DONCASTER COUNCIL
OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
SUMMER 2007 FLOOD REVIEW CONSULTATION
KEY FINDINGS
MARCH 2008
- 1 - CONTENTS
Pages
Executive Summary 3 - 5
Summer 2007 Flood Review – Key Findings from Overview And Scrutiny’s Public Consultation 6 - 10
Key Findings from the Consultation 11 - 16
Appendix A – Questionnaire and Meeting Analysis 17 - 28
Appendix B – Overview and Scrutiny Flood Response Consultation Terms of Reference 29
Appendix C – Issues raised at Public Meetings 30 - 39
- 2 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
This report contains an analysis of the results of a consultation exercise on the June 2007 flooding emergency in Doncaster. The aim of the consultation was to make an assessment of how individuals and communities within the Borough were affected by the floods and establish how effectively they were supported by the Council during the period 24th June to 9th July 2007. This report:
i. contains the key findings from a questionnaire which was available on line and at 5 public meetings ii. takes account of the views and opinions expressed at the five public meeting that were relevant to the scope of the review iii. Identifies the issues raised by members of the public in relation to flood issues that were outside the scope of the review.
These findings will assist OSMC in building up an overall picture of the Council’s response to the June 2007 floods and to develop some specific recommendations based on the evidence it has received.
The Consultation Process
Overview and Scrutiny’s consultation took place over a 4 week period at the end of November and through to mid December 2007 in the form of 5 public meetings and a paper and on line questionnaire. The real value in this exercise was that it provided a platform for members of the public to give their own personal accounts of how they were affected by the floods. The review focussed on the support the Council had given to residents during the first two weeks of the flood.
The Findings
Taken in isolation the results of the questionnaire and feedback from the meetings appear negative in respect of the performance of the Council. However, it is important to recognise that the views of the public are only one (though a very important) in building a full picture and other measures should be considered e.g. the Councils own internal review, feedback from other agencies and partners etc. Detailed below are the key findings arising from the consultation:
1. Recognising the complexities of responding to a major emergencies to meet the needs of the residents of the Borough. The consultation highlighted the problems experienced by the many communities and residents across the Borough and the difficulties faced by the Council in responding to a major emergency particularly in prioritising resources and support on such a major scale. Whilst there were clearly areas for improvement there was a recognition that there was also a lot of good work undertaken by Council officers and services under difficult circumstances
2. Residents did not always understand the role of the Council or other agencies during the floods this often led to frustration and misunderstanding among those residents trying to seek help and advice.
- 3 - 3. Receiving regular up to date information and effective communication during the floods was a key issue for many residents. The feedback suggests that often residents were unaware of what measures they should be taking to protect against the floods, what help and support was available to them and how could they be kept up to date with ongoing developments? Respondents also identified the need to have someone available in the area during the emergency to speak to residents face to face and address their queries and concerns.
4. There were mixed reports on the effectiveness of the Public Information Helpline A number of respondents claimed they were unable to contact the Council on the emergency number as the lines were engaged. It was also claimed that on occasions Council employees responding to residents on the emergency helpline did not always provide a sympathetic and helpful approach or clear guidance on key issues e.g. policy for distribution of sand bags
5. Residents were not always able to identify Council staff from other agencies One of the key messages that came through from the consultation was that Council staff were not always easily identifiable. Residents were not always aware when they were receiving help from the Council. –
6. Residents requiring assistance in evacuating their properties were not always identified. Although it is not the role of the Council to evacuate residents from their properties many vulnerable residents relied on the help of neighbours and family to assist them when being evacuated. Concern was raised that some residents could have been overlooked and the Council may be able to support the Police in this role by identifying where vulnerable residents who may need help or support live.
7. Availability and access to sandbags was a key concern for many residents. A common issue raised was that there seemed to be no clear policy on sandbags, i.e. who was entitled to them, why were they not available when required or how they were distributed.
8. Ensure Council employees, including wardens working in emergency situations are adequately trained and equipped with the necessary personal protective equipment – concerns were raised about the health and safety of Council staff who were supporting the flood relief effort without the necessary protective equipment.
9. Some residents experienced difficulty in disposing of damaged belongings Some residents claimed they did not have access to skips or did not receive help with disposing of damaged belongings until some time after the floods. Residents expressed concerns over the health and environmental issues of not being able to dispose of damaged belongings . 10. Concern was raised in some areas over the lack of appropriate cleaning of roads, paths and gardens where these had been affected by water containing raw sewerage raising specific worries over health and safety.
11 Rest centres were valued and appreciated by residents who used them – the feedback from residents who had used Council rest centres was very positive.
- 4 - Wider Outcomes
The consultation was a successful exercise in enabling Scrutiny Members to: Build a picture of the sequence of events around the Borough and hear some very moving stories about how individuals and their families were affected by the floods. Gain an understanding of the different requirements and of how the floods affected different communities throughout the borough. Provided an opportunity for members of the public to have their say on an issue they felt strongly about. To engage local residents within the Council’s democratic process To provide an opportunity for local councillors to attend and hear first hand the views and concerns of their constituents. To provide the Council with an opportunity to gain the public’s perception on its performance.
Issues Raised outside the Scope of the Review
The report also contains a number of issues raised that were outside the scope of the original review e.g. in relation to the causes of the floods, what could be done to prevent them happening again and the role of the various agencies during the emergency. It was agreed that all these additional issues would be considered at a future public meeting where relevant agencies would be invited to respond to these issues.
Next Steps
The Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee will need to take account of these findings before agreeing a set of recommendations which will seek to ensure improvements can be made should any similar emergencies occur.
Conclusion
This report identifies the findings from the flood consultation event undertaken by Overview and Scrutiny during November and December 2007.
- 5 - SUMMER 2007 FLOOD REVIEW- KEY FINDINGS FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY’S PUBLIC CONSULTATION
Introduction 1. This report contains an analysis of the results of a consultation exercise on the June 2007 flooding emergency in Doncaster. The aim of the consultation was to make an assessment of how individuals and communities within the Borough were affected by the floods and establish how effectively they were supported by the Council during the period 24th June to 9th July 2007 and for OSMC to make recommendations for appropriate action to be taken by the Council in responding to future emergencies. This report:
i. contains the key findings from a questionnaire which was available on line and at 5 public meetings ii. takes account of the views and opinions expressed at the five public meetings that were relevant to the scope of the review iii. Identifies the issues raised by members of the public in relation to flood issues that were outside the scope of the review.
2. OSMC is presented with these findings to assist it in building up an overall picture of the Council’s response to the June 2007 floods and to develop some specific recommendations based on the evidence it has received.
Background 3. June 2007 will be remembered as the wettest June suffered by the Yorkshire area since 1882. There were two spells of exceptionally heavy rainfall on 13/14th and 24/25th June. The heavy rainfall in mid June led to localised flooding and saturation of the ground and high river levels, however it was the rainfall on 24/25th June that exacerbated this problem and caused the devastation to many homes and properties. In particular flooding occurred as river’s overtopped e.g. the river Don particularly in Sprotbrough and Bentley where the Ea Beck and River Went join the Don. In addition to the high river levels, the sheer volume of rain meant that flooding of properties also occurred as drainage systems were unable to cope with surface run off. Some area of Doncaster remained flooded for some considerable time after.
4. During this emergency a multi agency command structure was set up to manage the emergency and this consisted of the emergency services, local authorities and key partners and agencies.
5. Many people will have their own theories why the floods occurred and what could be done to reduce the impact of this in the future. Sir Michael Pitt, Chairman of the South West Strategic Health Authority, was tasked by Ministers to conduct an independent review of the flooding emergency that took place in June and July 2007. The purpose of the Pitt Review is to learn lessons from the floods of 2007 and to bring forward recommendations that will help the country adapt and deal more effectively with future flooding incidents.
6. An interim report was published in December 2007 and contains urgent recommendations which Sir Michael Pitt believes should be implemented in order to minimise the impact of any flooding in the near future. It will also map out the direction for the remainder of the Review, and act as a consultation document prior
- 6 - to publication of the final document in the summer of 2008. The interim report on the causes and consequences of the floods can be accessed at http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/thepittreview .
7. The key agencies who were responsible for supporting the multi agency rescue have also undertaken their own internal reviews to consider how effectively they carried out their functions during the floods and will be looking at ways of making future improvements. A number of these have helped inform the outcomes of the Pitt Review.
8. At a more local level the Council undertook its own review to consider how effectively it had supported individuals and communities during the floods. This report focussed specifically on the first 2 weeks of the floods - i.e. from the period 25th June to 9th July 2007. and is based on evidence from a self evaluation including interviews with Council staff and external agencies.
2. Methodology 9. Overview and Scrutiny Members were keen to undertake a review that could identify some clear recommendations for future actions whilst not duplicate work being undertaken elsewhere. The real value in Scrutiny was that it provided a platform for members of the public to give their views and opinions and tell their own very personal stories about how they were affected by the floods and how they were supported by the Council.
10. Overview and Scrutiny’s consultation took place over a 4 week period at the end of November and through to mid December 2007 in the form of 5 public meetings and a paper and on line questionnaire. The review focussed on the support the Council had given residents during the first two weeks of the flood. It was believed that reviewing this aspect of the floods would allow Scrutiny to build up a picture of how the Council performed and supported those residents effected by the floods and enable it to make recommendations that could influence the future actions of the Council
11. The main focus of the review was: How well did the Council respond to this emergency? What support the Council provided how timely and effective was it? how were individuals made aware of what was happening and what help was available? What was done well/not so well by the Council? What further help and support could have been given by the Council?
The terms of reference for the review are attached at appendix B
Consultation Methods - Questionnaires 12. A questionnaire was developed and made available on line, in customer service centres and libraries and other community focal points. In addition elected Members and Neighbourhood teams delivered these door to door to over 3000 households that were known to have been affected by the floods. The total number of questionnaires completed and returned was 599. This represents approximately 20% of the 3000 households identified as being affected by the floods. It was requested that only one questionnaire should be completed per household. - 7 - However, due to the distribution method and the fact that it was a self-completion questionnaire it is not possible to verify that only one questionnaire was completed per household. It is worth noting that individuals within each household may however have had different experiences of the floods and may have completed separate forms. An example could be where a family were temporary located in a rest centre, e.g. elderly residents may have had a different experience from younger people.
13. A return of 20% for a ‘population’ (the 3000 households affected) would normally mean that the views of those 20% would be representative of the whole population. Unfortunately because a significant number of households did not reply to certain questions this reduces the assurance that the views expressed are representative of all 3000 households. Other factors such as the low percentage of returns from the most affected areas will also have an impact on accuracy.
14. It should be noted that returns were not proportionate with the number of properties affected within each area. The following table shows the areas which returned the highest number of questionnaires. It should be noted that although the highest numbers of questionnaires were returned from areas with the highest number of affected households the percentage of returns for these areas was low (Tickhill was the exception) as shown in the table below. In the case of Tickhill the high number of returns can be attributed to the attendance at the public meeting of 150 people which represents 77% of the total attendance across all 5 public meetings.
Ranking (1= area with Area Total Total % of households highest number of Affected Responses affected who returned properties affected) questionnaire 1st Bentley 756 92 12% 2nd Moorends 473 67 14% 3rd Toll Bar 314 63 20% 12th Tickhill 57 44 77% 5th Thorne 241 33 14% 4th Scawthorpe 283 28 10%
15. Apart from Toll Bar where 20% of affected households returned the questionnaire the majority of areas with a return rate in excess of 20% were the ones with the least number of affected properties. This may be caused by a number of factors, including, some meetings and reviews had already been undertaken by other agencies, lack of engagement with certain communities, people preferring to express their views verbally at the public meetings or a reluctance to put comments in writing.
The Consultation Process – public meetings 16. In addition to the questionnaire five public meetings were held across the Borough to provide an opportunity for residents to explain first hand how they had been effected by the floods. Over 200 people attended the public meetings which were held in Tickhill, Scawthorpe (2 meetings), Moorends and Conisbrough..
17. Whilst the public meetings provided an opportunity for people to tell their story and discuss the support that had been received from the Council many issues raised were outside the scope of the review. These were specifically around were lack of maintenance, repair and regular cleaning of drains, ditches, rivers and other waterways and the role and responsibilities of other external agencies. A
- 8 - commitment was given by the Committee at these meetings that these issues would be recorded and forwarded to the relevant agencies to address at a public meeting.
Reviewing the Consultation Process 18. When reviewing the results of the questionnaires and the views expressed at the meetings it is important to note that both methods of consultation have their limitations. The views of those members of the public attending the meetings are more likely to be those seeking answers to problems or wishing to come along to express strong views of their own personal experiences. The numbers of public attending the meetings as stated earlier was not a representative sample of the areas affected e.g. Tickhill 150 attendees, Scawthorpe (covering Adwick, Toll Bar and Askern are) 25 attendees, Scawthorpe (covering Bentley, Scawthorpe and Sprotbrough area) 20 attendees,, Thorne 10 attendees, Conisbrough 4 attendees. This cannot therefore be considered a representative cross section of the community although it does provide an insight into the experiences of many residents during the floods.
19. It was also recognised that there were limitations in using public meetings as a forum for consultation e.g. not everyone is comfortable in attending or speaking at public meetings, views and opinions can be influenced by other speakers at public meetings etc. The views expressed at these meetings may also have influenced the questionnaires that were completed and handed in at the end of the meetings
20. Similarly there are also some limitations with the findings of the questionnaire e.g are respondents representative of the community? However, reviewing the questionnaire and the feedback from the meetings together does give an indication of the areas which may require further investigation or immediate action or improvement. Reviewing the findings in isolation does not reflect the overall performance of the Council, asestablishing an overall picture of the Council’s performance during the emergency can only be measured by a range of views e.g. self analysis, feedback from partners and agencies as well as public perceptions.
Overall Summary 21. Appendix C includes an analysis of responses to each of the questions contained within the questionnaire. Feedback from the meeting has also been added where relevant to give further detail or support or challenge some of the views expressed.
22. Taken in isolation the results of the questionnaire and feedback from the meeting appear negative in respect of the performance of the Council. It should be noted as stated earlier the views of the public are only one (though a very important) aspect of measuring the performance of the Council and should be considered with other factors e.g. the Councils own internal review, feedback from other agencies and partners The overall rating of the help provided by the Council (question 14) was 25% excellent/good/average, 43% below average/poor and the remaining 32% did not comment. However, the answers to other questions indicates that respondents were not always clear about the role and responsibility of the Council.
- 9 - 23. The main areas identified for improvement include the following: Clarity over who should receive support, for example, sandbags, rest centre provision etc. and how this is communicated generally. Ways that Council staff can clearly be identified. Improvements to the way enquiries, particularly telephone, are handled. Improvements in communications generally and keeping residents informed.
24. The main areas identified as being positive were: Facilities provided in the Rest Centres Help and advice provided at the Rest Centres The help provided by certain individuals and specific teams, e.g. neighbourhood team and its ability to react to the emergency. Ability of the Neighbourhood team to be best placed to respond to issues within the locality.
- 10 - KEY FINDINGS FROM THE CONSULTATION
25. The following section details the key findings arising from the consultation.
1. Recognising the complexities of responding to a major emergencies to meet the needs of the residents of the Borough.
The consultation exercise demonstrated that the Council was faced with a massive task in responding to a Borough wide emergency. The floods affected many areas across the Borough and the type of flooding varied from one area to the next e.g. surface water flooding or flooding from rivers. The needs and requirements of residents in these areas also varied greatly and Council staff worked long hours in difficult conditions doing a variety of jobs to assist in the emergency response. Whilst the responses to some of the issues raised within the consultation may appear negative the findings have demonstrated that in many areas the neighbourhood model was quick and effective in supporting residents during the crisis e.g. the response to Question 8 details the range of services that helped residents during the first two weeks and notably this reflects the work of the Neighbourhood teams. In addition there were comments at a number of the public meetings about specific neighbourhood officers and services who were outstanding during the floods. The Council was also able to provide information to the public using a range of methods e.g. through the local media and through information sheets to try to ensure that information could be effectively passed on. Also the service provided at rest centres to those residents in most desperate need of help and support was rated as excellent. In reviewing the specific finding s the Committee
2. Residents did not always understand the role of the Council or other agencies during the floods.
This is indicative of views that were strongly expressed at the public meetings that there was uncertainty and confusion on the role of the different agencies during the floods. As the response to the various aspects of the emergency required a multi agency approach it is not surprising that residents were not always clear about who had responsibility for various aspects. This was further evidenced at the public meetings when residents discussed responsibility for cleaning drains and waterways which could be the responsibility of private owners, the Council, Environment Agency or Water Authorities. Often this resulted in frustration for those residents unable to seek a response on important issues.
3. Receiving regular upto date information and effective communication during the floods was a key issue for many residents.
One of the key issues that arose from the consultation was that those households affected by the floods did not know how long the emergency would last, what action they should take and what support was available. Residents from Conisbrough explained at the meetings there was no advice given to residents on the health risks associated with the contamination of flood water. These were identified as key areas of communication that were required during the emergency.
- 11 - The questionnaire feedback showed that residents received information from a number of sources (question 7), and, in many cases, more than one. The main methods by which households received information were via the local press and radio. This is not surprising as the Council works with the local media to ensure information is given out to residents using a variety of methods and the questionnaire demonstrates that widely disseminating information to various medium was an effective way to communicate. The majority of suggestions for improvements (question 12) however, related to communications with a number of households providing suggestions along the theme of ‘being visible and known’ or ‘having someone on site who was clearly recognisable as a point of contact’.
In relation to question 13 regarding how well the Council kept households informed the percentage who rated this as average, good or excellent was 26%, 47% rated this as below average or poor and 27% did not express an opinion. Again one of the key messages for consideration is that the Council provides information in a range of ways to ensure the public are kept informed of developments e.g. to local radio stations, television etc. The public may not necessarily realise this is being undertaken via the Council.
Some response to Question 9 relating to access to Council services also referred to the fact that there was little information was available on the Council web site.
4. There were mixed reports on the effectiveness of the Public Information Helpline
Some of the main issues arising from the feedback at the public meetings were that there were insufficient emergency phone lines for members of the public to access the necessary help and support i.e. “lines were constantly engaged” It was also claimed that on occasions Council employees responding to residents on the emergency helpline did not always provide a sympathetic and helpful approach or clear guidance on key issues e.g. policy for distribution of sand bags.
These findings were identified at the public meetings and by responses to Question 9 where there were 312 responses regarding access to Council services, of these 130 said it had been easy and 182 said it was not easy to access. Where households had not found it easy to access services there were four main themes to the replies:
o Contacting the Council by phone- comments included engaged, long queues, rude staff, passed between departments, conflicting advice, no reply, multiple calls. o Area not a Priority comments incuded- focus on Toll Bar, people told they were low risk, Council tenants believed to be priority, lack of visibility of Council in all areas o Lack of information- comments included, no information provided, no information on website o Sandbags – comments included these were requested but not receive, not priority,
- 12 - Comments about services which were not so helpful (question 11) mainly related to lack of information and advice, telephone contact and receiving sandbags. These comments were supported by the views expressed at the public meetings
5. Residents were not always able to identify Council staff from other agencies
The majority of suggestions for improvements (question 12) related to communications and a number of respondents provided suggestions that Council staff should be “visible and known’ or ‘have someone on site who was clearly recognisable as a point of contact’. 39% of households said that someone from the Council had visited them (question 5). However, it should be noted that some of the 61% who said they had not been visited by anyone from the Council added that they had been visited by ‘Community First, who were fantastic’. This would indicate that the respondent was not aware that the Community First team were Council staff.
6. Residents requiring assistance in evacuating their properties were not always identified.
Although 176 households said they were asked to evacuate only 150 could identify who had requested them to do so. (question 1). Whilst it is the role of the police to evacuate residents the consultation indicated that whilst this was mostly the case other parties were involved e.g. friends and neighbours. The issue of evacuation often lead residents to talk about the community spirit of neighbours helping each other (particularly the more vulnerable) to safety. Concern was expressed at some of the public meetings that without this community spirit a number of elderly residents who were assisted by neighbours and family may have suffered serious injury without this help. It was suggested that there could be a role for the Council in helping the Police and other agencies identify where vulnerable residents live to ensure they can be contacted and supported should they need to evacuate in future similar circumstances.
7. Availability and access to sandbags was a key concern for many residents.
The questionnaires and the public meetings indicated that at times inconsistent information was being given out to residents in respect of who was entitled to sand bags. There appeared to be no clear policy for distributing these and they were not prepared and available in advance for those areas that needed them.
Anecdotal information at the meetings and comments on the questionnaire suggested there was a perception that homeowners would not be given sandbags as these were reserved for Council tenants only.. The results from the questionnaire shows that nearly half of homeowners (47%) who requested them received them in contrast with 40% of Council tenants. (question 2) Feedback from the meetings suggested residents were informed sandbags were only available for priority areas e.g. Toll Bar or Council tenants. Other residents did not realise the Council provided sandbags for private residents and made their own arrangements.
Whilst respondents placed a great emphasis on the need to acquire sandbags it was also evident from information provided at the public meetings that in some areas e.g. Tickhill and Toll Bar that the flood water rose so quickly that by the time sandbags were available they were of no use. The public meetings illustrated that
- 13 - the floods affected many areas within the Borough and whilst there are concerns expressed about the provision of sandbags Members recognise the hard work and efforts that were required by Council staff in meeting the needs and demands of residents requesting sandbags from across the Borough.
8. Ensure Council employees, including wardens working in emergency situations are adequately trained and equipped with the necessary personal protective equipment.
During the public meetings Council staff who were identifiable to the public were praised for their efforts in supporting residents however although only raised at one particular meeting concerns were expressed that some Council employees who helped to evacuate vulnerable residents from their properties did not have the necessary protective safety equipment, particularly when wading through contaminated water.
9. Some residents experienced difficulty in disposing of damaged belongings .
There were mixed responses to the clean up operation.). Some residents in Rossington and Thorne stated that they did not receive skips to dispose of damaged goods until some time after the floods. One resident commented that he had difficulty in accessing his local recycling centre to dispose of spoilt goods because of the ramps and the difficulties of taking his van onto the site.
10. Concern was raised in some areas over the lack of appropriate cleaning of roads, paths and gardens where these had been affected by water containing raw sewerage.
The health and safety concerns of residents affected by flooding from drains particularly in Conisbrough and Tickhill was raised at the meetings. In Conisbrough it was claimed by one resident that there was no cleaning of the roads following the floods whereas in Tickhill it was claimed by one householder that the raw sewerage was just raked over her garden.
11. Rest centres were valued and appreciated by residents who used them
The feedback in respect of Rest Centres was by and large very positive with excellent service being provided in the Rest Centres. The only negative response from the public meetings was that some residents were not aware that rest centres were available. In contrast to the overall Council ratings the satisfaction with Rest Centre facilities was 80% excellent/good (question 17). Likewise, in answer to question 18 regarding help and advice received in the centre the satisfaction rate was similar at 77%. The comments about the Rest Centres (question 19) were generally positive with suggested improvements including the provision of beds and facilities for disabled people.
A particular comment ‘ all I can say is the staff there, not the Council, were brilliant’ would indicate that the organisation is viewed as being separate from the Council. An alternative interpretation of this could be that the comment is referring to the staff in operational terms and the ‘Council’ in strategic/decision-making terms.
- 14 - Wider Outcomes arising from the consultation
26. As well as reviewing the findings from the consultation it is worth noting that in itself the consultation was a useful and valuable exercise for Overview and Scrutiny as it enabled Scrutiny Members :
To build a picture of the sequence of events around the Borough and hear some very moving stories about how individuals and their families were affected by the floods. To gain an understanding of the different requirements and of how the floods affected communities differently throughout the borough. To provide an opportunity for members of the public to have their say on an issue they felt strongly about. To engage local residents within the Council’s democratic process To provide an opportunity for local councillors to attend and hear first hand the views and concerns of their constituents. To provide the Council with an opportunity to gain the public’s perception on its performance.
Issues Raised outside the Scope of the Review
27. At each of the public meetings, issues were raised in relation to the causes of the floods, what could be done to prevent them happening again and what was the role of the various agencies during the emergency. These areas were outside the scope of the original review but in view of the many responses that were received from Members of the public the Chair of the Committee agreed that all these additional issues would be raised at a public meeting where all the relevant agencies would be invited to respond to these issues.
28. A summary of the issues raised that were outside the scope of this review are attached at appendix C.
Summary
29. This report identifies the findings from the consultation event undertaken during November and December 2007. The Overview and Scrutiny Management Committee will need to take account of these findings, the outcome of the Council’s internal review and responses from external agencies before agreeing a set of recommendations which will seek to ensure improvements can be made should any similar emergencies occur.
- 15 - Acknowledgements
The Committee would like to thank everyone who participated in this review by completing the questionnaires and attending the public meetings and providing very personal and moving accounts of their experiences. The Committee is also grateful for the hard work and dedication of the Council staff who supported residents during the floods often working long hours under difficult conditions.
Thanks are also given to the Neighbourhood teams in supporting the Scrutiny Committee in undertaking the review by distributing posters for the consultation meetings and delivering questionnaires to those properties and areas affected by the floods.
- 16 - APPENDIX A
Questionnaire and Meeting Analysis
The following is analysis of each of the questions contained in the questionnaire and relevant feedback from the public meetings.
1. Were you asked to evacuate?
Yes= 176, No= 263, Don’t know/no answer 81
If yes, how were you contacted and told you should evacuate?
Fig 1 Contact made by: No. of households Police 99 Door to door- caller unknown 14 Fire and Rescue Service 9 Council 9 Insurance Company 6 Neighbour 4 Family 2 Other 7 Total 150
Where did you go when evacuated? Hotel, family, friends, Rest Centre, other etc.,
Whilst it is the role of the Police to evacuate residents the feedback shows that they were not the only agency involved in this. Of the 599 households 192 identified where they went when evacuated. It should be noted that some people had lived in a number of places after evacuation, but only their first temporary residence is recorded in the following table
Fig 2 No. Relative 11 Rest Centre 39 Friends 24 Hotel 9 Other 10
27 households reported that although they had been asked to evacuate they had chosen to stay at home.
Information received at the meeting indcated that residents were asked by a number of people to evacuate. One of the reasons cited why people preferred to stay in their home and move upstairs was because of the security of leaving their house contents. One resident at the Tickhill meeting reported that he did not wish
- 17 - to evacuate because there was nowhere to house his pets and therefore he chose to remain living upstairs.. Some of the feedback from residents at the public meeting was that they were unaware rest centres were available or that they believed they were only available for Council tenants.
The overwhelming majority of those in attendance at the public meetings referred to the community spirit of neighbours helping each other to evacuate.
Key Finding
Particular concern was expressed over the need to supportthe elderly and other vulnerable residents in evacuating their homes and it was claimed that if there had not been such a strong community spirit in places such as Toll Bar and Bentley there could well have been some tragedies.
2. Did you request sandbags?
Yes= 334, No= 184, Don’t know/no answer= 81
If yes, did you receive them?
Yes=149 (45%) No= 174 (52%) Don’t know/No answer= 11 (3%)
A further 24 households said they did not request sandbags but had received them
The following table provides a breakdown of the number of households by tenure who requested sandbags and received them.
Fig 3
Tenure Number households Households who who requested requested & received sandbags sandbags Homeowners 234 109 (46.6%) Council tenant 54 21 (38.8%) Private/other 16 6 (41.6%) Did not indicate 30 13 (43%) Total 334 144 (43%)
At every public meeting there was discussion about sandbags some of the common themes that occurred were:
Sandbags were requested but callers were informed these were available for council tenants only. One Thorne resident advised he had been informed that sandbags were only available for areas where rivers were overtopping and because Thorne/Moorends was affected by surface water flooding, sand bags were not available. Some residents at Tickhill explained that they requested sandbags but the water had risen so quickly they were of no use when they arrived.
- 18 - Residents in Toll Bar explained they were informed that there were no sandbags available and they would have to buy their own.
One of the main areas of concern was that when sand bags arrived there was no distribution system and these were taken by the most physically able rather than the most needy. There were reports that these were also being sold on by individuals for profit.
Key Finding
A number of concerns were raised over the availability and allocation of sandbags to Members of the public.
3. Was your property inspected for damage?
Yes= 199 No= 300 Don’t know/No answer= 100
The table below shows a breakdown of who inspected the property
Fig 4 Council 32 St Leger Homes 15 Private Landlord 5 Insurance company 126 Other/not applicable/did not 21 indicate
4. Did you make use of the skips or collections of damaged personal belongings etc. provided by the Council?,
Yes= 197 No= 293 Don’t know/didn’t answer= 109
Residents in Thorne claimed that skips were not made available until a number of weeks after the floods. Residents were taking spoilt goods to the recycling centres and suggested a relaxing of the rules allowing vans into the site would have been useful.
A residents in Rossington claimed that skips were not made available for the 23 houses that were flooded This was a very major health and safety concern for a number of residents.
Key Finding:
Some concern was raised particularly at the public meetings that residents believed certain areas notably Rossington and Thorne were not provided with support in clearing away damaged goods. The obvious health risks were stressed as major areas of concern and the need to ensure this facility was available. Support to residents in terms of assisting with the clean up was cited as a key area of concern.
- 19 - 5. Were you visited by anyone from the Council?
Yes= 195 No= 301 No answer/didn’t know= 103
Again the public meetings provided a mixed response which supports the views expressed within the questionnaires. Residents in some areas e.g. Rossington and Adwick praised the work of their local Councillors in visiting them and being proactive but were not generally satisfied with the support that was available from Council services. One of the issues that became clear from the meetings was that residents did not always realise who “the Council“ were therefore some of these residents may have been visited by Council officers.
Fig 5 Councillor 41 Council Officer/Neighbourhood team 132
Key Finding
Need to ensure Council employees are easily identifiable.
6. If you contacted the Council for help how did you do this?
309 households did not answer this question and of the 290 who said they had contacted the Council some had used more than one method. It should be noted that ‘in person’ includes Wardens, Councillors, Officer home visits and public visits to council buildings.
Fig 6 Telephone 230 In person 61 Other- inc letter, e-mail 14
An issue raised by a number of residents was that they were not aware that the Council could offer assistance – they believed that assistance was only available to Council tenants. A common issue raised at the public meeting on a number of occasions was that members of the public were not able to get through to anyone on the emergency number. One of the suggestions for improving Council services was to ensure Council officers were more visible and easily identifiable. Also the setting up of temporary advice and support centres could assist with enabling the public to access the Council during this or similar emergencies.
Key Findings
There was a perceived lack of phone lines to take calls from the public. Further advice and clarification on the role of the Council Greater visibility of Council officers in the areas most affected
- 20 - 7. How were you kept informed of the services and support available to you during the first two weeks of the flood?
Residents received information from a number of sources, often more than one.
Fig 7 The ways households received information
No Reply 27% Information on sheets 11% Radio 21% Newspaper 14% Council Staff (Inc Councillors) 9% Other organisation 10% Public help line 1% TV 3% Word of mouth 2% Other 2%
Over a third of residents were updated through the local media. The response suggests that a range of information is used by the public to ensure they are kept aware of what is happening during the emergency.
Key Finding
This would reflect the work undertaken by the Council to ensure a range of methods are used to allow residents to access information from the Council.
8. Which Council services helped you during the first two weeks of the floods
The following table shows, of those households who gave an answer, which services provided help.
Fig 8 Neighbourhood team 83 Community First 49 Environmental Health 4 Council staff 4 FLAG 3 Social Services 3 St Leger Homes 15 No help 46
- 21 - It should be noted that Community First has now been taken over by Neighbourhood team but this term was used as the Community First team were well established in communities and neighbourhood teams are still referred to as this in some areas. Again the view was reflected above that residents were not always aware which services were provided by the Council may contribute to this answer. This also provides an indication that neighbourhood teams were available and able to respond quickly to support residents.
Key Finding
In some areas there was a lack of public knowledge of the role of the Council. The results demonstrated that the Neighbourhood teams were on hand and available in a number of cases to respond to the needs of residents9. Were you able to access Council services effectively?
Yes= 130 No= 182 Don’t know/no answer= 287
If no, please state why,
There were four key themes to the comments received: a. Contacting the Council by phone Main issues included: phone lines engaged, long queues, rude staff, passed between departments, conflicting advice, no reply, and multiple calls. Total comments 36, including: I was just passed from person to person and none of them could answer my questions They were in a state of chaos and gave conflicting information. Contact line appeared to be permanently engaged Rang and someone said they would ring back, they didn't, b. My area not a priority Main issues included: resources were being focussed on Toll Bar and people told they were low risk, Council tenants believed to be priority, lack of visibility of Council in all areas.
Total Comments, 19, including People kept telling us we hadn't been flooded or that priority was being given to Toll BarWhen I rang for help I was told I was in a low risk area. No one seemed to know that we were flooded in Auckley. No clear guidelines as everyone's circumstances different. Also felt that as a non-council tenant not taken as a priority. c. Information Main issues included no information provided, no information on website Total Comments, 17, including Given no information of any kind and no help Looked on council web site unable to find help of any kind We had no idea who to contact Conflicting information
- 22 - d. Sandbags Main issues included requested but did not receive, not priority, Total Comments 14, including We asked for sandbags but did not get any.In spite of being flooded we were told we were not priority for sandbags!Sandbags were rationedWas told on the telephone that half the country was flooded and there were no sandbags to be hadWhen I rang the helpline for sandbags I was told I was not a Council Tenant or vulnerable individual!
The comments detailed above are by and large reflective of the statements received during the public meetings. Particularly residents of Thorne, Tickhill, Moorends Rossington and Conisbrough claiming they were overlooked by the Council and were not a priority as they believed council efforts were concentrated in Toll Bar and Bentley. The advice from the Councils helpline tended to vary as a number of individuals from all areas reported they were given information that was not accurate e.g. not a priority area, sandbags were for Council tenants only.
Key Finding A number of concerns were raised about the accuracy of the information given to callers and of the role of the Council during the emergency.
10. Which Council services did you find helpful and why?
The services which were considered to have been the most helpful were:
Neighbourhood team 52 Clean up team 37 Community First 17 Revenues 11 Sandbags delivery staff 10 St Leger homes 7 Floodline 5 Councillor 4 All services 4 Highways 3 Wardens 2 Website 2 Mayors Office 1 Other 5 Total 160
There were also 2 references to a specific praise for the efforts of members of the Community First team in the West and “Rates department very helpful giving information about rates”.
11. Which Council services were not so helpful and why?
21 households said that none of the services were helpful or none other than the ones they had listed in question 10. Apart from these the other negative comments mainly related to communications and sandbags, examples included,
- 23 - Being told you are "not a priority group or vulnerable" when you have been flooded is not appropriate language to use. Very hard to contact lots of chasing around Lack of communication about what was happening and what services were available to help Request for sandbags. Answer - only for Council tenants
One of the themes that came through from the public meetings was that there seemed to be a lack of visible presence of Council officers in certain areas. A resident from Rossington claimed Council officers visited him 3 days after the floods and then 5 weeks later. A further theme was the inability to get through to the emergency number to speak to someone.
Key Finding
Despite the work undertaken to keep residents informed and updated the need to improve communication was a common theme arising from the consultation. As was the need to ensure Council employees were easily recognisable.
12. What could the Council have done better during those first two weeks?
The main themes were: Communications Sandbags Clearing the drains Acknowledgement of flooding in other areas
These issues were reaffirmed during the public meetings. In terms of communication, understanding who was responsible for what and the differing role of the various agencies and bodies involved was a recurrent theme. Not understanding who was in charge or which agency led on specific areas made accessing support difficult for some.
In Tickhill and Conisbrough it was reported that once the flood water had receded there was little done to clear away rubbish, detrius and sewerage that had accumulated on roads, paths and gardens. Also it was claimed there was no advice given as to whether the water that had entered properties from nearby rivers/brooks or whether it was contaminated by sewerage.
13. How well would you rate the Council in keeping you informed of the services and support available to you during the first two weeks of the flood?
For those households who expressed a view the rating for how well they felt they were kept informed is contained in the chart below:
Fig 10 Satisfaction with hour households were kept informed
Excellent 5% Good 9% Average 12% - 24 - Below average 8% Poor 39% No comment 27%
The percentage of households who rated the information provided by the Council as Average, Good or Excellent at keeping them informed was 26%. 37% rated performance at below average or poor and 27% did not express and opinion.
When asked for additional comments the following examples were provided: We cannot thank all the Council Members enough for all the help The general workers were excellent. Felt let down initially but can find no fault in clear up and onwards I think they did there best in light of the situation Left to fend for ourselves felt we didn't exist Unbelievably rubbish no help for us what so ever The availability of information belies belief.
Key Finding
These views again reflect the comments expressed at the public meetings. With lack of communication and information being a key issue for the Council. However, the Council works with the local media e.g. press and radio and uses a rang eof methods to keep residents informed e.g. web site, information sheets, neighbourhood staff etc to ensure information is given out to the public in a variety of ways.
14. Overall how would you rate the performance of the Council in helping you during the first two weeks of the flood?
Fig 11 Satisfaction with overall rating of the Council
Excellent 5% Good 9% Average 11% Below average 6% Poor 37% No comment 32%
The percentage of households who rated the Council as Average, Good or Excellent at keeping them informed was 25%. 37% rated performance as below average or poor and the remainder did not comment.
Please add any additional comments you may have here,
These mainly related to lack of support in areas other than Toll Bar.
Again the views of those in attendance at the meetings reflected the feedback from the questionnaires. Many believed the Council could have done more to prevent the impact of the floods (particularly cleaning of drains and gulleys) and during the
- 25 - emergency. There was however, some recognition that certain areas of the Council performed very well in difficult circumstances.
15. Please include any additional comments you would wish to make in respect of the support you have received from the Council following the floods, examples: One young lady from the community team based in Bentley has been excellent. Disgusted that no-one visited and no help with clean up, had to do this on my own.
This question included a range of responses which re-emphasise some of the feedback already provided in terms of lack of support generally or identifying individual teams who were particularly helpful.
16. Which rest centre did you use?
Fig 12 Adwick 17 Castle Close 3 Dome 3 Don Valley 9 Lakeside 4 Ridgewood 1 Tickhill 1 Did not indicate 4
17. How would you rate the facilities in the rest centre?,
Fig 13 Satisfaction with Rest Centre Facilities
Excellent 45% Good 35% Average 16% Below average 2% Poor 2%
18. How would you rate the help and advice you received in the rest centre?
Fig 14 Satisfaction with the help and advice in the rest centre
Excellent 40% Good 37% Average 9% Poor 2% No rating 12%
19. How could the Council improve provision at its rest centres?
- 26 - They couldn’t help us any more than they did.Make them bigger or more of them. They would be hard pushed to improve on the service - they were brilliant.Provision which we had was good and appreciated. Thank youImprove staff training/attitude of staff. Washing, toilet facilities limited (disabled
Only a few members of the public in attendance indicated that they had attended rest centres, this was at the meetings held in Scawthorpe. The feedback from those individuals who had attended rest centres was however very positive. Some residents in Bentley and Toll Bar claimed they were not made aware of or offered the opportunity to attend rest centres.
Key Finding
The provision of rest centres and the service provided was appreciated by residents and considered to be of a high standard. 20. Responses by area
- 27 - Responses from affected areas
Thorpe in Balne 1 Hexthorpe 1
Dunscroft 1
Braithwell 1
Bennetthorpe 1 Affected Edenthorpe 2 Responses Tilts 3
Carcroft 3
Stainforth 9
Hatfield Woodhouse 60
Wheatley 110
Scawsby 65
Bentley 756 Thorne 241
Denaby 7 Rossington 27
Toll Bar 314 Askern 65
Arksey 11 Clay Lane 25 Sykehouse 5
Brodsworth 2 Austerfield 8
Tickhill 57 Doncaster 35
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
21. Replies by tenure
Homeowner 381 Council tenant 87 Private tenant 26 Not indicated 105
- 28 - APPENDIX B
OVERVIEW & SCRUTINY FLOOD RESPONSE CONSULTATION TERMS OF REFERENCE
Purpose
To make an assessment of how individuals and communities within the Borough were affected by the floods and establish how effectively they were supported by the Council during the period 24th June to 9th July 2007.
Scope
We are looking at the way the Council performed in supporting individuals and communities affected by the floods during 24th June to 9th July 2007 including:
How well did the Council respond to this emergency? What support the Council provided how timely and effective was it? how were individuals made aware of what was happening and what help was available? What was done well/not so well by the Council? What further help and support could have been given by the Council?
Terms of Reference
1. Make an assessment of how the floods impacted on the lives of people and communities during the first two weeks (24th June to 9th July 2007).
2. Undertake an effective consultation exercise to assess the views of the public and communities on the help and support they received from the Council during the first 2 weeks of the floods.
3. Make an assessment of how effectively the Council responded to those people and communities who required help and support during the first 2 weeks.
4. Identify how effectively the Council performed during the crisis and what it did well.
5. Identify any areas where the Council performed less well and the reasons for this.
6. Convene a formal OSMC meeting and invite Council officers and other agencies (if appropriate), to consider and respond to the views expressed and issues raised by the public during the consultation.
7. Identify any recommendations that may assist the Council in improving the support it gives to people and communities affected by floods in the future.
- 29 - APPENDIX C ISSUES RAISED AT PUBLIC MEETINGS
DONCASTER COUNCIL
QUESTIONS/ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION NOTES
Drains, Gullies and Culverts
1. What is the Council’s role and responsibility in On a number of occasions the public claimed they were unsure who was relation to repairing and maintaining gullies, drains responsible for maintenance of drains gullies rivers and waterways. and culverts?
2. Does the Council have a comprehensive plan On a number of occasions residents reported there was disagreement which shows where all drains/gullies/culverts and between some of the agencies as to who had responsibility for specific waterways are located and which clearly sets out drains, gullies or waterways. Residents in Rossington were unclear who is which agency/body is responsible for maintenance responsible for the culvert and drain near the duck pond at Rossington. and repair? Residents in Thorne claimed they do not know who is responsible for If not, is one being developed? maintenance and repair of the local drains (e.g. Grampian Way). It was also reported there was a lack of local knowledge when representatives from organisations were sent to deal with problems (e.g. not knowing where drains, gullies or culverts were located) and this hampered the recovery process.
3. To what extent does the practice of cleaning out At all the public meetings the public suggested that blocked drains and wheelie bins directly into drains contribute to the build gullies contributed to the flooding. This issue was highlighted in all areas up of debris and blockages? e.g. Boat Lane Sprotbrough where it was claimed leaves and twigs block the entrance to the drains running down from Cadeby Road.
4. Can the existing drains cope with the current Concern was expressed in Tickhill and Pickburn that the current drains volume of water? Are they likely to be renewed? cannot cope with volume of water; many were built during turn of the 20th Century or are in a poor state of repair. This problem will be exacerbated as new developments are built.
- 30 - 5. What programmes does the Council have in place This issue was raised at all the public meetings and specifically in Tickhill, to maintain drains and gullies in the future to ensure Rossington, Adwick, Bentley, Toll Bar, Sprotbrough, Thorne and that they remain free of debris? Conisbrough. Residents claimed that drains in these areas had not been cleaned for a number of years. This was seen as a key contributor to the 6. To what extent did debris in the drains and gullies flooding that took place. lessen their effectiveness and contribute to the flood damage?
7. How does the Council check gulley/drain cleaning Concerns were raised regarding the quality of work carried out by carried out by external contractors is carried out to an contractors in relation to the clearing of gullies which it was claimed was acceptable standard? sub-standard in some areas.
8. Residents in Tickhill claimed that despite making a It was believed if this had been opened the water levels in the dam would number of requests the sluice gate on Mill Dam was have dropped and flooding in Tickhill would not have been so extensive. not opened prior to the floods.
9. Having reviewed the Council’s response to the floods and identified the contributory factors, what changes have been made, or will be made, to improve the services provided?
Role and Responsibility
10. What is the role and responsibility of the Council On a number of occasions the public claimed they were not clear as to in supporting residents during and after the floods? which organisation was responsible for different aspects of the emergency. This was raised at each meeting particularly with Bentley and Toll Bar residents. This confusion led to delays and frustration for residents.
11. How is the response of the Council co-ordinated A number of residents claimed they were unaware they could receive help and how is the role of the Council communicated to from the Council as they were not Council tenants the public and other agencies that are working with you?
- 31 - 12. How does the Council communicate with the Feedback at all meetings gave examples where residents had difficulty public to ensure they receive up to date information contacting the Council through the emergency contact number. Rossington regarding the extent of the flooding, what to do in the and Thorne residents claimed they received no warning that their properties event of a flood and the help available to them? were likely to flood. Residents in these areas also claimed they received little help from the Council often because resources were focussed in Toll Bar. Bentley and Toll Bar residents particularly claimed they did not know what to do, who to contact or who was in charge during the floods.
13. How many Council employees were supporting Feedback from residents varies greatly on the level of Council presence. In residents during the flood and what was their role? some areas this was quoted as being excellent whilst in others it was claimed no Council officers were present during the emergency. Residents in Tickhill, Rossington Pickburn, claimed there was little help and communication from the Council
14. Is the local community consulted when There was a strong view expressed at a number of meetings that local developing the Council’s Contingency Plans? people could be used to contribute their knowledge of the area and land when developing contingency plans. It was claimed that farmers and landowners who are familiar with ditches, rivers and local drainage issues would be an ideal source of information.
Evacuation 15. At what stage is the decision to advise residents to evacuate taken and how is this done?
16. What steps are taken to ensure homes in evacuated areas are secure? 17. Are there any strategies in place to ensure that Many examples were given particularly Toll Bar, Bentley and Adwick where the elderly or disabled are given assistance when elderly residents had to be supported by neighbours and family when being evacuated? evacuating.
18. Are there any strategies in place to ensure those with specific needs can be identified and appropriate assistance offered?
- 32 - 19. What criteria is used to decide whether a road Some residents complained that roads were closed too late allowing traffic should be closed and whose decision is it? to cause the water to be pushed back into properties. Others were grateful that roads remained open so they were able to access their friends and relatives to help evacuate.
20. Can additional support be given to residents who Residents on low incomes claimed the cost of gas for heating the caravans face increases in their utility bills when relocated in had increased since they had been allocated a place in their caravans. caravan.
Planning Issues
21. What consideration is given by the Council’s Statements were received expressing concerns that too many Planning Department when considering applications developments were being proposed by developers to build new housing for new developments particularly in areas prone to estates on flood plains or areas that are prone to flooding. A number of flooding? residents raised concern about new developments in Tudworth, Kirton Lane, Thorne and the Brad Home development in Thorne, as these areas are currently prone to flooding and additional buildings may contribute further to this.
Concerns that extensive building of new housing estates is not being support by investments to improve existing drainage systems, some of which date back to Victorian times and cannot cope with the current volume.
Concerns were also expressed that new industrial buildings or warehouses were contributing to floods because of the spill off from roofs etc.
22. Residents in Tickhill stated that builders were supposed to build a dyke to assist drainage in Wong Lane but this has never happened. Why has this not been enforced?
Sand Bags
- 33 - 23. How was the distribution of sandbags co- Accounts of the allocation of sandbags varied, some claimed that they ordinated and prioritised? arrived too late, residents in Toll Bar claimed sand bags were only given to Council tenants first. Most areas when referring to distribution of sandbags claimed they were left in a central location with no system for distribution. Residents in Conisbrough, Bentley, Toll Bar claimed they could not get sand bags when requested and they had to make their own arrangements.
24. Why are sandbags not already stored in areas that are susceptible to flooding?
25. Have areas that are susceptible to flooding been identified and arrangements made for sandbagging in the future?
Cleaning Up
26. Is there a strategy for the clean up operation? Concern was raised that some areas have never been cleaned and debris will be washed directly back down the drains. It was also claimed that no advice was given to residents in Tickhill or Conisbrough as to whether the flood waters were contaminated with sewerage.
27. How were the location of skips identified? Some residents had difficulties obtaining skips to assist with the clean up operation (Rossington). Residents hiring private skips were upset that the Council charged £40 p.w to site on the street even when the road was closed.
28. Residents found it difficult to utilise recycling Carrying heavy household goods up ramps. The difficulties of getting in and centres when disposing of damaged goods. out the sites with vans (Thorne). Members of the public also suggested that the rules governing entry to a recycle centre be relaxed to allow residents easier access when clearing flood damaged items.
Rest Centres
- 34 - 29. How are places at rest centres allocated? Are any groups given priority over others, eg. Elderly or vulnerable? – It was reported that the first questions asked at rest centres was are you a private tenant and are you insured? This gave the perception that council tenants had priority over private homeowners.
30. How are people made aware of the rest centres? Some residents in Toll Bar claimed they were not aware rest centres were available.
Other
31. What is the criteria for determining whether There are perceived inconsistencies relating to the qualification for Council households should receive Council Tax rebate and Tax rebate e.g. some felt unable to leave their houses for fear of looting or how has this been communicated to those affected? being unable to re-house pets
- 35 - ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
QUESTIONS/ISSUES NOTES
1. What is your role and responsibility in relation to Residents were unclear who had responsibility for maintenance and repair preventing flood risk through effective drainage, flood of waterways e.g. who is responsible for cleaning out the brook in management and cleaning and maintenance of: Conisbrough. Rivers and waterways
2. As a result of the summer floods what investment There was a general view from residents that there should be further has the organisation made to improve the flood investment in flood defences throughout the Borough defences within the DMBC area and what programme of maintenance and repair is in place to reduce the risk of flooding in the future?
3. What initiatives are in place to maintain dykes and There was a strong public perception that failure to properly maintain waterways to ensure that they remain free of debris, dykes and culverts was a major contributory factor to the extensive flood which restricts their effectiveness? caused. This issue was raised in Tickhill, Thorne, Bentley, Toll Bar and Adwick. Concerns raised that residents extend gardens into streams to stop free flow of water or in Rossington it was claimed rubbish was being tipped into dykes
4. What investment is made in current plant and There were reports that the pumps at Bentley Ings did not function equipment to ensure that it operates effectively? properly due to the lack of investment. White Well pumping station in the Thorne area, turned off.
5. What programme is in place to ensure that plant and Why was the sluice gate in Tickhill not maintained when it had been equipment is regularly checked and maintained. reported as faulty on a number of occasions – residents felt that failure to maintain this sluice gate contributed to the flooding water.
- 36 - 6. How often are rivers and waterways cleaned? Concern was expressed by residents that the River Don, Ea Beck and a number of inland dykes and waterways e.g. Water Lane dyke or Mill Damn in Tickhill the Beck in Conisbrough have not been cleaned or effectively maintained for many years. Concern was also raised about the standard of dyke along Water Lane Tickhill Many viewed these as contributory factors to the floods.
7. Can some waterways be improved? Residents in Tickhill claimed widening of the sluice would improve its effectiveness. Residents in Adwick claimed the river Don should be desilted and the banks of the Ea Beck and Don should be raised.
8. How are residents educated to maintain local Concern was expressed that residents were filling in ditches to extend streams that run through or on the edge of their their gardens or dumping rubbish in dykes and streams (this point was property? specifically raised by Tickhill and Rossington residents).
9. How does the Environment Agency communicate A number of residents felt that they received insufficient warning regarding with the public to ensure they receive up to date the extent and seriousness of the flooding. information regarding the extent of the flooding and help available
10. Is the local community consulted when developing Are local people used to contribute their knowledge of the area and land Contingency Plans? when developing contingency plans?
11. Why couldn’t water have been diverted from the Residents believed that empty fields could have been deliberately flooded River Don to fields in Bentley, Toll Bar or Adwick. in Toll Bar, which would have alleviated flooding in residential areas.
- 37 - WATER AUTHORITIES
QUESTIONS/ISSUES NOTES 1. What is your role and responsibility in relation to preventing flood risk through effective drainage management and maintenance of drain and pumping stations?
2. Do you have clear up to date maps and details of all drains Residents in Grampian Way Thorne claimed nobody has and details of ownership? accepted ownership of the local drains.
3. Why did a number of pumping stations fail to work? It was suggested that pumping stations at Bentley did not work effectively.
4. Do you have an annual programme for cleaning and Residents in St Marys Road Tickhill claimed there houses and maintenance of drains? gardens were flooded with raw sewerage and this is a recurring problem that has not been addressed
5. Can our drains cope with the current volumes of water? Are Concern was expressed in Tickhill that many of the drains they likely to be renewed? cannot cope with the volume of water as many were built during Victorian times.
- 38 - EMERGENCY SERVICES
QUESTIONS/ISSUES NOTES 1. What weaknesses have you identified when reviewing your actions during the floods and what changes have you made to improve the services provided? 2. How is the response of the your organisation co-ordinated Confusion as to who to contact for different aspects of the and how is it communicated to the public? emergency was experienced, leading to delays and frustration.
3. What steps were taken to ensure homes in evacuated areas were secure?
4. Why had the majority of Fire Service resources been directed Residents at the meetings claimed that experience has shown to Sheffield and Rotherham? that if areas in Sheffield and Rotherham flood then generally speaking Doncaster will also be affected, therefore, some resources should have been retained for Doncaster. 5. How is the response of the various agencies co-ordinated and Confusion as to who to contact for different aspects of the how is it communicated to the public? emergency was experienced, leading to delays and frustration. 6. Residents claimed 4 X 4 vehicles driving through the streets This problem was raised in Tickhill and Toll Bar and Scawthorpe were pushing water back in to houses. Why were these roads and Thorne. Residents in Conisbrough claim there was no clear not closed? advice as to whether the Council or the Police had authority rto close the roads. 7. What advice was received in terms of where to pump flood Residents in Toll Bar claimed the emergency services were not water? always clear about the geology of the land including where to pump water to.
- 39 -