Woodford cum Membris

Neighbourhood Development Plan

COMMENTS FORM The Woodford cum Membris Neighbourhood Development Plan has been submitted to District Council. The District Council is now required to consult on the plan and will be doing so for a period of 8 weeks. The Plan and supporting documents are available to view electronically at: https://www.daventrydc.gov.uk/living/planning-policy/neighbourhood- planning/submitted-neighbourhood-plans/

Hard copies of the documents are available to inspect at Council’s Lodge Road Offices, Library on School Street and the Co-operative supermarket on Phipps Road.

This consultation seeks your views on whether the Woodford cum Membris Neighbourhood Development Plan meets the basic conditions1 which are that the plan; • Must be appropriate having regard to National Policy • Must contribute to the achievement of sustainable development • Must be in general conformity with the strategic policies in the development plan for the local area • Must be compatible with human rights requirements • Must be compatible with EU obligations

All comments received will be sent to an independent examiner who will examine the plan. If the examiner determines that the plan meets the basic conditions then a referendum shall be held on whether to ‘make’ the Neighbourhood Plan. The consultation period starts on Monday 14th August 2017 and closes at 5pm on Monday 9th October 2017.

How to submit your comments Comments can be submitted via the following: • Email: [email protected] • Post: Local Strategy, Daventry District Council, Lodge Road, Daventry, NN11 4FP (Please ensure that there is sufficient time to guarantee delivery to our offices by the closing date for comments)

Completing the comments form There are two parts to this comment form: • Part A: Personal /Agent contact details • Part B: For Comment

Contact Details If you have any questions, comments or queries please contact us using the details below: Local Strategy: Telephone: 01327 302559 Email: [email protected] Address: Local Strategy, Daventry District Council, Lodge Road, Daventry, NN11 4FP

1 http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/neighbourhood-planning/the-basic- conditions-that-a-draft-neighbourhood-plan-or-order-must-meet-if-it-is-to-proceed-to-referendum/ Part A: Contact Details 1 Contact Details: We need your contact details to take your comments into account. Agent (if applicable)

Title Mr

First Name Simon

Last Name Andrews

Job Title (where Strategic Planning Manager relevant) Organisation (where DLA Town Planning relevant) Email (if provided we will always contact you this way) Address 5 The Gavel Centre, Porters Wood

City/Town St Albans

County Herts

Postcode AL3 6PQ

Telephone Number

Part B: Comments on the Neighbourhood Plan Please note all comments will be made publically available. If you do not have sufficient space on this page please use duplicate pages of this part of the form - Part B. The majority of examinations are expected to be carried out through written representations. However the Independent Examiner will decide the appropriate 1. measure based on the representations received and will decide whether or not there is a need for a hearing to take place. If a hearing is necessary please indicate whether or not you would like to participate. No, I do not wish to participate in a X Yes, I wish to participate in a hearing O O hearing

Would you like to be notified of Daventry District Council’s decision to ‘make’ the 2. Woodford cum Membris Neighbourhood Development Plan? OX Yes O No

To which part of the Neighbourhood Plan does this representation relate? For 3a example page, paragraph, policy, map? Infrastructure section

3b Please indicate which of the following apply to your representation O Supporting OX Objecting

Please provide reasons for your answer to 3b. Please be mindful that any objections should refer to why the Neighbourhood Plan does not meet the Basic Conditions. 3c

If you are objecting please also set out what changes you consider are necessary to ensure the plan meets the Basic Conditions. In summary, the Neighbourhood Plan needs to have a policy or strategy to deliver flood management infrastructure in the parish. Such a policy/strategy is encouraged in the NPPF and would lead to the creation of sustainable development. Without this policy/strategy the plan does not adequately respond to the NPPF and misses an opportunity, not only to deliver new sustainable development, but also to make the existing development more sustainable.

Pool Farm Field is located off Farndon Road on the western edge of Hinton. Over the last year or so, DLA Town Planning and the owners of Pool Farm Field have been in discussions with the Flood and Water Management Team at County Council about the ongoing flood alleviation project for Woodford Halse and Hinton. The villages have suffered a number of flood incidents in recent years and the County Council has set up a project specifically to look at solutions around Woodford Halse and Hinton and how these might be delivered (see attached report). One of the options recently consulted on involves land at Pool Farm Field being used to store flood water and release it back into the system gradually. This would help ease pressure on the current culvert, which has been the cause of some of the local properties being flooded.

At present, there is no identified source of funding to deliver any of the flood alleviation schemes considered and the County Council’s report concludes that the prospect of securing public sector funding is remote. Developer funding as part of residential development is one option that was considered in the NCC report and found to be the only realistic prospect for delivering the flood management infrastructure that the village needs.

An indicative scheme has been drawn up for a modest residential development at Pool Farm Field that delivers a flood storage area large enough to protect properties downstream (see attached).

The NPPF encourages a proactive approach to mitigate and adapt to climate change, taking full account of flood risk (para 94). Paragraph 100 encourages “using opportunities offered by new development to reduce the causes and impacts of flooding” and paragraph 156 encourages strategies for the delivery of infrastructure, including flood infrastructure. While this advice primarily relates to Local Plans it is equally relevant to Neighbourhood Plans.

We recognise that the village has seen a large development recently off Byfield Road and there may not be an appetite locally for more development. On this basis, we haven’t pushed the Neighbourhood Plan to allocate this site for development. Nevertheless, flooding is a big issue for the village and delivering flood management infrastructure is something the Neighbourhood Plan could have engaged with more positively. Despite the County Council’s involvement, there is no realistic prospect of delivering the infrastructure needed and the Neighbourhood Plan should have considered alternative methods of delivery. We recommend a criteria-based policy within the Neighbourhood Plan that provides a framework for considering development proposals that deliver new flood management infrastructure.

Policy WH12a – Delivery of Flood Management Infrastructure The provision of new flood management infrastructure in the parish will be supported subject to other policies in this Neighbourhood Plan. Where enabling development is required to deliver new flood management infrastructure, this will be considered in line with WNJCS policy R1 and will need to demonstrate: • That the flood management infrastructure to be delivered is needed and will provide benefits to the community; • That the enabling development is required and that there are no other realistic forms of funding; and • That the scale of development is in proportion to the scale of infrastructure delivery.

Our representations to the draft Plan consultation in November 2016 sought this type of policy approach. The response set out in the Consultation Statement acknowledges that flood risk is an issue but relies on the NPPF and WNJCS Policy BN7 to deal with it. While Policy BN7 seeks to prevent any worsening of flood risk, it does not address the proactive delivery of new flood infrastructure. In our view the proposed policy would be a better reflection of the NPPF’s approach to flooding and would deliver the sustainable development required of Neighbourhood Plans.

IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO MAKE PLEASE USE THE RELEVANT SECTIONS ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE.

Additional Comments

To which part of the Neighbourhood Plan does this representation relate? For 4a example page, paragraph, policy, map?

4b Please indicate which of the following apply to your representation O Supporting O Objecting

Please provide reasons for your answer to 4b. Please be mindful that any objections should refer to why the Neighbourhood Plan does not meet the Basic Conditions. 4c

If you are objecting please also set out what changes you consider are necessary to ensure the plan meets the Basic Conditions.

IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO MAKE PLEASE USE ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS PAGE. Woodford Halse and Hinton Flood Alleviation Scheme v1.0 Outline Business Case – Summary Report 10/03/2017

Woodford Halse and Hinton Flood Alleviation Scheme Outline Business Case – Summary Report

The Woodford Halse and Hinton community was identified by Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) as a community in need of further investigation to determine whether there is a feasible solution available to resolve the reported flood risk issues in the community. NCC has been working with technical experts WSP | Parsons Brinckerhoff (WSP|PB), who have undertaken a technical analysis of why the community floods and what could be done to reduce the impact of flooding. This report is a summary of the Outline Business Case report prepared by WSP|PB, which assesses the costs and benefits of the potential options for alleviating the flood risk issues in Woodford Halse and Hinton. The aims of this summary report are to:  Provide a summary of the work undertaken to date and inform community members of the outcomes of the project; and  Be used as a basis for further consultation, discussion, acceptance and agreement of the proposed way forward and funding options.

1. Summary of Flood Risk Issues in Woodford Halse and Hinton There is a long history of flooding to both Woodford Halse and Hinton. The main source of flooding to the community is from surface water flooding, where intense rainfall lands on already saturated land and flows overland causing flooding. These flow paths form across the agricultural land that surrounds both Woodford Halse and Hinton, and once the water reaches the community, generally follows the local highway network. There is also a risk of river flooding to some areas of Woodford Halse from the River . In Woodford Halse, the junction between Byfield Road and Scrivens Hill has been identified as having a particularly high risk of flooding. This is a result of the watercourse that flows south to north through the agricultural land, which is culverted under Byfield Road. The opening to the culvert under the road blocks during heavy rainfall incidents, which causes water levels to rise and flood properties. Internal flooding to properties has also been reported in the vicinity of Cobley Close. It is understood that following heavy rainfall, overland flow from agricultural land and the highway network is unable to enter an existing culvert and instead flows towards the properties. In Hinton, there are two areas where properties have been flooded internally, from the watercourse that runs south through Hinton as well as from surface water runoff. These areas are situated in the vicinity of Pool Street in the south and Upton Close in the north. In both locations, it is understood that the flooding is exacerbated by blockage of the culverts in which the watercourse needs to flow.

2. Developing outline options Following a site visit, the project team developed a range of options that could help alleviate the flooding to the community. Many of these options were considered to potentially be unfeasible due to technical difficulties such as land levels or potential for significant costs

1

Woodford Halse and Hinton Flood Alleviation Scheme v1.0 Outline Business Case – Summary Report 10/03/2017 that would outweigh the benefits. None of the options were initially ruled out, to ensure that a full and open discussion with the community could be had by looking at all issues and opportunities. Only an outline analysis of the options was undertaken and therefore no costs or benefits were assessed at this early stage of the project. The options are presented on the enclosed maps. The eight options developed for Woodford Halse are: W1. Construction of a ditch along the southern and eastern boundary of the dwellings on Cobley Close, to divert runoff away from the properties. W2. Creation of a large flood storage area in the agricultural land to the south of the school and Scrivens Hill, to reduce flooding at Scrivens Hill. W3. Construction of a flood storage area directly upstream of the culvert under Byfield Road/Scrivens Hill, adjacent to the school to reduce flooding at Scrivens Hill. W4. Improvements to the culvert running underneath Byfield Road/Scrivens Hill, to reduce the risk of the culvert blocking and flooding at Scrivens Hill. W5. Property Level Resilience to properties on Byfield Road and Scrivens Hill. W6. Installation of non-return valve on the outfall of the culvert into the River Cherwell, to ensure that the river doesn't flow back up the culvert when river levels are high. W7. Diversion of the River Cherwell north of Scrivens Hill to reduce the risk of river flooding at Scrivens Hill. W8. Creation of flood storage area in the agricultural land to the east of Scrivens Hill, to reduce the risk of flooding at Scrivens Hill. The eight options developed for Hinton are: H1. Creation of a flood storage area on the agricultural land adjacent to Pool Farm Court, to reduce the risk of flooding at Pool Farm Court and Pool Street. H2. Creation of a flood relief channel along the western boundary of Hinton past Pool Farm Court, to flow into a new culvert along Pool Street, to reduce the risk of flooding at Pool Street. H3. Improvements to the drainage infrastructure along Farndon Road, Hinton Road and Pool Street, to reduce the risk of flooding to roads and properties in this area. H4. Creation of a flood storage area north of the ongoing development above Upton Close, to reduce the risk of flooding to Upton Close. H5. Daylighting/opening/widening of the culvert/channel running through Hinton, to reduce the risk of flooding to properties along the watercourse. H6. Creation of a flood storage area on the agricultural land to the west of Farndon Road, to reduce the risk of flooding at Pool Street. H7. Creation of a balancing pond/flood storage area associated with potential development of agricultural land adjacent to Pool Farm Close, to reduce the risk of flooding at Pool Farm Court and Pool Street. H8. Property Level Resilience for properties on Upton Close.

3. Community engagement – visit to the community and formal consultation on the outline options The project team arranged to visit the community and invited all those who may be affected by or benefit from the project to come along. The purpose of the session was to meet with the community members to get initial feedback on the project. This was followed up by a formal written consultation to get written feedback. A total of 17 residents, landowners and their representatives provided comments.

2

Woodford Halse and Hinton Flood Alleviation Scheme v1.0 Outline Business Case – Summary Report 10/03/2017

The aims of this engagement were to ensure that the project team had a full understanding of the issues that needed to be addressed, to get feedback from the community on the seven outline options presented and to ascertain whether the community had any other options they would like to be considered. During this community engagement, discussions were had around the funding limitations to the project, including the potential funding sources and whether the community would consider contributing towards the project (either financially or in-kind i.e. through offers to provide land, equipment or help with maintenance in the future). These discussions were extremely important to ensure the expectations were managed within the community in relation to the potential delivery of any scheme.

4. Refinement of options The 16 outline options were refined into a total of eight feasible options that were deemed to have no significant constraints. This assessment was informed by the community feedback and consideration of additional information such as CCTV surveys, further assessments of the topography and additional drainage information.  In Woodford Halse, the flood storage area immediately to the south of Scrivens Hill (Option W3) was ruled out as unfeasible. Storing the necessary amount of water would require a 2.5 metre high wall or embankment, which would be expensive and take up too much footprint area.  Further assessment of Option W4 (improving the capacity of the culvert under Scrivens Hill) and Option W6 (preventing water flowing back up the culvert) showed that both these options are likely to increase the risk of flooding to Scrivens Hill and therefore have been ruled out.  Whilst Option W7 (creating a bypass channel for the River Cherwell) would reduce the risk of flooding from the river, the properties on Scrivens Hill would still be at risk from surface water flooding (which is the main focus of this project). Therefore this option is not likely to provide sufficient benefits for the costs involved and so has been ruled out.  In Hinton, Option H2, Option H3 and Option H5 were all ruled out following further assessment, as all three options have the potential to increase the rate at which flood water would enter the River Cherwell, which is likely to increase the risk of flooding to properties downstream of Hinton from the River Cherwell. The designs of the eight remaining options were refined, and the costs of construction and maintenance of each option estimated and compared to the financial value of the benefits that may be realised if the option was to go ahead. In Woodford Halse, Option W1 is the only solution available to reduce the risk of flooding at Cobley Close. Therefore as well as being considered in isolation, this option was considered in combination with options that would reduce the risk of flooding at Scrivens Hill/Byfield Road (i.e. Options W2, W5 and W8). Option H8 was assessed as a standalone solution that would benefit all properties at risk, whereas Options H1 and H6 can be considered in combination to provide wider benefits than only implementing one solution benefitting only part of the community.

3

Woodford Halse and Hinton Flood Alleviation Scheme v1.0 Outline Business Case – Summary Report 10/03/2017

5. Benefit Cost Analysis and Value for Money A comparison of the costs and benefits of each option provides an assessment of their viability. The cost estimates for each option were calculated to allow for:  construction costs;  overheads and other costs including general site prelims, temporary works etc.;  professional fees/associated costs;  maintenance costs;  optimism bias; and  50% uncertainty allowance for unknown costs such as unforeseen technical difficulties, archaeology, land compensation etc. The benefits were calculated by assessing the difference in the financial value of damages that would occur to properties as a result of a flood in the current situation and after the solution has been implemented. The analysis had to also consider the value of continuing with the current situation i.e. existing maintenance regime but no improvements. This demonstrates whether there is any value added in doing additional flood alleviation works or whether it is better economically to continue as at present – this is presented as the 'do minimum' option. A direct comparison of the costs and benefits is called the benefit cost ratio; the higher the value the more preferable the solution. The benefit cost ratio must be greater than 1.0 to demonstrate that there is justification to implement the solution. However, given the current competition for grant funding, in general a benefit cost ratio of around 8 to 10 or more would be needed to secure funding towards a scheme. The tables below outline the proposed options, their associated costs, and the value of the benefits provided. It is important to note that, when considering options in combination, it is not possible to rely on the benefit cost ratio alone to assess which scheme is preferable. This is because whilst a combined solution might have higher costs, if it is providing a significant amount of additional benefits for these additional costs, then it is considered to provide greater value for money. The options in the tables below have been listed (and colour coded) in order of least to greatest value for money. Table 1: Financial Analysis for Woodford Halse Value of Benefit cost OPTION Cost benefits ratio Do nothing £0 £0 0 Do minimum – continue with current £7,000 £0 0 maintenance regime Option W8 – flood storage area east of £100,000 £20,000 0.4 Scrivens Hill Option W1 – ditch around Cobley Close £140,000 £33,000 0.5

Option W5 – property level resilience £42,000 £104,000 2.5

Options W1, W2 and W8 £407,000 £886,000 6.0

4

Woodford Halse and Hinton Flood Alleviation Scheme v1.0 Outline Business Case – Summary Report 10/03/2017

Value of Benefit cost OPTION Cost benefits ratio Options W1 and W2 £307,000 £885,000 6.6 Option W2 – flood storage area south of £167,000 £868,000 11.0 Scrivens Hill

The table above for Woodford Halse demonstrates that there is no benefit in Do nothing or Do minimum. Options W1 and W8 both have benefit cost ratios less than 1.0 and therefore are not viable. The benefit cost ratio for Option W5 is greater than 1.0 but is still fairly low, with other options demonstrating better value for money, and therefore is not considered viable. Option W2 demonstrates the best value for money and, with a benefit cost ratio of 11.0, would be suitable for securing funding. Combining Option W2 with Options W1 and/or W8 is less value for money than Option W2 alone. Table 2: Financial Analysis for Hinton Value of Benefit cost OPTION Cost benefits ratio Do nothing £0 £0 0

Options H1 and H6 £2,847,000 £145,000 0.5 Option H1 – flood storage area adjacent £147,000 £138,000 0.9 to Pool Farm Court Option H7 – flood storage area in £147,000 £138,000 0.9 development adjacent to Pool Farm Court Option H6 – flood storage area west of £147,000 £142,000 1.0 Farndon Road Option H8 – property level resilience at £126,000 £1,505,000 12.0 Upton Close Do minimum – continue with current £7,000 £135,000 19.4 maintenance regime

The table above for Hinton demonstrates that Do nothing, Option H1, Option H6 and Option H7 have benefit cost ratios of 1.0 or less and therefore are not viable, even when considered in combination. This means that no options for relieving the flood risk at Pool Street are viable. This is likely to be due to the high costs of the options compared to the number of properties at risk (with most reports of flooding being to the highway). However, the assessment of Option H7 has not been able to account for the potentially significant cost savings that may be achieved by combining the flood alleviation works with the development of the site. Therefore it may be that the cost of this option would reduce sufficiently to make the scheme viable, in combination with contributions from the developer. Option H8 demonstrates good value for money and, with a benefit cost ratio of 12.0, would be suitable for securing funding. However it should be noted that this would only protect properties at Upton Close. Do minimum is shown to have the best value for money with a benefit cost ratio of 19.4. It is understood however that this option is unlikely to be acceptable to the community of Hinton.

5

Woodford Halse and Hinton Flood Alleviation Scheme v1.0 Outline Business Case – Summary Report 10/03/2017

It should be noted that although the benefit cost analysis provides a good indicator of which option is the most economically viable, it does not take into account other constraints that will need to be considered when deciding the preferred option.

6. Findings There are four key areas of flooding which have been considered in this study: Scrivens Hill and Cobley Close in Woodford Halse, and Upton Close and Pool Street in Hinton. The only option put forward to address the flooding issue at Cobley Close has been shown not to be economically viable. This is because there is only one property at risk or with a history of flooding internally, and therefore the £140,000 costs significantly outweigh the benefits. Over £130,000 of contributions or cost savings would need to be sought in order to make this option viable. Of the options available to protect properties at Scrivens Hill, Option W2 (the creation of a larger flood storage area to the south of Scrivens Hill and the school) has been shown to be most viable, and is the preferred option. The majority of the storage area will comprise local agricultural land and is unlikely to present significant environmental obstacles. Furthermore this option could be incorporated into an environmental enhancement area. However, engagement with the landowner(s) will be critical to taking this option forward. In addition, £95,000 of contributions will need to be sought in order to progress this option (further information on potential sources of contributions and funding are presented in Section 8). The economic assessment for Hinton showed that a continuation of the current maintenance regime would have the best value for money, but this would not resolve the existing flooding issues nor the increased risk that could result from the impacts of climate change. At Upton Close, the preferred way forward is Option H8 to install Property Level Resilience measures to the properties here. It may be possible to get this option fully funded by Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Grant in Aid (see details in Section 8 below). None of the options presented for Pool Street are shown in the economic analysis to be viable. However the cost of Option H7 to integrate flood storage in the proposed residential development adjacent to Pool Farm Court could be significantly reduced, thereby making it viable. In addition, initial discussions with the landowner/agent suggest that contributions towards the project could be secured. Further discussions would be required to confirm this. Whilst this is likely to be a feasible solution to the flooding at Pool Street, it should be noted that the development does not yet have planning permission and therefore this option may never come forward. Initial discussions with Thames Water indicate that they may be able to provide some contributions to flood alleviation works at Pool Street, given the interactions with their drainage systems. Section 8 below summarises some of the key potential sources of funding for any flood alleviation scheme. This includes ‘contributions in kind’ provided by the community, through offering to undertake works or provide land, materials or equipment towards the project. During the visit to the community, a small number of residents expressed an interest in supporting the project through volunteering time, however no agreements were made, and therefore at this stage no value has been attributed to these contributions.

6

Woodford Halse and Hinton Flood Alleviation Scheme v1.0 Outline Business Case – Summary Report 10/03/2017

7. Next Steps The next phase in the project is to re-engage with the community and present the results of the project so far, and also to consult with those who were not involved or did not engage in the previous round of consultation. The key aims of this communication will be to agree the preferred option, discuss and resolve any land ownership issues, set out how additional funds can be sought or raised, and agree any contributions in kind from the community. NCC submitted a bid to the Environment Agency last year to put the project on the government’s 6-year programme of Flood and Coastal Risk Management works (based on estimated costs). The response to this bid indicated that if contributions can be secured to fill the gap in funding, then FCRM GiA could be made available to allow for construction of the flood alleviation scheme in the year 2019. Only once confirmation of potential funding availability has been agreed can NCC progress with the detailed design and undertake further community engagement to finalise contributions and maintenance agreements. Once all funding sources have been secured, works can then commence on the ground.

8. Potential Funding Options The following section provides further information about the various funding options that may be available to support a Flood Alleviation scheme.

Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Grant in Aid (FCERM GiA) Defra has the national policy responsibility for Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management (FCERM) and provides funding through Grant in Aid (GiA) to the Environment Agency, who administer grants for capital projects. The approach to funding capital projects aims to encourage communities to take more responsibility for the flood risk that they face, and aims to deliver more benefit by encouraging total investment to increase beyond the levels that Defra alone can afford. The level of funding available through FCERM GiA is related directly to benefits (in terms of the number of households protected), the damages being prevented, plus other scheme benefits such as environmental enhancements, amenity improvement, agricultural productivity and benefits to business. Local contributions raised towards a project will help release the FCERM GiA by demonstrating community ownership of the project. These contributions can be either money towards the scheme, or a benefit-in-kind e.g. a landowner offering to undertake part of the works. Under this system some schemes may receive complete funding, if the benefits significantly outweigh the costs, however for most schemes only partial funding would be available, with the gap needing to be filled by other sources. The Partnership Funding score gives an indication as to whether the option has met the threshold for potential FCERM GiA funding. A score of less than 100% means that further contributions will be required or revisions made to the scheme to reduce the costs. A score of greater than 100% means that the scheme could go onto the list of potential schemes for funding, but it does not guarantee funding. Schemes on the funding list then require approval from the Environment Agency. The greater the additional contributions that can be

7

Woodford Halse and Hinton Flood Alleviation Scheme v1.0 Outline Business Case – Summary Report 10/03/2017 secured, the greater the resulting Partnership Funding score, and therefore the greater the scheme’s chances of obtaining an FCERM GiA allocation.

Local Levy Local Levy funding is a locally-raised source of income, gathered by way of a levy on Local Authorities and collected via the council tax. The levy is used to support (with the approval of the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee) flood risk management projects that are not considered to be national priorities and hence do not attract national funding through FCERM GiA. Local Levy funding can also be applied to FCERM GiA projects, at the discretion of the Regional Flood and Coastal Committee, to meet the partnership funding requirements.

Community Contributions in Kind The costs of projects are calculated assuming that contractors would undertake the works. However, if some of the proposed works are undertaken by the landowner, community members or Parish Council, then the costs would be reduced, as these people may already have the appropriate machinery on site or could, for example, provide labour at a much reduced rate compared to a contractor. The relative costs of the works offered to be undertaken by the community members are included as a ‘contribution in kind’ towards the project. Other contributions in kind could be offers to allow land to be used for flood storage, additional land drainage ditches or other features required by the scheme, without requesting compensation for the loss of this land.

Section 106 This is a contribution from developers, linked to specific developments and the infrastructure required to make them acceptable in planning terms. Its use is very specific to the issue being addressed and is negotiated separately for each development. It can be used to pay for flood defences that specific developments need in order to be safe and so acceptable in planning terms. These flood defences can however be designed to also benefit the local area and therefore become part of a wider mitigation scheme.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) This is a locally agreed sum levied upon developers. Once combined over time, large sums of money could potentially be raised. It is flexible in its approach as local authorities can adjust spending plans to meet priorities. Local authorities are required to use this funding for infrastructure needed to support the development. It can be used to construct new infrastructure, increase the capacity of existing infrastructure or repair failing existing infrastructure including flood defences.

Parish Precept Parish precept can be raised for projects that improve the quality of the area. Parish precepts are typically used for maintenance of playing fields, recreation grounds, village halls, car parks, footpaths, etc. The Parish Council can also spend money on anything that they consider would be a benefit to the community that is not covered by their specific responsibilities. This could include raising funds for flood risk management purposes.

8

Woodford Halse and Hinton Flood Alleviation Scheme v1.0 Outline Business Case – Summary Report 10/03/2017

Northamptonshire – Empowering Councillors and Communities Scheme Northamptonshire County Council grants a small amount of funding a year to each councillor to spend within their electoral division. Councillors can fund large or small schemes or activities of benefit to local people and the local community, as well as supporting local voluntary and community organisations.

Riparian Owner/Landowner Funding Landowners in some circumstances may be willing to contribute funds to flood risk management maintenance where they can see a direct benefit to reducing their flood risk or improving their land drainage. In certain circumstances local interest groups may step in to fund flood risk management works where there is no available funding from public bodies.

People’s Postcode Lottery – Dream Fund Grants are available for local voluntary and community organisations for projects and activities that benefit local people and the local community. Projects must be innovative and applications must meet one or more of the following funding themes:  Early child development;  Helping refugees in our community;  Conserving our marine environment;  Reconnecting with the natural world; and,  Engaging people with arts' culture and heritage

Reaching Communities Reaching Communities funding is for projects that help people and communities. The fund can cover salaries, running costs, a contribution towards core costs and equipment, or up to £100,000 for land, buildings or refurbishment capital costs. Grants are available from £10,000, upwards and funding can last for up to 5 years.

Supermarket Plastic Bag Schemes A number of supermarkets now have schemes whereby the money raised from selling plastic bags is donated to local charities, groups and projects. Applications can be made by the community to be considered to receive some of this funding.

9