Added 28/7/2009

THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF WINDSOR & MAIDENHEAD  RIVERSIDE PARISHES

Cllr Malcolm Beer,

14 Orchard Court

Old Windsor

WINDSOR, Berks

SL4 2RZ

23rd July 2009

Defra Consultations,                                                                                                                                                                                

30- 34 Albert Embankment, 

LONDON, SE17TL. 

Dear Sirs,

DRAFT FLOODS & WATER MANAGEMENT BILL

CONSULTATION RESPONSE

At an open meeting of Councillors and members of residents organisations of the riverside Parishes of Bisham, Cookham, Hurley, Datchet, Old Windsor and Wraysbury earlier this week it was agreed that I should submit the following response on the behalf of the meeting.   We trust that as these communities have all suffered from serious flooding from both main river and ordinary watercourses, these observations will be given substantial consideration.

1. There is universal support for the transfer of many EA responsibilities to Local Authorities (LAs), in our case the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead, which is a Unitary Council.  

The overriding reason is that a local administration has a far better interface with the local communities and joined up in depth knowledge of the details and priorities of local circumstances than the regional offices of a national agency could ever hope to achieve, no matter however hard they may try to do so.

2. The absence of a firm commitment to fund the extra resources which the LA will need to carry out a wide range of new responsibilities is impractical, totally unrealistic and therefore strongly opposed.   

The requirement to take on additional specialist professional staff to carry out and maintain expensive surveys and mapping duties are just two of many extra costs which will impact upon local residents if the tasks are to be executed effectively and communities are not put at greater risk than now.

This area of the lower Thames Valley has the fourth highest number of residents at risk of flooding in the entire country, and therefore it seems inevitable that the local cost of dealing with flood and water management will be very much higher than elsewhere.    The flow of water in rivers, streams and ditches knows no local government boundaries, and Councils in valley and low lying areas, such as the Royal Borough, should not have to bear the cost of managing water discharged from other areas.    Very simply, equity demands that these costs should be shared by all and adequately funded nationally.

3. There is support for the proposed clarification of the responsibility of riparian owners of third party assets such as flood banks, streams, etc., for their upkeep.

4. There is support for the proposal that surface water run-off should become a statutory nuisance and that property owners should be responsible for dealing with such discharges.    I am aware of widespread support for the wider introduction of SUDS to limit the effects of flash flooding and surcharging of all types of watercourses.                                                                                                                                            (Continued)

Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead Riverside Parishes

Response to Draft Flood & Water Management Bill (Cont’d).

5. There appears to be confusion regarding the extent of EA transfer of watercourses to LA management, as it seems that some Critical Ordinary Watercourses (CoWs) were not adopted by the EA.    That aside, the experience of Councillors and residents is that CoWs cause many problems, as although they drain off large quantities of water, many are “off the beaten track” and are near to impossible to supervise by a national body.  Many are poorly maintained and burst their banks in times of high rainfall.   Some of my colleagues think that it would be more logical to transfer all but actual rivers to the LAs, to avoid confusion (especially regarding mapping, overlapping of responsibilities and clarification of public perception of who is responsible).  But that would be impossible if national funding is not guaranteed.

6. The use of the word “power” should be changed to “duty”.    This comment was unanimously supported by all but one Councillor, because there is no obligation to use a power, i.e. there is a choice upon whether action is taken or not, whereas a duty is something which must be done.    It is considered that far too many things which LAs have the power to do are not actioned, and as this often  conflicts with local community interests this loophole should be closed.

7.  My colleagues seek an assurance that the Bill will impose a positive duty on the EA to transfer all relevant data to LAs.   We are unaware whether the there are provisions in the Bill requiring the EA to transfer all relevant data such as historical information and records, full old and current survey and mapping data, etc.,   This is considered to be essential to avoid LAs such as the Royal Borough having to incur huge costs and delays to duplicate EA material and carry out extensive research, archive searches, new survey work and mapping, etc.

Thanking you,                                                                                                                                                                                 Yours etc.,                                                                                                                                                                                        

Malcolm Beer                                                                                                                                                                  (Parish & Borough Councillor)                                                                                                                                       for Councillors & Residents of Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead Riverside Parishes.

/Riverside Parishes Response to Floods Bill Jul 09.