JOINT MEETING OF THE STRATEGIC RESOURCES AND PERFORMANCE AND CULTURE, ECONOMY AND SUSTAINABILITY SCRUTINY AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT BOARDS

Meeting held 21st January, 2008

PRESENT: Councillors Anne Smith (Chair), Steve Ayris, David Baker, Penny Baker, Marjorie Barker, John Campbell, Jean Cromar, Mike Davis, Roger Davison, Julie Dore Sylvia Dunkley, Jackie Drayton, Denise Fox, Ibrar Hussain, Martin Lawton, Bob McCann, Mike Peat, Peter Price, Mike Pye, Andrew Sangar, Ray Satur and Janice Sidebottom.

In attendance:- Officers from the City Council, Environment Agency, South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue and Yorkshire Water

Councillors Patricia Fox, Trevor Bagshaw, Bernard Little, Alan Hooper, Janet Bragg, Martin Davis, Diane Leek, Kathleen Chadwick, Garry Weatherall and Alison Brelsford.

………………….

1. APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR AND DEPUTY CHAIR RESOLVED: That Councillor Anne Smith be appointed Chair of the Joint Meeting and Councillor Peter Price be appointed Deputy Chair.

2. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE FROM MEMBERS OF THE BOARDS Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Jillian Creasy and Ali Qadar.

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS AND PARTY WHIPPING There were no declarations of party whipping. Councillor Jackie Drayton declared a personal interest in item 5 (Sheffield Flood) as she was a Member of the South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority. She remained in the meeting and spoke in connection with the item.

4. PUBLIC QUESTIONS AND PETITIONS There were no petitions submitted to the joint meeting. A number of public questions were asked and responses given, as outlined below.

 (Mrs. Berry/Mrs. Ibbotson) Concern was expressed by residents of Cowley Court, Cowley Lane, that in recent days, and due to heavy rain, the water level of the Blackburn Brook was rising. Particular reference was made to the maintenance of drainage. One resident described how after the flooding, which occurred on 15th and 25th June, 2007, she was still living away from her own property and expressed concern that housing development taking place elsewhere in Chapeltown may have contributed to the drainage difficulties associated with flooding. Joint Meeting of the Strategic Resources and Performance and Culture, Economy and Sustainability Scrutiny and Policy Development Boards 21.1.2008 Page 2

A response was made by Peter Holmes (Environment Agency) who referred to the significant amount of rain which had fallen in the previous six hours and a report of heavy rain, particularly in the south Pennines. However, most of the problems associated with the rising water levels would apply on this occasion to West Yorkshire where there was particular concern. With reference to the Blackburn Brook, discussions had been held with a consultant engineer and with the City Council concerning the storage of water in ponds at the upper end of the brook so as to allow some control over water flow. In addition, the entire catchment of the River Don was being considered by the Environment Agency as part of a wider study and when a result of this study was known the options available to reduce flood risk and associated flooding could be considered further.

 A number of matters were raised by Mr David Connell concerning the presence of trees and debris along the watercourse of the River Don; the emptying of gullies; and in relation to the Ulley Reservoir, reports that this would not be repaired until December, 2008.

John Charlton (Director of Street Force) stated that the City Council was responsible for highway drains. Routine emptying of gullies was carried out by Street Force at least once a year and other gullies were cleaned with greater frequency every two or three months. Known “hotspots” were examined more closely following receipt of flood warnings to ensure that they were running freely. At any one time it was considered that 93% of gullies were running freely. Peter Holmes replied that in relation to debris and trees in the main river watercourses, large trees were being cleared by the Environment Agency and particularly at Hillsborough, debris had been washed into the river and it was acknowledged that there was a significant amount of clearing still to be done. A particular difficulty was access to the river as development had taken place close to the river. In relation to the Ulley Reservoir, repairs had taken place (of a temporary nature) after the events of flooding in June, 2007. The reservoir was owned by Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council, although the Environment Agency was responsible to ensure that the local authority undertook the required works to their satisfaction. In the short term, the condition of the reservoir was considered to be satisfactory.

 (John Steer) Reference was made to King Ecgbert Road and the development of Barratt Homes on the former playing fields, which had been built (despite refusal by the Planning Authority) as the result of an appeal by the developers. At the planning stage, concern had been expressed at flood risk and Barratt Homes had undertaken to install groundwork to alleviate the flood risk. In 2007, ground floor flooding had occurred at the properties and Barratt Homes undertook remedial groundwork, which had included the installation of works to the rear of his back garden. In recent days with the increased rainfall, a large amount of water had collected in Mr. Steer’s garden and despite his enquiries to them, Barratt Homes had not responded. Joint Meeting of the Strategic Resources and Performance and Culture, Economy and Sustainability Scrutiny and Policy Development Boards 21.1.2008 Page 3

In response to the concerns expressed by Mr. Steer, David Curtis, Director of Development Services, Sheffield City Council, informed him that he would examine the planning conditions relating to the development. He advised Mr. Steer to continue to take up this issue with Barratt Homes and requested that he also be informed of correspondence with Barratt Homes. The Chair, Councillor Anne Smith, explained to members of the public present that there would be a further opportunity to ask questions of Council officers and representatives of partner agencies during the course of the meeting.

5. SHEFFIELD FLOOD Terms of Reference RESOLVED: That the Terms of Reference for the scrutiny investigation relating to the Sheffield Flood be noted.

Sheffield Flood - Sheffield City Council submission Members considered a presentation by Sir Robert Kerslake, Chief Executive, Sheffield City Council, outlining the events of 25th June, 2007 including that June, 2007 had been the wettest month since records began, 125 years previously. The flood affected the main arterial roads through Sheffield, businesses and residential areas. There were two fatalities in the City, where a 14 year old boy was swept into the river and a man was swept away by flood water. The sub-station at Neepsend was flooded and there were power cuts to the north of the City. Carbrook, which included the urban traffic control premises of the City Council, was evacuated on 25th June. Rescues were undertaken including by helicopter and by vehicles such as tractors and JCBs. High Volume Pumps were used to lower the level of water in the Ulley Reservoir. The immediate impact of the events was evident for businesses and homes. 1,275 homes in the City were affected, trains were terminated and passengers were stranded, needing shelter. Over 1,400 people stayed in rest centres and in the Town Hall. Some 48,000 homes lost power in the course of the incident and numerous roads were badly damaged, closed or inaccessible across Sheffield. There was also significant impact upon businesses in the City with approximately, 1,000 businesses of various sizes being affected. The City Council made visits to business premises in affected areas, a business helpline was established and a Business Champion identified. A joint support team for businesses was established by Creative Sheffield and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry. £2m was allocated for small businesses in the region and payments of £2,500 were made to a number of small or medium sized businesses by Yorkshire Forward. Meadowhall was closed for the first time in its history (with the exception of Easter and Christmas). In residential areas nearly 50 tonnes of damaged material was removed and rota electricity disconnections were in place from 26th June, 2007. City Council staff visited 2,000 properties and payments were made to affected Council tenants of £100. The City Council arranged a £1,000 recovery package for affected properties, regardless of tenure. Joint Meeting of the Strategic Resources and Performance and Culture, Economy and Sustainability Scrutiny and Policy Development Boards 21.1.2008 Page 4

On 26th June, 71 schools were closed, although, by 27th June, only 11 were closed. A total of 36,000 school days were lost. All schools re-opened within one week. An assistance centre was established at the customer service centre at Howden House with satellites in affected areas. The 101 single non-emergency number was used as an information line. A total of 22,000 calls were made to the Council’s contact centre during 25th June and 19th July, 2007 and a newsletter was produced. In connection with the highway network, roads were cleaned up and debris removed from under bridges, culverts and highway drainage systems. Abandoned vehicles were removed from roads and from rivers and, where necessary, temporary traffic management arrangements were made. There were many highways damaged, some of which would take months to repair, including the A6102 Middlewood Road, Claywheels Lane and the A61 Sheffield to Barnsley Road. A rolling programme of repairs had begun. Numerous public meetings were held and members of the public were asked to complete questionnaires in relation to the response by the Council and other agencies and the questionnaire was also available on the Council’s website and delivered to affected addresses in Sheffield. Five drop-in sessions were arranged by the Environment Agency. The presentation also outlined the financial considerations arising from the flooding, including the substantial proportion of costs relating to damage to highways as well as the cost of restoring housing. A claim had been made for Bellwin funding. The presentation also outlined a number of lessons learned in the time during and immediately after the flooding, including in relation to the provision of information to the public; the complexity of arrangements of the private utilities, including electricity suppliers and the national grid; the provision and number of required sandbags; the timing and interpretation of flood warnings issued by the Environment Agency, ensuring equality of response, such as to all those persons who were insured and those uninsured and those living in private accommodation or social housing; resilience; and the difficulty in disseminating the scale of difficulties to staff. A number of positive lessons were also outlined, including that the emergency plan was successful; individuals always “went the extra mile” and delivered services despite the extraordinary circumstances; there was clear evidence of multi- agency working; the humanitarian assistance centres were successful; press coverage and feedback from customers was largely positive and complementary; the time taken to recover and clean-up, returning the City to “normal” was rapid; and emergency planning exercises had proved beneficial. A number of reviews had been undertaken into the flooding both locally, regionally and nationally, including by Sheffield City Council, the South Yorkshire Local Resilience Forum, the Government Office for Yorkshire and Humber, the Civil Contingencies Secretariat, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Parliamentary Select Committee, the Environment Agency, a report by the University of Sheffield and the interim report produced by Sir Michael Pitt. The presentation accompanied a report of the Chief Executive compiled as a summary to support Members' investigation of the circumstances relating to the floods of June, 2007. Joint Meeting of the Strategic Resources and Performance and Culture, Economy and Sustainability Scrutiny and Policy Development Boards 21.1.2008 Page 5

Submission by the Environment Agency A presentation was made by Peter Holmes (the Environment Agency), outlining information relating to the effects of heavy rainfall in June, 2007 on rivers and other watercourses in the local catchment areas including the Upper Don, the Lower Don and the Rother catchments. Secondly, Peter Holmes outlined the roles and responsibilities of the Environment Agency, local authorities, water companies and riparian owners in relation to watercourses. The Environment Agency had powers to undertake both capital and maintenance works on watercourses designated “main rivers” (as classified on definitive maps by DEFRA). These would normally be in the main network of natural watercourses throughout the country which presented the greatest risk of flooding and included the River Don, the River Rother and Blackburn Brook. The Environment Agency was also responsible for issuing flood warnings for flooding from rivers and the sea. The ability to issue warnings was dependent upon the ability to detect a flood in advance from weather forecasts, forecast of flow in the river system and measurement of river levels and having sufficient time to allow recipients to react to warnings. However, at the time of reporting, systems were not advanced enough to be able to issue specific warnings for sewer flooding. Warnings were disseminated via automated voice and/or text messages, public address loudhailer, indirectly through local radio and the Environment Agency’s website. The Environment Agency also provided advice to Local Planning Authorities in relation to the flood risk of prospective development in its role as a statutory consultee. This was with the aim of preventing inappropriate developments within the flood plain. The Agency also issued consents to organisations and individuals wishing to carry out works in, under or immediately adjacent to a “main river” or flood defence. During a flood, the Environment Agency provided advice to emergency services, utility companies and local authorities with respect to the severity and extent of flooding from the river network. Finally, the Environment Agency was responsible for the enforcement of riparian responsibilities and works undertaken without consent are in contravention to consent conditions. The local authority had powers to undertake works both of a capital nature or maintenance works, on rivers within their districts not classified as a “main river”. These were normally referred to as ordinary watercourses. Normally, these were the lesser watercourses, posing a relatively small risk of flooding. The local authority also was responsible for the granting or refusal of planning permission for developments within their district and the enforcement of planning conditions, even where these conditions had been requested by other organisations. The local authority also had responsibility to maintain the highway drainage network on public highways and the Highways Agency had similar responsibilities for motorways and for trunk roads. Yorkshire Water were responsible for maintaining the public sewerage system including ancillary structures and plant such as manholes, pumping stations, sewerage treatment works etc. Joint Meeting of the Strategic Resources and Performance and Culture, Economy and Sustainability Scrutiny and Policy Development Boards 21.1.2008 Page 6

Riparian owners, defined as someone or some organisation that owned land adjacent to a watercourse were presumed to own land up to the centre of a watercourse unless it was known to be owned by someone else. Riparian owners had responsibility to pass on the flow of water without obstruction; to accept flood flows, even if this was caused by inadequate capacity downstream; maintain the bed and banks of the watercourse; to clear debris even if it did not originate from their land; not to cause an obstruction to prevent the passage of fish; to keep the bed and banks of the watercourse clear of any matter that could cause an obstruction if it was to be washed away; to keep structures that they owned clear of debris (for example culverts, screens, weirs and bridges); and to control any invasive alien species such as Japanese knotweed. There was no duty on a riparian owner to improve the drainage capacity of a watercourse. Riparian owners had a right to protect their property from flooding and such protection would probably require consent from the Environment Agency. Such consent would not normally be provided if works increased the flood risk for others; interfered with any work of the Environment Agency which they might wish to undertake in the future; or adversely affect the environment or the Environment Agency’s flood defences. Finally various categories of flood warning were outlined, including flood warnings where flooding of low lying land and roads was expected; a flood warning where flooding of homes and businesses was expected and immediate action should be taken; a severe flood warning where severe flooding was expected with extreme danger to life and property and the ‘all clear‘ where no further flooding was expected and water levels were expected to decrease. Each of the warnings had a number of actions attached to them according to the severity of the warning. Peter Holmes stated that in relation to Sheffield, there was a concern that low numbers of people were taking up the Environment Agency’s flood warning service, which was based on a telephone warning or text. The public were required to pre-register to receive this service. Nationally, the take-up of the service was largely poor.

South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue John Harthman, Divisional Emergency Planning Officer, South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue, gave a presentation in relation to the Service’s role in the events of June 2007 and what the Service had learned together with actions taken in response to their experiences. Major concerns for South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue were the widespread and multiple types of localised flooding, generating heavy demand for the service to “pump out”; evacuations and rescues in different conditions (both swift water or still water); deployment difficulties due to the flooding; a major incident at Firth Rixon; a major pumping operation at the Dam at the Ulley Reservior; and the long term response to widespread flooding in Doncaster. Previously, on Friday, 15th June the Service had experienced its busiest ever day until then, with flooding affecting many areas including Sheffield, although incidents were localised usually next to watercourses and at low points on highways. The number of calls and incidents on 25th June Joint Meeting of the Strategic Resources and Performance and Culture, Economy and Sustainability Scrutiny and Policy Development Boards 21.1.2008 Page 7

surpassed this. John Harthman set out the key events for Fire and Rescue on 25th June 2007. The Command Operations Room was activated at 4.50 p.m. and at 6.25 p.m., a Gold Command log was started by the Chief Fire Officer, personally. The service took responsibility for all rescue boats used in South Yorkshire. At 10.45 p.m. problems at the Ulley Reservior were first recorded as being notified to South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue. Overnight, High Volume Pumps were mobilised for use at the reservoir. The steam from the reservoir included feeds into the River Rother close to the M1 motorway. Immediately below the dam was a main road, the A618, along which run both electricity and gas mains. By 10.00 a.m. on 26th June, 2007, 18 High Volume Pumps were committed to Ulley. At the same time the Fire and Rescue Service was receiving calls relating to house fires, road accidents and industrial incidents. The South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue participated in four district silver commands and a Silver Command at Ulley Reservoir. This represented the largest ever deployment in the United Kingdom of High Volume Pumps in the United Kingdom, totalling 31. Water Rescue Units were deployed from across the United Kingdom, including a Royal National Lifeboat Institute in shore rescue craft from Dorset. Fire and Rescue personnel and appliances were on the ground in Toll Bar for over two weeks. Mr Harthman pointed out that, in terms of resources, South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue had 32 fire engines available, 12 of which are based in Sheffield. There are four reserve vehicles at the training centre, plus one High Volume Pump and two Water Rescue Units with boats. The Service had approximately 800 uniformed officers and covering all appliances, command positions and liaison jobs would use all available personnel rapidly. The Service has to maintain statutory cover for the whole county and for non- flooding risks including fires, chemical leaks, road accidents, transport incidents and other threats. A particular problem with flooding is that it is not feasible to pump floodwater away if rivers are full as there is then nowhere to pump water to. From the perspective of South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue, it was considered that flooding, prior to 2007 had not been on the scale of that occurring on 25th June, 2007, although there were numerous occasions when the Rother and Sheaf had flooded, including in 1997, 1998 and 2000. The largest event prior to 2007 was in 1982, when both the Rother and the Sheaf rivers flooded. Flood defences were designed to accommodate previous flooding events and included defences on the Sheaf to protect the Sheffield Railway Station area, on Rother and in the Rother Valley Country Park to protect Catcliffe, privately financed defences on the River Don at Meadowhall and the construction of storm chambers in Millhouses, Endcliffe and Hillsborough Parks. It was considered that implications of climate change would increase the amount of heavy rain in the coming decades and it was likely therefore that flooding events would also increase. Action taken by South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue included consultations with other Fire and Rescue Services across the country; national enhancement of and improved co-ordination of water rescue resources; a Joint Meeting of the Strategic Resources and Performance and Culture, Economy and Sustainability Scrutiny and Policy Development Boards 21.1.2008 Page 8

review of flooding risk assessments; review and revision of flooding contingency plans; further exercises, including one on 24th October, 2007 and one planned exercise for 30th January, 2008; liaison with the Environment Agency and the Meteorological Office; the enhancement of Gold control facilities and the establishment of a new South Yorkshire Multi-Agency Gold Command at Handsworth; increased water rescue capability in South Yorkshire; the training of additional personnel on high volume pumps; and improved arrangements to enable support staff call-out. One important remaining issue for the service was to persuade people not to put themselves at risk unnecessarily when events such as the flooding in June, 2007 occurred.

South Yorkshire Police The Board noted that the representative of the South Yorkshire Police had attended at the start of the meeting but had been called away as a matter of urgency due to developing flooding problems in Barnsley.

Yorkshire Water Michelle Lewis (Public Affairs Manager, Yorkshire Water) presented information to the joint meeting, analysing the rainfall in June, 2007, outlining emergency and contingency planning and methods of maintaining a clean water supply, flooding, recovery and statutory responsibilities of the company. The river and surface water flooding in June, 2007 was the result of exceptional rainfall events on 15th and 25th June. Data published by the Met Office in July recorded that during May to July, 2007 the wettest months had been recorded since records began in 1766. In June, over 103.1mm of rain fell in Fylingdales, North Yorkshire and water gauges recorded that storms in Hull were at least a one in 150 year rainfall event. The Met Office warned on 12th June, 2007 that unseasonable rainfall might lead to flooding in Yorkshire and the Midlands. Incident Management Teams were established by Yorkshire Water and a Regional Operational Control Centre at Bradford to deal with the clean and waste water elements of the business. Liaison with the Gold Command at Sheffield was managed through those teams. The establishment of such teams gave emergency command teams a clear single point of contact with the Company and with colleagues empowered to make decisions and also enabled a regional approach to ensure that resources were focused in the right place and at the right time. In reference to the incident at the Ulley Dam, Yorkshire Water did reserve pumping capacity in emergency situations although it was difficult to source additional capacity until that situation was resolved. Yorkshire Water viewed the efforts to shore up the Ulley Dam as a regional priority as it threatened major industrial and utility infrastructure in the valley. Colleagues with reservoir safety expertise were released to support Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council in managing the incident. The events also prompted the company to undertake a programme of visits to reservoirs under their ownership to ensure the integrity of those structures and adopting a precautionary approach, which saw colleagues walking the perimeter of reservoirs to carry out individual inspections for those reservoirs to be most at risk. Joint Meeting of the Strategic Resources and Performance and Culture, Economy and Sustainability Scrutiny and Policy Development Boards 21.1.2008 Page 9

The impact of the flood water on water treatment works was also monitored, so as to ensure the works themselves were not inundated with water and so that the system was kept under positive pressure to ensure the quality of water. The loss of power from the National Grid supply lead to a drop in electricity capacity in Sheffield and unpredictable in energy supply and the immediate impact on Yorkshire Water, which moved treatment works to on site generation. Yorkshire Electricity Distribution Limited were advised that Yorkshire Water were not to draw power from the National Grid, releasing capacity for other users in the region. The treatment works using on site generation included Loxley, Ingbirchworth, Rivelin, Langsett and Ewden. Yorkshire Electricity Distribution Limited provided a list of potential rota cuts to power that enable Yorkshire Water to assess assets and prioritise the impact of powers cuts on water supply. The Highways Authority advised that a trunk main, serving approximately 150,000 customers was exposed where water from the River Don had caused a landslide exposing the main and making it vulnerable. Yorkshire Water therefore developed an engineering solution to shore up the bank and protect it, which also protected other utility services and this was put in place within two days. Throughout the flooding event Yorkshire Water did not experience any water quality incidents, which was thought to be to the credit of Yorkshire Water colleagues to ensure that supply was maintained. The submission by Yorkshire Water outlined resilience planning for maintaining a clean water supply and in particular the use of a water grid which meant that, for the vast majority of customers, alternative water supply could be made available should their usual supply be lost. The flooding in Sheffield affected the waste water treatment works in the Sheffield catchment to varying degrees. For example, at Blackburn Meadows the treatment works site was totally flooded with the site being four to five metres under water and colleagues stranded at the site overnight. At Old Whittington waste water treatment plant, substantial flooding occurred causing extensive damage to instrumentation and chemical plant. The majority of the Staveley waste water treatment plant was also flooded, with substantial resultant damage to instruments and the chemical plant. The site at Danesmoor experienced damage caused by water levels of up to two metres. Sites at Renishaw and Bolsover experienced the least damage. In addition, sewage pumping stations in the Sheffield catchment were also damaged to varying degrees. During periods of high rainfall, Yorkshire Water pumped screened but untreated flows directly into the river undertaken through a consents regime agreed with the Environment Agency. Once the water in the river subsided treated flows were pumped into the river again and flood waters quickly subsided. In relation to recovery, the flooding had a very significant impact on Yorkshire Water’s assets and operations and the initial emergency response secured a return to normal operational performance. The next phase of reinstatement was now underway which would return assets to pre flood status so that long term operational performance could be sustained and it was Joint Meeting of the Strategic Resources and Performance and Culture, Economy and Sustainability Scrutiny and Policy Development Boards 21.1.2008 Page 10

considered that this scale of work was such that it would take until December, 2008 to complete the programme. Contractors (Drainsaid) worked to help clear homes thoroughly impacted by flooding from sewers. Support was also given to Severn Trent when their operational area was impacted by high rainfall in July and this included the provision of operational colleagues to work under their direction for a period of 12 days, the provision of tankers, continuous supply of trailers, bottled water and bowsers. In relation to statutory responsibilities, it had become apparent that there was some confusion amongst customers and other stakeholders as to roles and responsibilities of various agencies with regard to river flooding, drainage and sewage networks. There was also lack of clarity about the role of water companies in the planning process for new developments. Water companies, local authorities and the Environment Agency had clearly defined areas of responsibility and these were set out in statute. This provided a framework within which the responses by various agencies to a flooding event could be understood. The remit of Yorkshire Water in relation to sewage and drainage was narrowly defined in Section 94 of the Water Industry Act 1991. Water companies are not liable for surface water and rainfall management, but were for sewers serving premises, although not on open land. The water regulator would only allow water companies to undertake and therefore charge customers for activities defined in the regulations with regard to the sewage network. Water companies are not statutory consultees for new planning applications although, if consulted by a developer or local authority, Yorkshire Water can request conditions, which the approving authority might attach to the planning permission when granted. The company had no duty to monitor the recommendations they had made had been implemented. In addition, Yorkshire Water were obliged to offer all new developments the right to connect into public sewage systems under Section 104 of the Water Industry Act. It was considered that such regulations might need to be reviewed as a result of the flooding in Summer 2007.

Questions from Elected Members in attendance Councillor Martin Davis asked questions in relation to the provision of sandbags and pumping equipment at locations in the north of the City, including Deepcar and Stocksbridge; the production of an emergency plan for the north of Sheffield if an earth banked dam in the area were to be breached; and expressed disappointment that some areas such as Mill Lane, Deepcar were not on the list compiled by the City Council of affected properties. John Charlton stated that, in relation to the provision of local resources, it was the intention that resources be placed outside of the centrally located store at Olive Grove at a location in the north of the City and work would be undertaken with locally Elected Members to determine the exact location. He noted that some resources were owned by Yorkshire Water. Karl Tupling, Director of Housing, Sheffield City Council stated that it was recognised that across the City, a number of communities were affected to varying degrees and the roads and properties listed within the report of the Chief Executive identified the main areas affected. An extensive database Joint Meeting of the Strategic Resources and Performance and Culture, Economy and Sustainability Scrutiny and Policy Development Boards 21.1.2008 Page 11

had been developed which could be made available to Elected Members and as a result of this information, it was considered that the City Council had good intelligence on which to base future decisions and support residents in the event of an emergency. David Curtis referred to the condition of reservoirs in the City which had been inspected following the flooding on 25th June and were inspected on a six monthly basis. He confirmed that Ulley Reservoir in Rotherham was a residential lake rather than a reservoir for water supply. Emergency plans were in place, which tested and modelled what might happen if a dam where to be breached, although what would happen in a real event was difficult to predict from an exercise. David Stevenson (Yorkshire Water) stated that Yorkshire Water also carried out a statutory inspection on reservoirs every six months and this was undertaken twice daily in the immediate time following the flood event in June, 2007. No damage was recorded on the reservoirs which were the responsibility of Yorkshire Water and were designed to withstand a 1 in 1,000 year event. Councillor Trevor Bagshaw referred to a recent meeting of the North Area Panel which had taken place on 16th January, 2008 at which local residents of Falding Street and Cowley Lane had expressed concern at rising water levels due to recent heavy rain. He particularly expressed concern that debris in the river (for example at Oughtibridge) was causing blockages and it was important that the Environment Agency stated when this debris would be cleared. He also stated that Elected Members did not feel included in the sharing of information during June and July, 2007 and expressed concern that there were not mechanisms in place to keep local Members informed. In response, Peter Holmes, Environment Agency stated that the removal of debris from watercourses was a continuing task for the Environment Agency. He stated that a crane and machinery was required together with possible road closures for the removal of certain large items of debris and also referred to the difficulty in accessing some sections of the watercourse. Sheila Slingsby, Emergency Planning Team, stated that the emergency planning process attempted, wherever possible, to keep people informed and the intranet was used by the City Council to this end. She appreciated the difficulties for local Members in being aware of events during the flood and stated that the Council was looking at ways to improve the sharing of information. She also encouraged Elected Members to attend emergency planning seminars. Councillor Bernard Little asked that English Nature be involved in the development of a biodiversity plan, together with agencies such as Yorkshire Water and The Environment Agency to mitigate the effects of climate change and flood risk in the future. In response, David Curtis stated that, in the long term, work would be undertaken with The Environment Agency and he referred to research being undertaken by the University of Sheffield with regard to reducing future flood risk. When planning applications were received such aspects as a sustainable water system were considered. Councillor Diane Leek stated that residential properties on the River Loxley should have been included in residential areas upon which there had Joint Meeting of the Strategic Resources and Performance and Culture, Economy and Sustainability Scrutiny and Policy Development Boards 21.1.2008 Page 12

been an impact and also referred specific locations, including Rudyard Mews and Cornish Place and to the impact of development upon the flow of the river at Hillsborough Corner. In relation to the responsibility of riparian owners for watercourses, she queried how people were informed of their responsibilities and, in relation to the River Loxley, she expressed concern that the river contained debris and trees. She also asked how members of the public could register for flood warning information. In response Peter Holmes, Environment Agency, stated that English Nature were now known as Natural England and this body was consulted on all flood defence schemes. He confirmed that he would enquire in relation to the Bradfield Road/Hillsborough Corner section of the river and to the deposits of debris at that location. Peter Holmes acknowledged that it was a challenge to inform people of their riparian responsibilities and informed the Board that there was a booklet available entitled “Living On The Edge” (also available on the Environment Agency website). In relation to flood warnings, a campaign had been run to increase people’s awareness flooding and letters had been sent to people who might be affected by flooding to raise awareness of the flood warning service, although the take-up of this service was poor despite the fact that it was free of charge. A trial had been undertaken whereby households were visited personally to encourage them to sign up to the flood warning scheme but this was recognised to be resource intensive as the Environment Agency did not have sufficient resources at present to undertake a similar approach and consideration would need to be given to other methods of promoting the service. In relation to debris in the watercourse, Peter Holmes referred to difficulty in accessing the River Loxley to remove some of the debris which would require the use of a crane to remove material and a road closure to enable the siting of a crane. Councillor Janet Bragg asked questions in relation to why the flooding occurred so suddenly; the linkages between river systems and reservoirs particularly in the north west of the City and asked for clarification as to time when emergency services were made aware of the threat relating to the Ulley Dam. In response, the Fire and Rescue Service confirmed that Gold Command were made aware of the threat from the Ulley Dam at 10.45 p.m. on 25th June, 2007 and Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council were not aware of faults in the Dam until after 10.00 p.m. This was reported to Gold Command at 10.45 p.m. David Curtis referred to the speed at which the flood occurred, stating that this was an unusual event and high rainfall had caused some flooding on 14th and 15th June, 2007, as a result that the water table was already at a high level. The rain on 25th June was also heavy and some 90mm of rain fell in a 24 hour period. The already saturated water table, combined with the hilly catchment in the Sheffield area feeding into the river system, was unprecedented and the flooding was a result of this combination of factors.

Questions from members of the public Mr Connell referred to blocked gullies and asked for a commitment that Joint Meeting of the Strategic Resources and Performance and Culture, Economy and Sustainability Scrutiny and Policy Development Boards 21.1.2008 Page 13

more resources be made available for the Environment Agency towards the provision of resources for use in emergencies such as sandbags. John Charlton responded that gullies were cleaned at least once annually and some were cleaned two to three times a month. 93 in 100 gullies would be running correctly at any one time. The site referred to by the questioner had been visited recently and he assured members of the public that gullies had been emptied. He addressed the member of the public directly and stated that he would request that a gully emptier attend the location referred to on Tuesday, 22nd January, although he also stated that this location might not be a “hot spot” as defined by the City Council. He stated that the Council took the issue of gully clearance very seriously, although, if flash floods were to occur, surface water drainage systems might be overwhelmed locally. He referred to increased investments after 2000 on which flooding had occurred and a significant increase in the gully cleaning fleet. Joint Meeting of the Strategic Resources and Performance and Culture, Economy and Sustainability Scrutiny and Policy Development Boards 21.1.2008 Page 14

The Environment Agency confirmed that contractors were utilised to undertake clearance works and work was also undertaken with the City Council. A member of the public (Jane Derby) referred to Underbank Reservoir and reports that the storm drain had been opened, allowing water to be carried downstream. In response, Yorkshire Water informed the Board that Underbank Reservoir was located on the Little Don and confirmed that the reservoir would have been half full of water due to a dry spring and on 13th/14th June significant amounts of rain led to the reservoir being filled. On 25th and 26th June, 2007 water passed through as overflow but sluice gates were not opened. A member of the public (Mr. Plumridge) referred to the impact of housing development and flood risks and asked how the Council’s Planning Service would examine further planning applications with particular reference to flooding and surface run-off. David Curtis stated that any new development could potentially add to drainage issues although 90% of development in Sheffield occurred on brownfield land. He stated that it was the intention that the run-off of water from surfaces on such developments should be minimised and work was undertaken with the Environment Agency and with Yorkshire Water as to the design of drainage systems. He also stated that there was a dilemma, as people wished to have new homes, so flood risk needed to be balance with other needs. A member of the public referred to increasingly impermeable surfaces as people paved over their gardens. Mrs. Ibbotson (Cowley Court) referred to the effect of increasing surface run-off and asked whether the building of such hard surfaces could be limited by the Council. In response, David Curtis stated that there was no control, under the present legislation, of building on garden spaces for the development of patios, for example. A member of the public (Mr. Madeley) asked how riparian owners were expected to clear areas of the river. He also stated that Abbeydale Road South was not on the list of areas affected within the report of the Council’s Chief Executive and, thirdly, that land that belonged to the City Council in that area included logs in the watercourse which might affect the flow of the river and to the Council’s riparian responsibilities. Peter Holmes, Environment Agency, stated that the Environment Agency had powers to undertake works on major rivers. If a riparian owner reported a problem in a watercourse or any member of the public reported such a problem as a possible flood risk, the Environment Agency would undertake to investigate this matter to assess whether it might increase flood risk. A member of the public (Dot Rason) asked whether a redundant culvert was the responsibility of a landowner or whether Yorkshire Water, the Environment Agency or the City Council would be responsible. She reported that the water level at the Blackburn Brook was still high; questioned the possibility of filling in the culvert in question; and referred to the rising level of silt and increasing height of the river bed. She stated that the lack of dredging of the river contributed to the increased risk of flooding both at Blackburn Brook and on other locations. John Charlton recommended that the Joint Meeting of the Strategic Resources and Performance and Culture, Economy and Sustainability Scrutiny and Policy Development Boards 21.1.2008 Page 15

questioner leave her details and relevant officers and agencies could advise her as to who was responsible for the culvert and what action could be taken.

Responses to questions from Members of the Scrutiny and Policy Development Boards In response to questions from a Member of the Board concerning the increased development of hard standing for vehicles in residential areas; the responsibilities of businesses as riparian owners; long term maintenance and clearance of sewers; and communication with for example Police Officers to ensure the safety of members of the public. Responses were made as follows. David Curtis stated that, to some extent, the Council could control the development of some vehicle hard-standing in developments. In relation to communication, the traffic control cameras were put out of action by flooding on 25th June and the police helicopter was used (where possible) to provide information. In addition, a number of highways were closed adding to difficulties in communication and travel. The Environment Agency informed the Joint Board that riparian ownership also applied to businesses along watercourses. Discussions had been held with firms such as Forgemasters in relation to what action they might take to improve their resilience to flooding in the future, although, given the intensity of rainfall and resultant flooding, it was likely that businesses in some areas would have been adversely affected, whatever level of maintenance, floods defences or gully cleaning. Yorkshire Water confirmed that routine maintenance was undertaken and sewers were monitored and cleared of restrictions. Additional monitoring was undertaken following the flood event in June, 2007 and technology was employed to monitor water levels in sewers. A Member of the Board referred to the raising of the level of the river bed in the Sheaf at Millhouses Park caused by silt; the cost of repairs to the wall at the Kelham Island Museum and the status of the bid made to the Government and action taken to withdraw buses to depots, leaving people stranded in the City Centre on 25th June, 2007. In response, it was stated that the City Council and Environment Agency were responsible for the riverbank at Millhouses Park. In relation to Kelham Island, the damage to the wall at the location was not eligible for Bellwin funding but was covered by insurance. Further works to improve the flood protection at Kelham Island would need to be funded by the City Council. It was confirmed that bus operators did withdraw services rapidly on 25th June and discussions had been held with the Passenger Transport Executive in relation to the provision of public transport. It had been possible, due to the rapid withdrawal of services, to enable bus services to be up and running the very next day. Supertram services were continuing to run to all locations with the exception of Meadowhall. Supertram proved an important communication vehicle. The Environment Agency stated that in relation to the Sheaf at Millhouses it was suspected that material would not be removed at that location as there were few houses or businesses in the park area. Removal of such debris was prioritised. The Environment Agency was requested by the Chair, Councillor Anne Smith to examine the build up of debris at this location. Joint Meeting of the Strategic Resources and Performance and Culture, Economy and Sustainability Scrutiny and Policy Development Boards 21.1.2008 Page 16

Responses were given to questions concerning the timing of warnings given by the Environment Agency, the length of time from the saturation of areas surrounding the Sheffield catchment to a flood event; and, in relation to vulnerable properties such as at Cowley Lane and Winn Gardens, when improved protection would be available for properties. It was also confirmed that flood warnings were distributed by the Emergency Planning Team, as soon as they were received from the Environment Agency. Peter Holmes, Environment Agency stated that he could provide specific timings for the flood warnings given in relation to the events in June, 2007 to Members. In terms of the lead-in times for flooding events, in Stocksbridge it was between one and two hours for which a warning could be given. In the Lower Don Valley this was perhaps eight to nine hours as a maximum. In order to prepare temporary flood defences perhaps days of leading time were required and in some areas of the River Severn such as Bewdley and Shrewsbury, preparations were made at those times in the year when flooding was most likely to occur as a matter of course. David Curtis stated that the severe warning of flooding was issued after the flood had actually started. He added that flood defences in the City were designed to withstand a 1 in 100 year flood event and it may be necessary to build defences to withstand a more significant event and that this was a national issue to be reviewed by the Government. The Environment Agency added that on Sunday 24th June, 2007, although the Met Office had given early warning of a severe weather system over Yorkshire, the exact location of the weather was not identified. Local authorities were informed of the early warning. A Member of the Board expressed concern at the pumping of untreated sewage into the river system; queried if it would be possible to carry out dredging on riverbeds to improve the capacity of rivers and whether the City Council had undertaken inspection on those watercourses in relation to which it was the riparian owner. The Board was informed, by Yorkshire Water, that power was lost to the treatment works at Blackburn Meadows and therefore effluent could not be treated, temporarily. The sewage released from the plant was diluted to the extent that it was not considered to be a risk to health. Ian Ashmore, Environmental and Regulatory Services, stated that health protection officers had advised people to treat all flood water as contaminated and affirmed the statement by Yorkshire Water that the sewage released into the watercourse was so significantly diluted that it presented a low risk to health. In relation to the inspection of watercourses, John Charlton stated that high risk areas were inspected with the Environment Agency and the Council had cleared a significant volume of debris to fulfil its responsibility as riparian owner but also other nearby debris at the same time, where it was in the public interest. The Environment Agency stated that dredging had a minimal impact on reducing flood risk and obstructions such as bridges and weirs along the watercourse prevented effective dredging. In response to a question concerning the sharing of knowledge in relation to water treatment and supply, Yorkshire Water informed the Board Joint Meeting of the Strategic Resources and Performance and Culture, Economy and Sustainability Scrutiny and Policy Development Boards 21.1.2008 Page 17

that following periods of drought Yorkshire Water invested in a grid system for the supply of water and was able to supplement Pennine sources by using those from the Ouse and the Derwent. It was confirmed that some treatment works had the capacity to operate independently of electricity from the National Grid. There was significant contingency planning and learning had occurred as a result of the flooding, particularly the loss of power from the Brinsworth switching system. Planning was undertaken with other agencies such as Yorkshire Electricity Distribution Limited. David Curtis commented that 48,000 homes in the City were affected by the impact of the floods on the Neepsend Power Station and the Council together with the Yorkshire Electricity Distribution Limited, laid additional cable to enable supplies. There was concern at the resilience of the electricity industry to such events in some areas. Responding to questions concerning the potential for the Met Office and the Environment Agency to take more account of previous weather conditions and particularly of ground saturation levels as referred to in the report of the Chief Executive of the City Council; whether archives from the Kelham Island Museum were now stored above areas at risk of flood; and whether damage to footpaths was included in bids made for Government funding, Members were informed that the Environment Agency did take account of previous rainfall and the Met Office radar was able to predict weather events. Warnings could be taken from river levels up stream which would affect areas downstream and the aim of the Environment Agency was to give at least two hours warning of a flood event, although this presented a significant challenge with rapid lead in times in some river catchments. David Curtis stated that the archives in the Kelham Island Museum had now been removed for restoration. In relation to footpaths, those which were in a dangerous condition presented formed paths of the Bellwin claim made to the Government although long-term City Council capital resources would be required to compensate for any shortfall in the bid. Questions were asked concerning inter-agency communication; work to the weir system which might affect Winn Gardens and progress in relation to the strategic flood risk assessment. In terms of emergency planning, it was envisaged that communication with Members would be improved, although reference was made to a loss of communications in the Council on the 25th June. Wherever possible, communication was made by electronic mail. A multi-agency control room was run from the Town Hall. A strategic flood risk assessment document was produced as part of the local development framework and as guidance for planning and development. An independent consultant had undertaken the work on this document and this was being updated in the light of events in the Summer of 2007. It was possible to add Elected Members to the Environment Agency’s flood warning communications and this was undertaken by text or by telephone. Yorkshire Water confirmed that, in relation to the Underbank Reservoir, no other outlet valves were opened and Yorkshire Water were not aware of people working on the Niagara Weir. In relation to the availability of flood warning information, it was considered that Members could apply individually for this service. In response to a question concerning the efforts made by the Joint Meeting of the Strategic Resources and Performance and Culture, Economy and Sustainability Scrutiny and Policy Development Boards 21.1.2008 Page 18

Environment Agency to increase public take-up of the flood warning advice and updates, an annual campaign was mounted to increase public awareness and people considered to be living in areas of greater flood risk were invited to participate. Responding to questions concerning which agency had the power to ensure that riparian owners cleared debris from watercourses and whether flood risk would be reduced by separating sewage and roof or garden water, Members were informed that riparian owners were approached by negotiation and suggestion and it was difficult to enforce requirements for riparian owners to undertake work such as the clearing of debris. Such tasks were also resource intensive for the Environment Agency. A catchment approach was taken to the management of water flows. Yorkshire Water stated that there was approximately 30,000 kilometres of sewer system in Yorkshire and it would be beneficial if it were possible to seal this system. Questions were asked concerning the difficulty in identifying the decision makers in utilities such as the electricity companies in emergency circumstances as had been experienced and reference was made to care for vulnerable people, such as children with learning difficulties. John Charlton informed Members that there was some difficulty in communicating with the electricity company, particularly when information was required (such as whether cabling over the steel gantry bridge at Livesey Street was live) before action was taken. There was also difficulty in obtaining decisions or the views of a senior person (from the electricity companies) by Gold and Silver Command, although it was acknowledged that the electricity companies themselves were under considerable strain. In relation to vulnerable children requiring transportation, significant difficulties had been experienced in ensuring that children, for example with learning disabilities, were able to get to their homes. A range of reception centres had been identified and access to some parts of the City was problematic. Questions were asked concerning leaks to the sewage system from Victorian culverts and possible contamination of parkland in the Abbeydale area and the potential problem with rodents from the sewers and Members were informed that any area affected by flood water was considered to be contaminated. The Council’s Parks and Countryside Service had cleaned the park equipment at Abbeydale and any area considered unsafe had been closed. Members of the public had been requested to stay away from areas which had not been cleaned. It was confirmed that there was some potential for rodents from any breach in the sewers and particularly for rats. Responding to a question concerning emergency rescue services and learning from the flood event, the Board were informed that the capacity in South Yorkshire to undertake water rescue had been increased and greater focus would be given to co-ordinating the various assets used in rescue operations. It was noted that the Fire and Rescue Service did not have a statutory responsibility to undertake rescue in floods. A Member of the Board asked questions concerning the arguments for dredging of the Don, Lower Sheaf, Porter and Loxley rivers; who might fund the removal of debris from watercourses, particularly where the watercourse was owned by a riparian owner, other than one of the major agencies and a Joint Meeting of the Strategic Resources and Performance and Culture, Economy and Sustainability Scrutiny and Policy Development Boards 21.1.2008 Page 19

recommendation made to the Passenger Transport Executive that more bus services should terminate in the City Centre as there was greater risk to services providing cross city routes in times of such an emergency. The Environment Agency reiterated that wholesale dredging was not considered effective as potentially little material was removed which would reduce the risk of a watercourse flooding and in addition structures along the watercourse might prevent dredging. When in flood, rivers carried debris and scoured the watercourse rather than depositing material. In response to questions concerning the practice of leaving felled trees to decay naturally, particularly in Loxley/ Hillsborough, and a question concerning to what extent plans to clear the Hillsborough Weir had been progressed, the Environment Agency stated that usually material from trees were not left following tree felling particularly if these were in large pieces. Normally they were chipped and removed. Peter Holmes stated that any particular incidents could be investigated. It was planned that work would be undertaken at Hillsborough and further details could be provided to Members as appropriate. Questions were asked concerning whether it was the leaseholder or the freeholder who had responsibilities as a riparian owner; what advice was given to people registering with the flood watch scheme as to what they should do in the event of a flood warning and were there plans to encourage people to have a flood plan in the same way as they might have a plan for a fire occurring in the home; and given that the City Council had responsibility for vulnerable people would a register of vulnerable people be produced so that they might be identified in the event of an emergency. The Environment Agency informed Members that advice and literature was available regarding the flood-line and action people should take for example in producing their own flood plan. Wherever a property was located in the floodplain, people would be best advised to ensure that they had a plan in place in case of flooding. In relation to the provision of information, the Council had responsibilities to its tenants and to owner/occupiers. Consideration was being given to the type of information that could be given to people which would stay useful and relevant once the initial memories of the flood events had faded and this was a task which still needed to be developed. The Council was now aware of the location of most vulnerable people and action had been undertaken to prepare and respond to situations in partnership with health services so that both vulnerable people and their carers were aware of what they might do to prepare in an emergency. It was critical that a timely warning of flooding be obtained so that appropriate resources and personnel could be mobilised. Initial visits had been made to vulnerable people and further visits would also be undertaken. It was confirmed that the riparian responsibilities were those of the freeholder, unless duties transferred as part of a lease.

Comments from Councillors in attendance and members of the public

The following issues were highlighted:

 The provision of upstream storage to alleviate flood waters entering Joint Meeting of the Strategic Resources and Performance and Culture, Economy and Sustainability Scrutiny and Policy Development Boards 21.1.2008 Page 20

Blackburn Brook.

 The monitoring of the environmental condition and level of saturation on the Moors surrounding the Sheffield catchment to enable early warning.

 Advice for residents moving to addresses within the floodplain.

 It was understood that the furnace at Firth Rixons had been switched off and was in the process of cooling down on 25th June, prior to the major fire.

Comments from Members of the Joint Scrutiny Board

 Although 90% of development in the City was occurring on Brownfield land this development had been of greater density than previously and in addition there were gardens on Brownfield sites, which could potentially be replaced by hard surfaces.

 Greater more detailed information was required for riparian owners.

 Efforts to increase the permeability of hard surfaces for vehicle standing needed to be considered.

 The South Yorkshire Police would be needed to provide the Board with additional information.

 Consideration should be given as to how people would be prevented from putting themselves at risk.

 Consideration should be given to climate change issues.

RESOLVED: that (a) the information now submitted and the issues raised would be considered as part of the joint scrutiny exercise into the Sheffield Flood; (b) South Yorkshire Police be requested to attend the Joint Scrutiny Meeting on 25th January 2008; (c) any recommendations would be considered at the end of the scrutiny exercise; and (d) those attending the meeting be thanked for their contributions.