Will McBain, Associate Director, Arup

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?

[email protected]

http://www.floodprotectionsheffield.com/