sustainable flood management

163. This section of the report defines sustainable flood management, clarifies the difference between sustainable flood management and natural flood management, explores the use of sustainable urban drainage systems and explores the interacting roles of land-use management, the planning system and building regulations in contributing to the overall goal of sustainable flood management.

Sustainable flood management

164. During the course of the inquiry, there has been significant discussion about the merits of sustainable flood management. The Flooding Issues Advisory Committee⁹⁰ endorsed the following definition of sustainable flood management from the Scottish Government consultation paper—

“Sustainable flood management provides the maximum possible social and economic resilience against flooding, by protecting and working with the environment, in a way which is fair and affordable both now and in the future”.⁹¹

165. The Scottish Government has adopted an approach of Awareness, Avoidance, Alleviation and Assistance (“the four As”) as a framework for delivering sustainable flood management. This will involve increased public understanding and knowledge of flood risk, implementation of techniques to minimise flood risk (both at the catchment level and at the level of individual flood prevention schemes) and the provision of support to those at risk of flooding or who have been flooded.

166. As noted above, the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 confers a duty on Scottish Ministers, SEPA and responsible agencies to promote sustainable flood management. The Committee notes that the latest (2007) report on the Implementation of the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act⁹² referred to the existence of the duty but makes no explicit reference to progress that had been made in implementing it.

Natural flood management

167. It is important to clarify the distinction between sustainable flood management and natural flood management. According to SEPA—

“Natural flood management promotes a subset of flood alleviation techniques that aim to work with natural processes to reduce flood risk. Examples of such natural techniques include replanting upland forests, reconnecting rivers to their flood plains and restoring wetlands to act as natural sponges for flood waters.”⁹³

168. Some of the components of natural flood management are discussed in more detail below in the section on land-use management but it is important to note that natural flood management can produce—

“additional public benefits by helping to counter diffuse pollution and by improving biodiversity, geodiversity, landscape and recreation, for example from the creation of woodlands and wetlands and restoring natural landforms and river processes.”⁹⁴

169. According to Scottish Environment LINK, natural flood management represents—

“a cost-effective means of achieving many objectives, including our biodiversity targets and obligations, the aims and objectives of the WFD [Water Framework Directive], improving recreational and well-being opportunities, buffering the effects of climate change, recharging groundwater systems and improving water quality.”⁹⁵ 

170. Scottish Environment LINK also claimed that the—

“Findings of the [River Devon] demonstration project and work done by RSPB in Insh marshes and elsewhere indicate that by restoring the functionality of rivers and uplands, it is possible to reduce the risk of flooding downstream in the long term for a fraction of the costs of expensive, short-lived, hard engineering.”⁹⁶

171. Professor Crichton cited a WWF Scotland report⁹⁷ that suggested that natural flood management measures could be ten times more cost effective than “hard” engineered solutions.

172. The Committee recognises the potential role of natural flood management in contributing to the overall goal of sustainable flood management but notes the view of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities that—

“Hard infrastructure is still needed especially given the magnitude and immediacy of flood risk in recognised parts of Scotland.”⁹⁸

173. This was acknowledged by Mike Donaghy of WWF Scotland who said—

“Natural flood management is not the be-all and end-all, but it is among the techniques that we would use.”⁹⁹

174. However, SEPA cautioned that with natural flood management techniques: “there is often a lack of empirical data on their effectiveness at a catchment scale or their capacity to protect vulnerable areas at times of very high flow”¹⁰⁰ and that further research was required to better understand the potential risks and benefits of such approaches. The question of scaleability to the catchment level was echoed by Dr Tom Nisbet, representing Forestry Commission Scotland, who said—

“we need to show that the measures work. We need more research to quantify the measures and demonstrate that they are fit for purpose.”¹⁰¹

176. The Committee recognises the potential of natural flood management techniques as part of the toolkit that is available to flood managers but notes that “hard”, defensive engineering approaches will continue to be the most appropriate solution in particular flood risk situations and therefore need to be considered as an integral component of sustainable flood management.

Sustainable urban drainage systems

178. Many written submissions made to the Committee made reference to the potential of sustainable urban drainage systems (SUDS) to reduce flood risk. SUDS—

“use natural systems like ponds and filter strips that treat the surface water before it discharges to burns and rivers. SUDs can be used to ensure that there is no increase in downstream flood risk but their primary purpose is providing surface water treatment.”¹⁰²

179.Scottish Water noted that Scotland was ahead of England and Wales in its adoption of the sustainable urban drainage system approach to contributing to water quality improvements and flood risk management and that planners were well aware of the potential use of such systems¹⁰³. However, Glasgow City Council cautioned that a sustainable urban drainage system could be “land hungry” and—

“requires large areas of land that are not considered part of the green-space allocation in any development. SUDS are expensive in urban areas, so we need to drive the size of them down. The only way to do that is through source control.”¹⁰⁴

180. Scottish Water told the Committee that it had recently published its technical manual for sustainable urban drainage systems (Sewers for Scotland: 2nd edition) and noted that the relevant legislation had only come into force last year and therefore it had not yet adopted any sustainable urban drainage system ponds¹⁰⁵.

181. Aberdeenshire Council said that local authorities would inevitably have to absorb the cost of certain sustainable urban drainage systems through a need for inspection, investigation and maintenance. It suggested that some of the income which was previously received by Scottish Water for dealing with surface water in traditional piped systems be transferred to local authorities for dealing with SUDS. Alternatively, developers could make capitalised payments to cover the cost of all future maintenance work which would then be undertaken by local authorities ¹⁰⁶.

182. The City of Edinburgh Council said—

“Many SUDS are left in the hands of private owners with no clear maintenance regime.”¹⁰⁷

183. This view was echoed by North Lanarkshire Council which said that—

“the issue of who will be responsible for the long term maintenance of systems which will not be adopted by Scottish Water needs to be clarified and responsibility charged to an appropriate party by planning consent, legal agreement associated with the planning consent, or by other regulatory means.”¹⁰⁸

185. On the basis of his earlier research Professor Crichton suggested that—

“Half of insurance companies have said that they will not insure properties that are close to SUDS ponds”¹⁰⁹

186. His own view was that these concerns were misplaced, a view that was fully endorsed by Scottish Water¹¹⁰.

187. When questioned on this issue, the Association of British Insurers said that it—

“could find no evidence that insurance companies take anything other than a positive attitude to SUDS.”¹¹¹

188. Therefore, the Committee concludes that there is broad agreement that sustainable urban drainage systems are viewed as a safe and potentially positive contributor to flood risk management. However, it notes the warning sounded by Moray Council that they are not a universal panacea—

“In some areas, soil conditions and groundwater levels are such that SUDS are not appropriate. Much more investigation is needed to test the effectiveness of SUDS throughout Scotland.”¹¹²

Land-use management

189. Sustainable urban drainage systems are an element of land-use management and as noted above, land-use management practices are an integral component of sustainable flood management. The Scottish Hydrological Group noted that the impact of land-use management on flood risk—

“is a topic which has been the subject of much research, whose results sometimes contradict subjective perceptions. Accordingly, any proposal for large-scale land use change in a river catchment should always require a flood risk assessment.”¹¹³

190. Examples of different types of land-use management and how they can impact on flood risk were reported by a number of organisations who provided written evidence to the Committee.

191. The Macaulay Institute noted that—

“land drainage (which has historically been undertaken to improve soil conditions for agriculture and forestry) has tended to exacerbate flood peaks by increasing rates of runoff. By blocking and removing drains and ditches (particularly in marginal upland agricultural areas) there is a potential to mitigate this effect.”¹¹⁴

192. The Institute also noted the importance of maintaining good soil condition, as this enables the absorption and storage of water with a concomitant reduction in downstream flood risk.

193. Forestry Commission Scotland provided detailed background on the potential of afforestation to attenuate flooding through a variety of mechanisms including enhanced water use by trees; the “sponge effect” created by the open structure of typical woodland soils; and the increased hydraulic roughness caused by floodplain afforestation and woody debris in watercourses that reduces flood velocities and increases water storage on the floodplain, thereby reducing the size of a downstream flood event¹¹⁵. Forest Enterprise Scotland’s draft framework strategic plan for the period 2008-13 aims to ensure that the design of its forests contributes to the management of flood risk and to promote an increase in afforestation as part of a suite of measures to address flood risk

194. It is not for the Committee to assess the relative merits of the different approaches to land-use management. That will be a task for whoever is responsible for the flood risk management within a specific catchment. However, the Committee is struck by the potential power of land-use management practices to contribute to sustainable flood management over a timescale of several decades. Woodland does not grow overnight and soils may take hundreds of years to develop. This need for a long time horizon resonates with the Committee’s recommendation (see above) that the Scottish Government should set out a long-term national, strategic “road-map” for investment in flood management.

195. The economic implications of using land-use management as a tool to contribute to sustainable flood management were highlighted by the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association who cautioned that—

“Land managers need to be given firm assurances that any changes to their practices which will result in economic loss but will bring benefits to wider society, will be linked to income forgone, and will be considered as a long term (30-50 years) financial commitment by the government.”¹¹⁶

196. It has been suggested to the Committee (refs) that the Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) might provide a vehicle for providing land managers with funding to offset any economic loss caused by changing land-use management practices. However, Scottish Natural Heritage said that the SRDP—

“has a limited range of options of relevance to flood management and has historically been hugely oversubscribed. In addition the funding is relatively short term and would not match up well with funding of hard engineered parts of schemes; if part of a flood scheme is dependent on flood storage on agricultural land then that arrangement needs to be as longstanding as any hard engineered defence.”¹¹⁷

197. According to Dr Wendy Kenyon of the Macaulay Institute, the suggestion that compensation could be provided to land managers for putting land aside for flood management purposes had to be viewed in the context of competition with agricultural markets. She cited the significant rise in cereal prices over the last two years as an example of the competition that funding for flood management would have to meet¹¹⁸. Mike Donaghy of WWF Scotland countered this view with the suggestion, based on conversations with farmers, that—

“if they were guaranteed a fair sum over a long period, they would be prepared to take that over the fluctuations in the market.”¹¹⁹

198. The Committee notes the already heavy demands on the Scottish Rural Development Programme and therefore other funding streams are likely to have to be accessed. In addition, global population growth and concerns over food security mean that there is likely to be a steady rise in demand for agricultural produce which may discourage the use of agricultural land for water storage purposes, or, at least make it very much more expensive. In this context, a policy of compensating land owners for using their land for flood management purposes may prove to have serious financial implications. Notwithstanding the financial implications, it may still prove more cost effective than other flood management solutions.

200. The Committee notes that, although porous surfaces may have a beneficial effect in mitigating flood risk, there appears to be no systematic approach to promoting the use of porous materials or in monitoring the extent to which the porosity of individual catchments is being reduced by urbanisation and the cumulative effects of actions by individual property owners (e.g. the replacement of garden space with driveways). 

The planning system

201. The Royal Town Planning Institute stated that—

“The spatial planning system is fundamental to sustainable flood management, in exercising control over development in flood plain areas and in ensuring that planning decisions do not exacerbate problems elsewhere.”¹²⁰

202. SEPA endorsed this view saying—

“Controlling development through planning is perhaps the most powerful tool available to manage flood risks.”¹²¹

203. Current Scottish Government planning policy is set out in Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 7 (Planning and Flooding)¹²². The policy requires developers and planning authorities to consider the possibility of all forms of flooding, ensure that new developments are free of significant flood risk and will not increase flood risk elsewhere in the catchment or increase the need for flood prevention measures. The policy says explicitly that: “Built development should not therefore take place on functional flood plains”.

204. According to Homes for Scotland—

“The development industry generally accepts SPP7 as a pretty robust piece of guidance … At a strategic, development plan, level, it is being used pretty effectively”¹²³

205. However, it expressed concerns about “ambiguity in interpretation” and “evident loopholes” and recommended that the policy be reviewed.

206. This positive perspective at a strategic level differs from the view expressed by the UNESCO Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science at the University of Dundee which said that SPP 7—

“has provided local authorities with stronger controls on inappropriate development on floodplains. However, in practice whilst individual applications by developers may just meet minimum standards in terms of flood risk management, collectively such piecemeal development can prove to be strategically unwise.”¹²⁴ 

207. This analysis is somewhat alarming, given the need to consider the catchment as a whole and suggests that planning has to take into account the needs of the entire catchment rather than just the specific development under consideration. The establishment of a catchment-based approach to flood management and the introduction of catchment flood management plans should ensure that a wider, more strategic perspective is brought to bear on planning decisions.

208. When asked whether there was any merit in having a statutory requirement to have a flood risk assessment, and having to find and develop a solution to manage any flood risk before an individual development is given consent, SEPA responded positively and noted—

“That fits well with what we said earlier about the strategic nature of SEPA's flood map, and how it can highlight to planning authorities areas in which strategic flood risk assessments should perhaps be carried out. Dumfries and Galloway has carried out a strategic flood risk assessment, and compared it retrospectively with its development and structure plans to see where, for example, it was right in zoning ground. Some areas that were zoned for new housing developments showed up as being at risk in the strategic flood risk assessment, so they are being reviewed. That is a good starting point for local authorities.”¹²⁵

210. As noted above, climate change seems likely to increase the risk of coastal flooding as sea level rise and storm surges become more frequent. This raises the question of whether greater restrictions are needed on developments in low-lying coastal areas. The Minister for Environment said¹²⁶ that he viewed the existing risk framework (see details below) within Scottish Planning Policy 7 as being adequate to accommodate future threats of coastal flooding, but promised that this would be reviewed in the light of the publication of UK Climate Impacts Programme 2008 later in the year.

The location of critical infrastructure

211. The planning system has an important role to play in determining the location of critical infrastructure. SPP 7 establishes a risk framework based on annual probability of flooding occurring and specifies what developments should be allowed in different areas. In areas of little or no risk (where the return periods are greater than 1000 years), there are no constraints on development. In low to medium risk areas (where the return periods for flooding are less than 1000 years but greater than 200 years), general development is permitted but not for essential infrastructure. In medium to high risk areas (where the return periods are less than 200 years), brownfield developments with flood prevention measures are acceptable for non-essential infrastructure and undeveloped areas should remain undeveloped.

212. The Committee notes the interim conclusions of the Pitt Review into the lessons to be learned from the summer 2007 floods in England and, in particular, the importance of protecting critical infrastructure and essential services. Interim conclusion 52 is that—

“the [UK] Government should establish a systematic, coordinated, cross-sector campaign to reduce the disruption caused by natural events to critical infrastructure and essential services”.¹²⁷

213. In this light, the Committee welcomes the Minister for Environment’s comments¹²⁸ that he received assurances from all eight strategic coordinating groups (as established under the Civil Contingencies Act regime) that adequate plans were in place to ensure that Scottish critical infrastructure and essential services were protected from flooding. The Committee notes that its recommendation above about comparisons between flood risk assessments and development and structure plans should assist in protecting critical infrastructure from being exposed to flood risk.

Building regulations

214. Scottish Planning Policy 7¹²⁹ recommends that in medium to high flood risk areas, water resistant materials and construction methods should be used. The planning system’s contribution to minimising flood risk is complemented by the building standards system which acknowledges that building will take place in areas that flood and therefore—

“Every building must be designed and constructed in such a way that there will not be a threat to the building or the health of the occupants as a result of flooding and the accumulation of ground water”.¹³⁰

215. The Scottish Building Standards Agency noted that—

“Meeting this mandatory standard is a statutory requirement and as all the standards are set out as functional requirements that buildings should achieve then this leaves the method or means of compliance with designers.”¹³¹

216. It went on to explain—

“Guidance on the resilience of buildings is typically along the lines of using proper materials such as concrete and water-resistant plaster, and raising electrical sockets. Other practical issues are covered, such as door boards and window mechanisms to prevent floodwaters coming in”.¹³²

217. Therefore it is left to building designers to determine the optimal solution to protect a building and its inhabitants. The Committee welcomes the fact that the Scottish Building Standards Agency’s Building Standards Advisory Committee is currently working on updating and improving the guidance relating to flood resilient construction and sustainable urban drainage systems¹³³. 

218. Professor Crichton noted that—

“if you reinstate a building after a fire, it must be reinstated to the current fire regulations standard, not to the standard of the regulations when the building was built.”¹³⁴

219. He suggested that the same could be done following flood damage, thus ensuring that properties affected by flooding would progressively increase their resilience to further flooding rather than remaining at the same level of resilience. This view was repeated in the written submission provided by the UNESCO Centre for Water Law, Policy and Science at the University of Dundee who said—

“Building regulations promoting greater flood resilience are needed both in terms of ‘new build’ and when flooded properties are re-instated.”¹³⁵

flood warning systems and responses to flood events

221. This section outlines existing flood warning schemes and, in particular, notes the absence of any warning scheme for pluvial flooding. The difference in high resolution radar coverage (essential for effective flood warning) between Scotland and England and Wales is noted. The Committee proposes the inclusion of information on flood risk in the information provided to potential homebuyers. The importance of individual responsibility for protecting property against flooding should not be underestimated but this has to be supported by information on how to increase levels of protection. Finally, there is a discussion about the roles and responsibilities of the emergency services.

Flood warnings

222. As noted above, SEPA is Scotland’s flood warning authority and manages 44 fluvial flood warning schemes across Scotland. It also operates the national Floodline service which provides information on flood warnings and access to staff to provide advice on flood risk. The Firth of Clyde is the only coastal area that is covered by a coastal flood warning scheme but there is a national coastal flood watch scheme that “gives coastal flood watch alerts when tides are higher than normal—that involves astronomical tides and some storm surges.”¹³⁶

223. Much of the written evidence received by the Committee emphasised the need for continual development of existing flood warning systems. In addition, a number of submissions suggested that there needed to be greater emphasis on effective dissemination of flood warnings.

224. According to Envirocentre—

“existing flood warning systems do not take account of the role the local communities could play in communicating the warning to vulnerable members of that community.”¹³⁷

225. The Macaulay Institute suggested that—

“SEPA might consider new and emerging technologies such as text messaging, information and communication technology.”¹³⁸

226. However, the Association of Chief Police Officers of Scotland cautioned that “public expectations around flood warning systems can never be fully met”¹³⁹

227. The Committee heard first hand from residents of Elgin and businesses in Elgin of their experience of the performance of flood warning systems. Jennifer Main told the Committee that during the Elgin floods in 2002 “I did not receive any warning. I just saw the flood waters coming nearer and nearer and I warned my neighbours” and Bryan Watson said “There were no warnings, other than from watching the news.” ¹⁴⁰

228. Representatives from the business community in Elgin noted that they tended to rely on ad hoc approaches to flood warning including the water levels in wells¹⁴¹ or phoning an employee’s relative who lived further further up the catchment¹⁴². Michael Urquhart of Gordon and MacPhail described the process as “all very Heath Robinson.”¹⁴³

229. The Committee notes the introduction in 2005 by Moray Council of a system whereby flood warnings can be communicated by email, text, mobile, telephone or fax to registered individuals or businesses.

230. The Committee recognises that it will never be possible to achieve a perfect flood warning system that covers everyone at potential risk under every possible eventuality.

231. However the Committee notes that SEPA itself, the flood warning authority for Scotland, made a total of nine recommendations for how flood warning could be improved¹⁴⁴:

• the development of a national flood warning strategy,
• giving SEPA the ability to disseminate flood warnings directly to end users,
• upgrading existing flood warning systems and expansion into currently uncovered areas, 
• filling the void that exists with regard to pluvial flood warnings,
• ensuring that the risk to critical infrastructure is assessed,
• the development of flood warning systems in other areas of Scotland at risk of coastal flooding,
• improving understanding of hydrology to enhance the accuracy of flood warnings,
• providing public access to real-time flood information, and
• continued work to improve public understanding of flood risk. 

232. The Committee is particularly struck by the absence of any pluvial flood warning system, reflecting its earlier comments about the pluvial flooding being the poor relation. The Committee does not underestimate the technical and practical challenges that developing such a system represents but believes that this must be a priority for the Scottish Government.

Weather radar

234. Successful flood warning systems depend on a combination of meteorological and hydrological data. According to the Meteorological Office—

“For flood forecasting, it is ideal to have weather radar that detects rainfall at a high resolution—typically 1km or 2km—because that corresponds to the size of the weather systems that create the most intense rainfall. That is also the scale on which we look at local topography that leads to flash floods and at river catchment areas.”¹⁴⁵

235. The majority of Scotland (with the exception of Shetland) is covered by low resolution (5 km2) radar which is adequate for weather forecasting but that there are significant gaps in high resolution coverage (including Moray, the Highlands, the Orkney and Shetland and the south-west), which, in total, amount to 50 per cent of Scotland’s area. The Committee was surprised to learn that this compared with 90-95 per cent coverage in England and Wales.

236. The Minister for Environment responded by saying¹⁴⁶—

“If the Met Office is concerned about the level of radar cover in Scotland, then this is something it needs to consider as part if its responsibility to provide a public weather service for the whole of the UK. The Met Office is an agency of the Ministry of Defence and although The Scottish Government subscribes to the Met Office to receive weather forecasts and advance notice of adverse weather conditions as part of its approach to civil contingencies, we do not have a direct funding role.”

237. Given that high intensity rainfall is likely to increase in frequency in the future with the resultant increase in the occurrence of pluvial flooding, the Committee believes that it is imperative that high resolution radar coverage is in place to enable effective flood warning.

239. The Meteorological Office told the Committee that "fragmented responsibilities for warnings hinder understanding and therefore response”¹⁴⁷ and suggested that a statutory duty for SEPA and the Meteorological Office to collaborate on flood warning could be “helpful”¹⁴⁸. SEPA noted its existing close liaison with the Meteorological Office but did “not know whether there needs to be a formal model”¹⁴⁹. In supplementary written evidence provided to the Committee, the Meteorological Office noted that “statutory changes in respect of the Met Office should not be necessary”¹⁵⁰.

Flood risk information in sellers’ packs

241. Clearly, there is a need for flood warning systems to alert the public at times of immediate flood risk but the Committee also believes that there is merit in providing homebuyers with long term warning of the scale of flood risk that a given property is exposed to. The Committee believes it may be worth exploring whether private vendors should be required to provide, in home reports, information about flooding incidents during their period of ownership (and earlier incidents of which they were made aware on the same basis by the previous owners). Similarly, developers should be required to provide information to prospective buyers of new houses about flood risks associated with the land on which they are built. The Committee recognises, however, the need to give careful consideration to the implications of such an approach, to ensure that it does not add significantly to the cost or complexity of selling a house.

242. Such an approach would need to be supported by efforts to increase the level of “flood risk literacy” among the public so that it was more aware of the various risks posed by flooding.

The role of individual responsibility

244. Throughout the course of the inquiry, there was considerable emphasis on the need for individual property owners and businesses to take greater responsibility for protecting themselves against the effects of flooding thereby increasing their resilience. The Committee endorses this view but notes that, despite the widespread agreement of the merits of this, there appears to have been a complete failure to take action to educate the public about how they can do this. Norwich Union told the Committee that—

“We think that we could do more to encourage customers to improve their own risk.”¹⁵¹

245. In its written evidence to the Committee, Perth and Kinross Council told the Committee that—

“It is essential that homeowners and business owners are aware of what they can do to help themselves.”¹⁵²

246. In the long term, the Committee believes that it is in the interest of the insurance industry to make this effort as it should reduce the overall scale of claims that it has to pay but agrees with Perth and Kinross Council that the public sector has a complementary role to play and that—

“there is an educational role here for the Scottish Government to address nationally.”¹⁵³

247. When asked if the Fire Service provided advice on how people could protect their homes from flooding, David Wynne of the Chief Fire Officers Association of Scotland said—

“No, we do not. The point was raised recently by Dumfries and Galloway joint fire and police authority. They asked whether we could undertake that role, and I think that there is scope for and merit in our doing so.”¹⁵⁴

Emergency responses to flooding

249. In the event of major flooding, the emergency services have a critical role to play and the legislative framework for this is provided by the Civil Contingencies Act 2004.

250. As with all major emergency incidents covered by the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, the police play a coordinating role in the management of responses to flood events but are not responsible for rescue. The latter responsibility lies predominantly with the fire and rescue service, although David Wynne of the Chief Fire Officers Association of Scotland noted that in the English floods of 2007, rescues were also performed by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and other agencies such as the Maritime and Coastguard Agency¹⁵⁵. He suggested that—

“the Government should designate an agency to take responsibility for co-ordinating the rescue element of a response. The fire service stepped in to fulfil that role when there were floods last year. We believe that the fire service's command-and-control structures and the fact that we already provide an aspect of water rescue capability mean that we are well placed to deliver that role”.¹⁵⁶

252. It appears that there is considerable confusion about where responsibility lies for the management of emergency responses to flooding and the roles of local authorities, SEPA and the emergency services. It became clear during oral evidence from the emergency services, that the police and fire and rescue service viewed their role as commencing once a flood had become an emergency. As David Wynne of the Chief Fire Officers Association of Scotland said—

“In reality, the first indication that a response is needed is usually a 999 call”.¹⁵⁷

253. However, flood warnings may be available many hours in advance of flooding actually becoming an emergency and the Committee believes that, rather than being reactive to an emergency flooding situation, the police should be more proactive in their coordinating role by initiating action as soon as a threat of flooding emerges. Clearly, for this to be effective, the accuracy of flood warnings needs to be continually improved, hence the Committee’s recommendation above that the Scottish Government examine SEPA’s nine proposals for improving flood warning systems.

ANNEXE A: EXTRACTS FROM MINUTES OF THE RURAL AFFAIRS AND ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE

3rd Meeting, 2007 (Session 3),Wednesday 5 September 2007

Work programme: The Committee considered its work programme and agreed that its main priorities for inquiries for the remainder of this parliamentary year were flooding, rural housing and agricultural regulation. The Committee agreed to consider a paper on its approach to its inquiry into flooding at its next meeting. The Committee agreed its approach to the scrutiny of relevant non-departmental public bodies and executive agencies, public petitions and European Union issues. The Committee agreed to seek authorisation to appoint an adviser to assist with its scrutiny of the Executive’s budget. The Committee agreed to review its work programme at regular intervals during the year.

4th Meeting, 2007 (Session 3), Wednesday 19 September 2007

Flooding and flood management inquiry: The Committee agreed a draft remit for its inquiry, subject to various changes, and agreed to issue a call for evidence later in the day.The Committee agreed to seek the necessary approvals for a number of fact-finding visits and for a Committee meeting outside Edinburgh.

7th Meeting, 2007 (Session 3), Wednesday 7 November 2007

Flooding and flood management inquiry: The Committee agreed to invite the Meteorological Office to give evidence on 9 January 2008, and to seek authorisation to hold a Committee meeting in Elgin in February 2008.

9th Meeting, 2007 (Session 3), Wednesday 5 December 2007

Flooding and flood management inquiry: Members who had participated in visits to Perth and the River Devon, and to Glasgow and East Kilbride, on 27 November reported back to the Committee.

1st Meeting, 2008 (Session 3),Wednesday 9 January 2008

1. Decision on taking business in private: The Committee agreed to take item 6, and equivalent items at future meetings during the flooding and flood management inquiry, in private.

5. Flooding and flood management inquiry: The Committee took evidence from—

Professor John Mitchell, Director of Climate Science, and Stephen Noyes, Director of Operations and Customer Services, the Meteorological Office,

and agreed a programme of oral evidence for the remainder of the inquiry. The Convener was authorised to finalise the witnesses to be invited to give evidence during the Committee’s meeting in Elgin on 19 February.

6. Flooding and flood management inquiry (in private): The Committee considered the evidence heard earlier in the meeting, and agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment outlining its preliminary conclusions.

2nd Meeting, 2008 (Session 3), Wednesday 23 January 2008

Flooding and flood management inquiry: The Committee took evidence from—

Professor David Crichton, Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre

and then from—

Ronnie Mercer, Chairman, Jim Conlin, Environmental Regulation Manager, and Mark Dickson, General Manager – Customer Services, Scottish Water.

Flooding and flood management inquiry (in private): The Committee considered the evidence heard earlier in the meeting, and agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment on a number of issues raised by witnesses.

3rd Meeting, 2008 (Session 3), Wednesday 6 February 2008

Flooding and flood management inquiry: The Committee took evidence, in a round-table discussion, from—

Veronica Burbridge, Director, Royal Town Planning Institute; Bill Dodds, Assistant Chief Executive, Scottish Building Standards Agency; Mike Donaghy, Freshwater Policy Officer, WWF Scotland; Ronnie Falconer, Past President, Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management; Andrea Johnstonova, Freshwater Policy Officer, RSPB Scotland; Wendy Kenyon, Senior Research Fellow, Macaulay Institute; David Martin, Scottish Hydrological Group; Blair Melville, Planning Manager, Homes for Scotland; Tom Nisbet, Head of Water, Soil and Heritage Research Group, Forestry Commission Scotland; Karen Smyth, Rural Development Manager, Scottish Rural Property and Business Association; John Thomson, Director of Strategy and Communications, Scottish Natural Heritage; and Hamish Trench, Head of Natural Heritage and Land Management Group, Cairngorms National Park Authority.

Flooding and flood management inquiry (in private): The Committee considered the evidence heard earlier in the meeting, and agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment on a number of issues raised by witnesses.

4th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3), Tuesday 19 February 2008

Flooding and flood management inquiry: The Committee took evidence from—

Alvin Barber, Senior Professional Officer (Flood Prevention), City of Edinburgh Council; Sandy Gillon, Environmental Sustainability Manager, Glasgow City Council; Bob Stewart, Director of Environmental Services, Moray Council; Councillor Eddie Phillips and Kathy Cameron, Policy Manager, Convention of Scottish Local Authorities

and then from—

Alex Macmillan (Chairman) and Brian Watson, Elgin Community Council; and Jennifer Main, resident of Elgin

and then from—

Graeme Archibald, Financial Director, Johnstons of Elgin; Andrew Grzesinski, Group Managing Director, Macrae and Dick Ltd; and Michael Urquhart, Joint Managing Director, Gordon and MacPhail.

Flooding and flood management inquiry (in private): The Committee considered the evidence heard earlier in the meeting, and agreed to write to the Minister for Environment on a number of issues raised by witnesses.

5th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3), Wednesday 5th March 2008

Flooding and flood management inquiry – witness expenses: The Committee agreed to delegate to the Convener responsibility for arranging for the SPCB to pay, under Rule 12.4.3, any expenses of witnesses in the inquiry.

Flooding and flood management inquiry: The Committee took evidence from—

Chris Spray, Director of Environmental Science, and David Faichney, Flood Unit Manager, Scottish Environment Protection Agency

and then from—

Assistant Chief Constable Ewan Stewart and Superintendent James Urquhart (Grampian Police), Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland, and David Wynne (Dumfries and Galloway Fire and Rescue Service), Chief Fire Officers Association of Scotland.

Flooding and flood management inquiry (in private): The Committee considered the evidence heard earlier in the meeting with a view to identifying preliminary conclusions.

6th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3), Wednesday 19 March 2008

Flooding and flood management inquiry: The Committee took evidence from—

Alan Leaman, Director of Corporate Affairs, Association of British Insurers, and Ian Ferguson, Director of Commercial Underwriting Strategy, Norwich Union

and then from—

Michael Russell, Minister for Environment, Bob Irvine, Deputy Director Water Industry, and Judith Tracey, Flooding Policy Manager, Scottish Government;

and agreed to consider a draft report in private at future meetings.

Flooding and flood management inquiry (in private): The Committee considered the evidence heard earlier in the meeting with a view to identifying preliminary conclusions.

7th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3), Wednesday 16 April 2008

Flooding and flood management inquiry: The Committee considered a number of issues that have arisen in the inquiry and agreed in principle how they should be reflected in the forthcoming draft report. It was agreed by the members concerned that correspondence with the Convener on requests for further oral evidence in the inquiry be published on the Committee’s web-pages.

8th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3), Wednesday 23 April 2008

Flooding and flood management report (in private): The Committee considered a draft report. Various changes were agreed to. The Committee agreed to consider a revised draft at its next meeting. The Committee also agreed to seek a Chamber debate on the report before the summer recess.

9th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3), Wednesday 30 April 2008

Flooding and flood management (in private): The Committee considered a revised draft report. Various changes were agreed to. The Committee agreed to consider a final draft at its next meeting.

10th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3), Wednesday 14 May 2008

Flooding and flood management inquiry (in private): The Committee considered and agreed a final draft report.

ANNEXE B: ORAL EVIDENCE AND ASSOCIATED WRITTEN EVIDENCE

Written Evidence:

9 January (1st Meeting, 2008 (Session 3))

23 January (2nd Meeting, 2008 (Session 3))

6 February (3rd Meeting, 2008 (Session 3))

19 February (4th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3))

5 March (5th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3))

19 March (6th Meeting, 2008 (Session 3))

All written evidence and supplementary written evidence associated with oral evidence is available for at:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/rae/inquiries/flooding/writtenevidence.htm

ANNEXE C: OTHER WRITTEN EVIDENCE

In addition to the written evidence submitted by those who gave oral evidence, other written evidence is available at:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/rae/inquiries/flooding/WrittenEvidence.htm

ANNEXE D: CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE SCOTTISH GOVERNMENT

LETTER FROM THE CONVENER TO THE CABINET SECRETARY FOR RURAL AFFAIRS AND THE ENVIRONMENT FOLLOWING THE COMMITTEE MEETING ON 9 JANUARY 2008

As you will be aware, the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into flooding and flood management. The Committee began hearing oral evidence at its meeting on 9 January with evidence from the Met Office and will continue to take evidence over its next five meetings.

Given that the inquiry is taking place in parallel to the development of legislation by the Scottish Government in this area, the Committee will write to you after each evidence session if there are issues emerging from the evidence sessions that it decides are important.

One of the key points from the Met Office’s evidence was the extent of high resolution rainfall radar coverage across Scotland relative to that in England and Wales. Rainfall radar coverage at a 5 km resolution extends across Scotland (with the exception of Shetland), while high resolution coverage (1-2 km) is available across 50% of Scotland, in contrast to 90-95% coverage in England and Wales. According to the Met Office, the higher resolution radar is essential for flood forecasting. It would be valuable for the Committee to know what actions the Scottish Government was taking in order to try and improve high resolution radar coverage.

The Met Office also suggested that a joint Met Office/SEPA forecasting centre for floods might be valuable in improving the quality of flood forecasting and warning. The witnesses also suggested that there should be a statutory duty on the two organisations to work together to provide a flood forecasting and warning service. The Committee is aware of public confusion that existed in England and Wales about flood warnings during the severe floods last summer and would welcome your thoughts on these issues.

Finally, the Met Office provided the Committee with some insights into possible future sea level rise. The idea of establishing a minimum height above sea level below which no new development would be built was raised during discussion and I would welcome the Scottish Government’s view on such a proposal.

The Met Office’s oral evidence is available in the Official Report of the Committee’s meeting of 9 January and their written evidence is included in the papers for that meeting as paper RAE/S3/08/1/7.

I look forward to your response.

Roseanna Cunningham
14 January 2008

RESPONSE FROM THE MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT

Thank you for your letter of 14 January to Richard Lochead about issues raised during the first evidence session of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee’s Flooding Inquiry. It is useful to have an early opportunity to comment on the points of concern to the Committee. Since I am leading on the preparation of the Flooding Bill, I am responding.

The first issue you raise is the extent of high resolution rainfall radar coverage in Scotland. Flood warning schemes throughout Scotland are provided by the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) which was recently granted an additional £1.04 million for flood warning in the North East. I understand that the Committee recently visited a SEPA flood warning control room and are therefore familiar with the variables and measurements that are considered in the decision that results in a flood warning being issued. Although SEPA does use information purchased directly from the MET office, the flood warning schemes utilise a network of rainfall and river monitors situated at key points along a river, which provides SEPA with detailed information on rivers and early warning of flood risk.

For areas of Scotland not covered by a formal flood warning scheme, SEPA monitors weather conditions around the clock and issues flood watches through Floodline if flooding is likely in a general area.

If the Met Office is concerned about the level of radar cover in Scotland, then this is something it needs to consider as part if its responsibility to provide a public weather service for the whole of the UK. The Met Office is an agency of the Ministry of Defence and although The Scottish Government subscribes to the Met Office to receive weather forecasts and advance notice of adverse weather conditions as part of its approach to civil contingencies, we do not have a direct funding role.

You also mentioned the proposal for a joint SEPA/Met Office forecasting service and the need for a statutory duty on the two organisations to work together to provide a flood forecasting and warning service. The Government recognises that a number of important elements come together to manage risks from flooding, including flood warning, and that there are a number of bodies responsible for these different elements. We are therefore considering how best to ensure effective co-operation between the various bodies responsible for delivering flood risk management as part of the preparation for the Flooding Bill

With regard to coastal developments requiring to be built above a certain height, it is a well established principle that planning applications are determined on their own merits and, as the law says, in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The kind of blanket ban implied by the Met Office would not fit with this, but I think our approach seeks to address the same concern. It is set out in Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) 7 - Planning and Flooding, whose central purpose is to prevent further development which would have a significant probability of being affected by flooding, including on the coast. The approach it takes to development on the coast where sea level rise is an issue is summarised below. I would however stress that the SPP reflects the complexity of coastal flood risk issues and the uncertainties of predicting sea level rise, so this summary necessary simplifies the situation. The full SPP can be seen at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/02/18880/32952 and I would encourage the Committee to read paragraphs 33 - 37 and the 'Risk Framework' on page 10 referred to below.

Preparation of the SPP drew on the UKCIP 02 predictions, including those for sea level rise. Regarding coastal and watercourse flood risk it says "....for planning purposes, taking into account the life of most development and subsequent redevelopment in the longer term, it is reasonable on present evidence to regard areas with a current annual probability of watercourse or coastal flooding above 0.5% (1:200) to be characterised as having a 'medium to high' risk of flooding". This figure was set to include an allowance for climate change. The Planning Advice Note (PAN 69) which supports the SPP provided background on the UKCIP figures and describes the potential effects of tidal surges, increased storminess and extreme winds on sea levels, which of course vary around the coast. To take account of this the SPP says that planning authorities can add an additional allowance for climate change (i.e. above the 0.5%) if it can be justified and that a freeboard allowance may be required as a response to local circumstances. The PAN can be seen at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2004/08/19805/41594

For 'medium to high' risk areas, including those on the coast, the SPP sets out the generally appropriate planning response in a Risk Framework. In summary this says that such areas are not suitable for essential civil infrastructure such as hospitals, fire stations, schools etc. For other development it says that areas which are already built up may be suitable for most development provided that appropriate flood defences are in place or planned. For areas which are undeveloped or sparsely developed it says they are generally not suitable for further development, but identifies some exceptions. For example, buildings for water based recreation. For all areas it recognises that land raising, i.e. permanently raising the level of the land, may be an acceptable response.

The SPP therefore sets a height above sea level, defined by the height of a flood with a probability of 0.5%(1:200), as a benchmark for planning authorities to use in the preparation of their development plans, for the determination of planning applications and for use by developers in considering whether to apply for planning permission. In addition it provides for planning authorities to consider the options for managed realignment of the coast and if appropriate to describe suitable locations through their development plan process. Overall I think the SPP provides a sound basis for planning authorities to manage development which would be at risk from the predicted rise in sea level, but necessarily allows for local circumstances and the type of development to be taken into account.

Nevertheless the situation is kept under review. UKCIP 08 will be published later this year. The expectations are that it will make more information available than with UKCIP 02 which will support the assessment of risks and adaptation options associated with climate change, particularly those related to and addressing extremes like flooding.

Mike Russell
30 January 2008

LETTER FROM THE CONVENER TO THE CABINET SECRETARY FOR RURAL AFFAIRS AND THE ENVIRONMENT FOLLOWING THE COMMITTEE MEETING ON 23 JANUARY 2008

The Rural Affairs and Environment Committee held a further evidence session on Wednesday 23 January 2008 as part of its ongoing flooding and flood management inquiry. As I explained in my letter of 14 January 2008, the Committee plans to write to you after each evidence session if relevant issues have emerged during the course of the evidence session.

At the 23 January meeting, the Committee took evidence from Professor David Crichton of the Benfield UCL Hazard Research Centre and representatives of Scottish Water including its chairman, Ronnie Mercer. Five issues emerged during the course of the evidence that the Committee agreed to write to you about.

The first issue relates to pluvial flooding which had such a devastating effect in England last summer. Scottish Water told the Committee that although it was widely acknowledged that modelling of potential pluvial flooding would be highly advantageous (as has been done be done for fluvial and coastal flooding), there were no plans for such work to be undertaken. Given the evidence that the Committee has already heard about the likely increase in the frequency of intense rainfall that can lead to pluvial flooding, it would be helpful if you could let the Committee know whether the Scottish Government had any plans to instigate such work.

The second issue arises from Professor Crichton’s evidence where he suggested that SEPA’s existing responsibilities under the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 to prevent the modification of rivers and lochs were potentially in conflict with effective flood management. Professor Crichton suggested that, under future precipitation regimes, river flows were likely to be greater and therefore modification of rivers would become more essential to manage flood risk. The Committee would welcome your views on whether you recognise this conflict of interest and whether you consider that the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 regime will require any adjustment. I would imagine that the Committee may also want to ask SEPA for its response to Professor Crichton’s suggestion.

Thirdly, the Committee discussed the potential of a storm surge in the Firth of Forth with Professor Crichton. The potential socio-economic impacts would seem to be significant for Scotland given the large concentration of critical infra-structure below the 5 metre contour in the upper part of the Firth of Forth. The Committee would be interested to know whether the Scottish Government has made a risk assessment of a storm surge in the Forth and whether this has been considered in emergency planning exercises. Professor Crichton also outlined a potential barrage across the Forth to protect against storm surges which could also act as an alternative crossing point. The Committee would be interested to know whether the Scottish Government has considered the possibility of such a barrage.

The fourth issue raised related to data on flood damage costs. Professor Crichton suggested that the Scottish Government still used data from Middlesex University to assess the cost of flood damage rather than what he viewed as the more extensive data held by the University of Dundee (which includes Scottish and Welsh data in addition to data from England and also takes into account intangible losses). The Committee would be interested to hear the Scottish Government’s rationale for the use of the Middlesex University data as opposed to that held by the University of Dundee.

The final issue relates to flooding that could be caused by a catastrophic dam failure. From the evidence provided by Professor Crichton and Scottish Water, it is not clear who has access to information about the areas that are at risk of flooding from a dam failure and what information is shared with local authorities and what information is made publicly available. Scottish Water will be writing to the Committee setting out their position but it would be instructive for the Committee if the Scottish Government could explain what requirements there are for sharing of information regarding potential flooding from dam failures.

I look forward to receiving your response.

Roseanna Cunningham
29 January 2008

RESPONSE FROM THE MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT

Thank you for your letter of 29 January to Richard Lochhead about issues raised by Professor David Crichton during the second evidence session of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee’s Flooding Inquiry. As I mentioned in my earlier reply it is useful to have an early opportunity to comment on the points of concern to the Committee. Since I am leading on the preparation of the Flooding Bill, I am responding.

As you know on 13 February I launched a public consultation, which details our proposals for modernising our flooding legislation. This consultation is an opportunity for everyone to contribute on the way forward for flood risk management in Scotland. I welcome the diversity of views that this consultation exercise and the Committee’s Inquiry will produce and these will all be used to help inform the future Flooding Bill.

The consultation covers all the issues raised by Professor Crichton including how best to address the challenges of surface water management. I hope the Committee will agree that the development of an approach to surface water management planning will provide a context to address the detailed issues of concern to Professor Crichton.

As regards the suggestion of a barrage across the Forth, while I recognise the concerns that Professor Crichton raises about the risk of flooding from a storm surge, the potential of a barrage or causeway as a replacement crossing was one of the options considered as part of the Forth Replacement Crossing Study. However it was rejected at the initial sifting stage for a number of reasons including the significant environmental impacts that would be associated with the proposal. These impacts focus on the loss, or damage to, internationally designated environmental sites at various points in the Estuary. Further impacts would arise from changes in water levels and sedimentation patterns that would be associated with a substantial structure, such as a causeway, located primarily within the body of water comprising the Estuary. In addition, a causeway would have a significant impact on traffic movements across the Forth, both in terms of the locations that might be selected in relation to the main origins and destinations of cross Forth trips, and the impacts of shipping movements through the low level crossing that a causeway would provide.

I look forward to attending the Committee’s evidence session on 23 March and I would suggest that we use this opportunity to consider Professor Crichton's points further.

I also look forward to the Committee’s further deliberations and the responses to our consultation paper. You may wish to consider whether it would also be useful to arrange another session to exchange ideas around the time the Committee reports its findings and our consultation exercise is finished.

Mike Russell
21 February 2008

LETTER FROM THE CONVENER TO THE MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT FOLLOWING THE COMMITTEE MEETING ON 6 FEBRUARY 2008

I note from your letter of 30 January 2008 that you are leading on the development of the Scottish Government’s flooding legislation. The Rural Affairs and Environment Committee held a roundtable discussion on Wednesday 6 February 2008 as part of its ongoing flooding and flood management inquiry. The focus of the discussion was largely on the role that can be played by land use, the planning system and building standards in flood management.

The Committee discussed the evidence heard and, as before, agreed that I should write to you raising key issues that emerged during the course of the discussion. Some of the issues noted are not framed as questions but reflect areas that the Committee feel should be drawn to your attention as you develop legislation on flooding and flood management.

Firstly, there was consensus among the participants that the catchment was the appropriate unit for flood management. Clearly, this presents challenges for local authorities who may need to spend money to benefit other authorities lower in the catchment. The Committee were given an example (the White Cart Water catchment) where this has worked well on a voluntary basis but the Committee believes that structures and processes may need to be put in place (potentially on a statutory basis) to ensure that local authorities co-operate in the best interests of the whole catchment. I should also note that there was a distinct view among participants that the Scottish Environment Protection Agency should take a lead role in flood management at a catchment level.

Secondly, it is apparent to the Committee that a holistic approach to flood management requires contributions from both the planning system and appropriate land management practices. However, the Committee is not convinced that there is currently a robust connection between them to ensure that planners take into account current and potential land management practices that best enable effective flood management.

On a related issue, there are clearly a variety of “soft solutions” (illustrated by various demonstration sites) available for flood management, some of which will relate to land management practices and these may prove to be an integral part of sustainable flood management. However, it is not obvious to the Committee that there has been any coherent attempt to evaluate the relative effectiveness of different “soft solutions” in different environmental settings. This could be a valuable area where the Scottish Government could commission research.

Thirdly, the Committee has already been struck, in the evidence it has heard to date, by the fact that pluvial flooding will represent a major challenge in the future given likely increases in rainfall volume and intensity. In this context, the Committee was concerned to learn that there was no systematic monitoring of the extension of hard surfaces (and the associated reduction in overall surface porosity) and the impact of runoff from these surfaces on the drainage system.

The Official Report of the meeting will be available from the Committee’s webpage on 11 February 2008. If you wish to respond to this letter, it would be helpful if your reply could be received by the close of Thursday 29 February 2008.

Roseanna Cunningham
7 February 2008

RESPONSE FROM THE MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT

Thank you for your letter of 8 February 2008 about a number of issues which were raised as a result of discussions during the third evidence session of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee’s Flooding Inquiry.

I was interested to note the consensus among the participants of the discussions that the catchment was the appropriate unit for flood management and that Scottish Environment Protection Agency should take a lead role in flood management at a catchment level. I am glad to note that these views broadly reflect our proposals put forward in the public consultation on The Future of Flood Risk Management in Scotland, which is now underway. The consultation also seeks views on the structures and processes that need to be put in place to ensure that the best interests of the whole catchment are met.

I was most interested in your identification of the important roles of the planning system and land management practices in a holistic approach to flood management, with which I agree. You also expressed concern about the connection between planning and land management practices. I also share these concerns. As part of the Government’s consultation, we are asking for views on our proposals to establish stakeholder fora to ensure that the preparation and implementation of plans to manage flood risk involve full and continuing consultation and discussion with those affected including land managers.

I welcome your suggestion that the Scottish Government could commission research into the effectiveness of ‘soft solutions’ available for flood management. My officials are currently working with the Flood Risk Assessment and Mapping (FRAM) working group to develop a research programme which will identify the contribution that land management measures, and forestry in particular, can make to sustainable flood management.

Finally, you have raised your concern that there is currently no systematic monitoring of the extension of hard surfaces and the impact of run off from these surfaces on the drainage system. In the consultation, we are also seeking views on the proposed contents of Flood Risk Management Plans and welcome any suggestions which will ensure the plans are fit for purpose.

I look forward to discussing these issues with the Committee in due course.

Thank you once again for bringing the issues which have arisen during the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee’s Flooding Inquiry to my attention and I look forward to receiving the Committees further deliberations and views.

Mike Russell
11 March 2008

LETTER FROM THE CONVENER TO THE MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT FOLLOWING THE COMMITTEE MEETING ON 19 FEBRUARY 2008

The Committee held its latest evidence session as part of its flooding and flood management inquiry in Elgin on Tuesday 19 February. The Official Report of the meeting has been published and is available from the Committee’s webpage. At the end of the meeting, the Committee discussed issues arising from the evidence and agreed that I should write to you highlighting these issues.

Having met in Elgin, where rainfall in the Highland Council area could generate flooding in the Moray Council area, the challenge of conducting flood management at a catchment level was very clear to the Committee. Members raised the suggestion that the Scottish Government could consider establishing outcome agreements by catchment together with a mechanism to allocate funding to that catchment rather than to individual local authorities.

The complexity of the current approvals process required for flood prevention schemes is well established and there appears to be universal agreement that this needs to be streamlined. The Committee noted the system of deemed planning consent that exists elsewhere and wonders whether this could be an appropriate future model for flood prevention orders. In addition, the Committee’s impression is that even with a streamlined approval system, the current three year funding horizon defined by spending review periods is likely to be far too short for major flood prevention programmes.

In evidence, Councillor Phillips from COSLA drew the Committee’s attention to the problems faced by local authorities who are responsible for keeping culverts clear but are unable to recover costs from owner-occupiers who do not maintain their culverts. Members would be interested to know whether the Scottish Government has any proposed solution for this apparent anomaly.

In contrast to the consensus among witnesses at the Committee’s meeting of 6 February regarding the suggestion that SEPA should take the lead responsibility for strategic flood management, there was no such consensus among the local authorities represented at the Committee’s meeting on 19 February with one witness believing SEPA should not have a lead role, two believing that it should play a lead role and COSLA expressing no view.

The Committee took evidence from local Elgin residents and businesses who had previously been affected by flooding. There appears to be a need for the Scottish Government to be more proactive in providing better information to the public about who is responsible for flood management and, importantly, what actions individuals can take to protect themselves and their property and what their responsibilities are in the event of flooding.

The Committee heard from local businesses about the economic impact of the history of flooding events in Elgin and the damage that was done to the reputation of the city as a place to invest. The Committee notes that investment in flood prevention schemes will consolidate investment made elsewhere to promote economic development.

Committee members raised the suggestion that prospective house purchasers should be provided with information on a property’s flood risk by either builders or vendors.

If you wish to respond to this letter, it would be helpful if your reply could be received by the close of Thursday 13 March 2008.

Roseanna Cunningham
22 February 2008

RESPONSE FROM THE MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT

Thank you for your letter of 22 February 2008 about the issues raised as a result of discussions during the fourth evidence session of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee’s Flooding Inquiry in Elgin.

I fully agree that conducting flood management at a catchment level is going to be challenging but it is clearly the way forward. As you will be aware funding for flooding has been transferred to the local government settlement and the Government is clear that this is the correct way to proceed. We are looking to local authorities to identify the priority to be given to flood protection locally. I understand why you suggest that the 3 year funding package may be too short, but it is the nature of Government funding that this has to be the case. However the process of flood risk management planning which we are proposing will identify, in a more consistent and comprehensive form than at present, longer term requirements which can be addressed through successive spending reviews. You have also made reference to the possibility of local outcome agreements applying on a catchment basis. Local Authorities are currently in the process of preparing their draft Single Outcome Agreements (SOAs) which they will share with the Scottish Government by 1 April 2008. The expectation is that agreement will be reached for all SOAs by the end of June 2008. Local Authorities may wish to reflect their commitment to addressing flooding issues in those agreements.

I was interested to note that there was universal agreement from your witnesses that the current approvals process for flood prevention schemes needs to be streamlined. I agree the current process for approval of flood prevention schemes needs to be reviewed and this is a key part of our present consultation. As you have highlighted, the deemed planning consent system is a possible approach to improving the present process for flood prevention orders and we are seeking views on this and an alternative model relying wholly on a local authority process as part of our consultation.

I note from your letter that unlike in your previous evidence sessions there were mixed views regarding SEPA taking lead responsibility for strategic flood management. As you will be aware from previous correspondence, this is one of the proposals put forward in the public consultation on The Future of Flood Risk Management in Scotland. We think the case for this is strong, but I welcome all views on this issue and look forward to receiving alternative suggestions for consideration.

In paragraph 6 you identify a need for a more proactive approach to providing information and advice to the public, about who is responsible for flood management, about the actions individuals can take to protect themselves and their property and what their responsibilities are in the event of flooding. This is particularly important in ensuring that a modern approach to flood risk management is achieved. We want to move away from a one dimensional approach and will introduce new measures to provide a portfolio of responses, including flood warning and flood awareness. To manage flood risk effectively we need to make better information available to the public and to the responsible authorities on the risk and consequences of flooding from rivers, the sea and groundwater. I hope your evidence session with SEPA provided you with further information on how we are approaching this important task. I would be happy to discuss this further with the Committee when I appear on 19 March.

Thank you for bringing to my attention the views of local businesses from Elgin on the damage caused to the reputation of Elgin as a place to invest as a result of flooding. I agree that investment in appropriate flood prevention measures will consolidate investments made to promote economic development where there is a risk of flooding. This point was also made to me by a business in Galston when I saw the scheme under construction there to announce the consultation on our proposals for The Future of Flood Risk Management in Scotland. So I am pleased to have approved flood prevention schemes in Bo’ness, Broxburn, Forres, Renfrew, Rothes, Saltcoats which will give confidence to businesses to invest in these places.

Finally, thank you for the suggestion that prospective house purchasers should be provided with information on a property’s flood risk by either the builders or vendors. Once we have undertaken the preliminary flood risk assessments, prepared flood hazard and flood risk maps and developed flood risk management plans as required by the EC Directive on the Assessment and Management of Flood Risks, there should be sufficiently robust data available for this purpose.

I look forward to discussing these issues with the Committee in due course.

Mike Russell
11 March 2008

LETTER FROM THE CONVENER TO THE MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT FOLLOWING THE COMMITTEE MEETING ON 5 MARCH 2008

The Committee held its penultimate evidence session in its flooding and flood management inquiry yesterday. The Committee devoted the majority of the meeting to oral evidence from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. On this occasion, there were no specific points arising from the oral evidence that the Committee wished to draw to your attention at this stage but we would commend to you SEPA’s written submission, a copy of which is attached.

I look forward to our evidence session with you on Wednesday 19 March. I note your suggestion of a further session after the end of the Scottish Government’s consultation on its legislative proposals. I will reflect on this suggestion and discuss with members of the Committee.

Roseanna Cunningham
6 March 2008

RESPONSE FROM THE MINISTER FOR ENVIRONMENT

Thank you for your letter of 6 March 2008 about the penultimate evidence session of the Rural Affairs and Environment Committee’s Flooding Inquiry, and for drawing my attention to SEPA’s written submission. I will be considering the detail of the submission, alongside the other issues you have raised during the progress of the Inquiry. These will all help to inform the development of the future Flooding Bill.

Mike Russell
15 April 2008

ANNEXE E: REPORTS OF VISITS

Visit to Perth and River Devon – 27 November 2007

1. The visit to Perth and the River Devon was undertaken by Roseanna Cunningham MSP (Convener), John Scott MSP (Deputy Convener) and Peter Peacock MSP, accompanied by Andrew Mylne (Clerk to the Committee) and Tom Edwards (SPICe). Andrew Cowan from the Media Relations Office also attended.

SEPA’s role in relation to flooding

2. The visit began at the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)’s office in Perth (Whitefriars). After an introduction by Dr Chris Spray, Director of Environmental Science, there was a presentation by the Head of Hydrology, Dr Richard Brown, outlining SEPA’s roles and responsibilities in relation to flooding. Members then visited the control room for the River Tay flood warning system and the SEPA Communications Centre, the hub of the Floodline system in Scotland. Other SEPA staff who contributed to the discussions were: John Anderson, Unit Manager (South-East Region), Malcolm MacConnachie, Senior Hydrologist, Paul Ryles, Hydrologist, Bill Lyons, Emergency Planning Manager, and Stewart Prodger, Communications Officer.

3. Dr Brown explained SEPA’s role as the hydrometric authority, and that the collection of high-quality data is fundamental to SEPA’s flood warning role and the flood prevention role of the local authorities. SEPA works with the Met Office on the prediction of heavy rainfall and other adverse weather conditions; measures river flow through a network of river gauges; models and interprets the data received to predict where flood risks may arise; gives out information to local authorities and/or the emergency services (depending on local arrangements) and to the public (through the Floodline service); and has a part to play in coordinating the response to flooding events. In the latter connection, SEPA is a “category 1 responder” under the Civil Contingencies Act. However, it has no specific statutory duty to issue flood warnings, and there is a lack of direction from existing legislation on which agency has the principal responsibility in relation to informing about flood risks and responding to flooding events. One factor of general concern is the shortage of suitably-qualified hydrologists, and SEPA is working with universities to encourage greater interest in the discipline.

4. The Floodline service was launched in November 2001 and has been much used (with 2.2 million website hits and 50,000 phone calls received, mostly people accessing pre-recorded messages, but many also going to the call centre staff who could give out specific information).

5. SEPA published the Indicative River and Coastal Flood Map (Scotland) in October 2006. The map covers all Scotland and shows areas at risk of fluvial and coastal flooding from floods with a 1 in 200 year return period Since being made available on SEPA’s website in October 2006 they have attracted 1.9 million hits to date. SEPA used the same digital terrain model for its base-data as the only comparable system (used by Norwich Union), and had been encouraged to find that the different methodologies used by the two organisations for assessing areas at risk from this model generated very similar results. It was emphasised that the maps are only indicative and that individual developments in vulnerable areas require detailed and specific flood-risk assessments (e.g. for planning purposes). SEPA, as a statutory consultee in the planning context, had the right to object to particular developments if it felt that such assessments were inadequate, and that if this was not addressed, SEPA’s concerns were likely to lead to applications being called in by Scottish Ministers. SEPA also comments on structure plans, which provides a more pro-active way of advising on flood risk in relation to new development.

6. SEPA also has a role in raising awareness pro-actively, for example through a mobile unit that visited at-risk areas to give out information to local people, and through drama events at local primary schools.

Visit to Perth “hard” defences

7. Later in the morning, Committee members and SEPA officials walked into central Perth to view the recently-enhanced flood defences on the River Tay. An explanation of the defences was provided by Susan Veitch, flooding officer at Perth and Kinross Council, who was accompanied by ??, ?? and Councillor Ann(e) Gaunt, ??. The defences include heightened river bank walls and metal gates that can be swung into place when flood warnings are received. The Council had used high-quality attractive materials and aimed to ensure that the design of the flood defences was consistent with amenity and access considerations (e.g. improved pedestrian and cycle routes along the riverbank, and integration of artworks). The Council began the project following severe flooding in 1993, work began in 1997, and was completed in 2001. The defences have been designed to cope with a 1 in 200 year flood, with headroom to allow for climate change. The 1993 flood was a 1 in 100 year flood. Since the defences were completed, there was a 1 in 25 year flood in 2006, which would otherwise have flooded the centre of Perth. It was noted that the peak flow on the River Tay during a flood event is capable of exceeding that on the Thames, Severn and Clyde combined.

8. In total 7.5 kms of defences have been put in place at a total cost of £26m. This was 50% funded by the Executive (such schemes now attract 80% government funding), with the remainder of the cost met from the Challenge Fund. The considerable costs of planning, designing and commissioning works have to be borne by local authorities.

Visit to River Devon demonstration site

9. After a sandwich lunch, Committee members and staff (together with Dr Brown from SEPA) were driven to a WWF Scotland demonstration site on the River Devon. This site, which was established in 2003, is intended to demonstrate the potential for sustainable flood management. Using financial support from HSBC, WWF Scotland has worked with the Forestry Commission, local farmers and other stakeholders to modify land use at a number of key areas within the locality. WWF emphasised that sustainable flood management relies on a partnership approach with local people and is seen as an important part of the answer, rather than a complete solution in itself. There will still be a need for hard defences in some locations, and it is also important to have good flood warning arrangements in place and to coordinate the activities of a range of agencies on a catchment basis.

10. The first site visited was an upland site on one side of a partially forested valley. Mike Donaghy, WWF’s Freshwater Policy Officer, gave an overview of the ideas behind the site, while Dr Richard Johnson, a consultant hydrologist, pointed out some of the specific changes made. These included blocking forest drains and blocking and building meanders into burn gullies, to slow the flow of water. Around 3,000 trees – willow, Scots pine, alder and rowan – had been planted, using volunteer groups and school parties, to provide additional obstacles to surface run-off. The aim was not to reduce the amount of water flowing off the land, but to slow it down by creating “leaky barriers” so as to avoid sharp “peaks” of flow. Measurements before and after carrying out work have shown the potential to spread peak flows over a longer period, which could reduce the damage caused by flooding.

11. The second site visited was much further down the river catchment in a lowland area. Here, WWF had organised tree-planting immediately adjacent to the river, on the inside of a natural meander liable to be inundated during a flood. There was some discussion about the need for measures to encourage farmers to support such an approach, either through compensation for removing the land from grazing, or direct support payments.

NOTE OF VISIT TO EAST KILBRIDE AND GLASGOW – 27 NOVEMBER 2007

1. The visit to East Kilbride and Glasgow was undertaken by Jamie Hepburn MSP, Mike Rumbles MSP and Des McNulty MSP, accompanied by Katherine Wright (Assistant Clerk to the Committee).

Background

2. At its meeting on 19 September, the Committee agreed to undertake fact finding visits to view flood management schemes and areas that had been previously affected by flooding.

3. On Tuesday, 27 November, Committee members undertook two visits. This note reports on the visit made by Jamie Hepburn, Des McNulty, and Mike Rumbles to East Kilbride and Glasgow.

4. The following officials from SEPA, Glasgow City Council and Scottish Water attended the visit:

SEPA
David Faichney, Flood Warning Unit Manager
Alastair Dewart Area Manager (North Area of South West Region) George Rattray Environmental Protection and Improvement Specialist MGSDP
Peter Finnie, Researcher to the CEO
Marc Becker, Senior Hydrologist
Glasgow City Council
Sandy Gillon, Environmental Sustainability manager
George Morrison, Principal Officer – Strategic Drainage
Iain Macnab, Head of Projects and Building

Scottish Water
Gerry McAllister, Technical Liaison manager (Glasgow)
Helen Lennox, Head of Corporate Affairs

East Kilbride – SEPA’s roles and responsibilities and the Firth of Clyde Flood Warning System

5. Committee members travelled to SEPA’s offices in East Kilbride and heard presentations on SEPA’s roles and responsibilities with regard to flooding and on the Firth of Clyde Flood Warning System. Members were given demonstrations of the flood warning system developed through its hydrometric stations and the Flood Early Warning System which integrates information from four catchment areas in the Firth of Clyde affected by fluvial and tidal flood risk.

6. Members heard about SEPA’s data collection processes, its awareness raising campaigns, and its input as a statutory consultee in the planning process. The presentation discussed the different roles of local authorities, SEPA and Scottish Water in flood management and their differing statutory responsibilities. Local authority fllood management schemes can take many years to develop and implement partly as a result of the need for liaison between local authorities where catchment areas cross local authority boundaries. The planning process was seen as an essential element in flood management because of the need to understand and manage flooding on a national strategic level.

7. Members heard about the need for a strategic approach through catchment level flood management methods of which the Metropolitan Glasgow Strategic Drainage Partnership was considered to be a good example.

Glasgow – the Metropolitan Glasgow Strategic Drainage Partnership

8. In 2002 Glasgow endured a 1 in 100 year storm which resulted in over 200 properties in the East End being inundated. Glasgow City Council and its partners Scottish Water, SEPA and Scottish Enterprise Glasgow have been working through the Metropolitan Glasgow Strategic Drainage Partnership (MGSDP) to establish an integrated approach to addressing the complex challenges of urban flooding.

9. Members heard a detailed presentation from Glasgow City Council on the MGSDP. The main lessons learned from the 2002 flooding event were: the need for a multi-agency and strategic approach.

10. The issues highlighted by the Council and Scottish Water which they considered needed to be addressed concerned legislation, funding and asset ownership. Members heard that streamlining of legislation and flexibility in how funding could be directed would help local authorities, Scottish Water and SEPA to work collaboratively towards sustainable flood management.

11. Members heard that the key to urban flooding is the management of surface water. They were informed about the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDs) which help to manage surface water so that it is removed from the sewer system, and were shown examples of SUDs adjacent to the M77.

Site visit and final discussion

12. Members were escorted around the East End of Glasgow and shown various locations where flooding had occurred in July 2002 and measures to help mitigate against further flooding events.

13. The visit ended with a summary discussion on the main points covered during the day, including whether new legislation was necessary and funding issues. Emphasis was placed on the need for a strategic approach to flood management.

ANNEXE F: Annual average Scottish temperature and precipitation (1914 -2007)

Figure 1. Annual Scottish temperature, 1914 – 2007.

Figure 2. Annual Scottish precipitation, 1914 – 2007.

ANNEXE G: Indicative number of properties (commercial and residential) inside 1 in 200 year fluvial AND COASTAL flood zoneS, by local authority

Table 1: fLUVIAL