Amended 17/9/2010 - You are here: Jubilee River Home
Page > Flood and Water Management Act
> Flood Risk Regulations
2009 >Election
2010 manifestos >
How to contact me
The Jubilee River story - Flood & Water Management
Act 2010
INDEX >
17/9/10 -
Implementation of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (e-mail from Defra)
The
Flood and Water Management Act
2010 is the result of the Summer 2007 UK flooding, the Pitt Review and the
EU Flood Directive.
There was a Defra Consultation on the Draft
Floods and Water Bill April-July 2009.
Due to imminent infraction the Flood Risk Regulations
2009 came into effect in December 2009.
The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 came
into effect April 2010.
In my opinion this
new legislation (FRR 2009 and FWMB 2010) could have done more to ensure that
watercourses were properly maintained - thus reducing the probability of
flooding.
Flood
and Water Management Act
2010
CHAPTER 29
CONTENTS
P
ART
1
F
LOOD
AND COASTAL
EROSION
RISK
MANAGEMENT
16/4/10 - Link to F&WMA 2010
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2010/pdf/ukpga_20100029_en.pdf
8/4/2010 -
The Flood and Water Management Bill
passed through the Houses of
Parliament and became the Flood and
Water Management Act 2010.
Flood and Water
Management Act 2010
The Flood and Water
Management Bill gained Royal Assent on the 8 April 2010.
The Act will implement
several key recommendations of Sir Michael Pitt’s Review of the Summer 2007
floods, protect water supplies to consumers and protect community groups from
excessive charges for surface water drainage.
The Act’s provisions include:
·
New statutory responsibilities for managing flood risk –
There will be national strategies and guidance on managing flood risk in England
and Wales. Unitary and county councils will bring together the relevant bodies,
who will have a duty to cooperate, to develop local strategies for managing
local flood risk.
·
Protection of assets which help manage flood risk – The
Environment Agency, local authorities and internal drainage boards will be able
to ensure that private assets which help manage the risks of floods cannot be
altered without consent. For example, putting a gate in a wall that is helping
protect an area could increase the risk of flooding.
·
Powers to carry out environmental works – the Environment
Agency, local authorities and internal drainage boards will be able to manage
water levels to deliver leisure, habitat and other environmental benefits.
·
Sustainable drainage – drainage systems for all new
developments will need to be in line with new National Standards to help manage
and reduce the flow of surface water into the sewerage system.
·
New sewer standards – all sewers will be built to agreed
standards in future so that they are adopted and maintained by the relevant
sewerage company.
·
Reservoir safety – the public will be protected by a new
risk-based regime for reservoir safety. It will reduce the burden on regulated
reservoirs where people are not at risk, but introduce regulation for some
potentially risky reservoirs currently outside of the system.
·
Water company charges – there will be protection against
unaffordable charges for surface water drainage for community groups such as
churches, scouts and others. Future water company charges can include social
tariffs for those who would otherwise face difficulty meeting their bills.
·
Protection of water supplies – there will be wider powers for
water companies to control non-essential domestic uses of water in times of
drought.
·
Other protection for water company customers – there will be
new powers to reduce the level of bad debt, new arrangements for managing very
risky infrastructure projects which could be a threat to the ability of the
water company to provide its services, and updated arrangements for
administration of water companies should they get into difficulties.
For further information on the Act see the Defra
Flood and Water
Management Act web
pages.
Defra
Flood and Water Management
Bill Team
8/2/10 -
FRR2009 Groundwater problem - E-mail
to Minister
Now
in House of Lords Grand Committee
Stage
House of Lords - Second Reading
completed -
24/2/2010
Finished the
House of Commons
Report Stage & Third
Reading - 2/2/2010 (external link)
25 Jan 2010 : Column 1267 8.01 pm
Flood Risk Regulations 2009
Copy of
the Order
2nd Report from the Merits Committee
Motion to Resolve
Moved By Lord
Taylor of Holbeach
25/1/10 - Link to Parliament -
Committee and Memoranda listing -
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/floodandwatermanagement/committees/houseofcommonspublicbillcommitteeonthefloodandwatermanagementbill200910.html
22/1/2010 - Latest version of F&WMB
As amended by
Committee
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmbills/053/10053.i-ii.html
.pdf version
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmbills/053/2010053.pdf
22/1/10 - Copy of additional
Memorandum FW20 from Ewan Larcombe
Link to
Parliament - Bill documents -
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/floodandwatermanagement/documents.html
Link to
Parliament - Committee and evidence
-
http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2009-10/floodandwatermanagement/committees/houseofcommonspublicbillcommitteeonthefloodandwatermanagementbill200910.html
Report Stage - 1/2/2010
20/1/10 - Copy
of memorandum FW17 from Ewan
Larcombe
The Committee Stage concluded on Thursday 21 January
|
(1) |
the Committee shall
(in addition to its first meeting at 9.00 am on Thursday 7
January 2010) meet— |
|
|
|
|
(a) |
at 1.00 pm on
Thursday 7 January; |
|
|
(b) |
at 10.30 am and
4.00 pm on Tuesday 12 January; |
|
|
(c) |
at 9.00 am and
1.00 pm on Thursday 14 January; |
|
|
(d) |
at 10.30 am and
4.00 pm on Tuesday 19 January; |
|
|
(e) |
at 9.00 am and
1.00 pm on Thursday 21 January; |
|
|
|
|
Hansard
Committee stage: 3rd sitting - 10.30
- 1.00 : House
of Commons 12
January 2010
Audio -
Committee stage 3rd sitting - 10.30
-1.00
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=5541
Extract:
|
Mr. Robertson: I am
grateful to the Minister for giving that explanation, which
is now clear. Does he not accept that if the water is
resting just below the surface it might, for example, be
unsuitable to build on that land? The matter is important
because there may be a number of planning applications or,
indeed, appeals that revert back to this legislation to
determine what a flood area is. It is very important that we
get this right. Does he accept—I do not think he does—that
water resting just below the surface could constitute
flooding? I do not think he accepts that, and that worries
me.
Huw Irranca-Davies: No. Water below the
surface of itself does not constitute flooding as it is
described in the European definitions or the definitions in
the Bill. I think I have made it clear that a high water
table can itself contribute to a flooding event. That falls
within the definition in relation to, for example, flooding
of a basement, secondary flooding and things such as that.
We will return to the issues surrounding planning later
within subsequent amendments and that will be a good debate
to have. I have made it clear that I am quite sympathetic to
both points that have been raised, but let me take the
matter away to consider and see whether we can bring
something forward subsequently, because we are aiming to do
exactly the same thing.
There is not a necessity to go further in the way that the
hon. Lady is suggesting because it would extend the scope of
the Bill considerably. However, just to make it clear, in
asking the hon. Members for Vale of York, for Upminster, for
Cheltenham and for Brecon and Radnorshire not to press their
amendments, I am sympathetic to what they are saying. I
think we have dealt with the matter already, but I am
particularly happy to take away the suggestion by the hon.
Member for Cheltenham and have a look at it.
|
11/1/10 - Link to LGA evidence FW12
(uncorrected)
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmpublic/floodandwater/memos/ucfw1202.htm
Extract:
| 1. DEFRA have said that they will monitor costs of councils
taking on the lead role in local flood risk management and meet
any net new burdens if they emerge. But this is not in the
spirit of the New Burdens Doctrine which requires that new
burdens on councils be identified and accurately costed
in advance. The LGA is
therefore calling for DEFRA to undertake an urgent
reassessment of the expected costs of the lead authority role
and to ensure that new costs are met. 2.
While the LGA welcomes new flexibilities in the Bill in terms of
consultation and information-sharing,
we are disappointed that the provisions defining "lead local
flood authority" and other key terms were passed in secondary
legislation
[Flood Risk Regulations 2009] on 10th
December. We hope that these aspects of the Bill will
receive appropriate scrutiny as the Bill progresses through
Parliament.
3. We are aware that there is likely
to be a shortage of skills and capacity across local government
when councils take on the lead role. We therefore strongly
recommend that a working group, consisting of local authorities,
universities, training providers and professional institutes
should be set up as a matter of urgency to make recommendations
to the Government on skills and training issues that will need
to be addressed as a result the new role to be taken on by local
authorities. |
Webcast - 7/1/10 - 1.00pm
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingId=5486
Hansard
Committee stage: 2nd sitting: House
of Commons 7
January 2010
Extract -
|
Q 74Miss McIntosh: I was very taken by what
Jean Venables said about the definition of flooding. If she
could elaborate a bit more, how would she like to see that
further defined?
Dr. Jean Venables: I have
a concern about the fact that flooding is defined as when
water appears on the surface, yet we know that damage occurs
when water reaches within a certain distance—say, 0.3
metres—below the surface. That damages roads, railways,
properties and foundations. That is recognised in the
benefits of flood systems, so I would want to see that term
amended or have reassurance that it does not affect existing
practice. I have a real concern about it.
|
|
Q 75Miss McIntosh: Am I correct in
understanding that there used to be regional engineers
attached to DEFRA to do some of the maintenance work? Where
have they gone and what was their relationship to the
Environment Agency?
Dr. Jean Venables: DEFRA
had a team of engineers who, as you said, were regionally
based and extremely knowledgeable about local circumstances.
They assessed the schemes that came forward.
They were
disbanded and the duties were taken over by the Environment
Agency, so there is very little engineering expertise within DEFRA at the moment, as a result of that group going.
|
|
Q 77Mr. Robertson: My question is
for Miss Bashford. As I understand it, there is
already legislation that requires riparian owners to
maintain waterways. It quite often does not happen.
Is there a need for this Bill to revisit that
legislation, or do you think that the legislation is
strong enough but is just not applied? How would you
assess it?
Jenny Bashford:
River maintenance is another big issue that we have
brought up in our representations on this Bill.
There are certain obligations on the Environment
Agency to do a certain amount of
riparian
maintenance, which simply is not happening. It is
one of those cases where if the organisation that is
representing the Government is not seen to be doing
their job it does nothing to encourage anybody else
to do theirs, so there is a bit of a circular
problem going on here. It would be very helpful if
there was something in the Bill that put an
obligation on the agency—going back to that question
about the obligations and responsibilities of the
agency—to do some riparian maintenance.
|
Webcast - 7/1/10 - 9.00am
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/MeetingDetails.aspx?meetingId=5484
Hansard
Committee stage: 1st sitting: House
of Commons 7
January, 2010
House of Commons Committee
- amendments -
7/1/2010
18/12/09 - Link to House of Commons
- Notices and Amendments
House of Commons passed Second Reading -
Tuesday
15/12/2009
16 December 2009
Environment Secretary, Hilary Benn,
moved the second reading of the Flood and Water
Management Bill in the House of Commons. The Bill
seeks to address the threat of flooding and water
scarcity, both of which are predicted to increase
with climate change.
Key areas of
the Bill:
- requires the Environment Agency to create a
National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk
Management Strategy, which a number of
organisations will have to follow
- requires leading local flood authorities to
create local flood risk management strategies
- enables the Environment Agency and local
authorities more easily to carry out flood risk
management works
- introduces a more risk-based approach to
reservoir management
- changes the arrangements that would apply
should a water company go into administration
- enables water companies more easily to
control non-essential uses of water, such as the
use of hosepipes
- enables water companies to offer concessions
to community groups for surface water drainage
charges
- requires the use of sustainable drainage
systems in certain new developments
- introduces a mandatory building standard for
sewers
Floods and Water Bill consultation
- responses
Flood and
Water Bill consultation -
closed 24/7/2009
(There were about 650
responses in total. Please check that your
response to the consultation has been recorded on pages 119/131 of the Defra
document)
19/11/09 - Floods and Water Bill responses - now published
(Defra) 1mB.pdf
1/10/09 - Stormy waters for floods bill (NFU)
29/9/09 - Floods Bill in rocky waters (NCE)
24/9/09
- MPs criticise draft Floods and Water Bill (EFRA C'tee)
Read the Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
report (External Link)
5/8/09 - F&WB - CIWEM response (279Kb)
3/8/09 - Selby residents call for one authority to manage floods (York Press)
1/8/09 - F&WB - TCPA response (168Kb .pdf)
62 ......................
Article 10 of the Floods Directive not only states that
Member States should make available to the public the preliminary flood risk
assessment, maps and plans, but also that Members States
“shall
encourage active involvement of interested
parties in the production,
review and updating of the flood risk management plans”
9.
The empowerment of the EA and county and unitary local authorities to do
this should be made clearer.
30/7/09 - F&WB - East Sussex response (140Kb .pdf)
30/7/09 - F&WB - RBWM response (40Kb .pdf)
29/7/09 - F&WB - Local
Government Association - Group response (258Kb .pdf)
National Farmers' Union responds to draft
Bill
'there is no reference to the state of main rivers. The
condition of main rivers and their maintenance is of great concern to our
members; channel-wide maintenance (including dredging and clearing of
bankside vegetation) is vital to both flood risk and water level management.
The reduction in cycles of maintenance since the EA took over responsibility
for main rivers must be reversed if we are to see the benefits the Bill aims
to deliver.'
I
have sent the following short submission to the Floods and Water Bill (MV -
River Hull FAG)
I am writing on behalf of the ThamesAwash Committee to state
that.......
(P R Scott)
In my opinion flooding
has become one of the major problems that exists within the UK today. In
order to help solve this very serious issue funding must be made available
now before many more lives are lost, family life is disrupted and businesses
are affected...... (Mrs G Bolton)
View complete document
Effective drainage reduces the probability of flooding.
While the Draft F&WB clarifies the split powers and responsibility for
watercourses, there is still no DUTY to
maintain them.
In particular, since the EA took control of CoWs in 2004
and re-designated them as ‘Main River’, maintenance here has been
neglected. In order ‘to minimise the risk of a repeat of the floods in
Summer 2007’(F&WB page 34), both ordinary watercourses and Main Rivers
must be properly maintained.
Interestingly, two ordinary watercourses in Wraysbury
were identified as CoWs, but then never taken over by the EA.
Are these watercourses critical or not?.........
(Ewan Larcombe)
View complete document with
photos (2.1Mb MSWord doc)
The Draft F&WB fails to ensure compliance with the
requirements of EU floods Directive Article 10 – ‘active involvement of
interested parties’
This is because the F&WB phrase - ‘must consult such persons as it
thinks appropriate.’ is not
the same as EU Article 10 – ‘shall encourage active
involvement of interested parties.’ (Ewan Larcombe)
View complete document
(58Kb MSWord doc)
Ref Reservoirs flood plans, the Draft Floods and Water
Bill fails to consult either Unitary Authorities or Parish Councils in whose
area the reservoir is situated.
Furthermore the restrictions on consultation and
publication are punitive and offer no review or appeal procedure. In my
opinion the reservoir flood plan should be formally incorporated within the
local flood plan. (Ewan
Larcombe)
View complete document
with photos (1.9Mb MSWord doc)
