Building Water Sensitive Urban Planning

1
Building Water Sensitive Urban Planning
A project sponsored by the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)

• Facilitated by Liz Sharp
• Senior Lecturer
• University of Bradford/Pennine Water Group

For further information see http//www.defra.gov.
uk/environ/fcd/policy/strategy/ha2.htm
2
Context
Defra IUD pilots
Aire Strategic
Stakeholder package
Mitigation workshop
3
The study boundary
4
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

5
Objectives of Workshop

• To support mutual learning about water sensitive
  urban planning, in particular
• What potential to contribute to sustainable urban
  development?
• How supported by legislative framework?
• How is framework applied in plans practice in
  Bradford and Leeds?
• What is needed to further influence current
  current practices?

6
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.

7
Logistics

• Coffee
• Toilets
• Fire exits assembly point

8
Legislative Framework for Water Sensitive Urban
Planning
A project sponsored by the Department for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)

• Liz Sharp
• Senior Lecturer
• University of Bradford/Pennine Water Group

For further information see http//www.defra.gov.
uk/environ/fcd/policy/strategy/ha2.htm
9
Overview of Framework

• Three main spheres of control
• Rivers and bodies of water
• Drains
• Houses and buildings
• What follows is a crude analysis to be
  improved by you when Ive finished!

10
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

11
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.

12
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.

13
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.

14
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

15
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.

16
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.

17
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

18
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 permission
• Barriers
• Limited knowledge of flooding surface drainage
  tight deadlines for planning decisions fear of
  appeal.

19
Owner/developer

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

20
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?