Decision details

9.1

The Executive Director, Place submitted a report on the work which had been undertaken by the City Council, Environment Agency (EA) and local businesses to deliver a flood defence scheme in the Lower Don Valley (LDV) to protect the public infrastructure and vital manufacturing and engineering industry from the damage suffered through the floods in 2000 and 20007.  Applications had been made for public sector funding through the European Regional Development Fund and the EA for 75% of the total cost of the project. Additionally, a Business Improvement District (BID) was proposed as the mechanism to secure contributions from private sector beneficiaries of the Scheme

The report, therefore, sought authority for officers to pursue the various financial elements of public and private sector contributions and cashflow options arranged by the Council.

9.2

RESOLVED: That Cabinet agrees that the Director of Development Services, in consultation with the Director of Finance, Director of Legal Services and Cabinet Members for Environment, Waste and Streetscene and Business, Skills and Development, be authorised to:-

(a)

negotiate, agree and complete the terms of funding contracts with external grant organisations including (but not limited to) the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and the Environment Agency (EA);

(b)

negotiate and agree the terms of a Business Improvement District (BID) for the Lower Don Valley Flood Defence Scheme and implement a ballot process;

(c)

explore finance options enabling the Council to cash flow the private sector contribution towards the construction phase of the project subject to businesses agreeing to the establishment of a Business Improvement District through which the Council’s contribution would be recovered, including the possibility of reprioritising internal resources or securing external borrowing as prescribed by the Council’s Constitution and Financial Regulations;

(d)

take other action necessary to develop and fund the scheme, including making any decision which is necessary or desirable under the provisions of agreements for external grants and submit. the detailed project approval in line with the Council’s Capital Approval process once the final funding arrangements become clear;

(e)

approve in principle the submission of an application for planning permission and other statutory consents for the LDV Flood Defence Scheme;

(f)

approve in principle measures to deliver works on privately owned properties or land essential to implement the scheme by enforcement if required, including available powers to gain entry to sites under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and Land Drainage Act 1994, or the use of the Council’s Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) Powers to secure access to any parcels of land essential to implement the scheme; and

(g)

negotiate, agree and complete the contracts for detailed design and construction following a tender process and once a full funding package is in place.

9.3

Reasons for Decision

9.3.1

The preferred approach is to deliver a comprehensive and holistic approach to flood management taking advantage of the limited availability of public funds.

9.3.2

The ‘do nothing’ option is not viable as it depends on the private sector leading which, in the current economic climate, would at best deliver a partial yet uncoordinated scheme, and, at worst, would deliver no defences at all. A ‘reduced scheme’ similarly will not provide adequate protection and security to the majority of businesses in the flood zone, while the ‘alternative technology’ and ‘up-stream storage’ options would be complementary solutions in the right circumstances but would not alone resolve the issue of flood risk in the LDV.

9.3.3

The proposed solution of a comprehensive programme of works would meet Environment Agency standards and would provide the greatest level of protection to business and employment premises and land in the Don Valley. It would thus give existing and new investors confidence in the area.

9.3.4

Furthermore, this solution is based on evidence of business enthusiasm which gives confidence that financial commitments may be forthcoming from key private sector stakeholders who have stated a desire for flood defences in the area. It also delivers the highest level of outputs, outcomes and benefits.

9.3.5

As a comprehensive and holistic solution, this preferred option does require the largest budget and therefore the largest amount of funding. Positive progress has been made in applying for ERDF and EA funding which could amount to around 75% of total costs. The aim is to complete detailed funding applications to ERDF and the EA to secure these funds. The majority of the private sector contribution relating to the construction phase would be cashflowed in the short term by Sheffield City Council with a view to retrieving this through the establishment of a Business Improvement District.

9.4

Alternatives Considered and Rejected

9.4.1

Details of the options considered to achieve ‘1 in 100 year event’ protection are provided below with the recommended approach.

9.4.2

Do nothing option

Without a coordinated and comprehensive flood defence strategy, piece-meal and isolated interventions would be implemented by individual private sector business or landowners, at different times and possibly to different standards.

9.4.3

Reduced funding option

With less funding a smaller scheme tackling selected weak points could be led by the Council and attract private contributions from businesses. However, this would not achieve the ‘1 in 100 year event’ standard with some weak points remaining and consequently a continued risk of flooding for many businesses.

9.4.4

Alternative technology option

New technologies are being developed which may be feasible components of a flood defence strategy for the LDV as alternatives to traditional walls, but will not remedy flood risk for the entire flood zone on their own.

9.4.5

Up-stream storage option

Managing lower water levels in up-stream reservoirs is a vital component of the wider flood defence strategy in Sheffield by reducing the amount of water arriving in the valley bottom, but will not alone prevent flooding in the LDV.

9.5

Any Interest Declared or Dispensation Granted

None

9.6

Reason for Exemption if Public/Press Excluded During Consideration

None

9.7

Respective Director Responsible for Implementation

Simon Green, Executive Director, Place

9.8

Relevant Scrutiny and Policy Development Committee If Decision Called In

Economic and Environmental Wellbeing