Lessons Learned : Cumbria County Council

At 4pm on Monday 14 December 2009 government ministers and officials gathered in Great Smith Street just off Whitehall for a meeting of the ministerial flood recovery group. At the table were representatives of the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department for Transport, the Ministry of Defence, The Department for Food and Rural Affairs, The Department for Culture Media and Sport, and the Department of Work and Pensions. Chief Executive of Cumbria County Council Jill Stannard dialled into the meeting from her office in Carlisle.

Less than a month on from the floods, government departments and the lead local agency were deeply engaged in a constructive and fruitful dialogue about the key recovery issues. Cash and resources were already finding their way to people in need, and complex procedures to fast track the restoration of critical infrastructure were well underway. So effective was this dialogue that a footbridge had already reconnected the riven communities of north and south Workington. Built by the army, jointly funded by the Department for Transport and the MoD, and co-ordinated by the county council, the project exemplified effective central and local government cooperation.

This co-ordinated effort across national and local government was a vital aspect of the recovery effort – providing the county council with easy access to government departments to highlight local needs and concerns, and enabling government to co-ordinate support across a range of different departmental interests. The meetings helped everyone share the same cross-cutting view of the issues arising from the floods.

Inevitably there were times when the co-ordinating arrangements felt imperfect. At a local level, agencies did on occasion grow frustrated with what appeared to be inconsistent and disjointed approach from government departments. And there were certainly times when to central government the response of the local agencies must have appeared unco-ordinated.

Ministerial meetings and conference calls were certainly the best way to ensure that issues were resolved and that the voice of the community was heard by key decision makers at all levels.

Despite the undoubted readiness of central government to support Cumbria through the crisis in a managed and co-ordinated way, negotiation with central government was at times difficult for local agencies. The range of different departments and individuals to be engaged is often complex – and council officers must negotiate a web of different departmental cultures and ways of working. To government outsiders Whitehall processes can appear bewildering and very often the issue and mindset of those involved was around how to circumvent existing rules and procedures in the interests of expediency in order to get help in place as quickly as possible.

A positive legacy of the Cumbria flood experience could be the development of a crisis assistance package to improve the speed of response. Identifying the likely crisis issues in advance and having pre-developed plans to address them would improve preparedness and greatly assist future joint working between central and local government in times of crisis.

The package should certainly include an emergency procurement package. Consideration might be given in the future to what help and assistance might be given to local agencies to help them negotiate their contact with central government – perhaps through a single point of contact or trained advocate. Other elements of the package might include well maintained lists of indemnified structural engineers and other specialists willing to volunteer their expertise in times of crisis. This would have greatly helped speed up the structural inspection of bridges. Many professionals volunteered their services but the local authority was unable to quickly ensure that their work would be indemnified.

In times of crisis local agencies must also be prepared to ensure that their approaches to government are well managed and coherent – sacrificing parochial interests to ensure that government receives a single clear message from local communities. We believe that our governance arrangements for the crisis and recovery phase helped us achieve a co-ordinated approach in Cumbria, but there are always lessons to be learned from how agencies work together.

A particular concern for local agencies was the very short timescales for assessing the scale of the damage and submitting claims for assistance.

For a significant period after the floods much of the infrastructure most severely affected was submerged beneath the floodwaters, making detailed assessment very difficult. At the point when the water began to subside Cumbria was hit by severe winter weather, blanketing much of the county in snow and ice and again making it difficult to access and assess the damage. These difficulties, combined with the size and rurality of Cumbria have made it difficult to hit government deadlines.

At times it was difficult for people at the frontline of the flood recovery effort to make their voices heard by those making strategic decisions at a local or national level. The communication infrastructure and feedback processes were not always sufficiently robust to allow local people, councillors, support workers and agencies to feed in their issues and concerns. Nor were they always able to find out about key decisions which would impact upon them and their communities. We recognise that getting these mechanisms right is very important and the county council will be reviewing this particular issue to identify recommendations and best practice for the future.

Public expectation about how quickly life can return to normal after a major event like the Cumbria floods often outstrips reality. A perceived lack of pace and inertia can have serious consequences for public confidence in local and national agencies.

One month after event is when community frustrations start to emerge. It was at this stage that the county council experienced a spike in complaints. However quickly agencies pursue the recovery effort the public continue to experience a significant level of disruption, and as every day goes by expectations increase. It is vital at such times, when passions can run very high, to maintain a consistent and realistic public message about what can be achieved. Whatever the pressures to commit to earlier timescales, central and local agencies must avoid falling into the trap of over promising and failing to deliver.

It is also at this time when all agencies involved in the recovery effort come to realise that resources are not infinite and limitless. Exhaustion does kick in but the demands remain the same. All organisations must consider how they can absorb the impact of the recovery effort whilst continuing to provide the high quality services which the public rightly expect.