Local Flood Risk Management Strategy Public Consultation – Key Themes and Issues to date September 2013

Key consultation information 100+ responses from public, members, parish councils and partner organisations Responses from 35 parish councils (as collective responses) Represents c.0.5% of populations at risk of flooding in an extreme event

Question 1 - Objectives Do you think the objectives listed for the Strategy are appropriate? 97 responses to this question 72% scored as either ‘suitable’ or ‘very suitable’, with 18% scoring as ‘neutral’

Question 2 – Working with others Do you think we have considered an appropriate approach for working with all interested parties (e.g. authorities, individuals, local communities and businesses)? 88 responses to this question 50% scored as either ‘suitable’ or ‘very suitable’, with 33% scoring as ‘neutral’

Question 3 – Prioritisation method To what extent do you agree with the method used to identify parishes and wards most at risk of flooding? 89 responses to this question 47% scored as either ‘suitable’ or ‘very suitable’, with 26% scoring as ‘neutral’

Question 4 – Over-arching measures To what extent do you think that the main measures that GCC has/will put in place with achieve the objectives of the Local Strategy? 84 responses to this question 35% scored as either ‘suitable’ or ‘very suitable’, with 36% scoring as ‘neutral’

Question 5 – Specific action plans To what extent do you think the action plan for the parishes and wards at most risk of flooding contain appropriate measures to manage local flooding in the future? 83 responses to this question 29% scored as either ‘suitable’ or ‘very suitable’, with 36% scoring as ‘neutral’

Key themes of responses Lots of feedback from public consultation, but the dominant themes were: Maintenance of river network, highway gullies and dredging of the River Severn Underlying datasets and methodology for identifying parishes and wards at greatest risk Future mitigation measures for communities outside of the ‘top 20’ list Historic and potential future development in flood prone areas Need to consider flood risk from the Severn Estuary and sewerage networks in more detail Greater engagement needed at a local level, especially with town and parish councils Greater need for clarity over roles and responsibilities of organisations

Key theme - Maintenance Concerns raised about: Frequency of gully maintenance on highway network Condition of existing network of drainage ditches and watercourses ~ GCC leading a pilot study to address this but it involves local input from parish councils Ensuring recently built capital schemes are properly maintained Several comments raised about the need for dredging of the River Severn

Key theme – Prioritisation Method Concerns raised about: Whether the analysis should go back beyond a 30 year period Whether GCC has access to all historic flood incident data ~ some further work with parish councils may be needed Exclusion of road and rail infrastructure from the analysis Exclusion of certain communities in the top 20 list (e.g. Tirley, Blockley) Potential bias towards urban areas, because greater numbers of properties at risk Whether there should be a higher weighting applied to historic data over predicted data (NB: this was not universal and some thought a higher weighting to what could happen in the future was important)

Key theme – Mitigation outside top 20 Concerns raised about: Communities that did not feature within the top 20 were concerned that there would be no action to mitigate flooding ~ in reality there is ongoing action to alleviate flooding (e.g. Tirley, Slimbridge) at a local level, but this needs to be communicated within the LFRMS and in the annual implementation plan Lack of transparency about where communities sit within the overall list of parishes ~ need to publish a list of all parishes to ensure transparency

Key theme – Development Concerns raised about: Historic development within flood plain areas Future development in floodplains & in areas where there is no existing drainage capacity Responses indicate communities want to see GCC take a leadership role in holding local planning authorities accountable on planning decisions

Key theme – Other sources of flooding Concerns raised about: Lack of consideration of flood risk from the Severn Estuary, and how it interacts with surface water flows Lack of consideration of sewer flooding within the LFRMS ~ we’ve already used the water companies flooding register to inform areas at risk of sewer flooding, but this may not be a complete reflection of sewer flooding in all areas Some communities (e.g. Sandhurst) have queried their exclusion from the LFRMS because of their extensive history of flooding, although the majority of these communities experience ‘Main River’ flooding which is not included within the LFRMS ~ clearer communication is required to explain what is included / excluded

Key theme – Engagement Concerns raised about: Positive feedback about the partnership working arrangements Greater engagement with water companies was perceived to be required ~ GCC is working closely with water companies so this is probably perceived rather than reality Multiple comments about the need to work more closely with communities through town and parish councils, because of the access to local information Equally, there were some concerns raised about the capacity of town and parish councils to play a significant role in supporting flood risk management (e.g. clearance of drainage ditches)

Key theme – Roles and Responsibilities Concerns raised about: Legislation which has caused a complex institutional system Lack of clarity within the document about who is responsible for what ~ this needs to be explained more clearly within the LFRMS document