Meeting documents

This item is for Members to consider the latest position for dealing with Sustainable Drainage as part of major development planning applications and to discuss and feedback on the options and proposal for the way forward

Karen Fisher, Strategic Flood Management Officer

The Chairman welcomed Mrs Karen Fisher, Strategic Flood Management Officer and Mr Martin Dickman, Director of Environment Services to the meeting. The Chairman invited Mrs Fisher to provide members with an overview of the Council’s approach to Sustainable Drainage (SUDS) before he invited member’s questions.  During the presentation and in response to subsequent questions, the following main points were noted:

·         The Flood Water Management Act 2010 Schedule 3, introduced the idea of a SUDS Approval Body (SAB) which would be run by the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) but this would not now be enacted.  Instead the drainage aspects of planning applications would be referred to the LLFA for advice – in Bucks, this is Buckinghamshire County Council(BCC).  This had been confirmed as a statutory duty in the past few days and LLFAs would be expected to deliver this from 15^th April 2015.

·         In practice, this meant that the Local Planning Authorities (LPAs), the four district councils in Bucks, would consider the LLFA’s comments on drainage for all major applications.  A major application consisted of 10 properties or more or a site over one hectare in size. Drainage maintenance and management plans would have to be submitted as part of the planning application.

·         Internal Drainage Boards would not be statutory consultees, but BCC would speak to them to gain from their expertise, especially in the North of the County.  Also water companies would not be statutory consultees, but they were happy to give their feedback.

·         Based on the level of major applications this year, it is anticipated that there will be approximately 160 per year for BCC as the LLFA to respond to. There may be some funding from Government to support the new arrangement but this is still to be confirmed and may be in the order of £200-250 per application.  As a result of a previous MTP bid, £100,000 base funding was available to cover staff costs and some level of technical advice, but the exact level of funding required will depend on the level of response that BCC choose to provide.  In addition three of the four LPAs have indicated that they may also wish to ask for comments on the drainage aspects of minor applications and BCC could charge for this additional service.  BCC could also offer pre-application advice for a fee as a way of generating additional income.

·         The report in the agenda papers set out three different options for how BCC could discharge these new statutory duties and Option 2 was the recommended option.  This involved a risk based approach, with higher risk applications receiving a more detailed response – this was likely to be approximately 80 applications per year.  It was envisaged that £110,000 total resource would be sufficient to meet the demand, possibly rising to £150,000 if the number of applications increased.  This would be met by a combination of MTP budget, Government funding and charging for pre-application advice.

·         Job descriptions had been drawn up but it was unlikely that anyone would be appointed to the new roles until early Summer, therefore in the interim it was proposed that consultant staff from Jacobs would provide responses to the LPAs on a three days per week basis.  This would be funded by DEFRA funding that was held over from 2014-15 for setting up SUDS.

·         In addition BCC officers were working closely with the LPAs to agree how to process applications efficiently and what information will be needed on the drainage aspects of an application before it is passed through to BCC for a response.  Pre-application advice charges were being researched and a proposal on how BCC can introduce this will be developed.

·         There were concerns about the inspection and enforcement aspects of SUDS as this responsibility lies with the LPAs, therefore alternative options were also being researched and costed in preparation for further discussions.

·         The Strategic Flood Management Officer was asked what sort of comments would be made on applications and whether the LLFA would have any ‘teeth’.  She explained that current mapping for surface water and ground water would be used and flood hotspots had been identified over the past two winters. Drainage schemes would have to be presented in detail and greenfield run off would be a key consideration. The principle of SUDS is to contain water as near to the source as possible and not all within a traditional pipe system, which impacts the number of houses that can be built on a site.  Karen Fisher expressed the view that there needed to be more power in the Planning policy - each of the LPAs needed to strengthen their Planning policy to take SUDS into account.

·         There were concerns about the LLFA’s lack of inspection and enforcement powers.  SUDS could be designed well but if not implemented properly, then issues could arise. The LPAs would be responsible for enforcement during the development. The Chairman asked who would own the drainage system of a development once it had been completed.  If SUDS related to a highway then BCC would adopt it, but if it was not obviously related to a highway then it would be adopted by a management company.

·         The Environment Agency (EA) will remain as a statutory consultee for developments at risk of fluvial flood.  The EA have standing advice that will be useful for low risk sites and they are offering training during this transition period.

·         SUDS would not impact on BCC’s S19 flood investigation responsibilities, indeed S19 investigation reports would constitute a body of evidence to add weight to SUDS recommendations. 

·         The Strategic Flood Management Officer was asked how other local authorities were approaching the new SUDS duties.  Some authorities were further ahead – Kent, Essex and Hertfordshire had appointed people last year in anticipation – whilst others have a recruitment freeze and will be looking at a service similar to Option 1 outlined in the agenda papers.  Cambridgeshire had opted for something similar to Option 3, so BCC would monitor their progress.

·         A member challenged why BCC should progress Option 2 when it had been acknowledged that there would be no inspection or enforcement rights and BCC could only advise the LPAs – surely Option 1 would be sufficient. Alternatively could it be self-financing through charging for pre-application advice? In response, Karen Fisher explained that Option 1 could mean missing out on surface water issues, which would store up problems later on for BCC as the Lead Flood Authority. Also this would not really be complying with the spirit of the Act. BCC would be investigating charging for pre-application advice, but it was not compulsory for developers to seek such advice.

·         Another member supported the approach outlined in Option 2, but asked if consideration had been given to varying the TfB contract to allow Jacobs to continue to respond to applications on a permanent basis. It was acknowledged that this could be an option as Jacobs gave a good service and were very highly skilled.  Members noted that the report did not indicate if other market options had been thoroughly investigated.

·         Funding arrangements from the Department for Communities and Local Government had yet to be confirmed.  The Chairman commented that this was unacceptable when the statutory duty would begin in two weeks’ time and he requested that officers should write to the Minister to express concern at the lateness of the decision.

ACTION: Karen Fisher/Martin Dickman

In conclusion, the Chairman considered each of the eight Actions and Recommendations at the end of the report and summarised the Committee’s view as follows:

·         Members had challenged the proposed arrangements for the short and longer term, weighing up the statutory duty against the longer term benefits for BCC, as the Leading Flood Authority and therefore considering what arrangements should be put in place.

·         It was important that close working with the LPAs continues to ensure there was clarity around processes and how BCC would judge the drainage elements of major applications.

·         If BCC were to go down the route of also responding on drainage aspects of minor applications as well, there would need to be a robust business case.

·         It was important that a charging structure for pre-application advice was developed promptly, as this would need to go through the Cabinet Member Decision process. 

·         The Committee would welcome investigation into the options for inspection/enforcement and adoption of SUDS and the development of a business case to support this.

The Chairman thanked Mrs Karen Fisher and Mr Martin Dickman for attending the meeting. The Committee noted the report and asked the officers to consider their points before the report was taken on to Cabinet.