ITEM: 7
PAGE: 1
REPORT TO: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE
SERVICES COMMITTEE ON 2 JUNE 2015
SUBJECT:
FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES AND PLANS –
PRIORITISING ACTIONS
BY:
ACTING CORPORATE DIRECTOR (ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT,
PLANNING & INFRASTRUCTURE)
1.
REASON FOR REPORT
1.1
To ask the Committee to agree prioritisation of preferred actions for the
Findhorn, Nairn and Speyside Local Plan District and the North-East Local
Plan District involving Potentially Vulnerable Areas (PVAs) in this Council’s
administrative area.
1.2
This report is submitted to Committee in terms of Section III (F) (21) of the
Council’s Scheme of Administration relating to the Flood Risk Management
(Scotland) Act 2009.
2.
RECOMMENDATION
2.1
It is recommended that Committee agree the prioritisation of the
preferred options for the Findhorn, Nairn and Speyside Local Plan
District and North-East Local Plan District involving Potentially
Vulnerable Areas (PVAs) in this Council’s area.
3.
BACKGROUND
3.1
On 7 April 2015, this Committee (Para 12 of the draft Minute referes):
(i)
agreed the preferred options for the Findhorn, Nairn and Speyside
Local Plan District and North-East Local Plan District involving
potentially vulnerable areas in this Council’s area;
(ii)
noted the timetable for finalising the Local Strategies and Plans; and
(iii)
granted delegated authority to amend the strategies as a result of the
consultation to the Head of Direct Services in consultation with the
Council’s Steering Group representatives and the Chair and ViceChair.
ITEM: 7
PAGE: 2
3.2
This is part of a new six-year cyclical process towards a risk-based, plan-led
approach set out in the diagram below (courtesy of the Scottish Environment
Protection Agency (SEPA).
3.3
The above process was undertaken step-by-step, with key stages, other than
flood hazard mapping which is a technical process, being approved by this
Committee. These key stages were:National Flood Risk Assessment and agree PVAs;
Flood Hazard mapping;
Setting objectives for PVAs;
Long- and short-listing of options to reduce flood risk in each PVA;
Selecting preferred actions; and
The subject of this report – prioritising actions.
3.4
The preferred options (or actions) agreed were summarised in the table for
those PVAs where objectives were set. SEPA assessed the costs.
PVA ref
05/02
Description
Spynie
Lhanbryde
Elgin
Forres
Selected Action
Flood study – direct defences for
Seatown, Lossiemouth
Maintain watercourses and scheme
Maintain watercourses and Scheme
Maintain watercourses and Schemes
Cost
£50k £100k
Variable
Variable
Variable
05/03
05/05
05/06 &
07
05/09
06/01
Rothes and Aberlour
Portgordon
Maintain watercourses and Schemes
Flood study – direct defences and
Variable
£50k -
ITEM: 7
PAGE: 3
coastal management
3.5
£100k
The above will be included in the Local Delivery Plan and programmed over
the six-year period. Some actions such as operating and maintaining
schemes, operating flood warning systems, clearance and repair, emergency
planning and raising awareness are considered to be continuing activities so
there is no need to prioritise them. The approved “Detailed Prioritisation
Methods” document (see APPENDIX) relates to specific actions to reduce
flood risk:
Flood Warning
Strategic Improved Understanding
Schemes & Works
Studies
Hence at this time only the studies at Seatown (Lossiemouth) and Portgordon
would be included in the prioritisation, which will be carried out at national (by
six-year cycle only), local plan district and local authority levels.
3.6
The basis for prioritising studies is primarily potential benefits (see Appendix).
SEPA held a workshop with officers on 20 April 2015, which concluded that
the Seatown (Lossiemouth) study should be ranked above Portgordon at the
national and local authority level (they are in different local plan districts).
Rankings for studies are shown in the table below:
Study
Seatown Lossiemouth
Portgordon
National
57 / 195
175 / 195
Local Plan
1/ 5
15 / 18
Moray
1/ 2
2/ 2
SEPA assessed Seatown Lossiemouth annual average damages at £8.4
million (80 properties) while at Portgordon the figure was £0.8 million (40
properties). SEPA consider the assessment for Portgordon may be an underestimate because better information on wave overtopping of defences is
becoming available. How these are prioritised within Moray is a matter for the
Council.
3.7
Once in the approved Local Strategy, Lead Local Authorities must include
these studies in the Local Delivery Plans, which will set out when actions will
be undertaken, how much they are expected to cost, how they will be funded
and who will carry them out.
3.8
Officers have advised SEPA that the Council is progressing studies for Dallas,
Hopeman, Arradoul and Portessie. Subject to the findings of these studies,
there is a prospect of Hopeman being a late inclusion in the Strategies
through the consultation process (see previous Agenda item). The situation
for Dallas is more complicated because it is not in a PVA at the moment, but
Officers are making the case.
3.9
There is no prospect of actions emerging at Portessie and Arradoul being
included in Strategies because they are well outwith PVAs. They may be
included as actions in “other areas” in Delivery Plans.
ITEM: 7
PAGE: 4
3.10 There are no natural flood management studies identified for Moray.
3.11 Surface water flooding is addressed through a parallel process but is not at
this stage part of the prioritisation exercise.
3.12 The remaining key milestone dates are as follows:
Consultation close – 2 June 2015
Report on consultation response – 2 August 2015
SEPA submit draft local strategies – 2 November 2015
Ministers approve strategies – statutory deadline 22 December 2015
Lead Local Authorities approve Delivery Plan – 22 June 2016
4.
SUMMARY OF IMPLICATIONS
(a)
Moray 2023 – A Plan for the Future/ Service Plan
Reducing risk to properties contributes to adults living healthier,
sustainable independent lives safeguarded from harm, a growing and
diverse economy and safer communities.
(b)
Policy and Legal
There are statutory deadlines set out in the report. Once actions are
included in final strategies and plans, SEPA, Scottish Water and local
authorities have a duty to implement the actions, subject to a “best
endeavours” caveat.
(c)
Financial implications
Unless budgetary provision already exists, the finalised plans will
require to be considered for funding through the Council’s normal
financial planning processes. Scottish Government and the Convention
of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA), advised by the Society of Chief
Officers of Transportation in Scotland (SCOTS), will consider how the
flood risk management component of general capital grant will be
distributed to councils to meet their commitments included in strategies
and plans. The preferred options agreed at the last Meeting (3.1(i)
refers) imply a financial commitment of between £100,000 and
£200,000 in the period 2016 – 2022 for studies. Any further actions
emerging from on-going studies and/or this consultation would require
funding. Actions such as raising awareness and maintenance of
watercourses and schemes are normally met from the Flood Risk
Management Revenue Budget.
(d)
Risk Implications
The key risk is failure to meet statutory deadlines. A number of
expedients have been employed to address delays in the appraisal
ITEM: 7
PAGE: 5
process, and any consequences for delivery of actions. The six-year
planning cycle does not fit well with financial planning cycles so there
will be a risk that funding becomes a constraint.
(e)
Staffing Implications
There are no staffing implications associated with the
recommendations in this report. The delays mean that there will be
added pressure on staff in meeting statutory deadlines.
(f)
Property
There are no property implications for the Council at this stage.
(g)
Equalities
There are no equalities implications related to the recommendations in
this report because they do not affect groups of people in different
ways. SEPA has undertaken an Equality and Human Rights Impact
Assessment in respect of the consultation process.
(h)
Consultations
A Scott, Legal Services Manager, L Paisey, Principal Accountant and D
Toonen, Equal Opportunities Officer have been consulted and are in
agreement with the report.
5.
CONCLUSIONS
5.1
Actions require to be prioritised, initially by six-year cycle at a national
level. As there are only two specific actions in Moray’s PVAs it is
concluded that these should both be in the 2016 – 2022 cycle.
5.2
Prioritisation at Local Plan District and Council levels will be considered
during the finalisation of the Local Delivery Plans. Actions in other areas
may be included th the Local Delivery Plans provided they do not affect
the Council’s ability to deliver actions in the Local Strategy.
5.3
Funding remains uncertain but the Council must show how actions set
out in the Local Delivery Plans will be funded.
ITEM: 7
PAGE: 6
Author of Report:
Background
Dave Gowans, Consultancy Manager