Scottish Government

SCOTTISH PLANNING POLICY (SPP) 7 -PLANNING AND FLOODING

OVERVIEW OF RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION

This document is also available in pdf format (149k)

INTRODUCTION

Background

1. The consultative draft Scottish Planning Policy (SPP7) Planning and Flooding was issued on 25th March 2003. Responses were requested by 25th July. Approximately 800 copies were issued and it was also available on the Scottish Executive website. The draft reviewed and updated National Planning Policy Guideline (NPPG) 7 which dated from 1995. The Executive considered all the responses and where appropriate made amendments to the draft SPP.

Overview of Consultation

2. The Executive received 69 responses from a wide range of interested parties including local authorities, community groups, planners, consultants, developers, academics and a range of public agencies. Most of the responses covered a number of issues and many were very detailed and technical. The number of responses can be categorised as follows:

* includes Joint Structure Plan Committees, National Park Authorities and Flood Appraisal Groups

A full list of respondents is at Annex 1.

3. This overview summarises the key issues raised in the responses but it is not a comprehensive report on every comment received. Copies of the responses may be seen at the Scottish Executive Library, Saughton House, Broomhouse Drive, Edinburgh EH11 3XD (contact Mr Alan Gold - Tel: 0131 244 4552 for an appointment). A digest of the comments is available on the Executive's website at www.scotland.gov.uk/planning .

A list of the abbreviations used in this overview is provided at the end.

KEY ISSUES RAISED AND SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE RESPONSE

General

4. The proposals in the draft were largely supported as progress over the former National Planning Policy Guideline (NPPG 7). In particular the more systematic consideration of a wider range of flooding issues, including Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) was welcomed. The overall expression of the document in concise terms was appreciated. The division of NPPG 7 into policy in an SPP and detailed and technical advice in a Planning Advice Note (PAN) was welcomed. The comments were valuable and have informed the preparation of the PAN but are not necessarily repeated at every instance in this overview of comments on the policy in the SPP.

Draft SPP Summary

5. The summary in the draft SPP was intended to provide an overview of the policy but not to express the policy itself. Some comments indicated that it was misinterpreted as the definitive policy. There was a view that while the summary represented an improvement of the NPPG7 of the policy, it should contain stronger, bullet point statements of the key aspects and objectives. It might also usefully include a summary of responsibilities, of available mapping information sources and time-scale for revision.

Introduction (paragraphs 1-3)

6. The introduction in the draft explained the nature and circumstances of flooding, outlined the key changes compared to NPPG7 and introduced the policy and its scope, including the role of planning authorities and developers. The inclusion of a broader range of flooding causes was widely welcomed and some additions suggested. There was a strong welcome for the expression of developer responsibility.

7. A need was seen to define the difference between 'risk' and 'probability', that risk is a combination of probability and its consequences. Comments also concerned: stronger statements on the principle of avoiding rather than managing flooding and preventing loss of the functional flood plain, more analysis of approaches to flood control and drainage, rather than defences; climate change and its likely outcomes, that policy should not oppose development where risk would not be increased, or where provision had been made for suitable measures to overcome it; that the definition of new development should include changes of use and that catchment planning should be mentioned here.

Context

Sustainable Development (paragraphs 4-5)

8. There was a general welcome for the recognition that flooding has to be seen in the context of social, economic and environmental concerns, including brownfield development. There were calls for the implications of the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland)Act 2003 (WEWS) to be clarified, including the definition of sustainable flood management/catchment management. A policy for removing existing development from the flood plain was suggested, though the counter view was also put, that development could be linked to improvements in sustainable flood measures and mitigation, using one to improve the other. Many sought further definition of and technical guidance on climate change.

Background to Flooding (paragraphs 6-9)

13. Regarding the causes of flooding, a number of additions were suggested including peak sewer capacity being exceeded; road run-off; inappropriately located development; access and maintenance issues; the effect on an area's capacity due to changes in hard landscaping and intensification through permitted development.

14. Several responses asked for more to be said about the risks of coastal flooding and its relationship with fluvial flooding; prediction of storms, tidal surges and sea level rise, and the effect on land below 5m AOD contour, including the possible impact of sea level rise on the rate at which rivers discharge.

Responsibilities (paragraphs 10-11)

15. There were requests about responsibilities, including council departments and the advice available from SEPA, possibly along the lines of the table of legal responsibilities in NPPG7.

Flood Appraisal Groups (FAG) (paragraph 11)

16. There was wide-ranging support for the restatement of the importance and functions of the groups, including the lead role of local authorities in convening and membership. Further advice was requested on their role, responsibilities and membership, including core members. A number of LAs stressed the importance of this core membership including representation from the insurance industry, though the industry itself suggested this would be impractical in every case and instead proposed to issue guidance to Local Authorities. There were suggestions for: basing FAGs on catchments/watercourses, allowing PAs to belong to more than one, establishing them as stand-alone organisations chaired by SEPA with LA involvement and reporting to the SE, and FAGs co-ordinating work in relation to WEWS. Some thought independent status would enable them to comment more substantively on development plans.

17. Several suggested the creation of a national FAG or National Flood Forum to co-ordinate and communicate strategic responses to flood risk, with a role in policy formulation at national or river basin level. Those who supported the principle did not however feel it, or an extension of local FAG responsibility, should reduce the roles of the SE in producing and communicating best practice, national guidance and consistency.

Building Standards (paragraphs 12-13)

18. Consultees assumed rightly that this section would be rewritten in the context of the new Building (Scotland) Act 2003. The key comment was that there should be no suggestion that building measures are an alternative to avoiding development in high risk areas. More guidance was sought on the role of building standards and the relationship with planning. There were several suggestions that the section may not be necessary (especially paragraph 13), but if retained it should give clarity as to the roles of each system. Several comments raised the problem of level access to buildings in areas where flooding is an issue.

Insurance Issues and New Development (paragraph 14)

19. The recognition that an input from the insurance industry was important was welcomed, including the difficulties in mortgaging if insurance was problematic. There were suggestions about PAs and insurers sharing information, possibly through FAGs, though others saw issues of confidentiality and resourcing from the industry's perspective. Advice on insurer's involvement in development planning was sought in the PAN, including the issue of potential blight. It was felt that it would be unwelcome if insurability became a material consideration and the ability of LAs to assess it was doubted. LAs consulting their own insurers was viewed negatively, as these may not be specialist flood insurers, and would be the view of one company only.

Policy Guidelines

General (paragraph 15)

20. The SPP's approach to development in flood risk areas received comments that such development should be exceptional, though there were some comments in favour of weakening the policy. Those urging a stronger stance on avoiding development varied between absolute avoidance, a greater emphasis on it being exceptional and being subject to stringent conditions. The conditions might cover the use of the ground floor (eg parking), the nature of flood defences (hard or soft engineered, in situ or proposed), and the development being subject to the posting of flood warning signs as advocated in NPPG7. Some felt the policy was over stringent towards brownfield development in high risk areas where flood risk was outweighed by potential social and economic benefits or flood defences could overcome the risks. A number also suggested such considerations could be relaxed where either the type of development or the nature of the occupants meant this would be suitable.

21. Some questions were raised over methods of assessment of risk, that this should be covered more specifically in the PAN, especially as regards the overlooked cumulative effect of individual developments. This should also outline minimum FRA standards, the potential up and downstream impacts, and the interaction of coastal areas. A further point, that new development should not impede flood flows, was also made.

22. A cross reference to SE/SEPA/COSLA protocol on Flood Risk Assessments was suggested and reference was made to the English PPG25 advice on types of flood defence, and the effectiveness of soft defences in promoting biodiversity etc as well as preventing flooding. A national approach to Drainage Impact Assessment was suggested as a way to achieve consistency.

23. A clearer statement was sought generally over the issue of using 'proposed' flood defences as a justification for development in high-risk areas when there was no guarantee they would be implemented. The point was also made that premature redevelopment could give rise to a need for flood defences. One further suggestion was that flood defences themselves be defined in formal terms with reference to the 1961 Act, or if not then specifying their nature and responsible parties.

24. There was uncertainty over whether the word 'extensions' concerned buildings or settlements, and requests that their scale should be defined and cumulative extensions addressed. A reason was sought for omitting the NPPG7 policy on permitted development rights and their effects of intensification, with the suggestion that if relevant it should at least be included in the PAN.

Development on Functional Flood Plains (paragraph 16-18)

Definition of the functional floodplain

25. There was general welcome for a definition of the functional flood plain (FFP), but a number of comments suggested refinement due to the implications for development, particularly if it encompassed large areas of brownfield land and gap sites. The implication of WEWS for such development were raised. Several requests were made for the definition of coastal floodplains with reference to the 5m contour as a minimum safe limit.

26. There was a suggestion that the FFP should be defined as areas which flooded annually or every 5 years, not defined on the basis of a 0.5% (1:200) threshold. Some suggested that a distinction should be made between the FFP and the regular or frequent flood plain. Some were unsure whether the definition included areas already defended and excluded the historical floodplain ie that which existed before development altered it. Other comments sought a wider definition aimed at encouraging the restoration of natural floodplains, linked to the designation of flood plains as RAMSAR and Natura 2000 sites. It was also suggested that a distinction should be made between FFPs storing water and those where flowing water would have a greater impact.

Location of development on the functional floodplain

27. The major concern was for greater definition of the terms 'essential' development, 'essential civil infrastructure' and 'development incapable of being located elsewhere', and the context in which permission might be granted. The terms were thought to be open to interpretation and might undermine the objectives of the SPP. Some sought a more objective test, with a presumption against development on the FFP. The developers' view was that the relocation test principle was impractical given that a developer would not have a general access to land, only a specific site, and unnecessary as there was no reason why the provision of suitable flood defence measures should not allow development to proceed.

28. Clarification was sought by a number of respondents as to the appropriate standard for flood defences to allow development to proceed, given the apparent difference in risk standards for planning and for grant-assisted flood defence proposals.

Land raising and compensatory storage

29. This issue was subject to a number of requests for clarification and revision. There were strong views that it should be an exceptional procedure and needed strict controls so that it did not just displace the problem and cause erosion. Concerns were voiced about effects on the wider water system, hydrology, environmental issues, habitats, erosion and geomorphology. Other positive responses were in favour, subject to sustainability and biodiversity criteria, WEWS, environmental and design considerations, the creation and enhancement of flood plains, and habitat creation. A number of responses rejected the view that environmental considerations were relevant. There was wide support for avoiding "islands" of new development. Views were mixed on whether the development plan process was an appropriate way to deal with major proposals, some seeing the idea in principle as contrary to the policy of avoiding development.

30. 'Compensatory storage' raised many questions, with a general feeling that more definition and guidance was required. A number of respondents felt that replacement of lost floodplain capacity should be in full with not even a negligible reduction, but other thought that the loss would often be so small as to be incalculable. Responsibility for maintenance of compensatory storage and liability in the event of failure were also raised.

31. Several respondents suggested the reference to coastal management realignment should advocate soft engineering solutions to gain natural heritage benefits, and that these be applied to estuarine and fluvial areas also, with greater guidance in the PAN.

Drainage and Culverts (paragraph 19-21)

32. The treatment of drainage and associated issues as material considerations was widely welcomed, with some feeling that flood risk and drainage assessment should be mandatory. Several saw a need to clarify how different methods and assessment of capacities are regarded as a material issue, with standards for drainage set out in the PAN.

Drainage and Drainage Assessments (DAs)

33. There was clear support for drainage assessments and for a national specification but differing views on whether every application needed one. It was suggested that they should at least explain how a development would be drained. Clarification was sought on when they would be required and on whether an application should be registered without one. There was support for early consideration of drainage. A format and examples of use were popular suggestions for the PAN, and reference was made to the Aberdeen/Aberdeenshire approach.

34. The availability of drainage advice to PAs (additional to SW) was raised as some lack appropriate expertise in drainage. Guidance on SW drainage area plans, and access to them was requested in a number of responses. It was generally felt either the policy or PAN should refer to SWs Drainage Area Plans and joint working possibilities with LAs.

35. There were several calls for the permitted development status of flood related works to be changed, though some suggested Article 4 Directions were already available.

Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)

36. The policy on SuDS, the clarification that they are not flood prevention measures and the neutral or better stipulation on drainage systems was welcomed. While there were some suggestions that SUDS can in some circumstances serve as part of a flood prevention system, the general view was that this should not be the case. Some felt the role of SuDS in enhancing environmental, habitat and natural heritage aspects should be emphasised, but others saw such matters as inappropriate for this specific policy. Discretion in specifying SuDS was sought by some, though others wanted them to be a universal requirement. Points were also raised about the long term effectiveness of SuDS.

37. There were many concerns about responsibility for maintenance of drainage systems, including SuDS. For water infrastructure it was suggested that developers address issues of ownership/responsibilities and future maintenance in their submissions, as there are questions.

38. The point was raised that while SW have been given responsibility for surface water drainage there has been no statement on adoption of schemes, the process of which was compounded by the cost implications involved. It was also noted that already extant SuDS are subject to management by a range of bodies, and that reference to SW should be accompanied by clarification of the responsibilities of other relevant authorities such as councils and SEPA. This would ensure proper awareness of who deals with which aspect of the water system.

Culverts

39. There was general approval for the principle that watercourses should not be culverted, but if incorporated in flood prevention schemes a high design standard must be specified. A greater emphasis and recognition of the risk of blockage was sought, with additional guidance on design taking account of capacity, relief levels and relief flow path. Clarification was requested on how to test the capacity of existing culverts. The reopening of existing culverts was also widely approved and guidance sought on related environmental and habitat creation

Development of land protected by existing flood defences (paragraph 22-23)

40. There was a cautious welcome for these paragraphs, though some calls for a sustainability appraisal of such development while others thought the development plan process was sufficient. There were concerns that existing defences might not be of a sufficient standard to deal with changing circumstances, including climate change and several respondents suggested that no new development be approved if it would need additional or upgraded defences. Others thought the policy was appropriate provided suitable defences, such as those approved by the 1961 Act, were provided, which might especially be the case when development plans are out of date. A definitive statement on design standards was sought and recognition of the need for continuing maintenance, with some suggesting the design should take account of the development's likely lifespan. It was also suggested that the policy be defined further because if it applied to household applications it was likely to slow up the whole planning process.

41. There were suggestions that it would be wiser to manage retreat from such areas if new defences were needed and relocate to those not at risk from flooding, or at least to promote soft engineering solutions where applicable. Brownfield land could be returned to the flood plain, redevelopment was not the only option.

42. A number of respondents raised the issue of maintenance as an essential part of flood defence, with regular inspections and assessment in the light of changes to the situation. There were a number of suggestions as to the need for a requirement to agree responsibility for maintenance of a flood measure that forms part of a development. Some pointed out the difference between defences needing continual maintenance, such as walls and those which don't, such as raised ground and soft engineered measures.

Flood prevention measures (paragraph 24)

43. Some respondents felt that flood prevention measures should not be a way of circumventing the basic policy of avoiding development in high risk areas, though their use on the margins was supported if alternative lower risk sites were not available. A number of respondents thought that in any event such measures should focus on or be linked to 'soft'engineering and recreating flood plain functionality. Alleviation measures such as landraising and underbuilding on the margins of high risk areas were questioned due to the difficulties of accurately predicting flooding and in particular the potential problems of buildings on stilts. The possibility of linking land raising with flood prevention measures was suggested.

44. The statement that LA duties under the Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act 1961 are likely to take precedence over a planning permission or agreement led to widespread concern at potential LA responsibility for future maintenance costs of flood defences and that this could constrain development. It was suggested this be addressed in the PAN. While it was noted by some that Section 4B of the 1961 Flood Prevention (Scotland) Act states that LA responsibility was obviated where they did not own the apparatus or the land it was built on, this was felt to need significant clarification in the light of their wider responsibilities. One opinion was that a statement on developer responsibilities where a scheme was essential to the development should clarify their role in funding it, though there was also a view that if responsibilities do ultimately fall to the council any such conditions on developers become ineffective in the long-term. Another was that if the burden were deemed to be that of the LAs then any new defences constructed should be of the highest specification in order to minimise future costs. There were several requests that the term flood 'prevention' was misleading as it implies the risk can be removed altogether.

Environment and natural heritage (paragraph 25)

45. There was support for more use of environmental measures in the process of dealing with flood risk, including habitat enhancement and watercourse restoration, catchment management, sustainable flood management and general environmental or ecological issues but a number of respondents including developers felt the subject was out of place in a policy on flooding and already recorded in other environmental policies. There was considerable opinion that it should be cross-referenced to documents such as WEWS and NPPG 14 Natural Heritage and designations such as Natura, SSSIs, NSAs and National Parks, and emerging integrated coastal zone legislation.

46. There was broad agreement on the principle that the flooding of open spaces will not always be acceptable, but is preferable to buildings being flooded. The specific uses proposed would be important in applying the policy, particularly where they would be easily damaged such as artificial surfaces and playing fields.

Flood resistant materials and construction (paragraphs 27-28)

47. There were views that the policy was not clear. Some consultees thought
that such measures should be for exceptional cases while others felt they should
not be material considerations. There were suggestions that they may be appropriate in high-risk areas where flood defences were not yet complete and that negotiation may be more effective than conditions. Clarification was sought on the circumstances when flood resistant materials and forms of construction would be appropriate, and for clear advice in the PAN.

48. Greater emphasis on encouraging consultation with building and planning authorities was sought and early discussions on designing-in such features from the start. The issue of providing barrier free, level access for disabled users and basic protection from flooding was seen as a specific problem.

Watercourse and coastal flooding-the planning approach to assessing risk (paragraphs 29-32)

49. This met broad support in principle but elicited a very wide range of detailed comments including a need to simplify the more technical elements. There were views that the precautionary principle could be expressed more strongly and others that as the policy had an in-built element of caution. The avoidance of an explicit sequential approach was welcomed by several respondents who saw it as unsuitable for circumstances in Scotland.

50. While the 0.5% (1:200) basis for policy was widely welcomed as giving greater consistency, a number of questions were raised over the difficulty of calculating it accurately. Clarity was sought over the basis of the 0.5% (1:200) figure, including whether it took account of existing defences, whether freeboard was additional and on what basis it should be defined/ calculated, what allowance should be made for climate change, over what period of a development's lifespan? Assessing the importance of other data was also seen as an important consideration. A to need reappraise flood risk over time as the quality of data improves was also identified. Comments were made about the best way to express risk/probability but no clear favourite.

51. There were views that climate change should be calculated to a date beyond 2050 as building lifespans were often greater or alternatively that it should say 'fifty' years so that the policy did not date. Greater guidance on the impact of climate change was also sought. There were also a number of requests to clarify flood defence standards in relation to those stated. There was some concern at potential limits to development in coastal areas below the 10m contour, which were thought likely to be deemed high risk. Others stressed the level of risk and sought clarification and consistency on climate change, freeboard and surge in coastal and tidal areas.

52. A number of respondents were concerned that the issues in paragraph 32 undermined the aim that development in high risk areas should be the exception. Others felt there should be a greater emphasis on the factors involved, including reference to erosion and associated impacts, with the Risk Framework seen as a device for general assessment and that local discretion should not be bound, especially outwith high-risk urban areas. This reflected several views that the definition of high-risk should be more flexible. Greater emphasis was sought by some that risk calculation is a best estimate rather than precise forecast.

The Risk Framework

53. The Risk Framework was generally welcomed as sound in concept and principles, generally in line with the 'insurance template' and as such was indicative of commercial realities. The main concerns were greater clarity in definition of the levels of risk, and a need for greater definition of how it applies to different types of area.

54. Some PAs thought it would affect their ability to set their own approach and weigh factors accordingly, and so could be detrimental to regeneration. There was a particular call to clarify the assessment of risk as applicable to new or re-development in already built up high-risk areas, with some suggestion that this should be straightforward if minimum standards are met and defences are sustainable, with safe access and egress. In addition, it was seen that if development were allowed behind existing 1:100 defences, this would be in contradiction with the expressed policy against development in the 1:200 risk area. Some comments supported development in high risk areas subject to planned defences with an opposing view that development should only go ahead if all approvals necessary for such defences were in place.

55. Some developers thought 'high-risk' as emotive and should apply where floods occurred every few years. Others sought a finer classification of risk into more bands was needed and the insurance template should be used, plus a lower standard should be acceptable for some commercial development and no standard if there was no threat to life

56. Several consultees raised the need for developer contributions to defences and there was some concern about the lack of policy on cumulative effects especially as this could result in downstream flooding across LA boundaries.

Implementation

Development plans generally (paragraph 33)

57. There was support for the policy that sufficient land for development, including housing land must be allocated though there was substantial concern that planning authorities require better data and maps to do this. There was a request for clarity as to whether these land allocations need to be based on the Risk Framework. Confirmation was sought that all development plans did not need immediate review, and greater clarity over the applicability of development plan policies when the development plan was over 5 years old. The validity of PAs assessments was questioned when they are also the developer or have an interest.

58. Some support was given for placing a greater emphasis on the use of natural and soft engineering methods of flood abatement in development plan policies, and that there should be reference to sustainable development and flood management relevant to WEWSA. This should also stress the importance of catchment planning across development plan areas to ensure a strategic approach was taken.

Structure planning (paragraphs 34-38)

59. The application of the Risk Framework to the structure plan process was broadly welcomed, with some further consideration sought of the affect on land allocations, and how a strategic approach to cross-boundary flooding issues might work. A statement on not holding back development and the positive impact of the policy on structure plans, especially on cross-boundary issues, was also felt necessary. There was also the view that land allocations requiring new defences should not be exceptional and requests to define the 'exceptional circumstances' and the role Ministers would play in adjudicating this.

60. Some of the detail proposed was thought to be at odds with other guidance aimed at setting broad strategy. It was generally felt the bulk of the advice should be in the forthcoming PAN, with the SPP making stronger reference to strategic flooding policy, including catchment planning under WEWS. Greater stress was requested on allocations being brownfield rather than new areas, and that they must avoid high-risk areas. It was pointed out that 40% of rainfall flooding insurance claims arise outside the current indicative floodplain map area, and that some LAs use a buffer, such as 50m, over and above the map data.

61. There was a general feeling that FAGs could make a valuable contribution from an early stage in the structure plan process.

Local planning (paragraphs 39-40)

62. The role of the Local Plan was seen as critical though several comments said the policy should provide for local interpretation according to circumstances. A need was also identified to balance avoidance of flooding with encouraging development. There was significant concern at the level of skills and resources needed to carry out Flood Risk Assessments (FRA) for all land allocations made in the local plan, though some thought a grading of the local plan area by level of risk should be sufficient to meet the needs of the policy. There was some misunderstanding that the draft required developers to undertake FRAs specifically for local plan work, whereas the intent was to draw on pre-existing assessments. There was general support for the role of FAGs in the Local Plan process including their role in advice and information.

63. The importance of information in local plan preparation was stressed by many. It was suggested that SEPA's maps should be in the public domain and thus available to developers. The second generation maps were expected to be available as soon as possible, covering inland and coastal flood risk. It was suggested that local plan maps should identify defended areas (and those subject to planned defences), and denote the functional flood plain boundary outwith of urban areas

64. Several respondents felt local plans should have a policy on the need for Drainage Assessments as well as SuDS , with some support for them to give more emphasis to natural and soft engineering solutions.

Development control (paragraphs 41-46)

65. There was a general welcome for the importance of pre-application discussions though concern at possible costs. Questions were raised about whether applications which lack a FRA could be registered and some doubts was expressed about PA's powers to require flood risk and drainage assessments. The statement that PAs should not suggest that their approval of planning permission could be taken as indication that there was no risk of flooding was broadly approved with some suggesting it be said more strongly or even be a standard statement in permissions.

66. Clarification was sought on the mechanisms for a developer to demonstrate that planning conditions had been met, and some suggestions for some form of certification. If a council had an interest in the development, it was suggested that SEPA's involvement should be mandatory.

67. A clearer statement was felt necessary by some over issues of the phasing of development, or that carried out by a number of developers, which was subject to flood defences. Delay in completion of the defences, even if through no fault of the developer, could lead to their being penalised as the policy would not allow occupation. This was not seen as penalising those responsible for the delay.

68. There were a number of requests for clarification of SEPA's role and the weight to be accorded its advice. There was a strong feeling amongst planning authorities that SEPA advice should take a stronger and more formal expression. Closer liaison and cooperation between SEPA and SW was also sought. There was some concern at the level and quality of information available to SEPA and that this limited their advice, particularly for smaller watercourses and on the coast.

69. Criteria for when to consult SEPA were also sought, and it was suggested that the existing SEPA/COSLA protocol should be followed here. Some thought it was unsatisfactory for PAs to make the assessment when they had an interest in the proposal.

Notification arrangements (paragraph 47)

70. Some consultees saw this as providing a more formal, stronger role for SEPA which could allow their advice to be treated as an objection. Several respondents objected to this idea on the grounds that it moves responsibility away from a publicly accountable PA. One feeling was that notification should arise in terms of risk to numbers of people rather than damage to property, which would give greater consideration of changes of use into the policy. There was a further concern that in the absence of SEPA approval a development would be unlikely to attract insurance cover at affordable level.

Information and mapping (paragraph 48)

There was widespread criticism of the quality of current mapping and data held by SEPA and requests for the work on the options to improve mapping, as reported in the draft, to be progressed quickly to support the final SPP. Questions were asked about who would prepare the new maps and resourcing. There were suggestions that they be 'robust and defensible', available in electronic/GIS compatible format, contain a careful explanation to minimise the possibility of blight, be available to developers and explain that they should be used alongside other sources, consultations and studies. Until the maps were available advice on sources of information for coastal and other types of flooding would be welcomed. Some suggested there should be greater access to the information that SEPA did have, through a Statutory Register of flood maps.

Conclusion (paragraph 49)

71. The conclusion drew support especially for the greater definition of roles and duties, though it was suggested that it put a duty on PAs to review current land allocations in flood plain areas and the mention of PAs acting cautiously was unnecessarily repeated from the risk framework.

Abbreviations

Annex 1 List of respondents

Argyll and Bute Council
Angus Council
Aberdeen City Council
Association of British Insurers
Ayrshire Joint Structure Plan Committee
Balerno Community Council
Babtie Group Ltd
British Geological Survey
British Waterways
Capital Shopping Centres
Chartered Institute of Water and Environmental Management
City of Edinburgh Council
Clackmannanshire Flood Appraisal Group
Clyde Heritage Trust
Collins, Professor M P
Crichton, Professor David
Currie Community Council
Disability Rights Commission
Dumfries and Galloway Council
East Ayrshire Council
East Dunbartonshire Council
East Renfrewshire Council
Elphinstone Homes
Falkirk Council
Fife Council
Fleming, Professor George
Forbes, Robert
Glasgow City Council
Glasgow and Clyde Valley Structure Plan Joint Committee
Glasgow Harbour/Clydeport
Highland Council
Homes for Scotland
Inverclyde Council
JBA Consulting
Jackson, Gordon MSP
Kincardine Estate
Lindsay, Bill
Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park Authority
MacBean, Hilary
McGlashan, Derek
Midlothian Council
Moray Council
National Farmers Union Scotland
North Ayrshire Council
North Lanarkshire Council
Perth & Kinross Council
Perth & Kinross Flood Appraisal Group
Pollokshields Heritage
Riddell, Dr John
Rodger, Alan Councillor
Royal Haskoning Ltd
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
Royal Town Planning Institute in Scotland
Shetland Flood Appraisal Group
Scottish Association of Chief Building Control Officers
Scottish Borders Council
Scottish Environment Link
Scottish Environment Protection Agency
Smith, Dr John S
South Lanarkshire Council
Scottish Landowners Federation
Scottish Natural Heritage
Scottish Society of Directors of Planning
South Ayrshire Council
Sportscotland
Stirling Council
West Dunbartonshire Council
West Lothian Council
Western Isles Council