Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Sheffield flood protection programme consultation case study
Will McBain, Associate Director, Arup
Presentation overview
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction and overview
• Why consult?
• Consultation structure and content
• Participation
• Outcome
• Conclusions
Acknowledgements
• Councillor Bryan Lodge
• Jim Fletcher and Steve Robinson
• Dave Brown and Godwin Ekebuisi
• James Mead
• Adam Broadhead and Paul Simkins
• Nicole Rabier and the wider Arup team
• Phil Metcalfe, ECUS
Introduction and overview
• 2007 flood
• LDV scheme
• Wider programme
• Drivers– Safety
– Property protection
– CI protection
– Regeneration
– Sustainable growth
Why consult?
• inform;
• engage inclusively;
• raise awareness and acceptance of flood risk;
• actively involve stakeholders;
• establish good relationships and build trust;
• promote and maximise the wider benefits;
• provide opportunities for funding.
Project timeline
Consultation process
• Web-based knowledge resource– http://floodprotectionsheffield.com/pages/Consultation
• Questionnaire
• Five public drop ins
• 3 stakeholder workshops
• Direct contact
• Social media
Examples of consultation material
Causes of flooding
Understanding flood risk
Understanding flood risk
Ways to reduce flood risk
Options considered
Options are connected
FSAs
on-line
FSAs – off line
Emerging options
Participation
• 758 completed questionnaire;
• 412 drop in event attendees;
• 58 stakeholder workshop attendees;
• 157 people used the dedicated email address;
• Generated 5,000 written responses.
Nature of participants• 88% were responding as Sheffield residents;• 33% reported living in a flood risk area; • 8% have experienced flooding to their homes, 2% have
experienced flooding to their business and 10% have experienced flooding to their place of work;
• Over 50% of respondents said they have experienced disruption to travel caused by flooding;
• 25% reported experiencing disruption to parks or other amenities; and
• 20% have experienced disrupted utilities such as gas, power, drinking water or internet because of a flood.
Response statistics• 84% agreed with the objective to Protect our Communities; • 63% agreed with the objective to Grow Our Economy;• 59% agreed with the objective to Transform our Waterways; • 100% support for removing pinch points;• 96% support for use of rural land use management;• Overall support for improving flood resilience:
– 93% agreed with improving emergency planning, – 92% agreed with improving flood warning systems, – 90% agreed with providing advice on household resilience, – 76% agreed with establishing a network of flood action groups,
and 72% agreed with establishing a network of support groups.
Containment vs Storage
• Strong opposition to some FSAs, particularly where these would result in tree loss;
• General view that floodwalls over 1.1 m high would potentially affect physical and visual connectivity with the rivers;
• Concerns over safety of FSAs and clean up operations.
Next steps
• Results of consultation have played a key role in both informing the shortlisting process and in identifying the mitigation required at sensitive sites, should these form part of the solution;
• Announcement imminent on the shortlist;
• Detailed appraisal and EIA of shortlisted options now in progress.
Conclusions and key lessons• A high risk, sensitive project of this kind warrants
additional engagement effort;
• The consultation has directly influenced the emerging approach;
• Hugely beneficial process in terms of legitimising the choice of preferred combination of options for each scheme;
• Consistent messaging is critical – particularly in reinforcing the fact that no decisions have been made;
• Need to balance the views of vocal local groups against views of wider public.
Questions?
http://www.floodprotectionsheffield.com/