The agenda item was introduced by the Flood Risk
and Data Manager who took Members through the published
presentation slides which included a summary of the work completed
and key achievements on the two Strategies. The following key
points were discussed:
-
Officers said that Community Engagement in this
subject currently was and has always been difficult. It was said to be the same situation across the
world. Officers were interested to know
if scrutiny could help with this in any way.
-
A short discussion took place about the potential
for flood defences to fail and how the Environment Agency and the
Council were looking ahead to future scenarios and ‘future
proofing’. Examples were, if sea levels were to rise up much quicker
than previously expected and the need to ‘embed
resilience’ in Bristol.
- The Environment Agency’s approach was now
understood to be more directed towards more nature-based
solutions. It was said that Bristol has
a very ‘artificial’ City Centre and it was asked if
nature could help. Officers said that
nature could help on many things but not all, for example not tidal
effects. The Council’s focus
was currently on ‘greening’ the
urban realm and to influence the potential flooding issues where it
can.
- It
was said that the ‘Avon area’ is working well in
partnership to promote schemes and good practice e.g. Frome in
South Gloucestershire was doing some good work which would also
benefit Bristol.
- Local Flood Wardens: drop-in sessions are happening but there
was not enough traction. It was said
that people generally don’t get involved until something bad
has happened.
- Members said that Area Committees were still used for a variety
of local issues and asked if there was enough up-to-date
information about flood risks and potential community engagement
opportunities being communicated to them. It was said they were quite transport oriented but
had previously undertaken some flood prevention planting and
drainage projects that had been effective. Councillors thought it
would be a good idea to contact them all again.
- Another Member said he wasn’t completely sure what is
being asked of communities but he did think it would be good idea
if flood risk officers wanted to come speak with them in his area
(Brislington). He said it was important
to be clear about what was being asked of them.
- A
Member of the public who was present at the meeting said it was
possible that officers were ‘missing a trick’ with
community groups. Adding that if
officers were to draft some information most community groups would
be happy to distribute it in their local areas. In their view
people would be interested although they wouldn’t necessarily
get straight on the phone but would find it interesting and it
would raise a lot of awareness. This could be done across the
city.
-
River Avon Strategy: climate change
assessments have meant officers have had to re-model the potential timelines and effects.
-
All around the City there are lots of developments
happening. How are the Council
discussing these with our neighbouring local authorities and do
they have good communication channels in place? Officers replied
that planning regulations are in general quite stringent, for
example with rainfall; developers must to show no increase in
levels of run-off. The Council has
representatives at developments to manage and control this. The
regulations are constantly being monitored and
reviewed.
-
It was asked if the financial contributions from
developers needed to contribute to more than run-off i.e. the
impact of swell because cumulatively this must still be increased.
Officers agreed there are very likely to be cumulative impacts.
They also highlighted that in 2011, Defra had announced changes to
the way funding would be allocated to flood and coastal defence
projects. It was said that there is a
lot of property in the city centre that was vulnerable. However, flood risk was in a much better place
than it was in terms of funding and partnership work than it was
previously.
-
It was suggested that Temple Quarter needed to be
looked at strategically rather than as individual developments so
as to protect the existing property as well as future
developments.
-
It was asked if it would be more helpful if the
Temple Quarter area was restored as a marsh instead. Officers said that they had previously considered
strategic water storage i.e. using the harbour as a type of
overflow ‘sink’. But it was
concluded that it was very unlikely to work and it thought that
using the marsh probably wouldn’t help either.
-
One Member said that there had previously been
discussions on installing tidal barriers; was this still a viable
option? Officers said this option was
still on the table but the costs would be very high. It would be a huge challenge especially taking
into consideration the number of environmental issues that would
also need to be overcome.