On 6 December 2016 the Executive considered a report of the Strategic Director Regeneration (Executive Document “AP” attached) which asked Members to adopt the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (LFRMS).  As Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA), the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council is required under Section 9 of the Flood and Water Management Act (FWMA) 2010, to develop, maintain, apply and monitor a strategy for local flood risk management – a “Local Flood Risk Management Strategy” (LFRMS).  The strategy must detail the risk management authorities and the functions that they can exercise within the Bradford Lead Local Flood Authority area, assess local flood risk, the objectives for managing that risk and measures proposed to implement those objectives.

The FWMA requires the LFRMS to demonstrate how it contributes to the achievement of wider environmental objectives.  To fulfil our legislative requirements a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the LFRMS was commissioned. The Draft SEA states that there are no negative environmental effects identified from the LFMS objectives and that many of the proposed LFRMS objectives have the potential for both direct and indirect environmental benefits.

The LFRMS (attached as Appendix 1) is an all-encompassing or umbrella document for the implementation of the FWMA, which sets out how the LLFA intend to fulfil the requirements of the FWMA and who (within the council) will be responsible for the different areas. It will therefore act as a tool to deliver the benefits of well managed and hence reduced flood risk to people, properties and the wider environment of Bradford District.

Executive resolved –

That the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (LFRMS) be adopted, and that delegated authority be given to the Strategic Director for Regeneration to amend the LFRMS as a result of the consultation on the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), and following consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, Planning and Transport.

ACTION:       Strategic Director of Regeneration

The decision of the Executive has been called in.  The reasons for the call in are set out below:

“I wish to call in this decision to the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee to ensure that the actions and activities that flow from the implementation of this strategy do not adversely impact on recommendations made by Members in the Flood Review”.

The Strategic Director Regeneration will submit Document “AG which cross references the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Objectives to the Flooding Scrutiny Review Recommendations.

In accordance with Paragraph 8.6.9 of Part 3E of the Constitution Members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee can following consideration of the matter resolve to:

(1)       Release the decision for implementation.

(2)       Refer all or part of the decision back to the Executive to    reconsider it in the light of any representations the Committee may make. The decision may not be implemented until the             Executive has met to reconsider its earlier decision.

(3)       Refer the decision to full Council for consideration, in which case         the decision may not be implemented until the Council has met to             consider the matter.

If the Committee makes no resolution, in accordance with paragraph 8.6.9 of the Constitution, the decision may be implemented.

(Chris Eaton – 01274 432483)

On 6 December 2016, the Executive considered a report of the Strategic Director Regeneration (Executive Document “AP”) which asked Members to adopt the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (LFRMS).  As Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA), the City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council is required under Section 9 of the Flood and Water Management Act (FWMA) 2010, to develop, maintain, apply and monitor a strategy for local flood risk management – a “Local Flood Risk Management Strategy” (LFRMS).  The strategy must detail the risk management authorities and the functions that they can exercise within the Bradford Lead Local Flood Authority area, assess local flood risk, the objectives for managing that risk and measures proposed to implement those objectives.

The FWMA requires the LFRMS to demonstrate how it contributes to the achievement of wider environmental objectives.  To fulfil legislative requirements a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the LFRMS was commissioned. The Draft SEA states that there are no negative environmental effects identified from the LFMS objectives and that many of the proposed LFRMS objectives have the potential for both direct and indirect environmental benefits.

The LFRMS (attached as Appendix 1 to Document “AP”) is an all-encompassing or umbrella document for the implementation of the FWMA, which sets out how the LLFA intend to fulfil the requirements of the FWMA and who (within the council) will be responsible for the different areas. It will therefore act as a tool to deliver the benefits of well managed and hence reduced flood risk to people, properties and the wider environment of Bradford district.

Executive resolved –

That the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (LFRMS) be adopted, and that delegated authority be given to the Strategic Director for Regeneration to amend the LFRMS as a result of the consultation on the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), and following consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Regeneration, Planning and Transport.

The decision of the Executive had been called in.  The reasons for the call in are set out below:

“I wish to call in this decision to the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee to ensure that the actions and activities that flow from the implementation of this strategy do not adversely impact on recommendations made by Members in the Flood Review”.

In response to the Call-In, the Strategic Director Regeneration submitted Document “AG which cross referenced the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Objectives to the Flooding Scrutiny Review recommendations made by the Committee at its meeting on 29 September 2016.

The Assistant Director Transportation, Design and Planning gave a brief resume of the Strategy and stated that officers had cross referenced the Strategy to the Flooding Scrutiny recommendations made by this Committee at its meeting held in September.  He stressed that the Strategy did not adversely affect the recommendations made by this Committee, adding that the majority of the Committees’ recommendations were resilience related measures and that the Strategy complimented them, or that they were within the remit of the Emergency Planning Service.  In addition many of the resilience measures were also being discussed by the Flood Programme Board, which included representatives from the Council, the Environment Agency, Yorkshire Water and local community groups.

During the discussion Members asked a number of questions, the questions together with the responses are detailed below:

The Chair stressed that Members should ensure that their questions and comments are kept within the confines of the reasons for the call-in.

The Member who had called in the item stated that in calling in the item she wanted to be sure that the Strategy would not hinder this Committee’s individual investigation into the floods.  She also expressed concerns

that the flood packs contained no information for people on ways to deal with the aftermath of the flooding on health matters, and asking residents to contact public health was inadequate.  Whereas the information already provided by Yorkshire Water on flooding was more comprehensive, and therefore the pack should incorporate additional information and needed reviewing.

She added that it was the intention that the Emergency Planning Team would liaise with Town and Parish Councils in relation to the properties affected by flooding.  In response the Planning Development Manager stated that this was work in progress and that the Emergency Planning Team was leading on this aspect and that their role was also highlighted within the Strategy.

A Member stated that the issues raised so far were not part of the  Strategy,  and hence the call –in, however it would form part of the delivery plan, which this Committee would be considering in six months time. 

The Member who had called in the item stated that she had some strong reservations about the Strategy and its links with Yorkshire Water, and that local residents needed assurances and have confidence in the Strategy.  In response the Assistant Director stated that in terms of the Strategy, the Council was working closely with Yorkshire Water and the Environment Agency.

The Senior Drainage office stressed that the Strategy document was a high level document and that it was a legal obligation, and in no way did it conflict with the recommendations made by this Committee in September.

The Regeneration, Planning and Transport Portfolio Holder reiterated that the recommendations of this Committee had been cross referenced with the Strategy, with a view to report back to this Committee on the actions arising.

A Member questioned the validity of the data used to inform the Strategy and the robustness of this data in identifying flood risk areas, and tackling future flooding. In addition he ascertained what the Council was doing to mitigate the risks as this was not implicitly addressed within the Strategy.  In response the Senior Drainage officer stressed that it was important to understand the legislative framework behind the Strategy.  That preliminary flood risk assessments had to be undertaken and the high risk areas were covered by the Strategy, however the majority of the flooding incidents related to water management measures.  The Member stated that the people at risk of flooding were not reliant on a Strategy per se, but that it was important to have a Strategy that met the needs of local people. 

A Member suggested that the raft of documents regarding flooding should be compiled into one composite document, which also addresses the issue of water run off on the Rombalds.  The Assistant Director stated that the Strategy was no intended to be a prescriptive document, however implementation plans would address specific local issues.

In relation to a question on what the Council was doing in relation to the issue of groundwater, and if those affected had been sent a flood information pack, the Principal Drainage Engineer confirmed that the data was based on the information collected and that groundwater flooding of basements was a common problem throughout the district.

A Member expressed his concerns that the Scrutiny Review into Water Management had not been completed by the Environment and Waste Management, which would provide many of the answers to the questions that had been raised at today’s meeting.  He urged that the Chair of this Scrutiny should contact the Chair of the Environment and Waste Management Overview and Scrutiny Committee to complete the Scrutiny as a matter of urgency in order to inform the delivery plan.

A Member stated that the Strategy was light on addressing issues relating to surface water and sewage flooding.  In response the Portfolio Holder stated that outside of the Strategy specific issues could be addressed by contacting officers directly.

A Member stated that it was important to ensure that the Strategy was robust, had clear direction and was in line with the scrutiny recommendations as well as be able to address issues around planning applications and the suitability of those applications in relation to incidence of flooding.  In response the Assistant Director stressed that the Strategy would not necessarily refer to planning as planning development was covered by the whole host of planning guidance documents.  In addition flooding issues on any given site would be dealt with in relation to the individual planning application.

In response to a number of questions regarding data, the Principal Drainage Engineer confirmed that the data relied upon in the Strategy was robust, adding that the strategy was a living document which, in line with government legislation, would be updated and amended on a six-year cycle and that the Council was  working with other  agencies, confirming that a huge amount of data from flood victims had already been collected.

A Member suggested that it was important that the background documents relating to the Strategy should be made available to the public; that the Strategy addresses the issue of surface water and that there is retro fitting of sustainable urban drainage in order to collect water upstream.

Resolved –

(1)       That the Executive decision on the Bradford District Local Flood          Risk Management Strategy be released for implementation.

(2)       That the Chair of this Committee contacts the Chair of the           Environment and Waste Management Overview and Scrutiny    Committee as a matter of urgency on the need to conclude the      Water Management Scrutiny Review.

(3)       That the background documents referred to in the Bradford       District Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Document be    published.

ACTION:       City Solicitor (1), Corporate Overview and Scrutiny                                     Committee Chair / Overview and Scrutiny Lead (2)

                        Assistant Director, Transportation, Design and Planning (3)