Transcript Document

‘Waving not drowning!’:
Gloucestershire's Inquiry
into the 2007 Summer
Flooding Emergency
Carolyn Roberts1, Steve Owen2, Matt Reed2
and Owain Jones2
University of Gloucestershire, UK
1
Centre for Active Learning
2Countryside and Community Research Institute
This research was supported by the U.K. Natural Environment Research
Council’s ‘FREE’ Programme
What will be included?
• Learning about the flood: overview of
Gloucestershire’s 2007 flood event as a
‘wicked problem’ (Rittel and Webber, 1973)
• Learning from the flood: evaluation of
Gloucestershire County Council’s Scrutiny
Inquiry as a legitimate democratic process
and social learning mechanism for adaptive
management where there are wicked problems
(Petts and Leach, 2000; Collins and Ison, 2006;
Pahl-Wostl, 2006; WFD)
‘In terms of scale, complexity and
duration, this is simply the largest
peacetime emergency we’ve seen’
Chief Constable, Dr. Tim Brain
• Thousands of properties flooded, on floodplains
and in settlements of all sizes in Gloucestershire
and surrounding counties
• Inundation, contamination, life-threatening
disruption to core services for over 400,000
• Subsidence, stress, illness and other contingent
losses
• £3 Billion (estimated) insured damage, and some
permanent losses of business and industry
• Incipient ‘civil disorder’
A ‘1 in 400+ year’ event?
• 1st June to 31st August:
200-250% long term
average rainfall across
most of the County.
Four main ‘episodes’
• July 2007: 400-450%
long term average
rainfall
• 20th July: 78mm in 12
hours widely, peaking at
110mm in 2 hrs locally
(1 in 443 yrs estim). 2
months rainfall in 12
hours.
Gloucestershire’s 3-stage sequence
• 19th July 2007 Met Office forecast ‘a major rainfall event’
• 20th July Exceptionally heavy and persistent rainfall.
Localised and severe flash flooding. County Emergency
Service goes live at 2.15pm. Helicopter rooftop rescues;
travellers trapped; rest centres established
• 21st July Rain continued but most flash flooding receded
• 22nd July Major river flooding began in Severn, Avon and
Churn catchments. Water supplies from Mythe WTP lost
• 23rd July Power lost from Castlemeads; Walham saved
• 24th July Priority to bottled water and bowser deliveries
• 25th July 900 bowsers in operation
• 27th July 3 million litres water delivered per day, and rising
Severe weather warning again…..
• 6th August ‘Emergency’ moved to ‘Recovery’
• January 2009 Some residents still in temporary homes
Flooding exceeded
1947 extent,
especially further
South in Severn
catchment
Approximately
4000 houses and
500 businesses
flooded in July
2007, in
Gloucestershire
alone
Flooding included
old and new
properties, on
‘non-floodplain’
urban areas
Single critical points
of failure emerged,
such as water
treatment plants,
electricity stations and
motorways
c. 350,000 people
lacked safe piped
water supply for up to
21 days
c. 10,000 people
trapped on flooded M5
motorway for up to 18
hours
Castlemeads and Walham
Electricity Sub-Stations
‘Wicked’ problems (Rittel and
Webber,1973)
• Poorly formulated and
complex issues
• A multiplicity of actors
or stakeholders
• Competing value
systems
• Ambiguous terminology
• Spatial and temporal
interdependency, and
• Lack of clear end points
Urban runoff effects
in Longlevens,
Gloucester
‘Wicked’ problems
Wicked planning
problems defy
traditional linear
solutions, and require
new, more fluid ways
of thinking. Solutions
are usually ‘better’ or
‘worse’ rather than
absolute, but
decisions must
nevertheless be made
in the light of these
uncertainties
Overview and Scrutiny
• Key feature of local government
modernisation agenda (Local Government
Act 2000)
• Part of democratic renewal of local
government
• Seeks to enhance effectiveness of elected
members through good governance
Overview and Scrutiny
•
•
•
•
•
Overview and Scrutiny should ensure:
Openness
Transparency
Accountability
Responsiveness
Sound ethical conduct throughout
partnerships
Overview and Scrutiny
•
•
•
•
Overview and Scrutiny should tangibly:
Hold decision makers to account
Support effective and beneficial policies
Contribute to continuous improvement of
services
Positively impact on work and outcomes
of external agencies
Scrutiny Inquiries
•
•
•
•
Scrutiny Inquiries are a principal
instrument of ‘Overview and Scrutiny’ and
are used to examine:
Success of policies
Effectiveness of processes
Extent to which problems have been
solved
Impact of work of external agencies
The Scrutiny Inquiry into the
Summer Emergency 2007
• Managed by Gloucestershire County Council
• Undertaken by selected elected Councillors,
supported by senior officers, legal team and a
Technical Advisor. These are local decision
makers
• Purpose of Scrutiny arrangements is normally to
‘hold the Council Executive to account’ before
and after decisions
• Focus on ‘lessons learned’ by stakeholders
• Aligned with EU pressure for stakeholder
engagement in decision making about water
Scrutiny Inquiry operation
• 11-week period from end August 2007 to end
November 2007 included four public
hearings (‘Select Committee’ style) with
cross examination of major witnesses, plus
seven other local meetings for the public to
address elected representatives
• Research, questionnaires, house-to-house
enquiries
• Report with 75 recommendations to Council,
then Government (via Pitt Review)
• 12 months of follow up scrutiny
Public Hearing crossexaminees included..
• Environment Agency
• Four District Councils
• Glos CC Emergency
Management Service
• Severn Trent Water
• National Grid
• Glos CC Community and
Adult Care Directorate
• Gloucestershire Fire and
Rescue Service
• Glos CC Planning Officers
• SW Regional Assembly
Planning Officers
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
National Flood Forum
Gloucestershire Highways
Gloucestershire First
Tewkesbury Town Council
Longlevens Community
Groups
BBC Radio
Gloucestershire
Gloucestershire
Constabulary
Glos CC Recovery and
Infrastructure Resilience
Local Resilience Forum
Scrutiny Inquiry Report
Sections relating to
• The emergency response
• Watercourses, drains and sewers
• Land use planning process
• Single points of failure
• Communications
• Recovery and future resilience, including
local people and communities
The Planning Process
‘The Inquiry has examined the issue of
developments on the floodplain, and the
role of the Environment Agency in the
process. However, the Inquiry has not
been able to investigate this complex
issue in detail and is therefore proposing
a further task-group to tackle issues
relating to flood risk, land use planning
and new developments’
Post Inquiry
• Inquiry reported rapidly, by November 2007
• Report was effectively written by Officers
with Chair and Technical support, and legal
oversight
• It informed draft national Pitt Review
• Sub groups established, and a National
Flood Forum for Local Government
• First review of progress in January 2008;
‘Final’ review in July 2008, but elements
continue
• Temporary accommodation continued in
use for more than 18 months
GLIF exploration
methodology
• Participant observation
• Analysis of documentation (including
verbatim transcripts)
• Extended semi- structured interviews with
38 stakeholders, within and beyond the
Inquiry
• Some quasi-quantitative responses (e.g.
Likert scale) and rich ‘narrative’ data
• Text analysis, comparing national to local
reports
Individuals and
Others
Elected Members
Businesses
and Private
Sector
Agencies
Local
Authority
Officers
Public and
Voluntary
Agencies
Grouping
Stakeholders
Evaluation against criteria,
based on stakeholders’
perspectives such as:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Inclusiveness
Transparency
Learning
Efficiency
Efficacy
Legitimacy
Davies et al (2003)
Inclusiveness?
“We could have been more inclusive if the
constitution had permitted”
“People were so traumatised and
angry…there should have been more of
that…we needed more public meetings”
“This was not a party political matter”
“Public would not necessarily have the level
of understanding of what went on”
Transparency?
“ People in the arena needed to be able to
express a view, but also the process had
to be seen to be done”
“..hearing bad management to which people
admitted…free discussion…I was
surprised by admissions”
“Truth was not always secured. Statements
were made which were not all true but
which were reported as if they were. There
was no evidence in some cases”
Learning?
“The Police participation in the SI was a big step for
them in terms of accountability”
“I found the experience quite emotional. It has
changed the way I look at the world; it was a
powerful experience for me. I will never look at
heavy rain again in the same way. I will be
thinking, oh dear, how saturated is the
ground…runoff…how full are the rivers? This is
partly the result of the floods, but also a result of
the Inquiry..the impact of the building on the hill
would never have crossed my mind…how
everything has a knock-on effect…we all learned
something”
Efficiency?
“It was a good piece of work overall. It
focussed people on getting things
sorted…I honestly feel we will be better
prepared”
“It was rigid, but a degree of rigidity is
necessary”
“At the end of it there is still a feeling that
there is more to find out and there are still
people who haven’t been asked”
Efficacy?
“The Scrutiny Inquiry pushed back barriers
much further than people recognised”
“Findings from the public meetings (across
the County) came in too late to assist in
shaping the text”
“It has influenced national policy…when I
read Pitt, I thought ‘that sounds like us,
that comes from us’”
“Glos County Council should be providing
community leadership..it makes
democracy relevant. We led it and we
brought it about”
Legitimacy?
“The primary purpose of the Inquiry was to
inform Pitt”
“We were prepared to hold this in an area
outside our comfort zone”
“Needed to ensure that the process could
not be challenged as inadequate or
biased”
“I have realised it is all about perception, not
about what actually happened
necessarily…this <SI> process was a
good way of engaging”
em
oc
Bu
ra
tic
re
au
cr
at
In
ic
te
Pa res
in
rt
g
ic
ip
at
Tr
an ory
sp
ar
en
En
t
ga
gi
ng
Ed Rig
id
uc
at
io
na
In
l
cl
us
iv
e
Ef
fi c
ie
nt
Ef
fe
ct
iv
e
D
Number
40
35
30
25
20
15
SD
D
N
A
SA
10
5
0
Category
Conclusions
• Scrutiny Inquiry was effective as a social
learning exercise at this level, and can be seen
as part of ‘adaptive management’ strategies
• Inquiry Chairing and conduct was exemplary
• Stakeholder representation was generally
excellent (only two prospective witnesses
declined to appear) and witnesses appeared
appropriately open and reflective
• Councillors needed technical support
• Much testimony was emotionally charged
• Minor but locally important matters were
exceptionally well handled
Conclusions continued..
• Wider national planning policy implementation
issues for landscape development (e.g.
floodplain occupancy) and SuDS could not be
addressed adequately. Transport, health and
flooding were also less adequately covered
• Councillors were challenged by the scientific
concept of an event too extreme to be
controlled, and by issues around spatial and
temporal interdependency
• ‘Wicked’ nature of problem proved challenging
for the Inquiry mechanism. Education
programme is required for full engagement
Bibliography
Collins, K and Ison, R (2006) Dare we jump off Arnstein’s ladder? Social learning as a new policy
paradigm. Proceedings of the Participatory Approaches in Science and Technology
Conference, 4th-7th June, 2006, Edinburgh.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2004) Making Space for Water: Developing a
new Government strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management in England – a
consultation exercise. London: DEFRA. 154pp
Department for Communities and Local Government (2006) Planning Policy Statement 25:
Development and the flood risk. London: HMSO 50pp
Environment Agency (2005) Sustainable Drainage Systems: A guide for developers. Environment
Agency, (Accessed 22nd February 2008)
Johnson, C.L, Tunstall, S.M, and Penning-Rowsell, E.C. (2007) Crises as catalysts for adaptation:
Human response to major floods. Flood Hazard Research Centre Publication No 511, 189 pp
Norton, B.G. (2005) Sustainability: a philosophy of adaptive ecosystem management. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press 608pp
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2006) The importance of social learning in restoring the multifunctionality of rivers
and floodplains. Ecology and Society 11(1): 10 and
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art10/ (Accessed 22nd February 2008)
Petts J. and Leach B. (2000) Evaluating methods for public participation. EA R&D Technical
Report E135. EA: Bristol
Pitt, M (2007) Learning lessons from the 2007 floods: An independent review by Sir Michael Pitt.
London: Cabinet Office, (Accessed 22nd February 2008)
Rittel, H and Webber, M. (1973) Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning, pp 155-169, Policy
Sciences, Vol. 4, Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, Inc.
Wilson, S, Bray, R. and Cooper, P. (2004) Sustainable drainage systems: Hydraulic, structural and
water quality advice. London: CIRIA. 324pp