Record of the 2nd Meeting of the
Local Flood Forums
September 2013
Floods Directive - Local Flood Forums
The primary aim of the Local Flood Forums is to
comply with the Department’s obligations under
the Directive to ‘take such steps as it considers
appropriate to provide opportunities for the
general public and such persons as it considers
necessary to participate in the discussion and the
exchange of information or views in relation to the
preparation of the Flood Risk Management Plans’
Main aims of the 2nd meeting of the Local Flood
Forums were to:
refresh members’ understanding of the Floods
Directive programme and give a general update on
progress,
inform LFF members specifically of progress on the
delivery of flood hazard and flood risk maps and of
the development of Settlement Flood Risk Referral
Forms,
to seek members views and comments on policy
developments within the process.
Updates
Floods Directive in General
Joe Nicholson, Rivers Agency
Preparedness & Emergency Planning
Johnathan McKee, Rivers Agency
Flood Mapping
Malcolm Calvert, Rivers Agency
Settlement Flood Risk Referral Forms
Keith Hunt, Henry Thompson Rivers Agency
Individual Property Flood Risk Protection
Henry Thompson, Rivers Agency
Questions & Answers
Breakout Session
The forums were split into 2 discussion groups for the second session of
the event. This was to provide an opportunity for forum members to
contribute to the Agency’s thinking on the development of policies. The
groups were asked for comments and input regarding the following;
Individual Property Flood Protection (IPFP)
 What are the potential impacts of an IPFP scheme on each
organisation represented?
 Who do you believe should manage such a scheme?
 To what extent should such a scheme fund the individual?
 How can we get individuals to work as a community to ensure
success of such a scheme?
Communication
 How do we best communicate flood risk to the public?
Organisations Represented at the Local Flood Forums
DARD, Rivers Agency
Northern Group Systems
NIHE
DRD, Roads
DRD, Water Policy Unit
NI Fire & Rescue Service
NI Water
Red Cross
NI Environment Agency
PSNI
Elected Representatives from;
Ballymena Borough Council
Craigavon Borough Council
Cookstown District Council
Strabane District Council
Down District Council
North Down Borough Council
Castlereagh Borough Council
Newry & Mourne District Council
Officials from;
Northern Group Systems
Southern Group
Western Group
Belfast City Council
Ballymena Borough Council
Craigavon Borough Council
Cookstown District Council
Banbridge District Council
Coleraine Borough Council
Consumer Council NI
Office of Public Works, RoI
Association of British Insurers
Ulster Farmers Union
Freshwater Taskforce
Composite Record of Substantive Views and Comments from
Breakout Discussion Groups
IMPACT
It was generally accepted that an Individual Property Flood Protection (IPFP)
scheme would be a good step forward in assisting those in domestic properties
where it is not economically viable to provide a publically funded flood
alleviation scheme and which fall into the category for which the IPFP is
economical (up to 1:30 year return period).
Drainage authorities felt that when implemented, it would reduce uncertainty
and speed up the application of protective measures ahead of or during events.
This they believed would likely reduce the pressure of phone calls to Flood
Incident Line (FIL), Roads Service, NI Water and Rivers Agency during events
which in turn would allow these organisations to focus on key infrastructure.
Stakeholders felt that it was a positive step forward and that self help such as
this would be a key aspect of successfully avoiding damage in times of flood.
It was felt generally that Regional Community Resilience Groups would see
this as a key means of gaining buy-in from individuals and communities in
respect of flood emergency reaction.
SCHEME MANAGEMENT
Stakeholders discussed the possibility of such a scheme being managed by an
individual department and considered, DSD (NIHE, housing responsibilities,
replacement boiler schemes etc.), DRD (responsible for 2 of the 3 drainage
authorities), DoE (NI Local Government Association, Planning NI), DARD
(Rivers Agency, Single Farm Payments etc.) and Cluster Councils (already
have a network of community links and manage flooding hardship payments)
The current position in respect of the NIHE review and the impact of RPA on
councils was noted. The general feeling was that the scheme should be cross
departmental/organisational with technical input from relevant sources and
managerial oversight from a single agency or department. Further
consideration will be given to this proposal.
FUNDING
The general feeling was that people should be required to contribute something
to the purchase of the equipment as this would create personal ownership and
engender care and application of the measures when required. This was
countered by the observation that individuals or communities are not expected
to specifically contribute to publically funded hard engineered schemes.
Stakeholders were generally non-committal with regard to how much
individuals should be expected to contribute however, a contribution of around
10% was often referred to as a possible threshold. It was recognised that any
such requirement should be subject to some form of affordability measure. It
was also noted that the scheme should not be subject to any form of means
testing.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
It was generally felt that councils were good at engaging with the public and
that the public were comfortable dealing with councils. As such existing
council links would be an advantageous place to start the buy-in process.
Regional Community Resilience Groups were recognised as a potential route
for communicating the flood risk message and it was believed that as these
develop they could provide many opportunities for reaching out and engaging
communities.
COMMUNICATION
Stakeholders felt that the language used in advising the public of flood risk
needs to be managed so that it can be understood by all who are at risk. This
means using plain language to explain what can be very technical issues. A
suggestion was made that the Consumer Council are very good at
understanding what level of language best suits the public and that it should be
involved in developing the messages. The issue of communicating to minority
communities should also be considered in publishing any flood risk messages.
The importance of openness, honesty, clarity and transparency in
communicating with the public was highlighted.
It was felt that once the risk had been identified and assessed communication
could be focussed on those communities that are at greatest risk and that where
these are relatively localised more labour intensive but direct measures could
be employed e.g. leaflet drops.
Stakeholders were asked to consider how they might like to receive flood risk
information and how the message could be worded so that it could be easily
understood by all. Any such ideas and considerations should be forwarded to
the Agency at Rivers.Registry@dardni.gov.uk.
The next meetings of the Flood Forums are due to take place in late November/early
December 2014. The main subject for discussion will be the progress on the Draft
Flood Risk Management Plans. Members will have the opportunity to consider and
input into a variety of topics prior to the draft plans being released for consultation.
Members will be notified of the exact dates and venues in due course.
Papers Provided at the meetings in the Information
Pack
 Agenda & Attendee List
 Draft Terms of Reference
 A graphic which explains flood risk management
structures in NI
 List of Significant Flood Risk Areas & Areas of Further
Investigation
 Draft Settlement Flood Risk Referral Form & Maps
 Floods Directive – ‘Helping Protect Communities’ leaflet
 Strategic Flood Map (NI) – Rivers & the Sea leaflet