please follow link to view Appendix -
PROPOSED GROUP STRUCTURE FOR FLOODING BILL IMPLEMENTATION
Close 15:40
FRAM Secretariat
May 2008