Essex Flood Partnership Board
Committee Room 1, Wednesday, 20 09:30 County Hall, January 2016 Chelmsford, Essex
Membership
Cllr Roger Hirst Essex County Council
Cllr Mick Page Essex County Council Cllr Kay Twitchen Essex County Council Deborah Fox Essex County Council Graham Thomas Essex County Council Lucy Shepherd Essex County Council Peter Massie Essex County Council Graham Verrier Environment Agency Viv Stewart Environment Agency Mark Dickinson Thames Water Jonathan Glerum Anglian Water Paul Hill Essex County Fire and Rescue Service Cllr Richard Moore Basildon Borough Council Cllr Wendy Schmitt Braintree District Council Cllr Tony Sleep Brentwood Borough Council Cllr Ray Howard Castle Point Borough Council/ECC Cllr Neil Gulliver Chelmsford City Council Cllr Tim Young Colchester Borough Council Cllr Will Breare-Hall Epping Forest District Council Cllr Mark Wilkinson Harlow District Council Cllr Andrew St Joseph Maldon District Council Cllr Keith Hudson Rochford District Council Cllr Nick Turner Tendring District Council Cllr Martin Terry Southend on Sea Borough Council Cllr Gerrard Rice Thurrock Council
Cllr Susan Barker Uttlesford District Council
Page 1 of 66 For information about the meeting please ask for: Lisa Siggins 03330134594 / [email protected]
Page 2 of 66 Essex County Council and Committees Information
This meeting is not open to the public and the press, although the agenda is available on the Essex County Council website, www.essex.gov.uk From the Home Page, click on ‘Your Council’, then on ‘Meetings and Agendas’. Finally, select the relevant committee from the calendar of meetings.
Please note that an audio recording may be made of the meeting – at the start of the meeting the Chairman will confirm if all or part of the meeting is being recorded.
If you have a need for documents in the following formats, large print, Braille, on disk or in alternative languages and easy read please contact the Committee Officer before the meeting takes place. If you have specific access requirements such as access to induction loops, a signer, level access or information in Braille please inform the Committee Officer before the meeting takes place. For any further information contact the Committee Officer.
Page 3 of 66 Pages
1 Apologies for Absence
2 Minutes 7 - 14 To approve as a correct record the Minutes of the meeting held on 1 October 2015.
3 Declarations of Interest To note any declarations of interest to be made by Members in accordance with the Members' Code of Conduct
4 Holland-on-Sea – Flood Defence Scheme To receive a PowerPoint presentation by Cllr Nick Turner and Mike Badger on the successful completion of the joint funded Sea Defence scheme at Holland-on Sea, which protects over 3000 homes.
5 Essex Property Level Protection Scheme - Progress 15 - 18 Report To receive a report (EFPB/1/16) by Oladipo Lafinhan Flood Partnerships Funding Co-ordinator on the progress made with increasing the number of homes to be protected by through the Property Level Protection grant in 2015/16 and 2016/17.
6 RFCC Introduction & Update 19 - 22 To welcome Paul Hayden the RFCC Eastern Region Chairman. To receive an update report (EFPB/2/16) from Deborah Fox, Head of Commissioning Sustainable Environment Protection on the latest RFCC updates.
7 Flood Risk Management Plan 23 - 26 To receive a report (EFPB/3/16) from Lucy Shepherd Lead Local Flood Authority Manager on the Essex Flood Risk Management Plan, prepared by the Environment Agency.
8 Environment Agency's Programme Update and Report 27 - 48 Main Rivers Variations in Essex To receive a verbal report from Graham Verrier Area Flood Risk Manager Environment Agency on pending changes to the Environment Agency and what this means in Essex. Graham will also report (EFPB/4/16) on the 2015/16 programme for Demaining of Rivers within Essex.
Page 4 of 66 9 Scrutiny Report on Third Party Responsibilities and 49 - 58 Flood Enforcement To receive a report (EFPB/5/16) from Cllr Walsh Chairman of the Task & Finish Group of the ECC Place Services & Economic Growth Scrutiny Committee. The Scrutiny Committee work looked at the County Council work as both the Lead Local Flood Authority and Highway Authority in relation to third party responsibilities and flood enforcement.
10 Flood Capital Programme – Partnership Grants 59 - 62 Allocations 2015/16 To receive a report (EFPB/6/16) from Lucy Shepherd on the submitted Partnership Grant proposals and receive officer recommendation on which scheme the Partnership Grant should support in 2015/16.
11 Land Drainage Enforcement Update To receive a verbal report from Natasha Taylor Head of Legal Services on the progress made to put in place the Essex Flood Partnership Boards policy and protocol to ensure a consistent and transparent land drainage enforcement approach is applied by all local authorities.
12 Capturing the Economic Benefit of Local Flood 63 - 66 Alleviation Schemes To receive a report (EFPB/7/16) from Lucy Shepherd Lead Local Flood Authority Manager on the economic impact of flooding drawing on the work undertaken by universities and the Environment Agency
13 Any Other Business
14 Dates of Next Meetings
To note that meetings in 2016/17 will be held as follows:
Wednesday 20 April 2016 at 9.30am County Hall Chelmsford Thursday 16 June 2016 at 9.30am in County Hall Chelmsford Thursday 13 October 2016 at 9.30am County Hall Chelmsford Thursday 19 January 2016 at 9.30 County Hall Chelmsford
Page 5 of 66
Page 6 of 66 1 October 2015 Minutes 1
Minutes of a Meeting of the Essex Flood Partnership Board held at County Hall, Chelmsford, at 9.30am on 1 October 2015
Present:
Name Organisation
Cllr Roger Hirst Essex County Council (Chairman) Ms Liz Berry Environment Agency Cllr Will Breare-Hall Epping Forest District Council Ms Trudie Bragg Castle Point Borough Council Mr Quasim Durrani Epping Forest District Council Mr Jonathan Glerum Anglian Water Mr Ian Haines Maldon District Council Mr Paul Hill Essex County Fire & Rescue Services Cllr Ray Howard Castle Point Borough Council/ECC Cllr Keith Hudson Rochford District Council Cllr Richard Moore Basildon District Council Cllr Mick Page Essex County Council Mr Peter Rose Essex Highways Mr Shaun Scrutton Rochford District Council Ms Lucy Shepherd Essex County Council Cllr Andrew St Joseph Maldon District Council Ms Natasha Taylor Essex County Council Mr Graham Thomas Essex County Council Cllr Tim Young Colchester Borough Council Ms Lisa Siggins Essex County Council Democratic Services
1. Apologies and Substitution Notices
Apologies for absence were received from:
Cllr John Aldridge – ECC Cllr Mick Page – ECC Cllr Kay Twitchen – ECC Cllr Susan Barker – Uttlesford DC Cllr Turner –Tendring DC Peter Massie – ECC Deborah Fox - ECC Viv Stewart – Environment Agency Roger Orpin – DEFRA Mark Dickinson – Thames Water Paul Hayden- (Chair Anglia (Eastern) Regional Flood and Costal Committee
2. Minutes
The Minutes of the meeting of the Board held on 17 June were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman
Page 7 of 66 2 Minutes 1 October 2015
With regards to Minute 4 (Anglian Water Update), Jonathan Glerum advised that the issue raised by Councillor Hudson was being looked into and that contact would be made directly with Councillor Hudson.
3. Declarations of Interest
No declarations were made at this point.
4. Gateway Process
The Board received a report EFPB/5/15 and accompanying appendices from Graham Thomas Head of Planning & Environment regarding the Gateway Process for progressing schemes via the Flood Prevention Capital Programme.
Mr Thomas advised the Board that the purpose of the Report was to provide a simple process for explaining how to submit flood scheme proposals and the process for prioritising these into a programme of work for future years. The report also recommended revisions to the criteria against which flood prevention schemes will be assessed.
On 17 June 2015, the Board received report (EFPB/01/05) which listed all of the flood prevention schemes in Essex (including partner schemes) in 2015/16. This report identified the 17 flood prevention schemes either being tested for feasibility, subject to design or in the delivery stage by ECC in 2015/16.
Whilst the Board previously agreed (January 2015) the prioritisation criteria against which to assess potential flood prevention schemes, they have yet to agree the detail and process required to take decisions and agree on the programme of future year schemes. The report before the Board today provides the clarity about how the process will work to enable funding and investment decisions to be taken, by whom and when.
Mr Thomas advised the Board the Gateway report explained the 5 step in the process, namely:
1. Identifying where to submit a flood prevention scheme 2. The assessment of the scheme against the agreed prioritisation criteria 3. The Essex Flood Partnership Board consideration/recommendation 4. ECC Cabinet Member and Capital Programme Members Board decision 5. Communicate the Outcome of the Decision
Lucy Shepherd, Lead Local Flood Authority Manager addressed the Board in connection with the revised prioritisation criteria. She advised that this was evidence based and addressed the issue of deliverability. ECC employed consultants to undertake a thorough screening and reprioritisation of all the potential flood prevention sites currently on the 5 year programme. Ms Shepherd explained the scoring process to the Board and went through the 2 appendices to the report.
A discussion followed where the issue of the Economic Impact of flooding was raised and reference was made to the work that has been undertaken by Salford Page 8 of 66 1 October 2015 Minutes 3
University recently and the London School of Economics (Tony Travis). It was agreed that this matter would be looked into and that a report would be prepared for the January meeting of the Board.
The discussion also included the “Partnership Funding Opportunities” criteria. It was Agreed that for clarification purposes this may be renamed the Partnership Grant.
The Board proceeded to Endorse both the Gateway Process for submitting and then determining the priority flood prevention schemes, and the revised Scheme Prioritisation criteria as outlined in the report and accompanying appendices, subject to the renaming of one of the criteria as outlined above.
5. ECC Flood Prevention Programme
The Board received a PowerPoint Presentation from Dave Chapman (Enforcement & Delivery Manager) and Oladipo Lafinhan (Flood Partnerships funding coordinator) on the first year (2015/16) of the ECC flood prevention capital programme. This presentation also included an update on the Property Level Protection scheme and the Partnership Grant which has been made available to support partner organisations deliver flood protection schemes which protect homes from flooding caused by surface water flooding.
Mr Chapman led the first part of the presentation in respect of Capital schemes and gave details of the 7 schemes to be delivered by the Flood Team this year. He gave an overview of the schemes to the Board illustrating the scale of the flooding which has be caused by heavy rainfall and advised on the various flood protection measures that will be needed to address the problems with no two solutions being the same. Protection measures will include creating new flood alleviation ponds and establishing or improving the existing ditch networks. In some instances protective fencing or garden walls would be installed to protect properties identified to be at risk.
A discussion followed regarding the liability for the maintenance of these protective measures including fencing once installed. It was confirmed that individual homeowners or landowners will be responsible. The new measure will also be added to the Council’s asset register and enforcement action could be taken against that property owner if they fail to undertake the required maintenance which then leads to the new flood prevention measure failing.
The discussion also raised the issue of the availability of funding from the Runwell Hospital site. Officers agreed to look into this matter outside of the meeting to see if there was any developer funding available secured through the planning application (S106) process.
Mr Lafinhan then introduced the second part of the presentation in respect of the Property Level Protection (PLP) grant and the Partnership Grant.
The presentation highlighted:
Property Level Protection: Funding available - £100,000 to fund PLP grants to at protect at least 20 homes (up to £5,000 per property). Page 9 of 66 4 Minutes 1 October 2015
The evidence required Qualifying Criteria For this year (2015/16) the project will be promoted, administered and managed by Aquobex Ltd Public awareness Applications received so far Support available for successful applicants
Partnership Grants £400,000 is available in 2015/16 to contribute towards flood risk management schemes undertaken by individuals and organisations within Essex (excluding Thurrock and Southend) He also outlined those projects ineligible for partnership grants
Partnership Grant applications are to be received from 2 October 2015 with the closing date for submission on 1 December 2015.
A discussion followed which included the issue of public awareness, with the Board being informed of the various ways in which the scheme was being publicised and the fact that 100 applications had already been received for the PLP grant which was only launched on 19 September on Canvey Island at an engagement event hosted by the Essex Fire & Rescue Service.
The Board members thanked officers for reporting on the good work undertaken on delivering this year’s flood prevention schemes. The Board members also Agreed that a progress update report on the PLP element of the flood prevention programme be reported to the January Board meeting.
Following the meeting a copy of the Presentation was forwarded to all Board Members.
6. ECC Flood Prevention Capital Programme Report
The Board received report EFPB/6/15 and accompanying appendix from Deborah Fox, Head of Commissioning Sustainable Environment Protection and Lucy Shepherd, Lead Local Flood Authority Manager regarding the ECC flood prevention capital programme to be delivered in 2016/17.
Ms Shepherd advised the Board that in February 2015 ECC introduced a Capital Programme to tackle localised flooding and deliver flood prevention schemes over the next 5 years. The first year (2015/16) of schemes was considered by the Board in June. The full list of all the flood schemes currently identified are contained in Appendix 1 of the report which includes all schemes found on the current 5 year programme.
It was explained that of the 20 identified sites listed for feasibility and optioneering, the aim would be to progress 8 of these to “construction design” detailed drawings at a cost of £25k each next year ready for delivery the following year.
The Board were referred to the Priority schemes listed on pages 25/6 of the report. At this point Cllr Hirst declared an interest in that West Horndon (included in the list) was in his division. Page 10 of 66 1 October 2015 Minutes 5
A discussion followed including understanding how the list had been developed and shared with the District Councils. Clarification was given, it was explained that in establishing the programme of schemes, this work developed in partnership with all the local authorities through the Executive Officers Group which was established to support this Board. The Board heard how this collaborative work has led to the proposed schemes being recommended to the Board today. These were derived using the Boards agreed prioritisation criteria as agreed.
The Board requested a progress report on the year two feasibility study work to be brought to next summer’s (June) Board meeting.
The Board proceed to Resolve that:
1. The Board recommend to the ECC Cabinet Member a programme of Flood Prevention schemes as set out in the Report EFPB/6/15 to take to the ECC Capital Programme Members Board. 2. To recommend to the ECC Cabinet Member continuation of both the Property Level Protection and Partnership Grant schemes, to be supported to the value of £100k and £400k respectively in 2016/17.
7. Holland on Sea - Flood defence
The Chairman advised the Board that as Councillor Turner of Tendring District Council was unable to attend today’s meeting; the item would be deferred until the meeting of the Board on 20 January.
8. RFCC Update
The Board received report EFPB/7/15 from Deborah Fox, Head of Commissioning Sustainable Environment Protection regarding the latest RFCC update.
Lucy Shepherd gave an overview of the the report to the Board advising that the consented investment programmes 2015-16 to 2020-21 (schemes) were provided to RFCC Committee members at the April/ May RFCC meetings.
The programmes require partnership funding of 15%. Securing the right level of contributions at the right time remains the biggest delivery risk to achieving the outcomes.
As reported to the Partnership Board in June, indicative allocations from the regional investment programme refresh were reviewed nationally in August. This was to consider pressures such as available funding, delivery of outcome measures and the level of contributions identified.
To develop the investment programmes further, ‘Local Choices’ are being applied through the October round of RFCC meetings. Local Choices is an important part of the prioritisation process in which the RFCC committees have an opportunity to prioritise projects important at a local level. Also, to have early discussions on setting the Local Levy. In September, the RFCC committees have been asked to:
Page 11 of 66 6 Minutes 1 October 2015
• note any new projects in the RFCC programmes • provide strategic steer for any local choices within their programmes • build in a 10% over-programme to 2016/17 on schemes.
The Board were advised that efficiency savings are proposed by the Environment Agency, Liz Berry of EA informed the Board that such savings would be in respect of revenue rather than capital cuts and that further details are awaited.
The report proposed 2 issues for the Board’s consideration but during discussion it was stated that such proposals are in fact redundant with work already been carried out in this regard.
It was Agreed that the Officer Group will consider the issues and report back to the Board at the January meeting.
9. Canvey Island Update
The Board received a verbal update from Graham Thomas Head of Planning & Environment regarding the Canvey Island Multi- Agency work following the 2014 flood event. Mr Thomas advised the Board that following the Canvey Floods of 20th July 2014 where approximately 1000 homes were flooded in a 4 hour period, Essex County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority then published a Section 19 Flood Investigation Report which made 13 recommendations.
The Board were informed that 9 of the 13 actions are Coded Green which indicates that these have been addressed and of the 4 that are outstanding, good progress is being made with only 1 – Mapping being in the amber category.
Councillor Howard paid tribute to the progress made and how the various agencies are working together. He made reference to a recently published technical drainage modelling report and Jonathan Glerum of Anglian Water confirmed that is he tasked with producing a “plain English” translation of this which will be available for the next Board meeting in January.
Mr Glerum advised the Board that excellent progress is being made in connection with retrospective enforcement action against utility companies who have caused damage to the drainage infrastructure on the Island.
10. Any other business
Natasha Taylor of Essex Legal Services updated the Board in respect of the Boards desire to see a consistent approach to land drainage enforcement within Essex. She reported that good progress was being made with the Memorandum of Understanding with four local authorities already signed up. Ms Taylor advised the Board that the Memorandum had been negotiated between ECC and each District/Borough Council, and that there would be a phased approach which would allow flexibility for all authorities to reflect their resources.
Board members were very keen to see consistency when dealing with riparian landowners and were very interested to find out if and where there were any problems in local authorities signing up to the MOU. Page 12 of 66 1 October 2015 Minutes 7
Ms Taylor confirmed that the following Districts had already signed up to the process:
Braintree DC, Chelmsford CC, Colchester BC and Maldon DC.
Both Rochford DC and Epping Forest DC (who have a separate Memorandum of Understanding) are in the final negotiation stages. Positive discussions are being had with Brentwood BC, Basildon BC, Harlow DC and Tendring DC.
At the meeting Trudie Bragg of Castle Point Borough Council confirmed that her Council will be signing up to Phase 1 of the process.
It was Agreed a progress report be brought back to the January Board meeting.
11. Dates of Future Meetings
Resolved:
That the next meeting of the Partnership Board was scheduled for Wednesday 20 January 2016 at 9.30 at County Hall Chelmsford
The meeting closed at 11.55 am.
Chairman 1 October 2015
Page 13 of 66
Page 14 of 66
AGENDA ITEM 5 Report to: Report Number: EFPB/1/16 Essex Flood Partnership Board
Date of meeting: 20 January 2016
Title of report: Property Level Protection Grant - Delivery Update Report by: Oladipo Lafinhan and Lucy Shepherd Head of Service: Graham Thomas: Head of Planning & Environment Enquiries to: Lucy Shepherd (Lead Local Flood Authority Manager) Dipo Lafinhan (Flood Partnership Funding Co-ordinator)
1. Purpose of report
1.1. To provide an update for the Flood Board on the progress of delivering an increase in the number of properties to be protected through the Essex Property Level Protection (PLP) scheme in 2015/16 and 2016/17.
2. Recommendations
2.1. To update the Flood Board that the PLP grant contract has been increased to protect 50 homes in 2015/16.
2.2. To agree the approach to reconciling the delivery of PLP to individual residential properties, whilst adhering to the £5000 PLP grant threshold per property.
2.3. To agree that those applicants who have carried out previous PLP work on their properties would not receive retrospective grants. Any additional work required, would be subject to recommendations from the PLP survey.
2.4. Seek the Flood Board endorsement to increase the target to protect at least 60 homes through the PLP grant scheme in 2016/17.
3. Background
3.1. Essex County Council introduced a PLP scheme on 19th September 2015. This grant scheme is already a major success story.
3.2. Aquobex were commissioned to deliver the pilot PLP grant scheme in 2015/16. The contract states that first 50 applications will be screened, and of these 20 properties would be fitted with PLP, if they comply with the schemes criteria. £100k was allocated from the 2015/16 capital budget to protect 20 properties up to a value of £5k per property.
3.3. Further to the pilot scheme, arrangements are currently underway to proceed with a tender process for the commissioning of a new supplier to deliver the 2016/17 PLP scheme.
Page 15 of 66
4. Current pressures
4.1. This scheme is a major success and already has 172 expressions of interest from Essex residents. And this number is still growing. A letter has been drafted to be sent out to all applicants with the aim of explaining the over-subscription, and helping to manage customer expectations.
4.2. Whilst Aquobex have been commissioned to deliver this scheme, this has required substantial operational support from the Flood and Water Management officers to help guide the procurement and communications element of the scheme and addressing project queries.
4.3. Some enquiries from members of the public have been received which indicate the need for residents to be reimbursed for previous works carried out by themselves on their properties.
4.4. Whilst the process of producing a tender for the 2016/17 scheme is underway, there have been difficulties in reconciling the requirements from a procurement perspective to aggregate the total spend for the scheme delivery across the full term of the capital programme and our requirement to commission a supplier to deliver the 2016/17 grant scheme.
5. Revising the 2015/16 contract
5.1. The contract with Aquobex has be revised to make provisions for the delivery of PLP grants up to 50 residential properties in Essex within the current financial year, in order to better address the volume of interest expressed.
5.2. Aquobex have helpfully produced a project timeline to not only reflect the change in scope of the contract but to also demonstrate their capacity to deliver PLP to a total of 50 residential properties by 31st March 2016.
5.3. In addition to the 18 residential properties already surveyed on Canvey Island, who due to have their PLP installed in the coming weeks:
Another 20 plus residents of Canvey Island have been interviewed and surveying commenced in mid December 2015. 17 residents in the Rayleigh area have been interviewed and the surveys commenced in early January 2016. 11 residents in the Hockley area are currently being interviewed and it is anticipated that surveys would commence on the week starting 1st February 2016.
5.4. A total of 66 homes will be surveyed thereby providing a healthy buffer for achieving the 50 PLP target. The consequence of conducting these 6 surveys and providing 50 PLP and increase in the grant cost of £250k plus up to £7000 more revenue cost to deliver the larger programme.
6. Managing the grant threshold
6.1. From the survey of the first 18 homes 17 of these are eligible to have PLP installed.
6.2. Of these 17 properties, 8 would have to make top-up payments on top of the £5,000.00 grant per property. Top-up payments range from £463.87 to £2,656.87 (including VAT)
6.3. The realisation that some applicantsPage 16 will of need66 to make top-up payments to their £5,000 grant has already resulted in one customer deciding to reject the PLP option. If this applies to the other home owners then the goal of delivering PLP to a minimum of 50 residential properties might prove more difficult to achieve.
6.4. The other option available is to consider aggregating the total cost of delivering PLP to the 17 properties and averaging these out.
6.5. If aggregation is considered acceptable, the average cost to ECC for providing and paying for PLP to all 17 applicants (without the 8 having to make the top-up payments) comes to £4,760.18 per property (subject to final surveys)
6.6. However there are risks associated with the above approach. The average cost of £4760.18 per property to ECC is only possible because other properties surveyed do not require very costly PLP; this would not always be the case. There is also a danger of introducing inconsistencies and unfairness into the project, especially if the flexibility cannot be applied to other areas. And finally, there is a risk of cost overruns if the £5000 limit is not enforced.
6.7. For the reason stated above and also in order to ensure all applicants are treated fairly, it is recommended that the grant limit of £5000 per property should be maintained uniformly throughout the project.
6.8. Previously, Government PLP grant schemes were also set a £5000 per home threshold; hence this level of support is nationally viewed to be able to deliver what is required to protect a home from flooding.
7. Addressing applicants with previous PLP work
7.1. Two enquiries have come through to us regarding Essex residents who had some previous PLP work done on their property. The enquiry involved the possibility of reclaiming their costs through this Councils PLP grant scheme.
7.2. As the grants are not directly payable to individual applicants, the enquiries have been forwarded to the consultants. The applicants will now have their homes surveyed by an independent organisation.
7.3. Any additional action regarding these enquiries would be entirely dependent on the recommendations outlined in the property survey report which would be made available to the applicants. The grant was not set up to retrospectively cover the costs of properties already protected.
8. Managing the 16/17 PLP scheme
8.1. In response to the demand for the PLP grant, it is important this is increased to provide additional capacity to the 20 homes previously planned for in 2016/17. The plan is to increase the target threefold to protect at least 60 homes next year through the PLP grant. In order to do this, this will require a threefold increase in budget up from £100k of £300k, plus an increase in delivery costs associated with managing this.
8.2. These changes have now been incorporated into the PLP Grant Management specification and this has gone out to tender and we will should shortly know the costs of providing this element of the Flood Prevention Capital Programme in 2016/17.
8.3. A further update will be brought back to the Flood Board at the April 2016 meeting.
Page 17 of 66
Page 18 of 66 AGENDA ITEM 6 EFPB/2/16
Essex Flood Partnership Board Report: RFCC business 20 January 2016
Abbreviations: EA - Environment Agency LLFA - Lead Local Flood Authority RFCC - Regional Flood and Coastal Committee RMA - Risk Management Authority (See annex 1) SWMP - surface water management plans FCERM - Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management.
This is a standing item. It is to be noted that this Partnership Board update falls between the scheduled rounds of RFCC meetings. The next round is at the end of January 2016.
1. Strengthening partnership with RFCCs
The Chairman will welcome Paul Hayden, Chairman of Anglian Eastern RFCC to the meeting.
2. Developing the regional investment programmes
From November 2015 – January 2016, the overriding priority is the annual Local Levy setting. The current state of play is as follows:
The Anglian Eastern Local Levy was set at £2.891 million. That represents a 5% increase on last year. The Thames Local Levy was set at £10.922 million. That represents a 1.99% increase on last year. The Anglian Central Local Levy will be set in January. Options will be presented for a stay the same budget or a rise of up to 5%.
There is a broader intent to repeat any rises in each of six years of the investment programme, however, the committees will take an annual decision. RFCCs will consent the regional programmes for 16/17 at the end of January 2016.
RFCCs are being invited to build in a 10% over-programme to 2016/17 on schemes.
New projects added to the Thames programme include:
Harlow (Kingsmoor) Flood Alleviation Scheme 682,000 Harlow (Latton Bush) Flood Alleviation Scheme 350,000 Harlow (Stewards) Flood Alleviation Scheme 345,000 Harlow (Sumners Area) Flood Alleviation Scheme 335,000.
These echo intent in the relevant surface water management plan.
3. For the Partnership Board’s consideration
In order to inform RFCC members of the Partnership Board’s wishes, it is proposed that:
I. The Partnership Board considers the potential impacts of devolution on managing flood impacts and articulates this to the RFCCs.
Page 19 of 66 II. The Partnership Board keeps the RFCCs sighted of Essex schemes not seeking FDGiA for visibility of numbers of properties protected.
III. The Partnership Board shares any intelligence with their Chairman at the Partnership Board meeting on: Deliverability of the regional investment programmes. Any changes to local funding requested. This would enable the Chairman of the Partnership Board to have an informed overview of challenges and to relay any concerns through his own committee position on the Thames RFCC and other committee members at the January RFCC meetings.
4. Other RFCC business for noting
a. Previously in 2015, the Anglian Eastern RFCC received a paper on the ECC approach to managing flood impacts in 2015. In November 2015, the £19 million capital investment was duly noted by Thames RFCC committee members. Amanda Nobbs, Chairman, said our approach is ‘Very impressive, I commend it to everyone’.
b. The Thames RFCC received a presentation from the insurance industry in November 2015. They explained that each insurer will use the same flood base data but would have differing views of risk and pricing. They said that flood defence information is ‘patchy’. If shared with insurance companies, LLFAs’ information would pass a benefit to individuals. RFCC members noted that LLFA data is saleable as a revenue stream.
c. Both Thames and Anglian Eastern RFCCs consider that devolution proposals would have an impact on managing the impacts of flooding.
d. The Anglian Eastern RFCC received a presentation on the England Coast path in Essex in October 2016. Natural England would be writing to every local landowner affected by the proposals; and key stakeholders. Proposals will be made to the Secretary of State who will determine them. An appointed person adjudicates on any objections raised. They will decide whether to accept the proposals, with or without modifications. Once confirmed, the Secretary-of-State makes an order, and makes establishment works. The Access Authority is involved in this. Future maintenance will fall to the Access Authority – but Natural England grant aids it to 75% annually. Nb. The Essex Coastal Forum will take a keen interest in implementation of the path.
e. Working with Thames Water was a major item at the Thames RFCC meeting in November. There was a sense that now is the time to achieve a step change in collaborative working to achieve the potential gains. Opportunities include synergies in the current programme, planning ahead together and strengthening partnerships.
f. Defra held a workshop before the end of 2015 to consider actions for taking forward the conclusions of the legally required five year review of progress with Lead Local Flood Authority responsibilities under the 2010 Flood and Water Management Act.
g. In November 2015, the Thames RFCC discussed the need to get the sustainable drainage application in a development right first time, making pre-application advice and guidance critical. It should be about sharing best practice rather than setting standards across the piece (nationally). From research led by Surrey County Council, the ECC SuDS guidance was seen as good practice. It may be viewed via the weblink here. Page 20 of 66
h. Environment Agency Executive Directors have approved the adoption of HM Treasury Five Case business model for all flood management projects in a scalable and proportionate manner. The benefits arising from this change are: Business cases will be in line with Government best practice All projects will be presented in a consistent format It offers a simplified solution for smaller projects Adoption will lead to better business cases.
Annex 1: Essex Risk Management Authorities
The key stakeholders in Essex that have responsibilities around flooding are detailed below: Essex County Council (as Lead Local Flood Authority) Thurrock Council (as Lead Local Flood Authority) Southend-on-Sea Borough Council (as Lead Local Flood Authority) Anglian Water Thames Water Basildon Borough Council Brentwood Borough Council Chelmsford City Council Epping Forest District Council Maldon District Council Tendring District Council Neighbouring Lead Local Flood Authorities (Hertfordshire County, Cambridgeshire County and Suffolk County plus the London Boroughs of Havering, Redbridge, Waltham Forest and Enfield) Highways England Braintree District Council Castle Point Borough Council Colchester Borough Council Harlow District Council Rochford District Council Uttlesford District Council Environment Agency (Anglian and Thames Regions).
All of these authorities are known as ‘Risk Management Authorities’ under the 2010 Flood and Water Management Act and have the following duties: Duty to be subject to scrutiny from Lead Local Flood Authorities’ democratic processes. Duty to co-operate with other Risk Management Authorities in the exercise of their flood and coastal erosion risk management functions, including sharing flood risk management data. Power to take on flood and coastal erosion functions from another Risk Management Authority when agreed by both sides.
Page 21 of 66
Page 22 of 66 Report to: Essex Flood Partnership Report Reference number: Board EFPB/3/16 AGENDA ITEM 7
Date of report: 20/01/2016 County Divisions affected by the decision: All
Title of report: Publication of the Flood Risk Management Plan
Report by: Lucy Shepherd
Responsible Director: Andrew Cook
Enquiries to: Lucy Shepherd Lead Local Flood Authority Manager – 03330 1367742
1. Purpose of report
1.1. To provide the Essex Flood Partnership Board members with an update on the Anglian Flood Risk Management Plan (FRMP) on which they were consulted. This work has now been completed and the report published by Government on 22 December 2016, thereby fulfilling our legal requirements.
2. Recommendation
2.1 To receive the finalised FRMP report approved by the Essex Flood Partnership Board in January 2015, and published by Government.
3. Background
3.1. Essex County Council had a duty to produce a Flood Risk Management Plan (FRMP) by 22 December 2015 in accordance with the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and the Flood Risk Regulations 2009.
3.2. This requirement is due to the ‘South Essex’ area being designated as one of ten ‘Flood Risk Areas’ within the UK at significant risk of flooding from local sources (surface water, ground water and ordinary watercourses). The level of risk attached is support by the evidence derived from local sources (Surface Water Management Plans) which estimates 50,000 homes are at risk of flooding in Essex.
3.3. In August 2014 this Council agreed to produce a joint FRMP for the Anglian region in collaboration with the Environment Agency. Our joint FRMP covers all forms of flood risk and coastal erosion management for the Anglian Region (including input from other Lead Local Flood Authorities).
4. FRMP Objectives
4.1. The Environment Agency has social, economic and environmental objectives for 2015 to 2021 following discussion and consultation with other organisations and communities.
4.2. The actions in FRMPs are known as ‘measures’. These are specific projects or investigations to work towards achieving the objectives. They explain where and Page 23 of 66 how risk management authorities will focus effort and investment to reduce flood risk.
4.3. Measures within the FRMP fall into categories of preventing risk, preparing for risk, and protecting from risk.
4.4. Over the 6-year cycle, the Environment Agency will monitor the measures and report on progress. All the risk management authorities involved will work together to achieve the objectives and reduce costs, where possible.
5. Essex County Council role as the Lead Local Flood Authority
5.1. As part of this process ECC shared information and measures to tackle local flood risk from our Local Flood Risk Management Strategy, Surface Water Management Plans and the new Capital Flood Prevention Programme.
5.2. ECC contributed to the document content and jointly addressed comments and feedback on the Flood Risk Management Plan with Environment Agency colleagues.
5.3. ECC also formed part of the National Steering Group for Flood Risk Management Plans.
6. Partner and Public Engagement
6.1. Public consultation on the draft FRMP was undertaken 10 October 2014 to 31 January 2015. A response was submitted by ECC after this had been approved by the Essex Flood Partnership Board at their 13th January 2015 meeting.
6.2. In June 2015 the Environment Agency received the relevant form (Annex 1) which that confirmed that Essex County Council was satisfied that:
This Council had adequately discharged our duties under the Flood Risk Regulations 2009; Complied with Strategic Environmental Assessment relating to the preparation of the FRMP; Complied with Habitats Regulations Assessment relating to the preparation of the FRMP; Gained internal approval for shared information that covers the South Essex Flood Risk Area; The FRMP covering the South Essex flood risk area is approved for publication.
6.3. The FRMP will be shared with the Essex Flood Board at the 20 January 2016 meeting.
6.4. The Anglian FRMP was published on 22nd December 2015. This can be found via the following link www.essex.gov.uk/flooding .
7. Changes following consultation
7.1. The EA worked hard to improve the FRMP based on consultation comments and subsequent feedback received in June. Some of the main changes include: Page 24 of 66 reordering and dividing into 3 documents and making it more concise and accessible to the reader an executive summary recognising the significance to the risk of surface water by including a regional over view map of the risk of surface water alongside the regional stats table further information and clarity on SuDS and coastal erosion recognising the really good work IDBs do in managing risk we have also included Norfolk County Council and Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (LFRMS) actions and Thurrock Borough Council LFRMS actions in the Thames FRMP
8. Closing comments from the Environment Agency
8.1. The UK is already good at planning our flood risk activities and Essex County Council is at the forefront on this. The FRMP in part will help to bring the EU up to a common standard.
8.2. ECC have already done great work on their Local Flood Risk Management Strategy. The FRMP pulls all knowledge and information on flood and coastal erosion risk together to meet with the legislation.
8.3. Working collaboratively has saved time and money and we are very pleased with the productive input from ECC.
Page 25 of 66
Page 26 of 66
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY Item No: 8 Report No: EFPB/4/16 ESSEX NORFOLK & SUFFOLK AREA Meeting: Essex Flood Partnership Subject: Main River Variations Board
Date: 20 January 2016 Officers Graham Verrier (Area Responsible: Flood Risk Manager)
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Board is asked to :- A. note the Environment Agency’s role in maintaining the Main River Maps and the process followed. B. note the current river changes and reasons for these C. note the future changes for Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk
1. Purpose of report
1.1 This paper is to make the Board aware of the ongoing work of the Environment Agency (EA) team to maintain the Main River Maps. This paper will also make the Board aware of our future plans to work with others.
2. Background
2.1 The Environment Agency maintain the Main River Maps. We now hold an electronic main river map showing what rivers are “Main River” and within EA permissive powers and those that are not main river and therefore “Ordinary Watercourses” within the powers of the Local Authrity or if in an Internal Drainage Board (IDB) are under the IDB’s powers.
2.2 In the past we have maintained the maps as changes occure or small errors are found. Due to changes in who and how this is done we have not undertaken this task for a few years. Although we have kept track of changes that are needed.
3. Current changes
3.1 Although the final transfer from DEFRA to EA is still ongoing we have taken the decision to progress key changes to the Main River designations in agreement with our partners. These in brief are;
Canvey island has river designated as both; Main River and Sewer’s. This is not permitted and is an error that we have agreed with Anglian Water as being important to correct. Removing the Main River designation removes any confusion that could form regards responsibilities and make it clear for residents of Canvey. These changes have been published. In Norfolk, we have had a request for river to be demained so the IDB can take responsibility. In these areas we have agreed a small number of rivers to demain. In addition to the above there will be a number of small changes to correct the Main River maps.
Page 27 of 66
3.2 All changes agreed for Essex are presented in the attached Appendix for information. These will have no impact on our and others responsibilities and have all be consulted on previously.
4. The process
4.1 To change the designation of a river we previously undertook a regirous process to agree any changes through a number of steps with final DEFRA approval. This process has now transferred to the Environment Agency but there have been some delays with the transfer.
4.2 Regardless of the transfer from DEFRA we have taken the current changes through consultation internally and externally and these are now approved by the RFCC and EA’s FCRM Board. Once the issues of the transfer are resolved we expect the final approval to be given by the EA Board and the changes made.
5. Future Changes
5.1 It is important to note that with the exception of any corrections to the Main River maps all other changes have been undertaken in full consideration of other partners and with their agreement to either formalise what is already happening on the ground (i.e the Canvey changes) or to transfer responsibilities to another willing partner i.e the Norfolk changes within an IDB area.
5.2 We have had a further request from an IDB to take on significant lengths of main river. We are now looking to pilot this in Norfolk further but it is likly it will be restricted to Low Consequence (limited risk to people and property) lengths of river. These are rivers were we do minimum maintenance and will allow us to direct tax payers money and our resources to the highest priority areas.
5.3 DEFRA will be reviewing our work with Norfolk. We will keep this Board informed of any plans DEFRA has. However, it is important to note that we are not aware of any plans to demain rivers, unless there are willing partners.
Page 28 of 66
Main River Variations 2015 (Essex) Report – Version 1 10/11/15.
Page 29 of 66
We are the Environment Agency. We protect and improve the environment and make it a better place for people and wildlife. We operate at the place where environmental change has its greatest impact on people’s lives. We reduce the risks to people and properties from flooding; make sure there is enough water for people and wildlife; protect and improve air, land and water quality and apply the environmental standards within which industry can operate. Acting to reduce climate change and helping people and wildlife adapt to its consequences are at the heart of all that we do. We cannot do this alone. We work closely with a wide range of partners including government, business, local authorities, other agencies, civil society groups and the communities we serve.
Published by: Environment Agency Further copies of this report are available Horizon house, Deanery Road, from our publications catalogue: Bristol BS1 5AH www.gov.uk/government/publications Email: [email protected] or our National Customer Contact Centre: www.gov.uk/environment-agency T: 03708 506506
Email: [email protected]. © Environment Agency 2014 All rights reserved. This document may be reproduced with prior permission of the Environment Agency.
Page 30 of 66 2 of 20
Introduction
Flood risk management functions are determined in relation to the type of watercourse; the Environment Agency in England have powers for carrying out these functions on a Main River, Lead Local Flood Authorities (County and Unitary Local Authorities) have regulatory powers for those other watercourses (ordinary watercourses) lying outside of a drainage district. District Councils also have permissive powers for these watercourses. We have an ongoing program to maintain the Main River Map and this paper is highlighting the current variations. We undertake these to update date either agreed changes or to correct errors in the map. A change to previous Main River Variations is the new Water Bill has transferedthe responsibility from DEFRA to us for maintaining and changing our main river maps and to store the maps in an electronic format available to the public. Main Rivers are designated and marked as such on our Main River Map. We have a number of specific proposals for local amendments to the Main River maps which we have detailed in this report together with the reasons why we are making those amendments. The amendments relate to proposals to either; add sections of watercourse to the Main River maps (enmain), to remove sections of watercourse from the Main River record maps (demain) or finally, to amend the line of an existing Main River (alterations).
1 Changing the Main River map.
There are 2 reasons why the Environment Agency changes the main river map.
Designation changes This is where the designation of the river changes to or from a main river. This means there is a change in who has legal power to carry out flood risk management work.
Factual changes This is where the Environment Agency amends sections of the main river map to reflect changes in the environment or to correct inaccuracies. These changes only correct the line of the main river and do not change who has legal power to carry out flood risk management work.
Page 31 of 66 3 of 20
Stage Main River Programme Status
Completed 1 Initial Decision Making around a Change – (Internal October consultation) and main interested parties 2014 Completed 2 Digitising the main river map April 2015 Publishing notifications and consultations. We have published the proposed variations to the main river map and gave consideration to any representations. We ensured that we have taken reasonable steps to inform interested parties and members of the public. We met and discussed the variations with the Essex, Southend and Thurrock LLFA and consulted landowners and the public. We published all variation notices on the GOV.UK website.
During the pre–election period from 30th March to 7th May we were unable to consult externally and progress the variations. 3 This lengthened the timetable. Completed August 2015 The PSO Team produced advertising templates to highlight all variations for this year on our .GOV.UK website. These changes were advertised for 30 days on our website from the 13th July and during this period they were open for review and comment by all interested Partners and the Public.
After the 30 days the factual changes were signed off by our AFRCM Manager. The designation variations were, during the 30 days, also advertised more widely. We completed letter drops, Parish Council Notices meetings with landowners to advertise the changes. The changes were discussed and with RFCC. Overall there were no objections recorded or received.
4 The Determination Process The variations were sent to the FCRM Directorate for their review and approval in advance of a scheduled Environment October
Agency Board meeting. They approved the variations. 2015
We helped prepare papers for the next available EA Board meeting in February 2016.
Following EA Board approval we will publish a decision notice on the GOV.UK website allowing for any appeals period, April 5 publish the updated main river map. This is scheduled for May 2016 2016. Page 32 of 66 4 of 20
2 Canvey Island and Thameside Designations.
In addition to, and independently of, our Main River variation work we have agreed and negotiated with Anglian Water the transfer of ownership of the Main Rivers on Canvey Island that have dual classification as public sewers. A comparison of our main river records and existing as-built asset records where available, to the data held within Anglian Water’s (AW) online asset mapping system revealed that 11km of existing main river culverts in the Thameside patch are also designated as “public sewer”. 7.7km of these dual designations were identified on Canvey Island and 2.6km across the Thameside area were identified on former Critical Ordinary Watercourses (CoWS), for which we acquired the regulatory role in 2006.These changes were agreed after discussions with both Anglian Water’s and our Legal Teams. They have been corrected ahead of the Main River variations as public sewers legally can’t be classed as main rivers. These changes have now happened and updated maps were published on 29th May 2015.
Example of Labworth and Furtherwick Dyke (Canvey Island) which after negotiation this asset has been entered by Anglian Water into their current sewer rehabilitation programme.
`
Page 33 of 66 5 of 20
Appendix 1 Factual Variations
Number 1 Main River Gobions Sewer, London Gateway Port, Coryton Essex. Area Essex Norfolk and Suffolk Proposal Alteration Reason Gobians Sewer no longer exists as a passage for water on the current main river alignment as it was diverted to the south in the 1980s as part of the Mucking tip works. Consultation Supported by landowners and Thurrock LLFA following response consultation. Proposed The proposed determination is that we will correct the main determination river map between national grid reference (NGR) TQ6817279779 and NGR TQ6948079170. The watercourse is no longer considered as Main River and is deleted on the main river consultation map.
Consultation map New alteration: red line
Page 34 of 66 6 of 20
Number 2 Main River Grass Farm Delph Ditch, Wallasea Essex. Area Essex Norfolk and Suffolk Proposal Alteration. Reason The changes have been sought as this watercourse no longer exists as a consequence of managed realignment works which were carried out in advance of the large RSPB & Crossrail wetland habitat creation project at Wallasea Island.
Consultation After full negotiation the proposed alteration has been agreed. response
Proposed The proposed determination is that we shall correct the main determination river map: between national grid reference (NGR) TQ 95095 94926 and NGR TQ 96686 94681 (the Grass Farm Delph Ditch) between NGR TQ 95907 94842 and NGR TQ 96091 95082 (the Grass Farm Delph Ditch)
Consultation Map Alteration: red line
Page 35 of 66 7 of 20
Number 3 Main River Hadleigh Marsh Sewer, Hadleigh Essex. Area Essex Norfolk and Suffolk Proposal Alteration Reason Hadleigh Marsh Sewer no longer exists on the current main river alignment. The marsh drainage network was altered in the early 1980s and as a result this watercourse was lost, with drainage re-routed to the remaining drainage ditch behind the tidal defences. Consultation Supported by landowners and Essex LLFA following response consultation. Proposed The proposed determination is that we will correct the main determination river map between national grid reference (NGR) TQ8126185278 and NGR TQ8066484986. The watercourse is no longer to be considered as Main River and ‘deleted’ on the main river consultation map.
Consultation map New alteration: red line
Page 36 of 66 8 of 20
Number 4 Main River Hawkwell Brook, Hawkwell Essex. Area Essex Norfolk and Suffolk Proposal Alteration Reason The Main River record maps show the watercourse in the wrong location. This is due to historic river realignment works not shown in the existing Main River record maps. We are re- aligning the Main River line to the correct position, to the rear of the properties on the confluence with the Hockley Brook and River Roach. This will allow us to exercise our permissive powers under the Water Resources Act 1991 to be applied to the amended watercourse route. Consultation Landowners and residents were following fully consulted and response made aware of the alteration. Proposed The proposed determination is that we will correct the main determination river map between national grid reference (NGR) TQ 85664 91831 and NGR TQ 85757 91830. The correct main river route is marked as the red line which drains to the west and rear of the properties rather than the route in front of the properties which ends at the downstream of the culvert under Rectory Road.
Consultation map New alteration: red line
Page 37 of 66 9 of 20
Number 5 Main River Hawk Ditch, Essex Area Essex Norfolk and Suffolk Proposal Alteration. Reason The Main River record maps show incorrect positioning for the watercourse. The inaccurate mapping of Main River designation has been confirmed by CCTV on-site. The change means that the map will show the correct location of the watercourse. It does not change who has power to carry out flood risk management work on the watercourse. Consultation After full negotiation and advertisement the proposed alteration response has been agreed. Proposed The proposed determination is that we will correct the main determination river map between national grid reference (NGR) TQ 77624 94685 and (NGR) TQ 77686 94636.
Consultation map Alteration: red line
Page 38 of 66 10 of 20
Number 6 Main River Rawreth Brook, Rawreth Essex. Area Essex Norfolk and Suffolk Proposal Alteration Reason This section of watercourse is being altered as it no longer exists at the location shown on the current Main River record maps. A public sewer now takes the flow from the upstream section of open Main River watercourse along an alternative route before it discharges to a downstream section of open Main River Watercourse Consultation Landowners and residents and Risk Management Authorities response (RMA’s) and were fully consulted and made aware of the alteration. Proposed We will correct the main river map between national grid determination reference (NGR) TQ79799 91950 and NGR TQ 79783 91863.
Consultation map New alteration: red line
Page 39 of 66 11 of 20
Number 7 Main River West Thurrock Main Sewer, Essex. Area Essex Norfolk and Suffolk Proposal Alteration Reason West Thurrock Main Sewer was realigned in 2004 over a 350m length due to structural integrity concerns over culverts through which the watercourse used to drain. This factual amendment is required to correct the existing main river map.
Consultation Landowners and Risk Management Authorities (RMA’s) were response fully consulted and made aware of the alteration. Proposed The proposed determination is that we will correct the main determination river map between national grid reference (NGR) TQ5830176880 and NGR TQ5857076689.
Consultation map New alteration: red line
Page 40 of 66 12 of 20
Appendix 2 Designation Variations
Number 1 Main River Tributary of Benfleet Brook, South Benfleet Essex. Area Essex Norfolk and Suffolk Proposal Demain Reason Short stretch with predominantly local flood risks and no wider strategic benefits to retaining as main river. Consultation Support from local residents and landowners following letter response drop consultation. Proposed The tributary of Benfleet Brook between national grid reference determination (NGR) TQ7830086155 and NGR TQ7809186125, which is shown as a ‘demain’ on the main river consultation map, is no longer to be treated as part of a main river.
Consultation map Demain: red line
Page 41 of 66 13 of 20
Number 2 Main River Cabborns Farm Ditch, Stanford le Hope Essex. Area Essex Norfolk and Suffolk Proposal Demain Reason Became part of London Gateway Port’s surface water system and under their ownership. Consultation After full negotiation with the Port and landowners the response proposed demain has been agreed.
Proposed The Cabborns Farm Ditch between national grid reference TQ determination 6966080868 and TQ 6965981212, which is shown as a ‘demain’ on the main river consultation map, is no longer to be treated as a main river.
Consultation map Demain: red line
Page 42 of 66 14 of 20
Number 3 Main River Curry Marsh Sewer, Essex Area Essex Norfolk and Suffolk Proposal Deletion Reason Become part of London Gateway Port’s surface water system
Consultation After full negotiation with the Port the proposed deletion has response been agreed.
Proposed The Curry Marsh Sewer between national grid reference TQ determination 7222381390 and TQ 7220781444, which is shown as a ‘deletion’ on the main river consultation map, is no longer to be treated as part of a main river.
Consultation map Demain: red line
Page 43 of 66 15 of 20
Number 4 Main River Lathol Flood Sewer, London Gateway Port, Coryton Essex. Area Essex Norfolk and Suffolk Proposal Deletion Reason Become part of London Gateway Port’s surface water system Consultation After full negotiation with the Port the proposed deletion has response been approved.
Proposed The Lathol Flood Sewer between national grid reference determination (NGR) TQ 73631 81790 and NGR TQ 73652 81625, which is shown as a ‘deletion’ on the main river consultation map, is no longer to be treated as a main river.
Consultation map Deletion: red line
Page 44 of 66 16 of 20
Number 5 Main River Stanford Boundary Drain, Coryton, Essex. Area Essex Norfolk and Suffolk Proposal Demain Reason Low likelihood of flooding to people and property
Consultation The demaining and future responsibilities have been fully response agreed with all interested landowners including Natural England and London Gateway Port. Proposed The Stanford Boundary Drain between national grid reference determination (NGR) TQ 70623 81690 and NGR TQ 72424 83089, which is shown as a ‘deletion’ on the main river consultation map, is no longer to be treated as a main river.
Consultation map Demain: red line
Page 45 of 66 17 of 20
Number 6 Main River St Clares Sewer, East Tilbury Essex. Area Essex Norfolk and Suffolk Proposal Demain Reason Flood risk management works have altered drainage routes. The map change reflects this. Consultation Agreed with Thurrock Lead Local Flood Authority and local response landowners Proposed St Clares Sewer between national grid reference (NGR) determination TQ6903177848 and NGR TQ6977977696, which is shown as a ‘deletion’ on the main river consultation map, is no longer to be treated as a main river.
Consultation map Demain: red line
Page 46 of 66 18 of 20
3 Conclusion
The majority of the variations are factual and relate to updates of our records where they are currently incorrect. These changes will not impact on the Essex and Thurrock LLFA’s and other Risk Management Authorities (RMA’s). The Designation changes relate closely to the development of the new London Gateway Port which is being built at Coryton. These demained watercourses have been accepted as part of their riparian activities and will be well maintained into the future. The only notable demain is the small section of Benfleet Brook at South Benfleet which will be demained as the flood risk is localised and there is no benefit to maintain it as a Main River.
Author : Roger Webster Advisor Essex PSO Team.
Page 47 of 66 19 of 20
www.gov.uk/environment-agency
Lit code details to be inserted here Page 48 of 66 20 of 20
AGENDA ITEM 9 Report to Essex Flood Partnership Report Number EFPB/05/16 Board Date of meeting: 20 January 2016
Title of report: Scrutiny Report on Third Party Responsibilities and Flood Enforcement
Report prepared on behalf of County Councillor Simon Walsh, Chairman of the Place Services and Economic Growth Scrutiny Committee Enquiries to: Christine Sharland, Scrutiny Officer, Essex County Council Email: [email protected]
1. Purpose of report 1.1. To inform the Essex Flood Partnership Board about the publication of Scrutiny Report on ‘Third Party Responsibilities and Flood Enforcement in Essex’ that is the culmination of a detailed review by the County Council’s Place Services and Economic Growth Scrutiny Committee.
An Executive Summary of the Scrutiny Report is attached at the Appendix to this report, and a full version is published on the County Council’s website.
2. Recommendations 2.1. While the Scrutiny Report contains a number of recommendations (reproduced in full in the Executive Summary) that are directed to the County Council’s Executive, those recommendations do have wider ramifications for flood management in Essex and so are drawn for information to the Board’s attention.
3. Analysis 3.1. The Committee scrutinised the work undertaken by the County Council as both the Lead Local Flood Authority and Highway Authority in relation to third party responsibilities and flood enforcement.
3.2. The Scrutiny Report captures the partnership working that is taking place in Essex ranging from how different functions are working together within the County Council, to its relationship with districts and parish councils, to volunteers such as the Sturmer Flood Action Group and Essex Fire and Rescue Service, and ultimately those third parties who have responsibilities.
3.3. Aside from the findings of the review itself, it is hoped that it will be used as a valuable reference source to promote understanding about the way that flood enforcement is being taken forward in Essex. While its appendices set out much of the evidence that was collated, the main body of the report focuses
Page 49 of 66 upon the following themes:
Strategic framework, and the relationship between the County Council’s Local Lead Flood Authority and Highways Authority,
Operational matters, and
Public awareness.
3.4. The outcomes of the review have been shaped to some extent by the fact that the investigation co-incided with intense activity undertaken by those Teams engaged in flood management to implement new policies designed to provide clarity on how the County Council will use flood enforcement, and to work with partners to ensure that there is a consistent approach across Essex. Consequently the Scrutiny Committee’s recommendations focus upon monitoring the outcomes of current initiatives and the wider implications of the Council’s new responsibilities. In doing so it means that the Committee will be able to judge whether or not the Council’s intentions are being delivered, and where necessary suggest changes to the framework being put into place to promote flood alleviation.
.
4. Appendices and Links 4.1. Appendix 1 Executive Summary of the Scrutiny Report on Third Party Responsibilities and Flood Enforcement 4.2. Full version of the Scrutiny Report may be accessed via following hyperlink Committee Management Information System
Page 50 of 66 Scrutiny Improving public services
Scrutiny Report on Third Party Responsibilities and Flood Enforcement in Essex
Report by the Place Services and Economic Growth Scrutiny Committee
November 2015
Page 51 of 66 Page 52 of 66
2 Foreword
In order to ensure the County Council is suitably equipped to meet its new responsibilities for flood management, the Place Services and Economic Growth Scrutiny Committee established a small task and finish group to investigate this area further.
Much like flood water, this proved to be a fast moving topic, with new policies emerging as our work progressed. The group welcomed the opportunity to be consulted on these and to make contributions during their development.
In meeting with Lead Councillors, Council Officers and members of the public directly affected by flooding, the group concluded that much has already been achieved by the County Council. In particular that it was actively engaging with communities to enable self-help and with other Essex Local Authorities to develop a consistent approach to this area.
Although the County Council will not be able to stop the rain, it can act to mitigate the impact of severe flooding. We concluded that the Council was in a good position to help prevent the impact of flooding in the future.
This report draws together a number of strands, with recommendations focussing on reviewing outcomes of actions already in train. In doing so, I hope this report provides reassurance to the public that their Local Flood Authority, Essex County Council is well advanced in its planning and preparation, and that it is actively working with partners and communities to ensure minimal disruption from flooding occurs.
I would like to thank my colleagues, Councillor Graham Butland and Councillor Chris Pond for their participation as members of the task and finish group, and they join me in commending this report.
Simon Walsh Chairman of the Place Services and Economic Growth Scrutiny Committee
Page 53 of 66
3 Executive summary
Modern legislation means that Essex County Council has acquired increased responsibilities for flood management not least in its new role as a Local Lead Flood Authority (LLFA). Flooding is a popular topic that attracts public attention. It is not necessarily an easy topic to understand. However, given its importance as a new area of activity it was considered that scrutiny could provide valuable critical friend challenge to influence how flood management is implemented in Essex.
Flood management and highways matters fall within the remit of the Place Services and Economic Growth Scrutiny Committee. Its Members chose to focus a scrutiny review upon the preventative measures available to the County Council to enhance improvements in flood management across Essex, with particular emphasis upon the enforcement of third party responsibilities.
While the investigation was undertaken primarily by a task and finish group, the Committee was also engaged in some evidence gathering via briefings to ensure that Members acquired a more detailed understanding of the complex issues before final conclusions were reached.
Flooding itself is a part of the natural environment. It is not bound by administrative boundaries and therefore partnership working has to be fostered to deliver benefits in the way flooding is managed. This report sets out the partnership working that is taking place ranging from how different functions work together within the County Council, to its relationship with districts and parish councils, to volunteers such as the Sturmer Flood Action Group and Essex Fire and Rescue Service, and ultimately those third parties who have responsibilities.
There is no doubt that the report contains a lot of information, and aside from its findings it is hoped that it will be used as a valuable reference to promote understanding about the way that flood enforcement is being taken forward in Essex. The appendices set out much of the evidence provided by contributors, with a summarised version forming the main body of the report based upon the following themes that were used to plan the review itself:
• Strategic framework, and the relationship between the County Council’s Local Lead Flood Authority and Highways Authority (HA), • Operational matters, and • Public awareness.
The outcomes of the review have been affected by the fact that the Group’s investigation has co-incided with intense activity undertaken by those Teams engaged in flood management to implement new policies designed to provide clarity on how the County Council will use flood enforcement, and to work with partners to ensure that there is a consistent approach across Essex. The Group did have the opportunity to comment upon proposals before they were put into effect, and so the recommendations reached in this report focus upon monitoring the outcomes of current initiatives and the wider implications of the Council’s new responsibilities. In doing so it means that the Committee will be able to judge whether or not the Council’s intentions are being delivered, and where necessary suggest changes to the framework being put into place to promote flood alleviation.
Page 54 of 66
4 The Task and Finish Group submitted this scrutiny report to the full Committee on 26 November 2015 for its endorsement, and it was agreed to forward the following recommendations to the Council’s Cabinet:
1. That the Cabinet Member for Transport, Planning and Environment; Infrastructure; and Highways Delivery be advised that the Committee commends the LLFA and HA for the positive way that they are taking forward the County Council’s flood management role, and in particular the framework of preventative measures being developed as featured in this scrutiny report.
2. That the Cabinet Members for Transport, Planning and Environment; Infrastructure; and Highways Delivery be requested to provide progress reports to the Committee on the following matters in June 2016 so that the outcomes of the particular pieces of work identified can be reviewed:
(1) The Committee supports those projects such as the LLFA ‘Where does water go?’ that is assisting in the mapping of watercourses and the development of highways asset databases that will contribute to the creation of comprehensive records for more effective flood management across Essex in the future. An update is requested on the production of the databases that are being developed to enhance flood management. (2) Given the benefits that could accrue from the co-ordination of LLFA and HA activity, the Committee welcomes the steps taken so far to formalise flood enforcement activity. Nevertheless an update is sought on what outcomes may accrue as a result of the Teams working more closely together and the formal Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). (3) Given the implications for enhanced enforcement activity, the early success of the Maldon Highway Enforcement Pilot Project is welcomed by the Committee. Consequently when that Project is reviewed in early 2016 the Committee would wish to receive an update on any proposals that may be considered by the Cabinet Member for extending the project to other parts of the county, and its impact upon local flood alleviation.
3. That, in view of the links between flood management and planning that the review has highlighted, the Cabinet Member for Transport, Planning and Environment be recommended to engage Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) in the matter of:
·· raising the profile of surface water drainage in strategic planning and development management in the way that flood management and preventative measures are implemented across Essex; and ·· establishing the principle of seeking Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to address local flooding issues as appropriate eg ensure it is added to the strategic list for contributions.
The Cabinet Member is requested to provide the Committee with a response in April 2016.
Page 55 of 66
5 4. That the Cabinet be requested to provide the Committee with a briefing paper in Spring 2016 that explains how the County Council itself co-ordinates its own activities in order to identify and address overall infrastructure needs in Essex including flood risk management and preventative measures associated with new development. The Committee will provide a scoping document setting out the key questions that it will ask the Cabinet to address.
5. That the Task and Finish Group conduct a short supplementary scrutiny review of the IT and Communications support provided for the delivery of frontline flood management services using the website and social media, with the aim of reporting to the Committee early in the New Year.
Overall this scrutiny review has provided a glimpse of the positive stance that Essex County Council has adopted using its statutory and permissive powers to prevent and mitigate flooding across Essex.
The Committee has been impressed with the enthusiastic and professional approach taken by the Lead Local Flood Authority, and inter alia the Highways Authority, to embed good practice, share expertise, and engage with others. The Committee welcomed the way that the Teams who have contributed to the review are engaging with one another to ensure that the County Council is able to provide a coherent service to the public and other partners. Given the complex and cross cutting nature of flood management, it is providing a positive example of how services may be co-ordinated across teams to deliver both effective and efficient services to the public rather than working in isolation with the result that the organisation presents a fragmented picture to the community at large.
Ultimately an inquiry is only as sound as the evidence and support it receives, and in this case the Committee wishes to place on record its appreciation to all the professionals and volunteers who have contributed their expertise, time and interest to the consideration of third party responsibilities and flooding enforcement. In reaching its conclusions the Task and Finish Group considered carefully all the information it received as reflected in this report, and it is hoped that contributors will feel that the time they have given up to participate in the review has been worthwhile in supporting the development of flood management in Essex.
A copy of the committee’s full Scrutiny Report can be accessed via the following link.
Page 56 of 66
6 Page 57 of 66 CDS 146157 CDS This information is issued by Essex County Council, Corporate Law and Assurance Team You can contact us in the following ways:
By email: [email protected]
Visit our website: cmis.essex.gov.uk
By telephone: 03330 139 825
By post: D101 County Hall Chelmsford Essex CM1 1LX
Sign up to Keep Me Posted email updates on topics you want to hear about at essex.gov.uk/keepmeposted
Follow us on ECC_DemSer or Essex_CC
Find us on facebook.com/essexcountycouncil
The information contained in this leaflet can be translated, and/or made available in alternative formats, on request.
Published November 2015
Page 58 of 66 Report to: Report Number: Essex Flood Partnership Board EFPB/6/16 AGENDA ITEM 10 Date of report: 20/01/2016 County Divisions affected by the decision: All Title of report: Flood Partnership Grant Applications - 2015/16
Report by: Lucy Shepherd Lead Local Flood Authority Manager and Oladipo Lafinhan Flood Partnerships Funding Co-ordinator. Head of Service: Graham Thomas Head of Planning & Environment
Enquiries to: Lucy Shepherd Lead Local Flood Authority Manager - 03330 136742
1. Recommendations
1.1 It is recommended the schemes identified as “green” in the Appendix be supported through the allocation of Partnership Grant in 2015/16, these being: The Essex Fire & Rescue Service Sturmer Flood Action Group Chelmsford City Council
1.2 For those schemes identified as “amber” in the attached Appendix, further work is required to either refine the bid, or apply for the Partnership Grant either next year or the year preceding year when the flood alleviation scheme is to be delivered.
1.3 Those schemes identified as “red” in the attached Appendix are not supported, as they do not align with the objectives of the Partnership Grant and/or there are more suitable alternative sources of funding available.
2. Background
2.1 Essex County Council agreed in August 2015 to set-a-side £400k of its Flood Prevention Capital Programme to provide a Partnership Programme Grant for other local authorities, businesses, landowners and partner organisations who are committed to delivering flood prevention schemes in the year the grant offer is made available.
2.2 The Council launched the Partnership Grant funding opportunity in September 2015 and set up a web-page (figure 1 below illustrates). The Council invited applications from a wide range of organisations including:
Town and Parish Councils District, Borough and City Councils Community groups The Environment Agency Water supply and sewerage companies (Anglian Water, Affinity Water, Thames Water and Essex and Suffolk Water) Essex Highways Essex Fire and Rescue Service Voluntary Organisations, Charities and Conservation Bodies Other interested organisations in Essex Page 59 of 66 3. Applications Received
3.1 The deadline for applications was set as 1 December 2015. In total we received ten expressions of interest.
3.2 All applications were discussed at the 10th December Flood Commissioning Officer Group (COG). The Appendix to this report provides a list of the applications received, and the consideration of the COG meeting, which has assisted with the formulation of decisions recommended to this Board.
3.3 Applications have been assigned as either red/amber/green (RAG) categories. In addition, those applications identified as amber may be appropriate for grant support at a future date, subject to further revision and/or discussion at the Essex Flood Partnership Board.
Figure 1 ECC launched the Partnership Programme Grant online
4. Common issues
4.1 A number of the grant applications submitted considered fluvial or tidal flood management proposals. Alternative regional government budgets are available for the purpose of managing these sources of flood risk; accessing this funding should be discussed with the local Environment Agency office.
4.2 Some applicants bid for what ‘revenue’ funding rather than ‘capital’ is funding. On this basis, unfortunately the Partnership Grant cannot support these proposals, given that this is a capital budget allocation.
4.3 Other applications were looking to repair or improve the Essex Highways assets. Again there are other sources of funding that would more appropriately be sought to remedy these issues.
4.4 By sharing these applications with the Essex Flood Partnership Board, it is our intention that any schemes the Partnership Grant is unable to support, it will have received the air of publicity which other lead partners will be able to help support.
Page 60 of 66 APPENDIX 1 – Summary of Partnership Programme Grant Applications received 12/23/2015
Applicants Scheme(s) Flood risk Delivery Costs (£) ECC Risk Factor (L: Low; Notes Recommendations
source year funding M: Medium and H: requeste High) d (£) Essex Fire and 1. 5 Water Surface 2015-16 37,000 30,000 L (funding secured, Water Gate Barriers can It is recommended that the Rescue Service Gate water (+1,350) minimal be deployed during Water Gate barriers should Barriers maintenance flooding episodes to be funded. Although Essex 2. Flood required and ECC minimize risk to Fire Service have revised the Alleviation contributions residents. quantity of barriers Equipment would be utilised in Flood alleviation requested (now 20) and this 3. Flood Alert the current equipment will help in additional request also signs for financial year) delivering the current includes Pumps, Generators motorists county-wide programme and Lighting and of works (county-wide The funding of the Flood Alert pedestrians maintenance exercises on signs for motorists cannot go deployable ditches and ordinary ahead until Essex Fire and in two watercourses with Rescue Service reach an locations reported flood incidents) accord with Essex Highways. Application for flood The funding of the Flood warning signs includes Alleviation Equipment for evidence of avoidable volunteer flood works cannot instances of EFRS be funded presently as this personnel rescuing equipment has been people who have driven classified as a revenue into flood waters purchase. Mersea Harbour Mersea Storm 2017-19 600,000 327,000 H (funding from Mudflat recharge This project cannot be Protection Trust Harbour surge tide other sources have material to be obtained funded at this time for the Protection not been secured, from Harwich Harbour following reasons; there is no Project Mersea Harbour Authority dredging clear funding plan for the (Recharging Trust’s contribution activities scheme, scheme start date is eroded marsh mainly in the form Other risks include the not clearly defined and the lands and of in-kind volunteer need for planning nature of the flood risk is mudflats at contributions, permission, consents and tidal; responsibility for this Parking Marsh, project start date is licenses from the Marine falls beyond our remit as Cobmarsh, Old only provisional Management LLFA. Hall and and is highly Organisation, Natural Tollesbury dependent on HHA England, EA, Local Wick) capital dredge Planning Authority, programme) Crown Estate, Admiralty and landowners Besides residential properties, there are also various local commercial properties and activities at risk as well as over 700 Ha of international nature conservation area at risk in this location JW and FD Eagle Naze 2065 Tidal 2016-20 1,185,150 50,000 H (heavily There are potential This project cannot be Flood Flooding dependent on environmental benefits funded at this time for the Protection funding from The project sponsors are following reasons; there is no (rebuilding a Anglian Water, actively seeking funding clear funding plan for the sea wall) there are no and partnership scheme, scheme start date is residential agreements from the EA, not clearly defined and the properties at risk, AW, Essex Wildlife Trust nature of the flood risk is an AW facility and and Natural England tidal; responsibility for this farmlands are at Need for planning falls beyond our remit as risk and project permission from Natural LLFA. start date is England and the EA currently unknown) Plans to submit a planning application for the works at the end of 2016 Construction is scheduled to be completed in 2020 Rayleigh Town Lower Wyburns Fluvial N/A N/A N/A H (No project start I spoke to the applicant Funds cannot be provided for Council Wood Flooding dates, no funding and they have confirmed this project as not enough plans and no they are still seeking information was provided preferred options funding for an appraisal. I with the application; delivery were outlined in have recommended PLP to year is unknown, project the application) the applicant. costs and grant contribution are also unknown.
Page 61 of 66 APPENDIX 1 – Summary of Partnership Programme Grant Applications received 12/23/2015
Chelmsford City Surface 2015-16 140,000 70,000 M (preferred Anglian Water funding It is recommended that this Council Telford Place Water option currently secured project should be funded as Soak away being modified, Remaining Funds to be the flooding problem is as a (building a new Anglian Water secured from residents result of surface water; the off-site soak making a 25% via a recharge from a location is in CDA (CHE8), away within the contribution but Building Act notice funding is secured from public open this is contingent There is active Anglian Water and the space opposite on ECC making a engagement with the 17 residents and the scheme 29 Telford 50% contribution) property owners start date is within the Place, and The location is in a CDA current financial year. pumping water (CHE8) from the existing soak away) Alphamstone Culvert Repair Fluvial 2015-16 570 570 M (evidence linking There are no other sources The project cannot be and Lamarsh (Concreting the problem to of funding funded at this time as this is Parish Council sides and the property flooding is a problem to be resolved by bottom of the anecdotal) Essex Highways culvert, which is on the junction of Henry Road and Alphamstone Road, to try to keep it clear and in good working order)
Maldon District North Fluvial 2016-19 8,000,000 1,200,000 H (Main Earliest start date is June This scheme cannot be Council Heybridge FAS and funding,S106 2016 and this is subject to funded for a number of (Attenuation Pluvial contribution from planning approval and reasons; the delivery date is and diverting developers, has not £400,000 is being sought not defined, funding has not overland been secured, MDC from ECC per year from been secured and more surface water are not making any 2015 to 2018 importantly, the proposed run-off financial scheme will attenuate and flowpaths and contribution to the divert surface water flows, in-channel scheme and EA but these surface water flows from funding has not flows and runoff will be three been secured) originating from a planned watercourses major development in North and re-routing Heybridge. Therefore it is the discharge appropriate for the to the tidal developers and the Local River Chelmer Planning Authority to come upstream of to an arrangement on how to Maldon and fund the North Heybridge Heybridge) FAS. Sturmer Flood Surface 2016-17 4,300 4,000 M (evidence linking Application made to the The culvert jetting component Action Group Water Lane Water problem to Parish Council for a of this project cannot be Culvert (Clear property flooding is minimum contribution of funded from the grant as this culvert through anecdotal) £500 is an issue for Highways. jetting and Repeated requests to However the ditch reinstating reinstating a Highways to undertake this component can be funded. ditch to allow work culvert function This scheme has been properly) included in the EFRS flood maintenance works Essex Highways 10 county-wide Surface 2016- N/A N/A H (incomplete Working with Essex These schemes cannot be SWAS schemes water 2020 information Highways to obtain data funded because there is not provided regarding relating to flood currently enough information number of houses frequency, flood duration, to establish whether these flooded and no internal flooding , flood problems are solely for information on problem and remedial Highways to resolve or if they delivery timeline) work are areas of overlap between Highways and Flood and Water Management Environment Coggeshall, Fluvial 2016-17 4,567,000(t N/A H (preferred option This scheme cannot be Agency Kelvedon and and he highest has not been funded as the EA have not Feering Flood Surface cost from selected, Project prepared a final business Alleviation Water all options Appraisal not case for the scheme and Scheme Flooding being complete and there there is no preferred option. appraised) is no project timeline)
Page 62 of 66 Report to: Reference number: Essex Flood Partnership Board EFPB/7/16 AGENDA ITEM 12 Date of report: 20/01/2016 County Divisions affected by the decision: All Title of report: Capturing the Economic Benefit of Local Flood Alleviation Schemes
Report by: Lucy Shepherd Lead Local Flood Authority Manager and Oladipo Lafinhan Flood Partnerships Funding Co-ordinator Head of Service: Graham Thomas Head of Planning & Environment
Enquiries to: Lucy Shepherd Lead Local Flood Authority Manager 0333 136742
1. Purpose of report
1.1. At the 1 October 2015 Essex Flood Partnership Board meeting concern was raised regarding lack of analysis in terms of the economic/business/infrastructure benefit of flood prevention schemes in Essex.
1.2. Reference was made to work that has been undertaken in this field by Salford University and the London School of Economics. It was agreed that this matter would be looked into and that a report would be prepared for the January 2016 Board meeting.
2. Recommendation
2.1. The Chairman of the Essex Flood Board writes to Sir James Bevan Chief Executive of the Environment Agency, to request further economic analysis is undertaken on the local economic/business/infrastructure benefit of localised flood prevention schemes. And that a localised methodology be developed and applied to localised flood prevention schemes.
3. Salford University & London School of Economics Feedback
3.1. Following the Board meeting, contact was made with Salford University and London School of Economics. Unfortunately neither responded to the initial request.
3.2. Further to our initial enquiries, a second attempt provided comments from Salford University, whilst the London School of Economics have not responded to date.
3.3. Salford University recommended that we research a case study example. Dr. Bingunath Ingirige PhD, MBA (AIT), BSc (Hons), MRICS, PGCert, FHEA Senior Lecturer and Director, Centre for Disaster Resilience said:
‘I am not aware of a detailed study being undertaken in Salford that relate to your request. However, as part of the new flood basin that is being constructed on the Irwell… the economic cost of flooding would have been considered as part of the cost benefit analysis for that project in obtaining funds. Either Cllr Derek Antrobus who chairs the Salford flood forum (Salford City Council) or the Environment Agency (Warrington) could give more details on this subject’. Page 63 of 66
3.4. We have subsequently contacted the Salford Flood Forum and will pursue further information.
4. Engagement with Middlesex University
4.1. The Flood Team have been in discussion with the Flood Hazard Research Centre (FHRC) at Middlesex University for a number of months. Middlesex provide national training on the Environment Agency Flood Benefits Appraisal procedures, so are well versed in the issues faced by Local Flood Risk Management Authorities.
4.2. Discussions with Middlesex University entailed making enquiries about ways in which “local benefits” could be best captured in a flood benefits appraisal business case. Damon Owen, one of the Facilitators and authors of the FHRC course: An Introduction to Flood Benefits Appraisal, responded to our enquiry:
‘We are currently discussing this topic within the Centre (FHRC) and are planning to run courses on local (financial) benefits early next year. These will probably be half-day in Birmingham or London and will cover partnership funding, financial versus economic damages, indirect business losses, GVA etc.’
4.3. One of our Critical Drainage Areas (CDAs), Watery Lane, identified within the South Essex Surface Water Management Plan has been put forward to the University as a possible case study for the course. We are still awaiting confirmation from the University regarding this.
4.4. Dr Simon McCarthy, another facilitator and authors of the FHRC course: An Introduction to Flood Benefits Appraisal has suggested that the FHRC could arrange for a course on Local Benefits of FRM schemes for officers from Essex County Council, Suffolk County Council, Norfolk County Council, Thurrock and Southend and the EA. This suggestion has also been raised with the Environment Agency. This has merit in running a regional programme of training, subject to sufficient take- up and funding available. There is merit in seeking bespoke training for LLFA’s.
5. Environment Agency advice on Outcome Measures
5.1. Outcome Measures (OMs) for Flood and Coastal Flood Risk Management are used by DEFRA to ensure that public money, allocated through Flood Defence Grant in Aid (FDGiA), is effective at delivering benefits.
5.2. There are 3 Outcome Measures that influence the amount of national funding available to a project; the number of homes moved from one flood risk level (probability) to another (OM2), number of homes better protected from erosion risk (OM3) the value of other benefits achieved (OM1) and the environmental benefits of the scheme (OM4).
5.3. If a Risk Management Authority is delivering a scheme where benefits arising are not valued and paid for under OMs 2, 3 and 4 they can be financially supported/rewarded under OM1.
Page 64 of 66 5.4. Payments under OM1 recognise the value of these benefits to the wider community as well as to the individual parties concerned. The assessment of benefits should be proportionate to the investment being considered but may include residential property (not counted under OM2 or 3), non-residential property (buildings, contents and disruption), civic property (buildings/contents and disruption to hospitals, schools and local government), agricultural property (land, buildings, plant, production and drainage), communications (roads, rail and telecoms), utilities (gas, electricity, water) public health (including fatalities, distress and impact on education).
6. Why is Outcome Measure 1 (OM1) Challenging for LLFA’s?
6.1. The Cost Benefits Analysis (CBA) undertaken for payments under OM1 measures are determined from a national perspective, this informs funding from the Exchequer. As noted in the Multi-Coloured Manual, as a result of Partnership Funding, project appraisal should be prepared from two perspectives
A CBA undertaken from a national perspective (OM1 Measures, Economic CBA)
A CBA undertaken from the perspective of the local economy and local funding streams which may be available (Financial CBA).
6.2. This is better illustrated in the Multi-Coloured Manual. The new Multi-Coloured Manual is produced by the Flood Hazard Research Centre at Middlesex University, in collaboration with the Environment Agency and Defra. It provides theoretical underpinning of the methodology for use in the assessment of schemes and policies. Additionally, it explains the limitations and complications of Benefit-Cost Analysis to inform decision-making on investment in river and coastal risk management:
‘In a national economic efficiency CBA we are only concerned with the net value of impacts on society or the nation. So when floods cause retail outlets in a town to be closed for a week so that they lose business, this is not counted as an economic loss to the nation. This is because shoppers will transfer their purchases to alternative flood-free retail outlets i.e. the loss is compensated by a gain and the net effect on the national economy is either zero or close to zero. Technically, there may be a small national economic loss in this example if shoppers have to travel further to alternative retail outlets (i.e. more time will be used and extra travel costs are incurred). However, in a local economic benefit analysis the negative effects of floods i.e. the losses experienced by flooded retail outlets, are counted as a loss irrespective of whether other shops gained as a result of the flooding. Here the measure of the loss is a financial one and this is why this kind of analysis is sometimes referred to as a ‘financial’ analysis in comparison to the ‘economic’ analysis undertaken from a national perspective.’
6.3. As a result the benefits of flood risk management are of two basic types:
The flood damages or losses which will be avoided by a flood risk management project (captured in OM1 scores)
The new investment that will be attracted to a local economy as a result of a FRM investment that would otherwise not have occurred (this is of Page 65 of 66 significance to local partners who would be crucial to any partnership funding efforts)
6.4. The question raised at the last Essex Flood Partnership Board meeting regarding economic appraisal comes from a local partnership funding context. At the moment, LLFAs cannot approach local partners with a business case based on OM1, 2, 3 and 4 scores. This is because, as demonstrated above, OM1 measures only examine costs and benefits of FRM schemes from a national perspective, whilst local partners whom the LLFAs have to approach, examine costs and benefits from a local perspective based on their economic interests.
6.5. The challenge the County Council faces is how to incorporate the requirements of potential local partners in any business case for Environment Agencies grants, when using their national benefit assessment and funding formula.
6.6. Officers have held discussions relating to this subject matter with both the local and regional officers of the Environment Agency. However it is clear there is no flexibility within the existing guidance. Since this is a National evaluation approach, we recommend the Board writes to Sir James Bevan the Chief Executive of the Environment and/or Elizabeth Truss MP Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to request further economic analysis is undertaken on the local economic/business/infrastructure cost and benefit of local flood prevention schemes.
Page 66 of 66