Building Water Sensitive Urban Planning

Facilitated by Liz Sharp

Senior Lecturer

University of Bradford/Pennine Water Group

A project sponsored by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)

For further information see: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/policy/strategy/ha2.htm

Context

The study boundary

Water Sensitive Urban Planning

A planning process that is sensitive to:

• Need to reduce flood risk;• Ecological needs of water

ways and surroundings;• Aesthetic benefits of bringing

water and people closer together;

• Local social and economic need

….use workshop to explore what in practice

Objectives of Workshop

To support mutual learning about water sensitive urban planning, in particular:

1. What potential to contribute to sustainable urban development?

2. How supported by legislative framework?

3. How is framework applied in plans & practice in Bradford and Leeds?

4. What is needed to further influence current current practices?

Attitudes today

• Our aim today is to discover and explore institutional roles & tensions around the governance of water;

• We will be respectful to you in terms of seeking to understand your perspective on what you do and why you do it;

• We ask that you are likewise respectful of others.

Logistics

• Coffee

• Toilets

• Fire exits & assembly point

Legislative Framework for Water Sensitive Urban

PlanningLiz Sharp

Senior Lecturer

University of Bradford/Pennine Water Group

A project sponsored by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)

For further information see: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environ/fcd/policy/strategy/ha2.htm

Overview of Framework

Three main spheres of control:

1. Rivers and bodies of water

2. Drains

3. Houses and buildings

What follows is a ‘crude’ analysis – to be improved by you when I’ve finished!

Rivers and water ways

• EU water framework directive sets context for Environment Agency (EA)’s control of water ways

• ‘Good ecological status’ required by 2015, to be achieved through discharge and abstraction licensing

• EA also responsible for flood risk management

Rivers and water ways

Incentive (for investment in WSUP)• WSUP could help improve water quality & reduce flood

water quantity;

Influence• EA regulate discharge, are consulted about planning &

can fund flood defences

Barriers• Limited time/budget based on a narrow CBA; largely rely

on others to take action; can only fund flood defence not flood prevention i.e. WSUP.

Drains

• “Drains” means pipes, culverts and sewers that convey surface water to treatment works or water courses;

• They are variously the responsibility of riparian owners, the local drainage authority and/or the water company;

• In UK drains frequently go into combined sewers, adding to water treatment costs.

Water Company

Incentive• Could save on future pumping & treatment costs

&/or pipe infrastructure if drainage is minimised;

Influence• Planning consultee;

Barriers• Ability to invest limited by regulator OFWAT &

shareholder value;• Incentive limited because of shared

responsibility with LDA/riparian owners.

Local Drainage Authority

Incentive• Political & community interest in preventing

floods in local areas;

Influence• Consultee for planning; permissive rights of

influence;

Barriers• Limited money/time & sometimes limited

expertise; other political priorities

Riparian Owners

Incentive• (Possibly) prevent risk of damage to their

property/neighbours properties

Influence• None

Barriers• Not aware of responsibilities; hard to work in co-

operation with many other riparian owners.

Buildings and planning

• PPS 25 (Dec 2006) puts new responsibilities in relation to floods & surface drainage in the planning process;

• Like all planning, tiered process of responsibility – Regional Planning Authority impacts on Local Planning Authority impacts on specific site potential;

• Requirements of surface drainage and flooding compete for space with the pressure to develop housing.

Regional Planning Authority

Incentive• Flooding is significant cost to area;Influence• Produce ‘Regional Flood Risk Assessment’

which informs Sustainability Appraisal of Regional Spatial Strategy AND local Strategic Flood Risk Assessments.

Limitations• Must balance flood risk with development

pressure

Local Planning Authority

Incentive• Desire to avoid costs of (and potential “blame”

for) flooding in their area;Influence• Produce Strategic Flood Risk Assessment &

grant planning permissionBarriers• Limited knowledge of flooding & surface

drainage; tight deadlines for planning decisions; fear of appeal.

Owner/developer

Incentive• Need to satisfy LPA that a) development is appropriate

for location’s flood vulnerability (sequential test) b) that surface water is sustainability drained c) there are plans for exceedence of surface water system.

• If development is large or in flood vulnerable zone must produce ‘Flood Risk Assessment’.

Influence• Choice of what is implemented and how (within planning

permission)Barriers• Lack of knowledge/usual way of doing things; desire to

maximise value from development.

Concluding questions

• Is this right…. Have I mis-represented something, or missed out some crucial factors?

• This explains systems in theory, but how do they work in practice? (The afternoon!)

• What stages are RFRA and SFRAs in Aire valley?

• What is/can be done while the latter are still in development?

• Is this legislative system enough to implement WSUP?