Written evidence submitted by Ms Jacqueline Annette Thompson and Mr Peter Wilkinson [OSG 074]
Introduction
Below is a recent example highlighting failings in the Overview and Scrutiny process as applied by Bradford Metropolitan District Council. It relates to the production of the Flood Risk Management Strategy required under the terms of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. The Council has produced a strategy which is not fit for purpose. A brief critique of it is appended to this document which highlights the main problems, in particular there is no evidence in the documents produced by the Council that risk of flooding has been properly assessed. The Scrutiny process has not been effective in improving it.
1 Council Officers did not produce the strategy until its production became a matter of urgency. Councillors were then strongly discouraged from doing anything that might hold it up. The reason given to them was that doing so would mean that the Council would miss a deadline for accessing funding. They were therefore prevented from applying scrutiny. Councillors appear to be unaware of the obligations placed on the Council as a Lead Local Flood Authority by the Act.
Council Officers do not appear to have published any report showing the responses to a public consultation (April/May 2016) on the draft Strategy, and they do not appear to have modified it since. Councillors who are members of relevant Scrutiny Committees do not appear to have tracked the matter. The draft Strategy was not subject to any Scrutiny process, it does not appear to have been included on any of the relevant work schedules.
The timetable of events is as follows:
2010 - Flood and Water Management Act establishing Bradford as a Lead Local Flood Authority and requiring it to produce a Flood Risk Management Strategy
December 2015 Substantial flooding in parts of Bradford Metropolitan District, primarily Airedale and Wharfedale, resulting in considerable damage to public and private property. This includes the collapse/near collapse of bridges, culverts and buildings. Environment Agency data shows both of these areas are subject to a combination of surface water run off and fluvial inundation. Geological Survey data shows that there is a high probability of groundwater flooding in both valleys. That more damage was not registered is partly due to the fact that much of the worst flooding was on what is currently agricultural land.
April - May 2016 draft Strategy published and put out to public consultation
December 6th 2016 - Council Executive meeting. The Flood Risk Management Strategy was presented to the Executive with a recommendation from the Strategic Director of Regeneration that it be passed.
This meeting was 55 minutes long and had a packed agenda that included, among other things, the proposed Financial Plan 2017/18-2020/2021. The Flood Risk Management Strategy was the last item on the agenda and it was the first time that the Strategy was put in front of a Committee. It is clear that the Executive was effectively 'rubber stamping' it through.
Over the Christmas period 2016/17 various members of the public contacted Councillors on the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee expressing concerns regarding the Strategy and the way in which matters had been handled. The Leader of the third largest party (Liberal Democrat) then managed to get it onto the of a Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee meeting on 5th January 2017. However, because agenda items are subject to 'discussion' with the Committee Chair (who is of the ruling party, Labour) and the relevant Council Officer (the Strategic Director of Regeneration) the terms under which the decision could be called-in were severely restricted. There was no opportunity to scrutinise the Strategy in its entirety, the committee was limited to restricting its discussions to the following question:
'I wish to call in this decision to the Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee to ensure that the actions and activities that flow from the implementation of this strategy do not adversely impact on recommendations made by Members in the Flood Review.'
Cllr Jeanette Sunderland Lib Dem
NB the Flood Review was an exercise undertaken following the December 2016 floods that was designed to ascertain whether the response to flood incidents might be improved. Framing the question around that review severely limited the scope of any discussion the Committee might engage in.
5th January 2017 Corporate Overview and Scrutiny Committee Meeting
The called in decision on the Flood Risk Management Strategy was one of a number of items on the agenda of a meeting that lasted one hour. At the outset, and at other points, the Chair emphasised that this Strategy needed to be passed by full Council at speed in order to access funding and that the Council would lose out on flood related funds if it was not passed. He also repeatedly stated that discussion should be directly related to Cll Sunderland's call in question and that going outside of these limits was not appropriate. He also acknowledged that the Strategy was 'not very good'.
During the meeting opposition Councillors (Conservative, Independent and Liberal Democrat) sought to clarify the basis on which the Strategy was founded. One key objective of questions, though warped to 'fit' the terms under which the call in was achieved was what evidence was it based on. This stimulated a series of highly unsatisfactory responses from the Officers attending that are evident (though not fully recorded) in the Minutes. They did, however, assert that it was based on a full analysis of flood risk data from sources such as the Environment Agency including that relating to surface water, watercourses and groundwater. Members formally asked Officers to publish the data and all other material associated with the production of the Strategy.
NB to date (March 10th 2017), and despite a number of Freedom of Information Requests, Council Officers have failed to produce any substantial data, analysis or calculations that might underpin a Flood Risk Management Strategy. They have not presented such material to Councillors or members of the public. Though at various points in the past they have produced documents including a Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment in 2011 and a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment 2014 neither of these contain significant detailed analysis and the SFRA in particular omits material contained in the PFRA, particularly that relating to groundwater which is a significant factor in Wharfedale and Airedale.
In December 2017 sites, in Wharfedale in particular, that have been included in Bradford's Local Development Plan as destinations for housing would have been flooded. One site in Ilkley (at Coutances Way) was a torrent of water at a depth and speed that would have been lethal had people been on what are currently fields. This was primarily due to water running towards the River Wharfe.
Further points regarding the governance of Scrutiny and Committees generally within Bradford Council are set out below:
1-Government guidance in 2006 states that political party whipping was “incompatible” with overview and scrutiny. It also states that: Where there is a majority group, local authorities might consider it appropriate to have all or some of these committees chaired by members outside the majority group.
In Bradford the current ruling political party retains chairmanship contradicting this guidance. The outcomes of this practice, combined with the built in majority, are evident in the Council’s delivery against the requirements of the The Flood and Water Act. Outcomes show that these arrangements impose a fundamental restraint on the proper functioning of the overview and scrutiny processes, the LFRMS call-in by the COSC was neutralised by political interference.
Before the meeting, Councillors were speaking openly about the ruling party’s intention to release the Strategy for implementation, for the purposes of accessing funding.
2- O&S processes should be able to analyse and evaluate policies, plans, and management systems so that the Council can fulfil legal requirements, secure best value and deliver quality outcomes. The O&S process should be properly designed to enable it to do this. A proper contribution from O&S requires legal, scientific, managerial, administrative financial and technical competency. Committees have the capacity to commission this expertise but are only able to do so in circumstances where timescales permit. The time 'window' between the publication of the draft Flood and Water Management Strategy and its proposed presentation to Full Council was clearly inadequate to permit any meaningful scrutiny. We understand from Councillors that this is far from unusual.
3 Procedure
From a look at other CBMDC scrutiny committees and comments from other external groups, we believe that the scrutiny activities in the council are constrained and confined by the ruling party to a process comprising
1-artificially limited terms of reference from the outset
2- a work plan where all work is carried out within Committee meetings
3- agendas confined to and requiring acceptance or rejection of a recommendation in papers from officers accounting for their own delivery.
4- There is over-reliance on Officer’s reports as the single source of information, proper Scrutiny requires triangulation of information
We read that alternative procedures similar to those adopted by Commons Committees are recommended where appropriate,. Clearly, such procedures avoid the risks displayed in the practices imposed in Bradford Council and support proper preparation and examination.
The processes we observe in Bradford, in the matters in which we have taken interest, place unrealistic burdens on members of committees. One-hour meetings are required to deal with officers reports amounting to several hundred pages of documentation against unreal agendas. It is unacceptable that members are required to carry out the complex legal, scientific, managerial, administrative financial and technical scrutiny without adequate independent support. O&S should be equipped to deliver the quality and outcomes expected of professional peer-review.
We argue that, in order to secure proper delivery from O&S Members need to be engaged in the development of major strategies and plans from an early stage, not when they are completed.
The processes to deliver these major plans and strategies can run over many years. Scrutiny work in these case should be structured around a standing committee arrangement. Reliance on ad-hoc interventions, late in the processes risk key issues being missed. Further ad-hoc interventions leave the door open to Officers and Councils to adopt the practice of delaying the production of plans and strategies to the point where they are presented to Council as “urgent”. Hence proper examination by full council, prior to adoption is frustrated. Full council does not have the necessary inputs from O&S
Final Note
The CBMDC O&S minutes and documents set out the record of two committees approaching Flood Risk Management issues in ad-hoc way. The record displays all the risks and problems discussed earlier. Worse, it shows
-that Directors and officers are confident in continuously misleading members and the public.
-party whipping is frustrating proper scrutiny process.
- improper behaviour by senior ruling party members interfering in scrutiny examination
The end result is that residents are disadvantaged and the Council delivers plans that are not fit for purpose.
These matters will form the body of a complaint to CBMDC, in the first instance
Appendix
1st December 2016
Dear Sirs
STRATEGIC FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT CONSULTATION.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these documents.
We wish to make the following points.
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
Errors and Omissions
We are concerned that there are a number of errors and omissions particularly concerning Wharfedale.
pvii and other pages The ODPM became DCLG in 2006.
2.4 p12 – It states that Wharfedale is not industrial, but traditionally there were mills in both Addingham and Burley in Wharfedale. There was little industry in Ilkley because the major landowning family prevented it. The first period of expansion came after the arrival of the railway in 1865 and this was followed by land sales on the S side of Wharfedale by the Middleton family. Later land on the north side of the valley was first placed on sale in the early C20th. Most of the area around Ilkley is g 3 and 5 on your map at 2.7, so not really good for agriculture.
2.5.2 Sun Lane site. There are as far as we know no recent evaluations of the effectiveness of the anti-pollution system following intense periods of rainfall over recent years.
2.6.5 (second para) Limited low lying areas of Ilkley in the wider part of the flood plain and identified on the EA flood risk map, are at risk of flooding. These include a number of domestic dwellings and several sports facilities including the outdoor pool at the Lido. Generally only one or two houses have been subject to inundation but all those affected are cut off from the main town and vehicle egress is prevented.
(fourth para) Not all historical flooding events have been recorded and the available evidence and/or data about events is limited.. It would be instructive to compare records of the heights of floods in the last two decades with the highest incised mark on Ilkley Bridge dated 14th Dec 1938.
Surface Water
Add after Bradford City Centre
Ilkley. Backstone Beck This is prone to blocking and has previously caused several floods mainly affecting the Industrial area near Ilkley Cemetery.
2.8 The temporary Roman camp at Burley in Wharfedale and the Roman Roads (Tadcaster –Ilkley – Ribchester, Ilkley to and south toward Manchester) are omitted.
2.8 There are three conservation areas in Ilkley, the central town, Ben Rhydding and Middleton.
2.8 & Figure 2-12 This map does not accurately represent all the scheduled/registered places in Ilkley, eg the Heathcote garden is graded 2 and is not identified.
2.10.2 In the second line it may be read that there is rail access to LBIA. It should be made clear that all access is by road.
Figure 2-15 The three new railway stations are not shown.
Page 19: Under nature reserves, it should be noted that Middleton Woods at Ilkley is a SSSI
Pages 60-62 appear in a scrambled format on our screens.
LOCAL FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
A strategy document needs to cover the following items:
WHAT are the problems to be addressed?
WHAT are you going to do about it?
WHO do you need to consult/involve?
WHAT resources do you need?
WHEN will you complete the tasks you identify?
WHAT will it cost?
HOW will you know it has been successful?
Some of these questions have not been covered, so the strategy will not be effective in achieving its aims.
Duty to Co-operate
The Flood and Water Management Act places a duty on all flood risk management authorities to co-operate with each other. The act also provides lead local flood authorities and the Environment Agency with a power to request information required in connection with their flood risk management functions.
The strategy should include an outline plan to cooperate with other local authorities which share a boundary – especially where that boundary is the river in question and detail exactly where Bradford MDC is the ‘lead’ authority. This is pertinent in Wharfedale for example, where flood water flowing from North Yorkshire through Bradford and Leeds districts caused such devastation at Tadcaster last year. The impact of such a bridge collapse in Ilkley, Otley Pool or Wetherby would be equally devastating.
There is no reference in the report to working with the BMDC Countryside Service. This body is important in establishing best practice for water management in the upland areas of Bradford District and working with other groups such as the Nidderdale AONB and the National Park.
The role of Natural England is mentioned but not detailed.
There is a problem with the word ‘local’. Flooding may occur many miles from its cause. Prevention of flooding may need action at source eg management of moorland. ‘Local flood risk management’ is essential but it does not necessarily deal with the cause and effects of the local flooding.
Development Control
A main element of the strategy should be to control development to prevent new homes being built in flood risk areas and to decrease the amount of run-off caused by housing development including home extensions which increase hard surfacing and create front garden car parking.
There needs to be an education programme to ensure householders are aware of the impact of hard surfacing their drives and gardens.
In an area where very many people travel some distance to work (mostly in Leeds) the vulnerability of the two main transport arteries needs recognition and the routes need protection. These are the A65 both east and west of Ilkley and the railway to Leeds (susceptible to flooding at Kirkstall on the river Aire).
There is a reference to ‘Guide local spatial planning and prevent inappropriate development’, but this is weak in that it is not adequately defined. The statements made on pp15 and 16 lack detail and should be an integral part of the BMDC Local Plan Core Strategy to 2030 which has just been completed and examined at public hearings. It is clear that some of the developers are not listening because they are planning to build in flood risk areas. The guidance needs to be in place before the SHLAA is finally determined and examined. The planning inspector’s detailed amendments on flooding in the core strategy should be incorporated into the LFRMS.
Surface Water Flooding
The DEFRA Surface Water Management Plan is pertinent. It is not listed as a reference.
Local flooding in Ilkley is frequently caused by surface water as a result of blocked gullies and drains. Keeping these clear needs regular street cleaning and leaf clearance from roads, gutters and pavements. This autumn, where we have experienced a late and rapid leaf fall, there has been no road sweeping though most roads were cleaned at least twice during the spring and summer. Many roads in Ben Rhydding and Ilkley are now inches deep in the gutters with compacted, wet leaves. Gullies are completely blocked.
Ilkley is not mentioned at para 5 under surface water flooding. It should be noted that surface water flowing down Wells Road and into Brook Street on Monday 21st November 2016 was so deep that it was difficult in places for a time, to cross the road. One resident had a narrow escape when his home, a basement flat on Skipton Road, was severely flood damaged due to surface water flooding passing through it. The A65 between Ilkley and Burley was flooded by surface water alone and closed for a period. These references should be added to Table 2.
Specific Points
Page 9 Fig 2 does not show the road flooding at Manor Park Bends. this is the most frequent type of flooding that affects Wharfedale.
Table 3 page 10.
This table is incomplete and proper and thorough research is required. Eg River flooding occurred at one May-Day Carnival in the early 2000s to such extent that it contaminated the already filled Ilkley Lido pool damaging the filtration system and this put back the summer opening.
In ca:1994 the [then] National Rivers Authority produced an A4 booklet “Ilkley Flood Alleviation Scheme” – whist it is undated it refers to floods of 1965, 1982 & 1991. There was a public Exhibition that went with it. This should be included in the research material and known to the relevant section of the EA.
p10 Table 3
On each occasion of the flood events listed the northern half of the town was cut-off and residents in the low lying houses isolated in their properties. Damage to the sporting fields and pavilions also occurred.
Page 11 Para 6.1 There is no cross reference to the highest recorded and incised flood mark on Ilkley Bridge from December 1938.
Para 6.3 understates the impact of flooding in Ilkley which was completely cut off by road on Boxing Day 2015 and cut in two at Middleton Avenue north of the bridge over the Wharfe. This flooding affected the whole town in terms of mobility. The A65 was blocked east and west of the town and the moor road also blocked by surface water. Please see the appendix as sent to Cllr Mrs A Hawkesworth following that event.
Paras 8.1 to 8.4 and 8.6 These outlines of responses to the likely-hood of flooding are all very well. Existing and previous experience does not cause us to have a great deal of faith in the ability of BMDC to deliver these proposals/objectives. A robust well organised plan duly supported by competent well trained staff and resources is required
Para 8.5 Again these proposals are intended to prevent inappropriate development in areas of risk of flooding. Experience tells us that the precautionary principle is not being applied in practice to all types of developments in areas of potential flooding. We would wish a strong line to be taken in respect of para 8.5 guidelines. It should be noted that the FloodRe scheme will not apply to properties built after January 1st 2009.
We hope these observations are helpful. Please contact me if anything needs clarification
Yours faithfully,
Helen Kidman
Chair
Ilkley Civic Society
Further Information
From Cllr Anne Hawkesworth
6.1.16
Hi thank you for your comprehensive report. It is most useful. Regards Anne
-------- Original message --------
From: Ann peacock
Date:05/01/2016 19:34 (GMT+00:00)
To: Cllr Anne Hawkesworth
Subject: Recent flooding in Wharfe valley, Ilkley
Hello Anne
We are please to respond to your request for information as to the response of local public services during the two recent flood warnings and flooding for the Denton Road area.
The warnings sent by automatic messaging from the EA wee:
Warning no longer in force 12:25 on 27 Dec 2015
Flood Warning 23:02 on 25 Dec 2015
Warning no longer in force 22:06 on 15 Nov 2015
Flood Warning 02:33 on 15 Nov 2015
If we take the November event first we chose to let events take their course overnight. By 08.30 the field and the edges of Denton Road were flooded.
There was a PC who told us that he had been called out and sent over from Halifax. Unfortunately his van had become waterlogged in Denton Road nearer to the Old Bridge. His role as told to us was to protect life and restrain people from putting themselves in harm’s way. Neighbours in the street offered him R & R till he was in a position to cross over to the S side.
At first I had intended to attend to the Scout Curly Hill site where Brownies were staying for the weekend.
By 09.15 I could not leave the house and arranged for another leader living further up Middleton Avenue to attend and advise the Brownie leaders that they might need to stay over until the Monday. The PC made a note of this situation.
About noon BMDC transport & a WYFS tender could be seen on Lower Brook Street south of the flooded area. Eventually some staff came around with the offer of limited numbers of sand bags.
The flood peaked about 13.30 and slowly reduced till about 16.30 when it became possible for the Brownies to be escorted over the Old Bridge and make their return home by parents’ cars.
As to flooded buildings I learned that one property in Gilstead Way had water ingress, along with several garages (but not houses) in Denton Road. The football and cricket pavilions were both flooded. I am not clear whether the corner house on the E side of Middleton Avenue was flooded or not. The water was certainly being driven across the playing field towards it by a strong wind. That house had sandbags.
Turning now to the Boxing Day flood. Again the notification came in overnight and we as before awaited developments. By 09.00 access along Denton Road was not possible. We monitored the pattern of the flood (as usual) using pebbles in a line along the crown of our drive. The water was still rising until 11.30 in accordance with the EA prediction. That was for another 30cm rise – but this did not happen in fact. By about 13.30 it was again evident that the water had peaked and there was no further rise.
We saw NO PUBLIC OFFICIAL OF ANY SORT that day.
By late afternoon the road was again passable with care. There were no children staying at Curly Hill Centre on Boxing Day.
It is our understanding that the same properties were affected as on the previous occasion – but we hope this will be reported to you directly by other householders.
We hope this is helpful to you in forming a picture of the main River Wharfe floods.
Sincerely. Graham and Ann Peacock