Cambridgeshire Flood Risk Management Strategy survey
Submission deadline: 23 January 2022
Responses compiled by Dr David Cobby on behalf of the Broughton Flood Action Group
Executive Summary and Section 1 – Introduction
1.The strategy would benefit from defining upfront the expected audience, and what they are expected to get from it. This may lead to changes in the way the remainder of the strategy is structured. Instead of adding to what is already a lengthy document, we suggest below that some existing material is replaced with that which more clearly demonstrates the council’s strategy.
2.Community resilience, carbon net zero, biodiversity (and environmental) net gain, supporting economic growth and other significant aspects of the changing context for delivering flood risk management are mentioned lightly and not developed much further throughout the strategy. The introduction could signpost that much of the current content of Sections 2, 4 and 6 is in appendices for the interested reader, leaving more space to further develop the local detail.
3.A clear description of what CCC are going to do, to help manage the risk of flooding and improve community resilience. The majority of flood meetings will come back to the simple question of ‘what are they going to do about it?’. This strategy should recognise upfront this heart-felt cry of those who have been flooded and set out an appropriate response.
It is important that this strategy is relevant to those at risk of flooding, as well as to those who are managing flood risk. What can those at risk of flooding expect from CCC, and what aspects of delivering flood risk management (e.g. reducing carbon, enhancing the environment etc) will CCC be particularly promoting in its working with other Risk Management Authorities?
As a flood action group representing a typical community at risk of flooding, there is little in the strategy to help or provide encouragement. Although not intended, the lay-reader may take away messages of ‘no funding’, ‘riparian owners are responsible’, ‘too many organisations involved’ etc. Although this political situation is not of CCC’s making, this document is an opportunity to present a more positive and proactive picture of ‘a strategy’ to make the best of the situation that exists. We recognise that the action plan introduces many important projects which will be undertaken, but suggest that these should not be consigned to an appendix which may be overlooked, but should be incorporated more centrally into the main body to demonstrate the strategic direction of the council.
Section 2 – Policy, Legislation and Guidance
Section 3 – Cambridgeshire Background
Section 4 – Roles and Responsibilities
As noted above, much of the information on roles and responsibilities has not changed in over 10 years. It is not, therefore, a core element of a forward-looking strategy, but reads as a re-statement of legal positions. Much of this material could be put into an appendix and the main body could instead concentrate on how CCC will interpret these to manage flooding.
This section, or Section 7, provide opportunities to describe the CCC LLFA team, it’s current and potential future roles and how this team structure will help deliver the strategic direction. The constraints to delivery can be noted through limited staff time available, but provide an indication of how staff currently spend their time and how this could change in the future.
In section 4.9, the distinction between Local Flood Forums and strong community groups is not clear. It would be useful to know whether LFFs have a stronger recognition by local government, and what qualifies a group to be a LFF.
Section 5 – Risk to Cambridgeshire
The converse risk of reduced summer rainfall and the need for greater collaboration between flood risk management and water resource sectors is only lightly covered. Demonstrating strong links with Water Resources East, Anglian Water and organisations promoting nature-based solutions could be an important component of a successful strategy to manage excess and deficit of water in the future.
The risk of particular developments (e.g. Alconbury Weald by Urban and Civic) on flood risk to others (e.g. Broughton) was noticed by a number of people as not being mentioned in the strategy. The concerns include what's going to happen to the water run off, and who is going to ensure that the standards are maintained in perpetuity. For such major developments as this which could impact flood risk, it may be appropriate for the strategy to emphasise that CCC will enforce their requirements and seek betterment where possible.
It was noted that the map showing Main Rivers on page 27 is too small to understand where watercourses change responsibility from CCC to the EA. This is a key piece of information which would be useful to highlight in a useable level of detail. Connected to this is the suggestion that the interactions between different authorities is elaborated on. For example, the Bury Brook is an Ordinary Watercourse to Kings Ripton, after which it is Main River to Ramsey where it feeds into the Middle Level Commissioners district. It would be useful to understand how CCC, the EA and MLC will work together to ensure Broughton, stuck in the middle, are not put at greater flood risk.
Section 6 – Partnership funding
Section 7 – Management and Action Plan
Submission deadline: 23 January 2022
Responses compiled by Dr David Cobby on behalf of the Broughton Flood Action Group
Executive Summary and Section 1 – Introduction
- Is the reason for having a strategy clear?
- Do you feel there are any key points missing from the executive summary and introduction sections?
1.The strategy would benefit from defining upfront the expected audience, and what they are expected to get from it. This may lead to changes in the way the remainder of the strategy is structured. Instead of adding to what is already a lengthy document, we suggest below that some existing material is replaced with that which more clearly demonstrates the council’s strategy.
2.Community resilience, carbon net zero, biodiversity (and environmental) net gain, supporting economic growth and other significant aspects of the changing context for delivering flood risk management are mentioned lightly and not developed much further throughout the strategy. The introduction could signpost that much of the current content of Sections 2, 4 and 6 is in appendices for the interested reader, leaving more space to further develop the local detail.
3.A clear description of what CCC are going to do, to help manage the risk of flooding and improve community resilience. The majority of flood meetings will come back to the simple question of ‘what are they going to do about it?’. This strategy should recognise upfront this heart-felt cry of those who have been flooded and set out an appropriate response.
- If yes what do you believe is missing and why do you feel it is important for inclusion?
It is important that this strategy is relevant to those at risk of flooding, as well as to those who are managing flood risk. What can those at risk of flooding expect from CCC, and what aspects of delivering flood risk management (e.g. reducing carbon, enhancing the environment etc) will CCC be particularly promoting in its working with other Risk Management Authorities?
As a flood action group representing a typical community at risk of flooding, there is little in the strategy to help or provide encouragement. Although not intended, the lay-reader may take away messages of ‘no funding’, ‘riparian owners are responsible’, ‘too many organisations involved’ etc. Although this political situation is not of CCC’s making, this document is an opportunity to present a more positive and proactive picture of ‘a strategy’ to make the best of the situation that exists. We recognise that the action plan introduces many important projects which will be undertaken, but suggest that these should not be consigned to an appendix which may be overlooked, but should be incorporated more centrally into the main body to demonstrate the strategic direction of the council.
Section 2 – Policy, Legislation and Guidance
- Is the background of the drivers and influencing factors for the strategy concise and clear?
- If not, where would you require clarity?
- Are there any key influencing factors that you feel are missing?
- If yes please advise on those and their connection
Section 3 – Cambridgeshire Background
- Do you feel the summary in this section helps to set the scene for Cambridgeshire?
- If not, are there any key points you feel are missing?
Section 4 – Roles and Responsibilities
- Does the strategy clearly explain who is responsible for managing flood risk?
- Does the strategy clearly set out what each of the organisations does?
As noted above, much of the information on roles and responsibilities has not changed in over 10 years. It is not, therefore, a core element of a forward-looking strategy, but reads as a re-statement of legal positions. Much of this material could be put into an appendix and the main body could instead concentrate on how CCC will interpret these to manage flooding.
- Do you feel there are any organisations or bodies which have not been adequately covered?
This section, or Section 7, provide opportunities to describe the CCC LLFA team, it’s current and potential future roles and how this team structure will help deliver the strategic direction. The constraints to delivery can be noted through limited staff time available, but provide an indication of how staff currently spend their time and how this could change in the future.
In section 4.9, the distinction between Local Flood Forums and strong community groups is not clear. It would be useful to know whether LFFs have a stronger recognition by local government, and what qualifies a group to be a LFF.
- Do you feel the community roles are adequately represented?
- Please advise of any information you feel is missing or areas in section 4 which could be made clearer
Section 5 – Risk to Cambridgeshire
- Does the strategy clearly explain what is meant by the term risk?
- Does the strategy clearly describe the different types of risk and their interactions?
- If you feel this section of the strategy is not clear please advise us where you feel changes may be required
The converse risk of reduced summer rainfall and the need for greater collaboration between flood risk management and water resource sectors is only lightly covered. Demonstrating strong links with Water Resources East, Anglian Water and organisations promoting nature-based solutions could be an important component of a successful strategy to manage excess and deficit of water in the future.
The risk of particular developments (e.g. Alconbury Weald by Urban and Civic) on flood risk to others (e.g. Broughton) was noticed by a number of people as not being mentioned in the strategy. The concerns include what's going to happen to the water run off, and who is going to ensure that the standards are maintained in perpetuity. For such major developments as this which could impact flood risk, it may be appropriate for the strategy to emphasise that CCC will enforce their requirements and seek betterment where possible.
It was noted that the map showing Main Rivers on page 27 is too small to understand where watercourses change responsibility from CCC to the EA. This is a key piece of information which would be useful to highlight in a useable level of detail. Connected to this is the suggestion that the interactions between different authorities is elaborated on. For example, the Bury Brook is an Ordinary Watercourse to Kings Ripton, after which it is Main River to Ramsey where it feeds into the Middle Level Commissioners district. It would be useful to understand how CCC, the EA and MLC will work together to ensure Broughton, stuck in the middle, are not put at greater flood risk.
Section 6 – Partnership funding
- Is the explanation of different funding sources clear?
- Let us know if you believe we have missed out any funding opportunities or any of those described are unclear
Section 7 – Management and Action Plan
- Are the activities and actions in the strategy clear and concise?
- If no, where do you feel better explanation is required?
- Is there a clear enough distinction between business as usual in Section 7 and the measures that go beyond this in the Action Plan?
- Do you feel there any any activities or projects which are not represented here? Please provide advice on those
- Are there any details referred to in the strategy where you are unsure of the source? If so please advise using section numbers as references.
- Is there any information, research or details you feel may be missing and could be better signposted?
- Please use this section to provide any additional thoughts or comments you may have in relation to the strategy, its format, layout, wording or content. Using section numbering to guide feedback.