Coastal Issues Special Interest Group

Agenda

Thursday 26 April 2012 11.00am

The Westminster Suite (8th floor) Local Government House Smith Square London SW1P 3HZ

To: Nominated Representatives on the Coastal Issues SIG Cc: Named officers for briefing purposes www.coastalsig.lga.gov.uk Guidance notes for visitors Local Government House, Smith Square, London SW1P 3HZ

Welcome! Please read these notes for your own safety and that of all visitors, staff and tenants.

Security All visitors (who do not already have an LGA ID badge), are requested to report to the Reception desk where they will be requested to sign in and will be handed a visitor’s badge to be worn at all times whilst in the building.

Fire instructions In the event of the fire alarm sounding, vacate the building immediately following the green Fire Exit signs. Go straight to the assembly point in Tufton Street via Dean Trench Street (off Smith Square).

DO NOT USE THE LIFTS. DO NOT STOP TO COLLECT PERSONAL BELONGINGS. DO NOT RE-ENTER BUILDING UNTIL AUTHORISED TO DO SO.

Members’ facilities on the 7th floor The Terrace Lounge (Members’ Room) has refreshments available and also access to the roof terrace, which Members are welcome to use. Work facilities for members, providing workstations, telephone and Internet access, fax and photocopying facilities and staff support are also available.

Open Council “Open Council”, on the 1st floor of LG House, provides informal meeting and business facilities with refreshments, for local authority members/ officers who are in London.

Toilets Toilets for people with disabilities are situated on the Basement, Ground, 2nd, 4th, 6th and 7th floors. Female toilets are situated on the basement, ground,1st, 3rd, 5th,and 7th floors. Male toilets are available on the basement, ground, 2nd, 4th, 6th and 8th floors.

Accessibility Every effort has been made to make the building as accessible as possible for people with disabilities. Induction loop systems have been installed in all the larger meeting rooms and at the main reception. There is a parking space for blue badge holders outside the Smith Square entrance and two more blue badge holders’ spaces in Dean Stanley Street to the side of the building. There is also a wheelchair lift at the main entrance. For further information please contact the Facilities Management Helpdesk on 020 7664 3015.

Further help Please speak either to staff at the main reception on the ground floor, if you require any further help or information. You can find the LGA website at www.lga.gov.uk

Please don’t forget to sign out at reception and return your badge when you depart. Coastal Issues Special Interest Group 26 April 2012

Notification

The meeting of the Coastal Issues Special Interest Group will be held on Thursday 26 April at 11.00am in The Westminster Suite, Local Government House, Smith Square, London SW1P 3HZ.

Lunch and refreshments will be provided.

Order of Business

The order of business and papers are attached.

Attendance Sheet

Please ensure that you sign the attendance register, which will be available in the meeting room. It is the only record of your presence at the meeting.

Location

A map showing the location of Local Government House is printed on the back cover.

Contact

Fatima de Abreu Tel: 020 7664 3136; Fax: 020 7664 3232; e-mail: [email protected]

Tom Schindl Tel: 01273 336 838 Email: [email protected]

Hotels The LGA has negotiated preferential rates with Club Quarters Hotels in central London. Club Quarters have hotels opposite Trafalgar Square, in the City near St Pauls Cathedral and in Gracechurch Street, in the City, near the Bank of England. These hotels are all within easy travelling distance from Local Government House. A standard room in a Club Quarters Hotel, at the negotiated rate, should cost no more than £129 per night. To book a room in any of the Club Quarters Hotels please link to the Club Quarters website at http://www.clubquarters.com. Once on the website enter the password: localgovernmentgroup and you should receive the LGA negotiated rate for your booking.

Coastal Issues Special Interest Group 26 April 2012

Coastal Issues Special Interest Group

Membership 2011 – 2012

Name Organisation Cllr Roger Elkins Arun District Council Mr Roger Spencer Arun District Council Cllr Graham Cain Blackpool Council Cllr Mrs Maxine Callow JP Blackpool Council Mrs Fiona Crayston Blackpool Council Mr John Donnellon Blackpool Council Mr Ted Edwards Canterbury City Council Cllr Peter D Vickery-Jones Canterbury City Council Cllr John Connor Chichester District Council Mr Steve Carvell Chichester District Council Mr David Lowsley Chichester District Council Mr Steve Woolard Christchurch Borough Council Cllr Julian R R German Cornwall County Council Cllr Stuart Hughes Devon County Council Mr Aidan Winder Devon County Council Mr Ken Buchan Dorset County Council Cllr Tim Munro Dorset County Council Cllr Nicholas S Kenton Dover District Council Mr Roger Walton Dover District Council Mr Niall Benson Durham County Council Cllr Craig Leyland East Lindsey District Council Mr Nigel Howells East Lindsey District Council Mr Chris Straw East Lindsey District Council Cllr Jonathan Owen East Riding of Yorkshire Council Mr Jeremy Pickles East Riding of Yorkshire Council Mr Rupert Clubb East Sussex County Council Dr Kate Cole East Sussex County Council Mr Thomas Schindl East Sussex County Council Cllr Roger Thomas East Sussex County Council Mr Peter Padget Eastbourne Borough Council Cllr Steven Wallis Eastbourne Borough Council Cllr Mrs Tracey M Chapman Essex County Council Miss Nicky Spurr Essex County Council Cllr John Bryant Fareham Borough Council Mr Mike Maude Roxby Fareham Borough Council Cllr Derek Kimber Gosport Borough Council Ms Kim Carron Gosport Borough Council Mr Mark Pam Gosport Borough Council Cllr Charles Reynolds Great Yarmouth Borough Council Cllr Raymond J Ellis Hampshire County Council Ms Lucy Sheffield Hampshire County Council Ms Rachael Gallagher Hampshire County Council Cllr Matthew Beaver Hastings Borough Council Mr Nick Sangster Hastings Borough Council Mr Lyall Cairns Havant Borough Council Mr Chris Drake Kent County Council Cllr Mike Harrison Kent County Council Ms Joyce Lynch Lancashire County Council Cllr Albert H Thornton Lancashire County Council Cllr Karen Leytham Lancaster City Borough Council Mr G McAllister Lancaster City Borough Council Cllr Robert Allen Lewes District Council Tim Barlett Lewes District Council Tim Albright Lewes District Council Mr Tony McArdle Lincolnshire County Council Cllr Edward Poll Lincolnshire County Council Ms Jo Allchurch Local Government Association Mr Peter Garrett Maldon District Council Cllr Miriam Lewis Maldon District Council Mr Andrew Bradbury New Forest District Council Cllr Edward Heron New Forest District Council Cllr Mrs Ann L Steward Norfolk County Council Cllr Malcolm Wilkinson North Devon Council Paul Robertshaw North Devon Council Cllr Gurney North Devon DC Cllr Mrs Angie Fitch-Tillett North Norfolk District Council Cllr P Terrington North Norfolk District Council Ms Jill Fisher North Norfolk District Council Mr Peter Frew North Norfolk District Council Mr Matt Hosey Portsmouth City Council Cllr Lynne Stagg Portsmouth City Council Mr Alan Dodge Rother District Council Cllr Robin Patten Rother District Council

Cllr Godfrey Allanson Scarborough Borough Council Mr Stewart Rowe Scarborough Borough Council Cllr Mrs Anne E Fraser MBE Sedgemoor District Council Mr Phil Perkins Sedgemoor District Council Mr Colin Paine Shepway District Council Cllr Michael Lyons Shepway District Council Cllr Ernest M Gibson South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council Mr Tony Hanson South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council Mr Bill Clark Southampton City Council Cllr John Lamb Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Mr Andy Lewis Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Mr Bill Parker Suffolk Coastal District Council Cllr Andy Smith Suffolk Coastal District Council Ms Jane Burch Suffolk County Council Cllr Tony Goldson Suffolk County Council Cllr David H S Simmons Swale Borough Council Cllr Kevin Lake Teignbridge District Council Mr Graeme Smith Teignbridge District Council Cllr Sandy Ezekiel Thanet District Council Mr Tony Child Thanet District Council Mr Paul Patterson Waveney District Council Cllr David Ritchie Waveney District Council Cllr Peter Coghill Waveney District Council Graham Kean Wealden District Council Cllr Mrs Dianne Dear Wealden District Council Cllr Mark Roberts West Dorset District Council Mr Adrian Stuart West Dorset District Council Cllr Pieter Montyn West Sussex County Council Mr Glen Westmore West Sussex County Council Cllr Harry Smith Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council Mr Bryan Curtis Worthing Borough Council Cllr Bryan Turner Worthing Borough Council Mr Carl Green Wyre Borough Council Cllr Roger Berry Wyre Borough Council

Agenda

LGA Coastal Issues Special Interest Group 11.00am, Thursday 26 April 2012

The Westminster Suite (8th Floor)

Local Government House, London

Item Time Page

Tea and Coffee available 10.30

1. Apologies 11:00

2. Chairman’s Report 11:05 3

3. Vice Chairman’s Report 11:20 7

Matters arising not covered elsewhere on 4. 11:30 agenda/urgent business – no paper

5. Report of the Treasurer to the Group 11:40 9

Presentations NCERM update (Nick Hardiman, Environment 6. 11:45 Agency) – no report Environmental Management and Sustainable 7. development of small ports (Dr Chris Wooldridge, 12:00 13 ECO-SLC and Cardiff University)

Marine Planning Update (Russell Gadbury and 8. 12:15 15 Stacey Mayer, Marine Management Agency)

Items for discussion

9. Website development/logo development 12:30 17

10. On the Edge Strategy progress – no report 12:45

Lunch 13:00

1 Items for information

11. Draft Minutes from the SIG, 8 December 2011 19 Draft Minutes of SIG Senior Officer Group meeting, 14 29 12. March 2012 EA response to their approach to providing flood risk 13. advice.

14. Consultation response: RoC review

15. Consultation response: Red tape challenge

16. Coastal Defences: alternative funding resources

17. Defra: Bathing Waters update 87

18. Beachcare Review report 91

19. Any Other Business 97

Date of Next Meeting – Annual General Meeting, June 12-14, 2012, Chichester

2 Coastal Issues Special Interest Group 26 April 2012

Item 2

Chairman’s Report

Good morning and welcome

After a very demanding year for my family I am pleased to be back to normal! Losing a close relative has a lasting effect, as two of our gathering have experienced. One of our staunchest members Cllr Albert Thornton of Lancashire County Council, sadly lost his wife just after Christmas, and Fatima De Abreu, who is our LGA secretariat, lost her mother. Our thoughts are with them both.

May I say thank you to Andy Smith, our Vice Chairman, for stepping in for me at our last meeting and workshop on December 8th 2011. I gather it was quite a lively session!

Anybody who knows me well will be aware that I am prepared to ask demanding questions of everybody from ministers to leading civil servants, but I trust that I still have a reputation of being fair and polite. It is essential that any criticism, and I always welcome informed criticism, be conducted in a polite and professional manner.

As an elected member I am well aware of how much of a load our officers carry in these financially strapped times and one must remember that they do not receive additional payment for the work they diligently give to the SIG. These days DEFRA, the EA and the MMO are only to happy to pass immense amounts of so called consultation to bodies such as the SIG. On the one hand it is positive but sometimes it becomes onerous. However one needs to respond because if you do not you get accused of not bothering or caring! Communication sometimes is not all that it should be but may I request members to make positive suggestions – that may well call for extra meetings – to deliver the objectives we all desire.

If you are unhappy with any issues please come to me first and I will do my best to solve any problems. It would be very boring if we all thought the same but we must adopt a democratic approach and seek a worthwhile conclusion. These days we, as a group, handle many more matters than has happened in the past and I am delighted that we are continually asked to take a prominent role in marine and coastal matters. I am sure you will have noted how many emails I circulate to you all. I do so because they may be of help or use to some authorities in a variety of ways.

Now that I am back in the saddle I intend to take a direct view of our “Champions” and see how we can develop these roles in a constructive manner. Please contact me with any suggestions you have. Later Tom will be reporting on the updating of the SIG website, it has been a somewhat bigger job than originally thought.

3 I am pleased to report that we have regular dialogue with Minister Richard Benyon – who has praised the SIG on numerous public occasions. Lord Smith, Chairman of the EA also makes himself available when we have questions or comments. I have also met the new Chairman of the MMO Sir Bill Callaghan and of course his CEO James Cross. James will be our guest speaker at our field Day and AGM in Chichester.

You will hear more of Chichester later but may I thank John Connor and his officers for the hard work they have put in to make this a successful event. The bookings have gone very well. In fact at a time of financial restraint our membership has held up well. I am now looking to a host authority for 2013.

We continue to search for a new Treasurer and it has, if you approve, been suggested that we offer the authority concerned free membership.

To conclude, good to have Fatima back with us and my thanks to SIGSOG and in particular lead officer Rupert Clubb for his support and advice; and finally Thomas Schindl for carrying such a large workload on your behalf.

Meetings attended representing the LGA Coastal SIG

November 2011

Friday 18th Water stakeholders, DEFRA, London

Tuesday 22nd EA Workshop, Worthing

January 2012

6th Funeral of EA officer, Havant

10th Meeting (& Rupert Clubb) with Minister Richard Benyon, London

14th Launch of FLAG in Hastings with MMO Board member & officers

16th Inland Flooding & National Partners Group, LGA, London

17th Meeting with Sir Bill Callaghan, Chair of MMO & James Cross, CEO

February 2012

8th Association of IFCA’s, London

15th PATCH (Ports adapting to change), Farnborough

20th Adaption seminar EA, DEFRA, LGA, London

29th “Raingain” LGIU, MET Office and national observers group

4

March 2012

9th FCERM, (Flooding and Coastal Erosion Stakeholder) DEFRA/EA Gatwick

23rd Meeting with Minister Greg Barker (Energy & Climate Change) Bexhill

30th Meeting re Localism LGA & Minister Greg Clark (CLG) Maidstone April 2012

12th SE Coastal Group Forum (Speaker) Maidstone

19th Association of IFCA’s meeting with Minister Richard Benyon. London

20th Meeting Marine Strategy Framework directive Consultation, London

Thank you

Roger Thomas

5

6 Coastal Issues Special Interest Group 26 April 2012

Item 3

Vice Chairman’s Report

When I reported to you at the meeting in December 2011, I said that I would hope to be able to bring to you at this meeting at least a first draft of a paper addressing a number of issues facing the SIG, notably governance, structure and membership, not to mention the thorny issue of our finances. I have to apologise to members most sincerely that this has not been possible, due to unprecedented pressure of work over recent months, mainly in my role at Suffolk Coastal, but also relating to a number of opportunities which have arisen in the context of coastal issues in East Anglia. I give you a renewed commitment to ensure we make progress in this area before our AGM in June.

But the situation I have faced personally is, it seems to me, illustrative of a core problem for the group in that local government generally, as we all know, is facing simultaneously an increasing workload and increasing pace of change – in parallel with an unprecedented squeeze on resources. And in my experience this is especially true for our councils with responsibilities for the coast and for flooding issues more generally.

This arises directly from the implementation of two major pieces of legislation on coastal matters, a) the Floods and Water Management Act, and b) the Marine and Coastal Access Act – in parallel with major changes to the planning system, which includes a new focus on coastal and flooding issues.

So we have a new challenge as a group, to ensure that we use our collective strength and share experience to manage both the opportunities and the problems presented by these changes.

In that context I would like to take this opportunity to highlight a major new item on the agenda, which is the requirement in the recently introduced National Planning Policy Framework for Local Planning Authorities on the coast to define Coastal Change Management Areas, with specific plans for each of those for controlling – in large measure for limiting – development. Those plans will of course have to interact with Shoreline Management Action Plans on the one hand, and the work of the Local Lead Flood Authorities on the other. All quite simple really!

In the East we have had the opportunity of being involved in the first of the Marine Plans being drawn up by the MMO. We have been taking a major role in this, and using every opportunity to influence the formative stages of the new Plan, and the process. It is disappointing therefore to have to report that we have very significant reservations regarding the recently published Draft Vision and Objectives document by the MMO, and have responded to the recent consultation on some fairly fundamental matters. We will continue to use the opportunity to shape these processes to the advantage of SIG member authorities in the longer term.

I was recently fortunate enough to be appointed as the ‘Coastal Representative’ to the Anglian (Eastern) RFCC, which I see as a significant means of promoting issues of interest to the SIG. It has already provided opportunities to interact with the EA Regional Director, our EA Main Board member, and an assembly of the EA’s group of

7 ‘Coastal Practitioners’ from all round the UK. I would encourage all members and officers to use this formative period of the evolution of the old RFDCs into RFCCs with a much wider remit, specifically involving the coast, to ensure that the specifically coastal interests are continually emphasised whenever the opportunity arises.

As most members will recall, we had a very lively time at the Workshop at our last meeting on the topic of developing our ‘On the Edge’ document and associated Position Statements on specific topics. It was clear the work done so far by Haskoning leaves something to be desired, as did the conduct of the Workshop topics feedback process. I understand that work on this is ongoing with officers and with Haskoning, but again has been subject to work pressures of officers involved. What is essential, and is the current target, is for significant member involvement in the evolution of these documents.

Andy Smith Vice-Chairman, LGA Coastal Issues SIG April 2012

.

8 Coastal Issues Special Interest Group 26 April 2012

Item 5

Report of the Treasurer to the Group

Recommendation 1. It is recommended that, for 2012/2013, the membership subscription requested from each authority be set at £330, the same level as the 2008/2009 and subsequent years.

Background – Financial Statement 2011/2012 and Budget Proposal 2012/2013

2. The attached statement (Appendix 1) lays out the current position of the Coastal Issues S.I.G.

3. Actual spend in 2011/2012 was £15,895 compared to the budget of £24,500, including additional costs associated with the November meeting which resulted in an overspend on the Facilities Hire budget. Income totals £16,500, from 50 members, with two invoices outstanding and 12 resignations in year.

4. A balance of £26,476 has been carried forward into 2012/13, but there are outstanding work commitments totalling £8,000 as follows: -

On the Edge Strategy £2,500 Ciria £500 Marine Action Working Gp £5,000

5. The budget proposal for 2012/2013 totals £21,900 and comprises two elements: - • A professional work programme, which needs to be developed by the SIG’s Officer Group, totalling £10,000, plus further work required on the On the Edge Strategy of £1,400; • An administrative budget (website, facilities hire, etc) of £10,500, with an increased budget for facilities hire and for the Chairman’s work.

6. The 2012/2013 Income Budget recognises 50 active Members. With each paying £330 this will provide a basic income of £16,500. The year-end balance will consequently fall to c. £13,000, which remains sufficient for any emergency or opportunity events that the SIG might face in the short term.

7. The Group’s finances remain stable. Since changing roles I am no longer able to attend the Group’s meetings, but please do not hesitate to contact me by e-mail if you have any questions on the content of the report.

Adrian Stuart Director of Corporate Services West Dorset District Council and Weymouth & Portland Borough Council [email protected] 01305 252315

9

10 APPENDIX 1 COASTAL ISSUES SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP

FINANCIAL STATEMENT @ 31 MARCH 2012, AND 2012/13 BUDGET

Budget Actual Budget 11/12 11/12 12/13 £ £ £

Balance brought forward - 25,871 - 25,871 -26,476

Work Programme 2010/11 Marine Act Working Group 5,000 - - Ciria – Eroding landfill research 500 - -

Work Programme 2011/12 - On the Edge Coastal Strategy 6,000 3,500 - To be defined 4,000 - -

Work Programme 2012/13 Work programmes from previous years (MAWG, Ciria, On the Edge) - - 8,000 On the Edge Strategy additional work - - 1,400 New Programme to be defined 0 - 10,000

Administration SIG Website 2,500 2,500 2,500 Facilities Hire & Annual Field Trip 3,000 5,413 4,000 Honoraria - Chairman & Secretary 1,500 1,500 1,500 Chairman's work with Govt, Institutions 2,000 2,982 2,500

Gross Expenditure 24,500 15,895 29,900

Subscriptions -17,500 -16,500 -16,500 based on 50 Members

Balance @ Year End - 18,871 -26,476 -13,076

11

12 Coastal Issues Special Interest Group 26 April 2012

Item 7

Environmental Management and Sustainable Development of Small Ports

Port operations and activities continue to make substantive contributions to employment, the socio-economic wellbeing, and cultural life of their environs and local communities. At the same time there are increasing demands from an ever-widening group of stakeholders for port authorities to demonstrate their environmental credentials and licence to operate in terms of compliance with legislation and regulation, sustainable development and environmental protection.

The challenge for all ports is that the scale of liability and responsibility has expanded from the quayside to the port area, outwards further to the town/city, and further still to take into account the implications of the port’s role in the Logistic Chain. Small ports in particular are seeking practicable and cost-effective strategies, tools and methodologies in order to deliver influential and responsible management.

As part of the E.C. SuPorts Project (Sustainable Management for European Local Ports), ECO-SLC is collaborating with East Sussex County Council and International partners to provide a series of Workshops specifically designed to work with port authorities to develop and implement appropriate environmental management systems.

The UK event is scheduled for May 14th and the research group welcomes the opportunity to brief LGA members of the Coastal Issues SIG on the objectives and outcomes of the Workshop to be held at the Port of Newhaven.

Dr Christopher Wooldridge Science Coordinator, ECO-SLC and Senior Research Fellow School of Earth and Ocean Sciences, Cardiff University

13

14 Coastal Issues Special Interest Group 26 April 2012

Item 8

Marine Planning Update

Following on from the MMO’s presentation on Marine Planning in June 2011, the presentation will cover an operational update showing progress so far in the East Plan areas as well as activity in other areas. It will cover key achievements in the process and identify the next steps for marine planning.

Useful links include:

• Q&A: http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/marineplanning/questions.htm

• The Evidence and Issues report for the East plan areas: http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/marineplanning/issues.htm

• The latest document out for consultation - Draft Vision and Objectives for the East plan areas: http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/marineplanning/vision_objectives.htm

• Latest marine planning newsletter to pass on to the Coastal Issues SIG group: http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/marineplanning/newsletters/newsletter7. htm

15

16 Coastal Issues Special Interest Group 26 April 2012

Item 9

Website Development / Logo Development

Recommendations:

• The Coastal SIG to review and agree the content and appearance of the new website. • The Coastal SIG to review and provide comment on the design of the draft new logo.

Introduction 1. The current LGA Coastal Issues SIG website is tired looking and requires significant updating. It had been explained that maintaining the current website, requires significant training and time commitment by officers. It was suggested that a new and modern site to be developed to replace the old site - having the advantages of being easy to use and easily transferable between local authorities. Exploring the option of using the LGA to host our website identified that the costs would be high (i.e. £1000 per annum to host and £800 per day for site development). Instead the option to build a new website ourselves using wordpress was taken forward. A ‘skeleton’ site is available for viewing at: http://coastalsig.wordpress.com/ 2. Member’s comments on the website will assist officers to finalise the look and content of the site, before taking the new site ‘live’ and replacing the existing site. 3. With the updating of the On the Edge strategy, together with the development of the new website, officers have explored options for a new Coastal SIG logo as part of a ‘branding’ review, subject to members approval.

Website - Key Points 4. Website to be hosted by Wordpress.com. 5. Currently there are over 100 designs/themes available for use (http://theme.wordpress.com/). This provides the Coastal SIG with the options/flexibility to change the design when/if considered necessary. 6. Site maintained and updated with security patches automatically. 7. To buy domain name will incur an annual £10 cost. 8. An annual £15 fee will be charged for repointing the domain name. 9. No developer time needed (i.e. no developer costs). 10. Annual cost around £25.

17 Logo - Key Points 11. Logo (below) stylised so as reflect our coastal interests/remit

12. Any proposed changes to the logo would be sent to a graphic design team for finalisation before final approval by members.

Conclusion 13. Both our website and our current logo would benefit with an update. 14. The new website will provide the Coastal SIG with a new online identity and the ability to better promote itself and its work. 15. Once launched, the website will be a valuable resource for providing updates and material (e.g. minutes, consultation responses etc) 16. Tailoring the logo will contribute towards the Coastal SIG’s ‘identity development’.

Tom Schindl Coastal Officer East Sussex County Council T: 01273 336838 E: [email protected]

18 Coastal Issues Special Interest Group 26 April 2012

Item 11

DRAFT Note of decisions taken and actions required

Title: Coastal Issues Special Interest Group

Date and time: 08 December 2011, 11am

Venue: Bevin Hall, Local Government House

Item Decisions and actions

1 Apologies

The list of those present at the meeting is attached at Annex A.

Cllr Andy Smith (Vice Chairman) apologised for Cllr Roger Thomas’ absence as Chairman and welcomed everyone to the meeting. He proposed sending a card to Cllr Thomas expressing the Group’s best wishes for him and his family.

Action Cllr Smith/SIG Officers to send Cllr Thomas a card on behalf of the Group. Cllr Smith

2 Chairman’s Report

The Vice Chairman presented the Chairman’s report.

The Group discussed RFCCs. Regarding mandatory Councillor Membership on RFCCs, Cllr Smith said that the Chair had raised this issue earlier in the year but legislation had not taken the proposal forward.

Some Members felt that flooding was given precedence over coastal issues at RFCC meetings. The Vice Chairman agreed that getting DEFRA to take specific Coastal issues seriously was difficult. He cited the detailed conclusions of the Pitt review which had been condensed into a much broader paper on Coastal issues as an example of the message being diluted.

It was noted that while LAs had been given work by the EA, cash was not being made available to fund it. The Group criticised communications from EA on who was responsible for which areas, arguing that the public were being directed to LAs when they could be more effectively signposted to the SUDs approval body or the Local Flood Authority.

19

Regarding DEFRA’s new funding strategy, the Group noted that while there was a general requirement for all LAs to maximise funding for flood defence maintenance, there was no obligation for LAs to contribute locally. Members noted that the strategy will run for a 1 year trial period in the first instance, but more detail on DEFRA’s timescales for implementing the strategy are not yet clear. The Group agreed to debate this issue at the next meeting as LAs would neeed more time to consider the implications of DEFRA’s paper.

The Group discussed Marine Conservation Zones. Members informed the group that there was a degree of unhappiness with Natural England from locals, as there is a belief that the zones had been inflicted on LAs by Natural England without proper consultation with the local community. There was a request to draw this to the attention of Cllr Thomas. Cllr Angie Fitch-Tillet offered to draft a briefing note regarding the MCZ issue.

Cllr O’Connor (Chichester DC) announced details of the SIG field trip to Chichester taking place on Wednesday 13 and Thursday 14 June which will have “progress through hardship” as its theme. The cost and structure of the trip is anticipated to be similar to last year. Trips to Selsey, Chichester harbour and a caravan leisure scheme will be included. Most events will take place in the Council’s committee rooms and the AGM is scheduled for the Thursday morning.

Cllr Thomas is to meet with Minister Benyon on 10 January 2012.

Cllr Miriam Lewis raised issues around surface water flooding and the confusion around who has responsibility i.e. EA vs LA, and suggesting that there needs to be clear understanding of what the EA is and is not responsible for. In response to Cllr Lewis’ comments, Rupert Clubb reminded the group that a letter from Cllr Thomas was sent to Lord Smith from the EA, requesting clarification on the issue.

Action • LGA Officers to circulate LGA list of alternative funding resources for coastal defences. J Alchurch • Coastal flood defences to be included as item on the next SIG agenda to discuss Las’ collective experience. T Schindl • Cllr Angie Fitch-Tillet to draft a briefing note regarding the MCZ issue. Cllr Fitch-Tillet

3 Vice Chairman’s Report

On fees for the Coastal SIG, the Vice Chairman noted with dismay the number of Members and Officers who had dropped out of Membership. Some Group Members argued that this was due to travel costs rather than the fees per se. Cllr Smith also stipulated that he would not like to see difference in cost structures based on different authority types. The Group discussed a range of options for making attendance easier, including holding meetings in locations outside of London and video/teleconferencing. Rupert Clubb

20

mentioned that the SIGSOG is exploring options for remote meeting opportunities.

It was also noted that the membership list needs to be updated, as well as it being clarified that non-members are to be omitted from the updated list.

The Vice Chair and Cllr Thomas reported back on the meeting (Coastal Community Regeneration on 17th October 2011) they attended with the Government’s coastal group of MPs. They commented that the approach from MPs had felt too consultative when they had expected to receive greater detail on Whitehall’s plans going forward.

4 Financial Report

It was noted that the resignation of 13 Member Authorities will reduce the forecast income for the SIG for 2011/12.

Decision The report was approved.

5 Communication Strategy

Rupert Clubb and Kathryn Langley (East Sussex CC) gave a verbal presentation on the communication strategy for the SIG. Rupert emphasised that many of the key points on clear communication needed to be formally adopted as group policy to ensure consistency.

Kathryn outlined the main considerations as follows:

Audience – tailoring the message depending on who is being addressed Plain English – avoiding jargon and overly technical language Channels – Deciding the most appropriate method of communication to use Branding – ensure consistency in visual style to emphasise that the Group speaks as one voice

The Group discussed the style of current documents sent out and asked Officers to ensure these were printable as some computers had difficulty processing the material sent out by email.

The Vice Chairman commended the contribution of East Sussex to the SIG’s work, saying that it added inestimable value.

Decision The Group received the presentation and thanked East Sussex Officers for the information.

Action • A copy of the presentation to be uploaded onto the SIG website. T Schindl

21

6 Minutes from the SIG, 01 September 2011

The role of thematic Champions was discussed. Officers said that policy on key issues, including position statements would be a collective decision. However, the Vice Chairman confirmed that Champions will play a role in developing a way forward on these.

Decision The Group approved the minutes of the meeting with the following amendment:

Item 5 – it was noted that Miss Nicky Spurr and not Cllr Channer suggested that terminology be changed to “intended/preferred management”.

Action SIG Officers to amend minutes as outlined. S Service / T Schindl

7 Minutes of SIG Senior Officer Group meeting, 4th November 2011

Decision The Group approved the minutes of the meeting.

8 LGA Coastal SIG response to EA regarding changes in the EA’s approach to providing flood risk advice

Decision The Group noted the response.

9 Coastal Communities Fund

Decision The Group noted the contents of the briefing note.

Following the meeting, a workshop was held to get members views and comments regarding the update of the ‘On the Edge Strategy’ and the development of the position statements.

Date of next meeting – 26 April 2012, LG House, London

22

Annex A Members’ Attendance

Name Organisation Cllr Roger Elkins Arun District Council Cllr John Connor Chichester District Council Cllr Stuart Hughes Devon County Council Cllr Raymond J Ellis Hampshire County Council Cllr Mike Harrison Kent County council Cllr Albert H Thornton Lancashire County Council Cllr Edward Poll Lincolnshire County Council Cllr Miriam Lewis Maldon District Council Cllr Malcolm Wilkinson North Devon Council Cllr Angie Fitch-Tillet North Norfolk District Council Cllr Godfrey Allanson Scarborough Borough Council Cllr Michael Lyons Shepway District Council Cllr Colin Paine Shepway District Council Cllr Ernest M Gibson South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council Cllr Andy Smith Suffolk Coastal District Council Cllr Julian Swainson Waveney District Council Cllr Mark Roberts West Dorset District Council Cllr Bryan Turner Worthing Borough Council Substitutes: Cllr Penny Channer Essex County Council

Members’ Apologies

Cllr Liza McKinney Adur District Council Cllr Graham Chandler Borough of Poole Cllr Mrs Xena Dion Borough of Poole Cllr Robert Lawton Bournemouth Borough Council Cllr Peter D Vickery-Jones Canterbury City Council Cllr Julian R R German Cornwall Council Cllr Tim Munro Dorset County Council Cllr Nicholas S Kenton Dover District Council

23

Cllr Adam Grist East Lindsey District Council Cllr Jonathan Owen East Riding of Yorkshire Council Cllr Steven Wallis Eastbourne Borough Council Cllr Roger Thomas (Chairman) East Sussex County Council Cllr Mrs Tracey M Chapman Essex County Council Cllr John Bryant Fareham Borough Council Cllr Derek Kimber Gosport Borough Council Cllr Charles Reynolds Great Yarmouth Borough Council Cllr Tim G Knight Hampshire County Council Cllr Matthew Beaver Hastings Borough Council Cllr Karen Leytham Lancaster City Council Cllr Bob Allen Lewes District Council Cllr Edward Heron New Forest District Council Cllr Mrs Ann L Steward Norfolk County Council Cllr Chris Shaw North East Lincolnshire Council Cllr Lynne Stagg Portsmouth City Council Cllr Keith Green Purbeck District Council Cllr Robin Patten Rother District Council Cllr Mrs Anne E Fraser MBE Sedgemoor District Council Cllr Owen F Brady Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council Cllr Matthew T Jones Southampton City Council Cllr John Lamb Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Cllr Tony Goldson Suffolk County Council Cllr David H S Simmons Swale Borough Council Cllr Kevin Lake Teignbridge District Council Cllr Robert Bayford Thanet District Council Cllr Mrs Dianne Dear Wealden District Council Cllr Pieter Montyn West Sussex County Council Cllr Harry Smith Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council Cllr Vivien Taylor Wyre Borough Council

24

Officers’ Attendance

Name Organisation Mr Aidan Winder Devon County Council Mr Ken Buchan Dorset County Council Mr Rupert Clubb East Sussex County Council Mr Tom Schindl East Sussex County Council Ms Kathryn Langley East Sussex County Council Miss Nicky Spurr Essex County Council Mr Chris Drake Kent County Council Mr Peter Frew North Norfolk District Council Ms Jill Fisher North Norfolk District Council Mr David Archer Scarborough Borough Council Mr Colin Paine Shepway District Council Mr Bill Parker Suffolk Coastal District Council Mr Glen Westmore West Sussex County Council Substitutes: Mr Simon Wilson South Tyneside MBC Ms Jane Burch Suffolk County Council

Officers’ Apologies

Mr Roger Spencer Arun District Council Mrs Fiona Crayston Blackpool Council Mr David Harlow Bournemouth Borough Council Mr Martin Randall Brighton & Hove City Council Mr Ted Edwards Canterbury City Council Mr Keith Morgan Chichester District Council Mr Martin Gillam Chichester District Council Mr Steve Woolard Christchurch Borough Council Mr Steve Crummay Cornwall Council Mr Roger Walton Dover District Council Mr Niall Benson Durham County Council Mr Chris Straw East Lindsey District Council Mr Nigel Howells East Lindsey District Council

25

Mr Peter Padget Eastbourne Borough Council Mrs Penny Shearer Eastbourne Borough Council Mr Jeremy Pickles East Riding of Yorkshire Council Ms Lynn Anderson Essex County Council Mr Mike Maude Roxby Fareham Borough Council Ms Kim Carron Gosport Borough Council Cllr Tim G Knight Hampshire County Council Ms Rachael Gallagher Hampshire County Council Mr Nick Sangster Hastings Borough Council Mr Lyall Cairns Havant Borough Council Ms Joyce Lynch Lancashire County Council Mr G McAllister Lancaster City Council Mr Lindsay Frost Lewes District Council Mr Tony McArdle Lincolnshire County Council Mr Peter Garrett Maldon District Council Mr Andrew Bradbury New Forest District Council Mr Philip Bennett-Lloyd Norfolk County Council Ms Lara Hattle North East Lincolnshire Council Mr Warren Taylor North Tyneside Council Mr Matt Hosey Portsmouth City Council Mr Mike Goater Purbeck District Council Mr Alan Dodge Rother District Council Mr Phil Perkins Sedgemoor District Council Mr Graham Lymbery Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council Mr Colin Paine Shepway District Council Ms Rebecca Seaman Somerset County Council Mr Tony Hanson South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council Mr Bill Clark Southampton City Council Mr Andy Lewis Southend-on-Sea Borough Council Mr John Davies Suffolk Coastal District Council Mr Graeme Smith Teignbridge District Council Mr Tony Child Thanet District Council Ms Sue McGonigal Thanet District Council

26

Mr Paul Patterson Waveney District Council Mrs Linda Deacon Wealden District Council Mr Adrian Stuart West Dorset District Council Mr Ben Murray West Dorset District Council Mr Bryan Curtis Worthing Borough Council Mr Carl Green Wyre Borough Council

27

28 Coastal Issues Special Interest Group 26 April 2012

Item 12

Coastal Issues Special Interest Group Officers’ Meeting

14 March 2012-04-03, Local Government House, Smith Square, London

Minutes

Present:

Rupert Clubb (RC) - Chair East Sussex County Council Peter Frew (PF) North Norfolk District Council/Independent Tom Schindl (TS) - Minutes East Sussex County Council David Lowsley (DL) Chichester District Council Aidan Winder (AW) Devon County Council Ken Buchan (KB) Dorset County Council Nicky Spurr (NS) Essex County Council Glen Westmore (GW) West Sussex County Council

1. Apologies

Adrian Stuart (Treasurer) West Dorset District Council Chris Drake Kent County Council Roger Spencer Arun District Council Bryan Curtis Worthing Borough/Adur District Council Stewart Rowe Scarborough Borough Council Niall Benson Durham county Council Bill Parker (Vice Chair) Suffolk Coastal District Council Nick Sangster Hastings Borough Council Jo Allchurch Local Government Association Jane Burch Suffolk County Council

Action 2. Minutes of the last SIGSOG meeting (04 Aug 2011) The minutes were agreed as accurate. PF notified the group that Jill Fisher has resigned from her post with North Norfolk District Council and will no longer represent North Norfolk DC at the Coastal SIG. PF will confirm his future with North Norfolk DC and the SIG at a later date. Currently unsure if he will attend the AGM. Group discussed actions from previous SIGSOG meeting. Of note was approaching Cllr Thomas with respect to offering free membership to any local authority who decides to take responsibility of accounting role. TS confirmed that he has approached Cllr Thomas who will raise it at the SIG meeting (April 26th 2012). Action None

1 29

3. Minutes of the last SIG meeting (8th Dec 2011) Officers discussed Actions stemming from meeting: a) On the topic of DEFRA’s new funding strategy and its inclusion on the agenda for the next SIG meeting, it was agreed to add this topic to the SIG agenda. RC commented that a paper/presentation will need to made for members to debate and that inviting someone from DEFRA should be explored. PF suggested that David Cotterell from the EA could invited to give a presentation. Agreed that RC will contact David Cotterell. BC (who provided apologies) asked PF to provide comments on his behalf: Main issues raised were in regards to difficulties in budgeting for works given the way in which works are programmed. It was considered necessary for costs to be identified, where any stop-start of programme was associated. The main blockage with regards to FCERM was with EA/DEFRA. PF commented that it was difficult to achieve momentum to get project going after new financial year. b) It was noted that Members expressed concerns relating to the designation of MCZs and the perception that Natural England are not following correct procedure. TS has approached NE on this issue for comment/clarification offering NE the opportunity to present at future SIG meetings. RC proposed that NE along with the EA to be offered associated member status of the LGA Coastal SIG. TS informed the group that NE would like to send an officer to attend future meetings and their services made available to Members. NS asked how appropriate is it for Member meetings to have representatives from other organisations to attend as observers? TS reminded the group that this approach was agreed for the MMO at the last AGM meeting. It was proposed that the option to allow representatives from other organisations to attend be put in front of Members to discuss. AW commented that what is important is to ensure that the key people are invited for specific agendas, thus ensuring that the best use of people’s time is made. RC also raised the possibility of introducing a fee-based membership for these organisations, an idea to be raised/discussed at the next SIG meeting. c) Circulation of list of Alternative funding resources remains an outstanding action and it was agreed that TS will follow this up with Jo Allchurch. d) A request was made that Coastal Defences to be included as an agenda item for the next SIG meeting. RC notified the group that Nick Hardiman (EA) will be presenting at the April meeting and updating Members on the NCERM. RC asked why the SIG was not requested/invited to attend the Environment Agency’s practitioners workshop (14th March) in Suffolk? RC to speak to Ken Alison regarding this as it was seen by the group that the SIG should have been made aware of this event.

30

Action a) TS to draft email for RC to invite David Cotterell to SIG TS and RC meeting. b) TS to add observer membership to SIG agenda for Members to discuss c) TS to contact Jo Allchurch regarding alternative funding resources. d) RC to liaise with Ken Alison.

4 Matters arising not covered elsewhere on the agenda Coastal Communities Fund update. TS and At previous SIG meetings, members have inquired about the status GW of the Coastal Communities Fund. On 9th Feb 2012 The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles) announced the launch of the Government’s ‘Coastal Communities Fund’ which will allow seaside towns to seize the opportunity to boost economic growth along our coast.

Objective of the fund is to support the economic development of coastal communities by promoting sustainable economic growth and jobs, so that people are better able to respond to the changing economic needs and opportunities of their area.

Group was informed that the fund opens for bidding in March with deadline of September. For fast track applications, deadline is end of March.

Fund is intended to be a rolling fund and the expectation is for it to continue into 2013 and 2014.

NS highlighted that only 1 application per organisation was allowed. KB commented that the Fund was receiving lots of enquiries unrelated to the purpose of the fund. PF commented that CLG considers the fund to be the successor to pathfinder. RC mentioned that it would be worth sending another email around and sign posting to the link. RC also asked if any local authority was known to have bided for funding.

Coastal SIG membership database The group was notified that TS had completed the updating of the spreadsheet, but that it will forever be a working document. The spreadsheet was distributed to the LGA and Cllr Thomas and Cllr Smith. Cllr Thomas has used this sheet to approach local authorities regarding payment and membership. Spreadsheet has been helpful in chasing up on overdue fees. Logo Development GW commented that the new suggested logo was put together to make it look more coastal. It was agreed that this would be added to

31

the SIG agenda for Member discussion. KB made comments on the use of different fonts and capital letters. RC asked if a brand specialist should have a look at it? It was agreed that Kathryn Langley (ESCC) will have a look at it along with a comms specialist form West Sussex. KB commented that the logo is an important component of the comms strategy. Actions TS to contact Fatima and ask for Coastal Communities Fund info be re-circulated to members/officers. TS and GW to approach respective comms people regarding logo. 5 Financial Report Group went over the 2011/12 expenditure and discussed spending needs/work programme for 2012/13. Key item for information is that an additional amount of £1400 was agreed to be paid to Royal Haskoning for work on the strategy. PF reminded the group the £500 earmarked for Ciria has not been spent and that we should send a reminder that we offered it. PF also mentioned that the project had reached completion and that there may be need for further funding. However, to date, no further request has been made for further funding. Regarding the Marine Act Working Group, AW reminded the group that we are currently not actively working on this and we need to plan for the 2012/13 period. Consideration regarding the budget for work on the Marine Act and the East Coast Marine planning initiative should be taken into account when thinking about next year’s work programme. The group asked whether or not it is possible to put in a figure for next year in case we need it for use? GW reminded the group that a key action from the last SIGSOG meeting was for BC to put together a paper mapping out the value of the services the SIG provide. The group also discussed the merit of earmarking some budget (£2.5K) for the CAMIS project. Money may be needed with regards to the joint declaration. However any decision would be made by members RC asked if there was any money available from the Resilience Forum. Discussions also centred around putting together a work programme for the new financial year, however it was decided that the SIG need to finalise work regarding the On the Edge Strategy before we can think about populating the work plan for 2012/13.

Action TS to follow up with BC status of SIG value paper. PF to explore joint working opportunities with the EA and provide note to RC.

32

6 Consultations Group noted consultation responses/letters to the EA regarding advice on flood risk and the ROC review consultation. The group noted that the MMO’s Customer Satisfaction Survey submission date had already passed and thus was not discussed further. Red Tape Challenge: Water and Marine theme

RC – opportunity for SIG to provide comments. PF – The EA, to date, are very disappointed with the comments received.

KB – too much legislation, covering a wide area to go through, hence major time pressures to provide detailed comments. RC asked it there were any structural issues for the SIG and if there are any fixes that we could suggest?

The group discussed the linkage of the Coast Protection Act with regards to Natural England and Environment Agency roles and responsibilities and that of Local Authorities. PF agreed to look at what we know and pass comment to TS. It was agreed that individual officers and authorities will make their own comment. However, any officers with comments would email TS and TS would compile comments as part of the SIG’s response to the Red tape challenge consultation. Actions PF to email TS with comments. PF and TS TS to compile SIG response for review and sign-off by Cllr Thomas 7 Channel Arc Manche Integrated Strategy (accidental marine pollution) Further to the group discussing potential budget being made available for the CAMIS project, AW briefed the group that CAMIS was centred on emergency planning/maritime emergencies, looking at a joint political declaration from local authorities regarding risk/liability and cooperation. It was mentioned that the LGA may become involved and therefore there may be some cost involved, hence flagging this point up during the finance report. Actions None 8 On the Edge strategy and position statements update and workshop outcomes RH informed the group that he and TS met with Royal Haskoning earlier in the week to discuss increased costs. Royal Haskoning claimed that the outcomes of the workshop resulted in additional and unexpected work and as a result seeked an additional £2800 to cover their expenses. It was acknowledged that some increase in fees was justifiable and a settlement of an additional £1400 was made, in addition to the initial £6000. The group was also updated on progress. ESCC’s communications officer has provided guidance to RH on what is required based on workshop feedback. However as a result of various issues, Royal

33

Haskoning was behind schedule on producing both the position statements and the strategy. PF commented that Royal Haskoning need to complete the work prior to the Coastal SIG in April. RC added that it was important for Royal Haskoning to produce a timetable ASAP It was agreed by the group that all documents produced by Royal Haskoning should be via Officers so as Officers can help to brief Members and coordinate response. Officers asked when can the launch of the ‘On the Edge’ Strategy be expected - will it be at the AGM?? It was agreed that the AGM would be the final date for any launch, as work was supposed to have been completed and signed off by the end of March 2012. GW reminded the officers that due process needs to be followed. I.e. that it was agreed at the Workshop that the 3 position statements identified as having champions would be re-formatted and sent to the relevant Members for comment. TS would pursue this with Royal Haskoning, with a quick turn around of a week required in an attempt to have the strategy and the position statements available to Members prior to the Coastal SIG meeting (26th April). Officers agreed that Royal Haskoning should be pursued to have position statements and strategy ready for Members by the 12th April.

Actions TS to send 3 guinea pig position statements (Energy, Fisheries and TS Coastal protection and adaptation) to champions via relevant officers for receival of comments by the 28th. 9 Communications/engagement strategy RC notified the group that the communications strategy is on hold, pending finalisation of the ‘On the Edge’ strategy and corresponding position statements. The requirement for a dedicated communications officer (part time basis/0.5 days per week?) was raised. TS will inquire with Bill Parker and GW about spare capacity at their respective local authority. RC also suggested that there may be capacity at ESCC for someone to fill this role/take responsibility. If there is no capacity from local authorities then it might be necessary to buy in communications person for the strategy. GW asked if it was possible to buy in someone from the LGA? Actions TS to liaise with Bill Parker and GW regarding comms officer. TS TS to enquire about LGA providing comms support. 10 Agenda for next LGA SIG meeting – 26 April 2012

Group discussed asking Cllr Andy Smith to provide update/comments in his report in regards to 8th of December workshop. AW to provide an update regarding Cross channel coastal Collaboration on pollution. Reminder to be given about LGA AGM and field trip.

34

RH provided an update on the development of the new website. Before further work is undertaken it was agreed that members will be briefed on progress (along with the logo development), seeking approval to pay for domain name transfer and registration.

Agenda Items: NCERM update - Nick Hardiman (EA) had requested a slot at the Coastal SIG meeting to update Members on the NCERM (made available online), discussing statistics on the risk to properties from erosion along with discussing EA’s project report which appraises key aspects of the project. Halcrow have also been tasked with producing a report on how NCERM could be updated and further developed into the future both in terms of data product and the website. Nick wishes to take the opportunity to also take feedback from Members/Officers regarding key highlights and hear any points that the SIG would like to raise. EcoPORTS – Dr Chris Wooldridge (Cardiff University) has been invited to give a presenting on the special role and significance of small ports in terms of coastal issues, spatial planning and stakeholder relations. The presentation will profile the SuPorts project and outline the rolls and methodologies available and currently being developed to assist implementation of effective management programmes. Marine Planning update – TS contacted by Martyn Youell (Senior marine planner at the MMO). Interested in regular attendance at Member meetings as discussed at AGM in 2011. TS provided details of future meeting dates. MMO have offered to provide an update on the progress of the first round of marine planning in the East of England.

Actions TS to contact Cllr Smith regarding SIG report. AW to provide an update regarding Cross channel coastal Collaboration on pollution.

11 Papers for LGA SIG meeting Suggestion to use links/articles from e-newsletters and include in Meeting papers package.

12 AOB PF – suggested that ClimateUK (www.climateuk.net) be invited to the September meeting.

Next meeting is 11am Thu 3rd May, LGA House.

TS 2nd April 2012

35

36

37

38 SIG Response to Defra Funding Review

Economy, Transport & Environment Lord Smith East Sussex County Council Environment Agency County Hall Horizon House St Anne’s Crescent Deanery Road Lewes Bristol East Sussex BS1 5AH BN7 1UE

14th November 2011

Contact: Tom Schindl, Technical Officer, LGA Coastal Issues SIG Email: [email protected] Direct Dial: 01273 336838

Dear Lord Smith,

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY STANDING ADVICE ON FLOOD RISK WITHIN THE PLANNING PROCESS

I am writing to you in my capacity as Chairman of the Local Government Association (LGA) Coastal Issues Special Interest Group (SIG). The SIG currently comprises more than 70 Local Authorities from around the coast of England and works to champion and take forward our coastal strategy and represent the collective interests of all maritime local authorities.

We are concerned that the recent changes in the Environment Agency’s (EA) approach to providing flood risk advice have not been properly communicated to local planning authorities; we are aware of inconsistencies in interpretation of the advice by local EA officers, and some authorities were unaware that the EA’s approach had changed until the matter was raised at our last SIG meeting in September. Historically some local planning committees have seen the presence or absence of the EA objection letter as a steer as to the acceptability of an application in relation to flood risk. Given this issue the LGA Coastal SIG requests clarity from the EA regarding these changes in policy, as they need to be communicated to ensure planning decisions are made with the appropriate evidence clearly understood.

The purpose of this letter is therefore to request from the EA formal notification on the change in policy with regards to its approach in providing advice for Local Planning Authorities on development proposals with flood risk

39 SIG Response to Defra Funding Review

issues. If possible we would like clear and formal confirmation over which developments the EA will continue to issue a formal objection to, and which the LPA will simply receive advice on. We also seek clarification on the role, if any, of Local Lead Flood Authorities, for example in regards to surface water flood risk in new developments, and how the EA’s advice should be taken into account in Flood Risk Assessment.

Furthermore we also have concerns regarding how staff are to act on EA’s advice, as there is no clear explanation from the EA how they will react when flood risk matters are cited by local planning authorities (LPA) as a reason for refusal on EA’s advice and the LPA requires an expert flood witness at an appeal.

We believe the position may become even less clear if the new National Planning Policy Framework is introduced in its present guise, notwithstanding comments by this Group and others. Therefore, the LGA Coastal SIG considers that the production of clear nation-wide advice, along with an associated programme of how the EA intends to communicate that advice, as being vital if local planning authorities are to avoid inappropriate development in relation to flood risk. The Coastal SIG is well placed to help with the communication, and we would be happy to explore opportunities for working together in this matter.

We appreciate your time on this matter and look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Yours faithfully,

Councillor Roger Thomas Chairman, LGA Coastal Issues SIG

40

Renewables Obligation Team Economy, Transport & Environment Department of Energy and Climate Change East Sussex County Council Area 4A County Hall 3 Whitehall Place St Anne’s Crescent London Lewes SW1A 2AW East Sussex BN7 1UE

11 January 2012

Contact: Tom Schindl, Technical Officer, LGA Coastal Issues SIG Email: [email protected] Direct Dial: 01273 336838

Dear Sirs

Consultation: Renewables Obligation Branding Review Relating to elements that cover: (i) Offshore Wind (Chapter Four) (ii) Marine Technologies (Chapter Six)

I am writing to you in my capacity as Chairman of the Local Government Association (LGA) Coastal Issues Special Interest Group (SIG). The SIG currently comprises more than 70 Local Authorities from around the coast of England and works to champion and take forward our coastal strategy and represent the collective interests of all maritime local authorities.

This response should be read in conjunction with other key consultation responses that may have been prepared across industry especially from:

• Coastal group Chairman, Individual Coastal Groups, Coastal Partnerships/Forums • Individual Councils and Council Networks • Professional Institutions such as the ICE, RTPI and CIWEM.

We welcome the publication of the consultation and hope that after consideration of responses it will enable the Government to finalise its proposals on the levels of branded support available for renewable electricity generation under the Renewables Obligation for the period 2013-17. The LGA Coastal SIG supports the Government’s commitment to increasing the deployment of renewable energy as part of efforts to tackle climate change and decrease our reliance on energy imports. We support technologies that are carefully designed and located and which do not

1

41 damage our natural environment, landscape and sea scapes, nor unreasonably impact communities ability to enjoy these things.

The following response focuses on 2 elements of the review, namely Chapter 4 and 6. This response has been produced on behalf of the LGA Coastal SIG but the views of individual Local Authorities may vary.

Chapter 4 OFFSHORE WIND

Questions 3 & 4 Do you agree with the ARUP assessment of costs and deployment potential for offshore wind? Please explain your response with evidence.

The LGA Coastal Special Interest Group (SIG) agrees with Arup’s analysis that offshore wind has significant potential for deployment of 23.5GW to 2020 and 52GW by 2030. We have no reason to disagree with either their assessment of the requirement to drive down the costs to less than £100/MWh if the aforesaid 2020 potential is to be reached.

Due to its cost the consultation document refers to Offshore wind as the ‘marginal technology’ for meeting the UK’s 2020 renewable target. Although we have no specific argument with this description we believe it is an unusual designation for a technology that is so prominent in the Government’s UK Energy Roadmap.

Near-coast offshore wind has varying relevance to the different coastal areas which are members of the Coastal SIG. Some council areas have coastlines that were successful in the round three leasing rounds whilst others, such as Cornwall (which is thought unsuitable for sea bed based near-shore wind generators due to a steeply sloping continental shelf), are in useful discussions with the Crown Estate which is proposing to create Strategic areas for the development of Marine Energy (see answer to Chapter 6).

However, the wind strengths surrounding many of those areas which are not suitable for ‘near- shore’ wind generation often provide excellent power generation potential in the deeper seas further from the coast. In the South West of the UK for instance, the Offshore Renewables Resource and Development (ORRAD) Assessment (SWRDA Nov 2010) indicates that there is 2500MW of electricity generating capacity in the deep water seas off the South West coast should ‘floating wind’ technology be utilised.

The LGA Coastal SIG has concerns that the current consultation does not make any reference to this type of technology being developed to utilise in these sea areas. The SIG recognises that floating wind energy technology is still at the innovation/development stage and is unlikely to be heavily deployed before 2017. The SIG believes that there will be opportunities for limited floating wind deployment prior to 2017 and considerably increased deployment between 2017 and 2020.

However, if this new innovative technology is to be effectively deployed it will require clear ‘innovational’ status. It should therefore attract much the same banded support as assigned to the ‘marine technologies’ included in this consultation document.

The LGA Coastal SIG requests clarity on this issue within the review and therefore recommends that the Government reconsiders the technology boundaries with which it

2

42 has considered offshore wind generators. Consideration should be given to creating a ‘banding’ for floating wind technology at a level that is similar to marine energy technologies.

Chapter Six MARINE TECHNOLOGIES

Question 8 Do you agree with the proposed level of support of 5 ROCS/MWh for each project up to a limit of 30MW for wave and tidal stream (and 2 ROCS/MWh above that limit)?

The BERR Atlas of Marine Energy Resources 2008 (an SEA) demonstrates that much of the UK is suitable for the effective deployment of marine energy technologies, either wave or tidal. With approximately a thousand miles of suitable wave and tidal resources off the UK’s coastline and a reasonable infrastructure on land (ports and grid etc) the UK has great potential to play a major role in the global development and deployment of marine renewable technology.

The Coastal SIG believes it is vital to create a business environment for marine energy commercialisation by bringing together physical, commercial assets and resources to attract investment and accelerate the commercialisation of marine energy and create a global industry.

Currently, however, there are major national hurdles which have been seemingly overcome in Scotland (with help from the Scottish Parliament). This has had the effect of marginalising opportunities south of the border. Key to this is the current lack of parity of the ROCS market incentives for marine energy available either side of the Scottish border.

Such parity is therefore an essential element if the SW MEP is to be successful. The LGA Coastal SIG is therefore fully supportive of the proposal to provide 5ROCs/MWh for both wave and tidal stream.

However, the SIG notes that there will still remain a lack of total parity with ROCS compared to that made available in Scotland where there is no limit of 30MW (see below).

Question 9 Do you agree that 30MW is an appropriate level for the project cap?

The LGA Coastal SIG recognises that this proposal is time limited until 2017 when new measures under ERM and FiT with CfD support will be introduced. Whilst the industry is generally in agreement that prior to 2017 it is unlikely to generate more that 30MW from individual projects the SIG is concerned that the industry will continue to seek the security to be found with the longer term continuity that Scotland’s ‘no upper limit’ will bring. This is a long-haul economic opportunity for the whole of the UK and we would not want to see opportunities south of the Scottish border placed at risk because of any remaining concerns that we cannot offer absolute ROCs parity with Scotland.

Question 10 Do you agree that the proposed level of support will help to drive deployment for the pre- commercial and early commercial deployment phases?

3

43 Please see the answers to question eight & nine. Notwithstanding the concerns outlined in its answer to question nine, the LGA Coastal SIG supports the belief that 5ROCS will help support the successful development of marine energy parks. The SIG is concerned that DECC must achieve improved alignment with BIS and the various agencies that play their role in the consenting process work together to support the type of local/regional initiatives of delivery through marine energy parks.

Additional Comments

The LGA Coastal SIG would also like to draw to your attention to the issues that exist between how offshore wind generation is planned and how the transmission of electricity to where the demand is, is achieved. In our view the present system where National Grid is obliged to make an offer of a connection to an electricity generator within a short time frame does not encourage an integrated, long term approach to planning electricity transmission infrastructure. For instance, National Grid offered East Anglia Offshore Wind a connection at Lowestoft, only for it to transpire there was no existing 400KV line.

We appreciate your time on this matter and look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Yours faithfully,

Councillor Roger Thomas Chairman, LGA Coastal Issues SIG

4

44

Cabinet Office Economy, Transport & Environment 70 Whitehall East Sussex County Council London County Hall SW1A 2AS St Anne’s Crescent Lewes East Sussex BN7 1UE

30 March 2012

Contact: Tom Schindl, Technical Officer, LGA Coastal Issues SIG Email: [email protected] Direct Dial: 01273 336838

Dear Sirs

Consultation: Water and Marine Red Tape Challenge

I am writing to you in my capacity as Chairman of the Local Government Association (LGA) Coastal Issues Special Interest Group (SIG). The SIG currently comprises more than 50 Local Authorities from around the coast of England and works to champion and take forward our coastal strategy and represent the collective interests of all maritime local authorities.

This response should be read in conjunction with other key consultation responses that may have been prepared across industry especially from:

• Coastal group Chairman, Individual Coastal Groups, Coastal Partnerships/Forums • Individual Councils and Council Networks • Professional Institutions such as the ICE, RTPI and CIWEM. • Regional Flood and Coastal Committees

We welcome the opportunity to participate and provide comments on the Government’s Red tape Challenge initiative and hope that after consideration of our response, it will enable the Government to implement policies in the most effective way possible, ensuring that regulations are not creating unnecessary barriers to innovation and efficiency. Acknowledging the large quantity of regulation/legislation that is present for consultation, our comments are made specifically in relation to the Coast Protection Act 1949 and the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. This consultation response has been produced on behalf of the LGA Coastal SIG but the views of individual Local Authorities may vary.

1

45 Coast Protection Act 1949

The LGA Coastal SIG recognises that the Coast Protection Act 1949 is now an old piece of legislation; however it has the advantage of being a simple piece of legislation. In our view, there is no reason for the Act to be changed, despite containing powers that are not longer relevant. We note that in the CRoW Act, that there is an omission that requires coast protection authorities to undertake a similar consultation to that required by the Coast Protection Act, however this can usually be covered by referring to both Acts. With respect to the bureaucratic processes generated by this Act, it is really only Environment Agency approvals procedures that add further bureaucratic hurdles. The LGA Coastal SIG suggests that the process could by simplified if a ‘one stop’ application protocol is produced that, covers all legislation associated with a coast protection scheme - including obligations and requirements associated with planning, environment, heritage, coast protection, FEPA licenses etc.

Flood and Water Management Act 2010

Recognising the fact that there might be a perception that there is merit in embodying the Coast Protection Act within the Flood and Water Management Act, the LGA Coastal SIG wishes to highlight that the Flood and Water Management Act in its current form is very flood and fluvial biased and it would need have a complete re-write and thus adding greater levels of bureaucracy and red tape to an already complicate process. The LGA Coastal SIG sees that the real issue with flood and coastal erosion risk management is in regards to the bureaucracy that the Environment Agency has put in place to support their functions under various Acts. The approval phase that a scheme/works project has to go through in order to obtain grant and an approval is a complicated and multi-stepped process that does not guarantee a project/scheme gaining funding approval. Whilst the focus on the approval processes has been on the Environment Agency, further adding to the bureaucratic process is that running parallel to consultation with the Environment Agency are the consultations requirements with other organisations, for example the Marine Management Organisation and Natural England, as part of various legislation and regulation requirements. In recognition of the lengthy bureaucratic process the LGA Coastal SIG advocates the development of a simpler and streamlined arrangement with respect to the consenting process.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the Red Tape Challenge and should you have any queries or require clarification of any of the points raised please do not hesitate to contact us.

Yours faithfully,

Councillor Roger Thomas Chairman, LGA Coastal Issues SIG

2

46

Securing alternative sources of funding for flood and coastal erosion risk management

An interim guide

6 July 2011

The latest version of this document can be found on the FlowNet Local Government Community of Practice website: http://www.communities.idea.gov.uk/c/2050378/home.do

47 Contents

Introduction and purpose...... 3 Why look for alternative sources of funding?...... 3 How to go about securing alternative sources of funding...... 4 Annex A: Potential partner organisations...... 6 Annex B: Potential sources of funding...... 12 Annex C: Case study examples ...... 19 Annex D: References and further reading ...... 23

2

48 Introduction and purpose

The purpose of this guide is to give local authorities an early understanding of alternative sources of funding to help them and their partners deliver additional flood and coastal erosion risk management projects in the area.

The guide has been developed by members of the LG Group’s National Partners Group on Flooding. It builds on a 2010 Local Government Flood Forum / LGiU report, ‘Local Options, Local Choices’ and is informed by discussions between experts from all partner organisations and government departments.

This is an interim guide - more comprehensive practitioner guidance on collaboration and seeking funding is under development by Halcrow Ltd through a Defra-funded research project called Joint Solutions for Local Flood Risk Management. This work will be published later in 2011. The joint solutions work will expand on the material within this document to set out guidance and case study examples of how to actually do it. The guidance will include: • extra information on potential funding partners investment cycles and business models; • information about how programmes of work can be co-ordinated to achieve more cost effective solutions; • case studies where collaboration and joint funding has been achieved, identifying key success factors and potential pitfalls to avoid; • guidance on skills and resources that LLFAs can utilise to maximise opportunities for collaboration. Why look for alternative sources of funding?

The amount of Government funding towards flood and coastal erosion risk management projects is limited each year. Under Defra’s new partnership funding approach, relatively small amounts of local funding (or cost savings) could make the difference between locally-important projects going ahead or not. Such contributions will supplement the amount of Government funding available at the national level. A contribution could leverage large amounts of funding from Government, and in turn deliver benefits to the community that dwarf the costs involved.

For example, a 10% local contribution towards a scheme expected to deliver benefits eight times greater than the costs involved (as is typical), would deliver an 80 to 1 return on the level of contribution (from a local perspective).

3

49 The benefits of managing flood and coastal erosion risks are likely to feed through to the community in terms of property and land values, insurance costs against flooding, and business and agricultural productivity over the long-term.

Under the new partnership approach, some schemes stand to be 100% grant funded by Defra and others partially funded. Defra states that if contributions can be raised from those benefitting from fully-funded schemes, any excess contribution can be retained by the risk management authority involved and used to help pay for lower scoring schemes in the area.

Therefore, every 100% project likely to go ahead represents an opportunity to leverage significant contributions towards the overall goals of the local flood risk management strategy. A 100% project that proceeds without a significant contribution could be seen as a lost opportunity to do more for the wider community.

Lastly, in endorsing flood and coastal erosion risk management projects for the regional programme, Regional Flood and Coastal Committees are likely to look favourably upon schemes where a contributions policy has been successfully applied. The Environment Agency’s existing external contributions policy will apply to all their projects. How to go about securing alternative sources of funding

Many local flood risk management schemes will be developed and taken forward as partnerships. Organisations with assets or flood risk management responsibilities in the area concerned are the most likely potential partners in developing schemes. Defra’s Surface Water Management Plan Guidance explains the roles that different organisations may have in flood risk management and how partnerships can be established, solutions investigated and action plans taken forward.

Key partners with direct interest in schemes are potential funders or may be able to contribute to schemes in other ways such as co-ordinating their work to achieve scheme objectives or allowing works to take place on their land. Where there is a shortfall of funding, scheme promoters are encouraged to look more widely for alternative sources of funds. This is likely to need early involvement of elected representatives in choices that may require political support.

The forthcoming Joint Solutions guidance will build on the SWMP guidance and provide more understanding of potential partners funding streams and investment cycles and their motivations for collaborative working. The joint solutions guidance will provide scheme promoters with practical guidance to help them identify and secure alternative sources of funding.

4

50 A provisional list and information about potential partners is included at Annex A to this interim guidance. This is followed by a list of potential funding routes at Annex B, intended to give local authorities a preview of potential alternative sources of funding to consider.

Annex C contains a list of case study examples where alternative funding sources have been accessed, together with links to where more information can be found. Annex D contains references for further reading.

5

51 Annex A: Potential partner organisations

Note: this section has been extracted from Joint Funding for Local Flood Risk Management Schemes, Phase 1 Report, Halcow Ltd for Defra, June 2011.

The tables below summarise the organisations, groups and funding bodies considered to be the main stakeholders with respect to flood risk management, subdivided into key potential partners and other potential partner organisations. This list is intended as a guide: it is acknowledged that individual circumstances can vary widely; other types of organisation may have a role to play and this should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Table 1: Key potential partners

Organisation Role in LFRM Benefits of collaboration

LA as Lead • Manage local flood risk • Access to technical expertise and Local Flood data • Maintain records Authority and • Obtain funding contributions from SUDS Approval • Incident reporting other stakeholders and Body • Maintain and operate ordinary beneficiaries watercourses (with Districts • Reduced timescales for scheme where appropriate) delivery • Responsibility for civil • Reduced objections from other contingencies (emergency stakeholders and beneficiaries planning) • Opportunities to ‘piggyback’ and • (Will be) SUDS Approval Body integrate drainage schemes with third party projects (e.g. retrofit SUDS and highways projects)

District LA with • Maintain and operate works • Access to technical expertise and Flood Risk powers on ordinary data Management watercourses • Reduced timescales for scheme functions. delivery and collaboration where ordinary watercourses involved. • Access to funds through Revenue Support Grant

LA as • Drainage authority for highway • Represent interests in decision- highways runoff making authority • Co-operate with LLFA • Reduce drainage costs by sharing schemes with other interested parties

6

52 Organisation Role in LFRM Benefits of collaboration

LA as planning • Ensure no inappropriate • Ensure that LFRM decisions authority development in areas at risk of support local needs for economic flooding and housing development, and vice versa • Ensure development does not create areas at risk of flooding • Prevent unnecessary flood risk management costs • Co-operate with LLFA • Protect critical infrastructure from flood risks • Ensure appropriate developer contributions to future flood risk management activities and ongoing operation and maintenance of drainage features

Internal • Responsible for maintenance, • Represent interests in decision- Drainage improvement and operation of making Boards (IDBs) drainage systems • Ensure appropriate contributions • Regulation of watercourses from other parties for maintenance apart from the main rivers and upgrade of IDB assets affected • Manage the level of watercourses • Co-operate with LLFA

Water and • Responsible for maintaining • Meet Ofwat targets and achieve Sewerage sewers carrying surface water* similar or better outcomes for less Companies away from impermeable cost surfaces and that the contents • Inform 25 year investment plans of the sewers are managed appropriately. Responsible for • Reduce whole life costs by management and operation of considering a wider range of foul sewerage system(this often options outside own strictly also includes surface water) regulated area of responsibility • Protect water quality (e.g. • Maintain/improve standard of pollution from combined sewer service to customers overflows) • Co-operate with LLFA • Responsible for maintaining other services to customers (eg water supply) * surface water in this context is limited to that from “roofs and yards”

7

53 Organisation Role in LFRM Benefits of collaboration

Ofwat • Make sure that there are • Maximise value for water company sufficient funds available to customers through more efficient water companies capital and operational expenditure • To ensure that water companies • To help promote economy and provide consumers with a good efficiency quality service and value for • Clearer responsibilities for water money companies making regulation • To ensure that water companies easier duties are properly carried out • To contribute to the achievement of and take action if they are not. sustainable development

Environment • Implement government policy on • Early sight of proposals making it Agency flood risk easier to ensure LFRM decisions are aligned with government policy • Strategic overview of coastal and reducing the need to object to erosion and flooding from all proposals (and hence time and sources administration costs) • Protect the environment • Ensure more cost effective use of • Mitigation and betterment grant in aid funding by encouraging contributions from other interested • Water efficiency (e.g. storm parties to appropriate schemes water harvesting SUDS) • Reduced timescales for scheme • Climate change adaptation delivery • Co-operate with LLFA

Private sector • Ensure development is • Represent interests in decision- developers consistent with policies: PPS25 making and those on flood risk in the • Ensure appropriate level of Local Development Documents developer contributions to future • Provide FRA for development flood risk management activities and ongoing operation and • Reduce flood risk to the maintenance of drainage features development and elsewhere where possible • Reduce drainage costs by sharing schemes with other interested • Co-operate with LLFA parties • Increase sales revenue by ensuring houses are protected from flooding and that drainage schemes enhance developments

8

54 Table 2: Other potential partners and relevant organisations

Organisation Role in LFRM Benefits of collaboration

NGOs; • Responsible for flood risk • Influence proposals Private management on their own land • Raise funds to make schemes Landowners, • Beneficiaries of LFRM schemes happen Community groups and • Protect land and property Trusts • (including Forewarning of areas at risk from Local Flood future flooding (e.g. climate change) Action Groups); Lottery funding bodies; RSPB, etc.

Highways • Responsible for drainage of • Represent interests in decision- Agency motorways and trunk roads making • Co-operate with LLFA • Reduce drainage costs by sharing schemes with other interested parties

Network Rail • Responsible for managing flood • Represent interests in decision- risk to its railways and stations making • Co-operate with LLFA • Protect assets and customers • Avoid costs associated with line closure due to flood damage • Minimise cost of suspending services due to flooding • Forewarning of assets at risk from future flooding (e.g. climate change)

Natural • Responsible for advising EA on • Influence decision-making England potential impact of proposed • Ensure that LFRM schemes (Countryside activities falling under the contribute to protection and Council for Environmental Permitting enhancement of designated sites Wales within Regulations on the integrity of Wales) European designated sites • Ensure wider picture taken into account re habitat creation • Specific duties relating to the opportunities, supporting particular authorisation of operations likely species, protecting and enhancing to damage SSSIs, provided by ecosystems the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000)

9

55 Organisation Role in LFRM Benefits of collaboration

Other utility • Responsible for maintaining • Represent interests in decision- companies supply to customers making (aside from • Co-operate with LLFA • Protect assets water companies) • Keep customers satisfied and avoid claims relating to suspension of service due to flood damage • Avoid costs due to flood damage • Forewarning of assets at risk from future flooding (e.g. climate change)

National • Protect members’ land and • Protect members’ land and property Farmers’ property • Represent members’ interests in Union • Represent members interests decision-making • Co-ordinate members’ • Provide members with forewarning participation in LFRM of areas at risk from future flooding (e.g. climate change)

Waste • Co-operate with LLFA • Protect sites management • Co-operate with LPA to produce • Reduce risk of leachate penalties organisation Minerals and Waste s • Forewarning of areas at risk from Plan/Development Framework future flooding (e.g. climate change) to inform site location decisions and flood risk management measures

European • Potential funding sources (e.g • Improved compliance with Floods Union RDF) Directive • Regeneration of urban • Facilitates compliance with Water watercourses Framework and other relevant Directives. • Protect water quality and the environment

The Forestry • Responsible for the protection • Promote benefits of woodland to Commission and expansion of Britain's forests manage flood risk (in its current and woodlands • Protect and enhance existing form) woodland and create new areas as part of LFRM schemes – a recent mapping exercise with EA has identified areas in floodplain, riparian and upper catchment zones which could benefit from new woodland to help manage flood risk and could receive funding from Local Economic Partnerships (previously Yorkshire Forward)

Local • Conduit for funding (e.g. EU) • Ensure that LFRM decisions Economic support local needs for economic • Manage funding contributions Partnerships development and/or local • Help co-ordinate public and • Prevent unnecessary flood risk Chambers of private sector involvement management and defence costs Commerce • Represent local economic interests

10

56 Organisation Role in LFRM Benefits of collaboration

Parish and • General powers to assist LLFA • Represent interests of local town communities • Provide links with local councils communities • Ensure local concerns are taken into account within LFRM • Help co-ordinate flood preparation and response, galvanise local communities into action, co-ordinate communications

Association • Represent their members’ • More accurate risk valuation of British interests who provide insurance • Increased availability of insurance Insurers for flood damage and associated at competitive prices. costs • Improved reputation (able to offer more consistent messages to customers)

11

57 Annex B: Potential sources of funding

The following list of potential funding sources has been deliberately left unfiltered, as they may be more or less appropriate depending on the nature of local circumstances. Discussions at National Partners Group meetings have aimed to identify which funding options are most relevant or viable at present. In general, those sources mentioned towards the top of the list appear to be more promising and widely applicable than those towards the bottom of this list.

Source What is it? Pros Cons Most appropriate for Further info Flood Defence Funding raised Large sums Total amount limited All types of project, large and Environment Grant-In-Aid through general potentially available each year small Agency taxation for FCERM projects RFCC Local Levy Money raised from LLFA payments are Relatively small pot, Topping up projects that score RFCCs LLFAs for additional compensated by £30m a year across almost 100% under the new FCERM priorities central Government England, 1/3rd of the system

58 grants total in London. Large increases may impact on council tax. Private beneficiary Voluntary Becoming Can be time- Projects that deliver tangible Environment investment contributions from increasingly common. consuming to agree reductions in future risk to Agency have private beneficiaries Potential for multi- and underpin with major business interests many of flood risk £million contributions legal agreements examples management. Could (see case studies) include major, businesses, landlords, etc.

12 Source What is it? Pros Cons Most appropriate for Further info Water company Funds raised through Water companies Amounts available Increased surface water investment the price review may be increasingly may be limited unless drainage capacity and process. Water willing and able to water companies own combined sewers. companies are able to invest in local FRM the assets invest in some types strategies in order to themselves. of surface water protect their assets management, and and customers on the increased resilience flood plain. for their assets. Community A locally set general Large sums could Long-term approaches to link Infrastructure Levy charge which potentially be raised flood alleviation and authorities can over time. Is flexible: regeneration, hand in hand choose to implement. authorities can adjust Levied on developers, spending plans to per m2 of most new meet priorities. development across Developers may be

59 an authority’s area. supportive as it will increase value of developments. S106 (Town and Contributions from Can ensure specific Negotiated separately To pay for defences that link Country Planning developers, linked to issues are addressed. for each development. specific developments need in Act 1990) specific developments order to be safe and so and the infrastructure acceptable in planning terms. required to make them acceptable in planning terms.

13 Source What is it? Pros Cons Most appropriate for Further info Council Tax Funds raised through Can raise significant Not popular. Spreading costs of the local taxation on local sums from relatively Significant increases flood risk management householders small % increases. will in future be strategy over a wide area to Can be applied at subject to a make the impact per parish, district or requirement to hold a household small council level. Also referendum. ‘special items/expenses’ can be applied in defined areas (in specific circumstances). Public Works Loan Finance from HM Potentially unlimited All borrowing must be Major capital projects that link Board (PWLB) Treasury for public amounts available. within ‘prudential deliver long-term benefits to bodies Advantageous limits’ – ie. councils the community interest rates. Simple must be satisfied they and quick application can afford to service

60 procedure. the debt out of their revenue resources. Business Rate Following a vote of Potentially raises Needs to be levied Increasing levels of link Supplements businesses, allows for significant sums over across a whole protection, primarily to an up to 2p increase a period of time. authority and only on businesses. on local business properties with a rates rateable value above £50,000 Business Following a vote of Can raise revenues Can only be levied for Small scale very localised link Improvement businesses, allows for over small areas – 5 year periods – business protection. Districts a levy to be raised on does not need to be second terms are local ratepayers an authority wide levy allowed following a further vote

14 Source What is it? Pros Cons Most appropriate for Further info Asset Backed Finance raised on the Potentially very large Need to establish a Projects that deliver a range link Securities (Asset back of assets sums possible (e.g. public/private of assets and benefits, such Backed Finance) created or enhanced Croydon) investment vehicle as development, urban through flood risk regeneration, housing, etc management General Drainage Money raised from Raises £3m a year in Not applied outside of Projects that protect largely Charge/Special landowners for Anglian region Anglian region (but agricultural areas. Drainage Charge additional works by could be) the Environment Agency Local authority fees Money raised from Can be done under May not raise much Projects that protect small and charges specific beneficiaries existing powers money. Charge numbers of easily identifiable of defences payers must support properties, where there is the idea. strong support for the project to proceed.

61 Trusts Formation of a legal Can bring together a Can take a lot of Where there is a strong link entity, to channel wide range of energy and some community spirit and revenue raising into community interests seed-corn funding to opportunities to tie investment additional flood and and projects under a set up. in with tourism, regeneration coastal defence and single banner. etc of an area. other relevant projects Regional Growth Government money to Recognises flood Only available for a Specific projects that achieve link Fund help regions reliant on defence projects can few years. 2011/12 regeneration and economic public sector help meet fund over-subscribed. development goals industries to realise regeneration and private sector growth economic growth goals

15 Source What is it? Pros Cons Most appropriate for Further info Business Rate The Local Such an approach Business Rates would Schemes that include link Retention Government could help set free not be a new funding protection for new or Resource Review is many local councils source, but local expanded business districts. considering options to from dependency on retention allows enable councils to central government authorities to prioritise retain their locally- funding and provide its spending taking raised business rates. incentives, through into account wider The Review will the business rates services they are publish proposals in system, for them to required to deliver. July ’11 for promote economic consultation and that growth will provide an opportunity for comment prior to preparing the Primary Legislation required.

62 Tax Increment Borrowing for the up- Allows for the forward TIF not allowed under New development that without link Finance (TIF) front financing of funding of existing powers. the infrastructure would not capital investment for infrastructure for a The Local otherwise go ahead that a defined areas to be development to be Government creates additional rates to be developed, which delivered. May be Resource Review is able to fund the borrowing. without the TIF would scope for ‘risk- considering how to not proceed, that will sharing’ loans from deliver TIF powers provide an increase in private-sector lenders, alongside local rates yield. linking councils’ retention of business liability to repay with rates. actual TIF income - thus guaranteeing the Any borrowing must affordability of the still be within borrowing. ‘prudential limits’.

16 Source What is it? Pros Cons Most appropriate for Further info New Homes Bonus A financial incentive May help fund any Must not lead to Where a particular link to build new housing additional local inappropriate development is dependent on infrastructure needed development in areas flood risk management at flood risk or coastal change. Local Government Means of borrowing Possibly lower All borrowing must be Extremely large capital Bonds from the capital interest rates than within ‘prudential projects. markets loans from PWLB (but limits’ – ie. councils account must be must be satisfied they taken of significant can afford to service upfront costs of the debt out of their arrangement). revenue resources.. Not practicable for loans of less than about £200m.

63 The following sources of funding are also possibilities, and will be explored further.

Source What is it? Pros Cons Most appropriate for Further info EU Solidarity Fund – emergency only EU Structure Fund Rural Development Programme – England European Regional Development Fund Big Lottery Fund Heritage Lottery Fund Wellbeing funds

17 Council Reserves Planning tariffs (end in 2013) Private Finance Out of favour, due to Initiative risk that investments remain ‘on balance sheet’ Foundations Landfill Community Fund Capital leasing Insurance Realised by individual reductions property owners, therefore difficult to capture and use to pay for defences

64 unless by agreement Tax rebates Regulated investment (through Utility companies) EU Investment Bank S13 discounts (Government Finance Act, 1992) Green Infrastructure Not available yet, and Bank may not offer advantages over borrowing from other sources.

18 Annex C: Case study examples

The following table provides summary information about cases where partnership approaches and joint funding have been successfully applied (or are in the process of being applied). Where available, links are provided to documents or websites that provide fuller information.

Case study Summary Total project cost Sources of funding Further info East Lane, Bawdsey Land was donated for allowable development, £x million Land donations + allowable link coast protection with the increase in land value recycled in to a development leading to scheme coast protection scheme increased land value Portsmouth coastal Long-term approach to sea defence upgrades ~£280 million Community Infrastructure Levy link defence strategy to enable the regeneration of Portsmouth city (£41 million over 20 years) (supported by Partnership for Urban South Hampshire - PUSH) Gloucestershire A local referendum led to council tax being £2.3 million a year Council tax precept, following link Council Tax precept increased by 1.1% to be invested in additional local referendum

65 drainage and maintenance work after the 2007 floods Peopleton, Additional protection against surface water run- £150,000 Local residents and parish link Worcestershire off in rural area council (£25,000), district council (£5,000), Government loan (£50,000), county council (remainder) River Dove flood The £7 million scheme to protect Hatton, £7 million £1.65m from Nestle (plus link alleviation Scropton and Egginton from the River Dove is consultancy advice and use of being developed by the Environment Agency land during construction), with a significant financial contribution from Egginton Parish Council Nestle. (£8,300), FDGiA (remainder) Louth and Potential water company contribution towards £Xm Anglian Water, FDGiA Horncastle, a coast protection scheme, due to the defence (remainder) Lincolnshire protecting against saline inundation for water company assets.

19 Case study Summary Total project cost Sources of funding Further info Rotherham flood 1 in 100 defence level to over 30 hectares of £15 million Yorkshire Forward, Rotherham link alleviation (phase 1) commercial property, safeguarded 70 MBC, Environment Agency- businesses with 1,000 jobs, enabled new Yorkshire Regional Flood development on 5 hectares of land, Defence Committee and ERDF redeveloped riverside access, protected rail Objective 1. line and roads and created a new functional flood plain area of urban wetland close to the town centre. East Hanney, Volunteers working closely with the £6,500 Local authority, Environment link Oxfordshire Environment Agency, Local Authorities and Agency (£3,000), local local landowners to help protect the village volunteers from regular flooding. Kempsey flood Fund raising and contributions from local levy £1.45m Fund raising, local authority, link alleviation and local councils to prevent regular flooding of RFCC local levy rural village

66 Chelmsford urban Urban main river scheme to protect 650 £8 million Chelmsford Borough Council link regeneration and households whilst helping to regenerate the (£6.1m), FDGiA (remainder) flood alleviation town centre Medmerry flood Managed realignment and flood alleviation £15 million £1 million cost savings link alleviation scheme scheme to protect a major holiday park and achieved by working with residents on Selsey Bill, whilst creating new owners of holiday park, plus habitat to compensate for losses elsewhere on scope for significant the south coast. contribution Upper Mole Valley Scheme to protect 1,256 properties in Crawley £15 million Gatwick Airport + local link flood alleviation and Horley, and Gatwick Airport. contributions (£4.7m), FDGiA scheme (remainder) Hoe Valley Scheme to provide better protection to 198 £11.3 million Woking Borough Council link regeneration and properties, part of an overall £40m package of (£7.4m), FDGiA (£3.7m) flood alleviation works being delivered by Woking Borough Council to regenerate this part of Woking in order to: create a new green corridor, provide recreational spaces, improve road junctions

20 Case study Summary Total project cost Sources of funding Further info and infrastructure, move a contaminated waste area from the floodplain, create new community facilities and provide new sustainable housing Alkborough Flats Included in ‘Schemes with multiple objectives link tidal defence scheme and funders – guidance and lessons learned’ (FD2635), Maslen/JBA/Terry Oakes Associates for Defra, 2011 Blakeney Freshes Included in ‘Schemes with multiple objectives link River Glaven and funders – guidance and lessons learned’ Realignment and (FD2635), Maslen/JBA/Terry Oakes Cley to Salthouse Associates for Defra, 2011 Drainage Improvements Cleveleys Coastal Included in ‘Schemes with multiple objectives link 67 Defence and funders – guidance and lessons learned’ Improvement and (FD2635), Maslen/JBA/Terry Oakes Promenade Associates for Defra, 2011 Enhancement Scheme East Head Beach Included in ‘Schemes with multiple objectives link Recharge and funders – guidance and lessons learned’ (FD2635), Maslen/JBA/Terry Oakes Associates for Defra, 2011 Happisburgh Included in ‘Schemes with multiple objectives link Emergency Works and funders – guidance and lessons learned’ (FD2635), Maslen/JBA/Terry Oakes Associates for Defra, 2011 Kilnsea Flood Included in ‘Schemes with multiple objectives link Defence Scheme and funders – guidance and lessons learned’ (FD2635), Maslen/JBA/Terry Oakes Associates for Defra, 2011 21 Case study Summary Total project cost Sources of funding Further info Lyme Regis Included in ‘Schemes with multiple objectives link Environmental and funders – guidance and lessons learned’ Improvements (FD2635), Maslen/JBA/Terry Oakes Associates for Defra, 2011 Parrett Estuary Included in ‘Schemes with multiple objectives link Strategy and funders – guidance and lessons learned’ (FD2635), Maslen/JBA/Terry Oakes Associates for Defra, 2011 Poole Bay & Included in ‘Schemes with multiple objectives link Swanage Beach and funders – guidance and lessons learned’ Replenishment (FD2635), Maslen/JBA/Terry Oakes Associates for Defra, 2011 Poole Quay Sea Included in ‘Schemes with multiple objectives link Defence Scheme and funders – guidance and lessons learned’ (FD2635), Maslen/JBA/Terry Oakes

68 Associates for Defra, 2011 Redcar Flood Included in ‘Schemes with multiple objectives link Alleviation Scheme and funders – guidance and lessons learned’ (FD2635), Maslen/JBA/Terry Oakes Associates for Defra, 2011 Tywyn Coastal Included in ‘Schemes with multiple objectives link Defence Project and funders – guidance and lessons learned’ (FD2635), Maslen/JBA/Terry Oakes Associates for Defra, 2011 Weston-super-Mare Included in ‘Schemes with multiple objectives link Seafront and funders – guidance and lessons learned’ Enhancement (FD2635), Maslen/JBA/Terry Oakes Associates for Defra, 2011

22 Annex D: References and further reading

Investing for our future, a long-term investment strategy, Environment Agency, 2009, link Flood and Coastal Resilience Partnership Funding – an introductory guide, Defra, 2011, link Joint Solutions for Local Flood Risk Management (FD2643), Halcrow for Defra, due for publication in Autumn 2011, link Schemes with multiple objectives and funders – guidance and lessons learned (FD2635), Maslen/JBA/Terry Oakes Associates for Defra, 2011, link The economics of surface water flood risk management (FD2635a), Maslen/JBA for Defra, 2011, link Flood risk management in urban regeneration settings (FD2635b), Maslen/JBA/University of Leeds for Defra, 2011, link Alternative funding sources for flood risk management: local options, local choices, Brian Madden for Local Government Information Unit, 2010, link Flood and Coastal Risk Management external contributions, Environment Agency, 2009, link Surface Water Management Plan Technical Guidance, Halcrow Ltd, UKWIR for Defra, March 2010, link Local Flood Risk Management Partnership case studies, Local Government Group, 2010, link

23

69

70

71

72

73

74 Environment Agency October 2011

Projected revised Bathing Water Directive classifications using 2008-2011 monitoring data for bathing waters in England and Wales

2011 Revised BWD Sampling point projected Bathing water number classification

North East region Spittal 03600 Poor Bamburgh Castle 03700 Excellent Seahouses North 03800 Excellent Beadnell 03900 Excellent Low Newton 04000 Excellent Warkworth 04200 Excellent Amble Links 04250 Excellent Druridge Bay North 04280 Excellent Druridge Bay South 04300 Excellent Newbiggin North 04400 Good Newbiggin South 04500 Excellent Blyth South Beach 04600 Good Seaton Sluice 04700 Good Whitley Bay 04800 Excellent Tynemouth Cullercoats 04900 Sufficient Tynemouth Long Sands North 05000 Excellent Tynemouth Long Sands South 05100 Excellent Tynemouth King Edwards Bay 05200 Excellent South Shields 05300 Excellent Marsden 05400 Excellent Seaburn - Sunderland 05500 Excellent Roker - Sunderland 05600 Excellent Seaham Beach 05700 Good Seaham Hall Beach 05800 Good Crimdon 05900 Excellent Seaton Carew North 06000 Sufficient Seaton Carew Centre 06100 Sufficient Seaton Carew North Gare 06200 Excellent Redcar Coatham 06300 Good Redcar Lifeboat Station 06400 Good Redcar Granville 06500 Good Redcar Stray 06600 Good Sea at Marske Sands 06650 Excellent Saltburn 06700 Sufficient Staithes 06800 Poor Runswick Bay 06900 Sufficient Sandsend 07000 Excellent Whitby 07100 Excellent Robin Hoods Bay 07200 Poor Scarborough North Bay 07300 Excellent Scarborough South Bay 07400 Sufficient Cayton Bay 07500 Excellent Filey 07600 Good

75 Reighton 07700 Excellent Flamborough South Landing 07900 Sufficient Danes Dyke, Flamborough 07950 Good Bridlington North Beach 08000 Good Bridlington South Beach 08100 Poor Wilsthorpe 08200 Sufficient Fraisthorpe 08300 Sufficient Skipsea 08600 Good Hornsea 08700 Good Tunstall 08800 Excellent Withernsea 08900 Good

Anglian region Cleethorpes 09000 Excellent Humberston Fitties 09020 Not Classified Mablethorpe Town 09100 Excellent Sutton-on-Sea 09200 Excellent Moggs Eye 09300 Excellent Anderby 09400 Excellent Chapel St Leonard 09500 Excellent Ingoldmells South 09600 Excellent Skegness 09700 Good Heacham 09800 Sufficient Hunstanton Main Beach 09850 Good Hunstanton (Old Hunstanton) 09900 Excellent Wells 10000 Good Sheringham 10100 Excellent East Runton 10150 Not Classified Cromer 10200 Good Mundesley 10300 Good Sea Palling 10310 Excellent Hemsby 10325 Excellent Caister Point 10350 Excellent Great Yarmouth North 10400 Excellent Great Yarmouth Pier 10500 Excellent Great Yarmouth South 10600 Excellent Gorleston Beach 10650 Excellent Lowestoft (North of Claremont Pier) 10750 Good Lowestoft (South of Claremont Pier) 10800 Excellent Southwold The Pier 10830 Good Southwold The Denes 10850 Sufficient Felixstowe North 10900 Excellent Felixstowe South 11000 Excellent Dovercourt 11100 Excellent Walton 11250 Sufficient Frinton 11300 Excellent Holland 11350 Excellent Clacton 11500 Excellent Clacton (Groyne 41) 11550 Poor Jaywick 11600 Excellent Clacton Beach Martello Tower 11650 Good Brightlingsea 11700 Excellent West Mersea 11750 Good

76 South East region Cotswolds Water Park (Keynes Lake 32) 11760 Excellent Shoebury East 11770 Excellent Shoeburyness 11780 Excellent Southend Thorpe Bay 11800 Good Southend Jubilee 11830 Good Southend Three Shells 11850 Good Southend Westcliff Bay 11900 Good Southend Chalkwell 11902 Poor Leigh Bell Wharf 11904 Poor Hampstead Heath (Ladies Pond) 11910 Good Hampstead Heath (Mens Pond) 11920 Excellent Hampstead Heath (Mixed Pond) 11930 Sufficient The Serpentine - Hyde Park 11940 Excellent Frensham Great Pond 11945 Excellent Sheerness 11950 Good Minster Leas 11975 Not Classified Leysdown 12000 Sufficient West Beach, Whitstable 12100 Excellent Tankerton 12120 Excellent Herne Bay Central 12150 Sufficient Herne Bay 12200 Sufficient Minnis Bay, Birchington 12300 Excellent West Bay, Westgate 12350 Excellent St Mildred's Bay, Westgate 12400 Excellent Westbrook Bay, Margate 12450 Excellent Margate The Bay 12500 Good Margate Fulsam Rock 12600 Good Walpole Bay, Margate 12630 Poor Botany Bay, Broadstairs 12660 Excellent Joss Bay, Broadstairs 12700 Excellent Broadstairs, Stone Bay 12750 Excellent Broadstairs, Viking Bay 12800 Sufficient Ramsgate Sands 12850 Excellent Ramsgate Western Undercliffe 12900 Excellent Sandwich Bay 13000 Excellent Deal Castle 13100 Good St Margaret`s Bay 13200 Excellent Folkestone 13300 Sufficient Sandgate 13400 Good Hythe 13500 Excellent Dymchurch 13600 Good St Mary's Bay (Kent) 13700 Good Littlestone 13800 Sufficient Camber 13900 Good Winchelsea 14000 Excellent Hastings 14100 Poor St Leonards 14150 Good Bexhill 14200 Poor Norman`s Bay 14300 Good Pevensey Bay 14400 Good Eastbourne 14500 Good Birling Gap 14550 Excellent Seaford 14600 Excellent

77 Newhaven 14700 Not Classified Saltdean 14800 Excellent Brighton Kemptown 14900 Sufficient Brighton Central 14950 Good Hove 15000 Good Southwick 15100 Excellent Lancing, Beach Green 15300 Sufficient Worthing 15400 Good Littlehampton 15500 Excellent Middleton-on-sea 15600 Good Felpham 15650 Good Bognor Regis East 15680 Excellent Bognor Regis 15700 Good Pagham 15800 Excellent Selsey 15900 Excellent Bracklesham Bay 16000 Excellent West Wittering 16100 Excellent Eastoke 16300 Excellent Beachlands Central 16350 Excellent Beachlands West 16400 Excellent Eastney 16500 Excellent Southsea 16600 Poor Stokes Bay 16700 Good Lee-on-Solent 16800 Excellent Hillhead 16850 Sufficient Calshot 16900 Excellent Lepe 17000 Excellent Milford-on-sea 17100 Excellent Christchurch Bay 17200 Excellent Highcliffe 17300 Excellent Compton Bay 17400 Excellent Totland Bay 17500 Good Colwell Bay 17600 Excellent Gurnard 17700 Good Cowes 17800 Good Ryde 17900 Sufficient Seagrove 18000 Good St Helens 18100 Excellent Bembridge 18200 Sufficient Whitecliffe Bay 18300 Excellent Yaverland 18350 Excellent Sandown 18400 Excellent Shanklin 18500 Good Ventnor 18600 Excellent

South West region Christchurch Highcliffe Castle 18700 Good Christchurch Friar`s Cliff 18750 Good Christchurch Avon Beach 18800 Good Christchurch Mudeford Sandbank East 18900 Excellent Bournemouth Hengistbury West 19000 Excellent Bournemouth Southbourne 19020 Excellent Bournemouth Fisherman`s Walk 19030 Excellent Bournemouth Boscombe Pier 19060 Good

78 Bournemouth Pier 19100 Excellent Bournemouth Durley Chine 19150 Excellent Bournemouth Alum Chine 19160 Excellent Poole Branksome Chine 19170 Excellent Poole Canford Cliffs Chine 19190 Excellent Poole Shore Road Beach 19200 Excellent Poole Sandbanks Peninsular 19350 Excellent Poole Harbour Lake 19400 Excellent Poole Harbour Rockley Sands 19450 Excellent Shell Bay North 19600 Excellent Studland Knoll House 19700 Excellent Swanage Central 19800 Excellent Kimmeridge Bay 19900 Sufficient Lulworth Cove 20000 Good Durdle Door East 20100 Excellent Durdle Door West 20200 Excellent Ringstead Bay 20300 Excellent Bowleaze Cove 20400 Excellent Church Ope Cove 20500 Excellent Weymouth Lodmoor 20600 Excellent Weymouth Central 20700 Excellent Portland Harbour Castle Cove 20800 Excellent Portland Harbour Sandsfoot Castle 20900 Excellent Hive 20970 Excellent West Bay (West) 21000 Excellent Eypemouth 21100 Excellent Seatown 21200 Excellent Charmouth West 21300 Excellent Lyme Regis Church Beach 21400 Poor Lyme Regis Cobb 21500 Sufficient Seaton (Devon) 21600 Sufficient Beer 21700 Good Sidmouth Town 21800 Excellent Sidmouth Jacobs Ladder 21900 Excellent Ladram Bay 22000 Poor Budleigh Salterton 22100 Sufficient Sandy Bay 22200 Excellent Exmouth 22300 Good Dawlish Warren 22400 Excellent Dawlish Town 22500 Sufficient Dawlish Coryton Cove 22600 Excellent Teignmouth Holcombe 22700 Good Teignmouth Town 22800 Sufficient Shaldon 22900 Sufficient Ness Cove 23000 Excellent Maidencombe 23100 Excellent Watcombe 23200 Good Oddicombe 23300 Excellent Babbacombe 23400 Good Anstey's Cove (Torquay) 23501 Excellent Meadfoot 23600 Excellent Beacon Cove 23700 Good Torre Abbey 23800 Sufficient Hollicombe 23900 Good

79 Paignton Preston Sands 24000 Sufficient Paignton Paignton Sands 24100 Sufficient Goodrington 24200 Sufficient Broadsands 24300 Excellent Breakwater Beach (Shoalstone) 24500 Excellent St Mary's Bay (Devon) 24600 Excellent Dartmouth Castle and Sugary Cove 24700 Excellent Blackpool Sands 24800 Excellent Slapton Sands Monument 24900 Excellent Slapton Sands Torcross 25000 Excellent Mill Bay 25100 Excellent Salcombe North Sands 25200 Good Salcombe South Sands 25300 Good Hope Cove 25400 Excellent Thurlestone South 25500 Excellent Thurlestone North 25600 Excellent Bantham 25700 Good Bigbury-on-Sea South 25800 Good Bigbury-on-Sea North 25900 Excellent Challaborough 26000 Good Mothecombe 26100 Poor Wembury 26200 Good Bovisand 26300 Good Plymouth Hoe East 26400 Sufficient Plymouth Hoe West 26500 Poor Kingsand 26520 Excellent Cawsand 26530 Excellent Portwrinkle 26600 Excellent Downderry 26700 Excellent Seaton (Cornwall) 26800 Poor Millendreath 26900 Good East Looe 27000 Poor Readymoney 27100 Sufficient Polkerris 27200 Sufficient Par 27300 Sufficient Crinnis Golf Links 27400 Sufficient Crinnis Leisure Centre 27500 Excellent Charlestown 27600 Excellent Duporth 27700 Excellent Porthpean 27800 Excellent Pentewan 27900 Excellent Polstreath 28000 Excellent Port Mellon 28100 Good Gorran Haven Little Perhaver 28200 Poor Gorran Haven (Vault) 28300 Excellent Porthluney 28400 Poor Pendower 28500 Excellent Porthcurnick 28550 Excellent Gyllyngvase 28600 Excellent Swanpool 28700 Excellent Maen Porth 28800 Good Porthallow 28900 Excellent Porthoustock 29000 Excellent Coverack 29100 Excellent

80 Kennack Sands 29200 Excellent Pollurian Cove 29400 Excellent Poldhu Cove 29500 Good Church Cove 29501 Excellent Porthleven West 29800 Excellent Praa Sands East 29900 Excellent Praa Sands West 30000 Excellent Perran Sands 30100 Excellent Mounts Bay Marazion 30200 Good Mounts Bay Heliport 30300 Good Mounts Bay Penzance 30400 Excellent Mounts Bay Wherry Town 30500 Good Porthcurno 30600 Excellent Sennen 30700 Excellent Porthmeor 30800 Excellent Porth Gwidden 30900 Excellent Porthminster 31000 Good Carbis Bay Station Beach 31100 Excellent Carbis Bay Porth Kidney Sands 31200 Excellent The Towans (Hayle) 31300 Excellent The Towans (Godrevy) 31400 Excellent Portreath 31500 Excellent Porthtowan 31600 Excellent Trevaunance Cove 31700 Excellent Perranporth Village End 31800 Excellent Perranporth Penhale Sands 31900 Excellent Holywell Bay 32000 Excellent Crantock 32100 Good Fistral 32200 Excellent Towan 32300 Excellent Great Western 32310 Excellent Tolcarne 32320 Excellent Lusty Glaze 32330 Excellent Porth 32340 Sufficient Watergate 32400 Excellent Mawgan Porth 32500 Excellent Porthcothan 32550 Excellent Treyarnon Bay 32600 Excellent Constantine Bay 32700 Excellent Mother Ivey`s Bay 32800 Excellent Harlyn Bay 32900 Excellent Trevone Bay 33000 Excellent Rock 33100 Poor Daymer Bay 33200 Good Polzeath 33300 Excellent Trebarwith Strand 33350 Excellent Crackington Haven 33360 Excellent Widemouth Sand 33400 Excellent Bude Summerleaze 33500 Good Bude Crooklets 33600 Excellent Bude Sandy Mouth 33700 Excellent Hartland Quay 33800 Excellent Westward Ho! 33900 Excellent Instow 34000 Poor

81 Saunton Sands 34100 Good Croyde Bay 34200 Good Woolacombe Putsborough 34300 Excellent Woolacombe Village 34400 Excellent Barricane Bay, Woolacombe 34410 Excellent Ilfracombe Tunnels Beach 34450 Excellent Ilfracombe Capstone (Wildersmouth) 34500 Poor Ilfracombe Hele 34600 Sufficient Combe Martin 34700 Poor Lynmouth 34800 Sufficient Porlock Weir 34900 Excellent Minehead Terminus 35000 Good Dunster North West 35100 Good Blue Anchor West 35200 Sufficient Burnham Jetty 35300 Poor Berrow North of Unity Farm 35500 Good Brean 35600 Good Weston-super-Mare Uphill Slipway 35700 Poor Weston Main 35800 Sufficient Weston-super-Mare Sand Bay 35900 Good Clevedon Beach 36000 Good

Wales Jacksons Bay Barry 36100 Sufficient Whitmore Bay Barry 36200 Good Cold Knap Barry 36300 Excellent Southerndown 36400 Good Trecco Bay Porthcawl 36500 Excellent Sandy Bay Porthcawl 36600 Excellent Rest Bay Porthcawl 36700 Excellent Aberafan 36800 Sufficient Swansea Bay 36900 Poor Bracelet Bay 37000 Excellent Limeslade Bay 37100 Excellent Langland Bay 37200 Excellent Caswell Bay 37300 Excellent Oxwich Bay 37400 Excellent Port Eynon Bay 37500 Excellent Rhossili 37600 Excellent Pembrey 37700 Good Pendine 37800 Good Amroth Central 37900 Excellent Coppet Hall 37980 Excellent Saundersfoot 38000 Excellent Tenby North 38100 Excellent Castle Beach, Tenby 38150 Excellent Tenby South 38200 Excellent Lydstep 38220 Excellent Manorbier 38230 Excellent Freshwater East 38235 Excellent Barafundle 38238 Excellent Broadhaven South 38240 Excellent West Angle 38250 Excellent Dale 38260 Excellent

82 Marloes Sands 38280 Excellent Broadhaven 38300 Excellent Newgale 38400 Excellent Caerfai 38460 Excellent Whitesands 38500 Excellent Newport North 38600 Good Poppit West 38630 Excellent Mwnt 38640 Not Classified Aberporth 38660 Excellent Tresaith 38670 Excellent Penbryn 38675 Not Classified Llangrannog 38680 Good Cilborth 38685 Not Classified New Quay North 38688 Not Classified Newquay Harbour 38690 Excellent Traeth Gwyn New Quay 38700 Excellent Llanrhystud 38750 Not Classified Aberystwyth South 38800 Sufficient Aberystwyth North 38900 Sufficient Clarach South 38920 Good Borth 39000 Excellent Aberdyfi 39050 Sufficient Tywyn 39100 Not Classified Fairbourne 39200 Excellent Barmouth 39300 Good Tal-y-Bont 39350 Excellent Dyffryn (Llanendwyn) 39360 Excellent Llandanwg 39400 Sufficient Harlech 39500 Excellent Craig Du Beach Central 39600 Excellent Criccieth 39700 Good Pwllheli 39800 Excellent Abersoch 39900 Excellent Aberdaron 39950 Not Classified Morfa Dinlle 39970 Excellent Llanddwyn 39980 Excellent Aberffraw 39985 Excellent Rhosneigr 39990 Excellent Silver Bay Rhoscolyn 39993 Excellent Borth Wen 39995 Excellent Trearddur Bay 40000 Excellent Porth Dafarch 40010 Excellent Church Bay 40030 Excellent Cemaes 40050 Sufficient Traeth Lligwy 40085 Excellent Benllech 40100 Excellent St Davids - Benllech 40105 Excellent Llanddona 40140 Excellent Llanfairfechan 40170 Good Penmaenmawr 40180 Good Llandudno West Shore 40200 Good Llandudno North Shore 40300 Good Colwyn Bay 40400 Good Abergele (Pensarn) 40450 Not Classified

83 Kinmel Bay (Sandy Cove) 40500 Excellent Rhyl 40600 Sufficient Prestatyn 40700 Good

North West region West Kirby 40750 Good Meols 40800 Excellent Moreton 40900 Excellent Wallasey 41000 Excellent Formby 41200 Good Ainsdale 41300 Poor Southport 41500 Sufficient St Annes 41800 Poor St Annes North 41900 Poor Blackpool South 42100 Poor Blackpool Central 42300 Poor Blackpool North 42500 Not Classified Bispham 42600 Sufficient Cleveleys 42800 Sufficient Fleetwood 43000 Poor Heysham Half Moon Bay 43100 Poor Morecambe South 43260 Poor Morecambe North 43550 Poor Walney Biggar Bank 44200 Poor Walney Sandy Gap 44300 Poor Walney West Shore 44400 Sufficient Roan Head 44500 Poor Askam-in-Furness 44590 Poor Haverigg 44800 Poor Silecroft 45200 Good Seascale 45600 Poor Windermere, Lakeside YMCA 45625 Good Windermere, Millerground Landing 45650 Good Windermere, Fellfoot 45700 Good St Bees 45920 Good Allonby South 46000 Sufficient Allonby 46100 Poor Silloth 46300 Poor Skinburness 46500 Poor

84 Revised in February 2012

Public Information At Bathing Waters – Quick Guide

From May 2012 public information must be available at all bathing waters during the bathing season to comply with the Bathing Water Directive (2006/7/EC). Guidance on what information must be provided is available on the Defra website (see links below)

The Directive is being implemented in England in two stages. The first requirement will come into effect in 2012, with additional information required from 2015.

For the 2012 bathing season

For all bathing waters, bathing water controllers must provide:

 A general description of the bathing water  Information on where to find more detailed information about the bathing water  Information on abnormal situations and their expected duration

Recommended text for general descriptions, based on the bathing water profile, has been sent to all bathing water controllers. Controllers are free to use the text as supplied or use their own text, provided it meets the legal requirements. The information must be available in at least one location on or near the bathing water and can be incorporated into existing signage. Defra will fund English local authorities for one sign at each of their bathing waters before the end of the 2011/12 financial year. Funding will be £390 per bathing water. We will contact private controllers to discuss displaying temporary notices until a decision is made about responsibility for information provision at privately owned bathing waters.

The Defra weekly sampling results poster is not part of the legal requirement for public information and its use is voluntary. We will continue to supply the poster until 2014 but we expect to discontinue its use when the classification symbols come into effect.

From 2015

In addition to the information required from 2012, bathing waters controller must display the classification symbol that their bathing waters will receive after the 2015 bathing season.

The revised Bathing Water Directive brings in a new way of measuring water quality. Bathing Water classifications will be made using data taken over 4 years. The symbols have been agreed for use across all of the European Union’s bathing waters.

At bathing waters which only meet the “Poor” classification in 2015, the “advice against bathing” symbol must also be displayed, with information on the causes of pollution and mitigation measures being taken.

Useful links

Bathing water profiles – http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/bathingwaterprofiles Public information guidance – http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/water/waterquality/bathing/documents/bathin g-water-controllers.pdf Classification symbols (for use after 2015) - http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water- bathing/signs.htm

85

86

Local Government Association Coastal Special Interest Group Briefing on bathing waters for 2012

The revised Directive introduces much tighter water quality standards.

10.5% of bathing waters are currently projected as “Poor” in 2015, including beaches in resorts such as Bridlington, Blackpool, Weston-super-Mare, Ilfracombe, Hastings and Lyme Regis.

Advice against bathing will be given at these bathing waters after 2015.

53.5% of England’s bathing waters are projected to reach the highest “Excellent” standard.

Revised Bathing Water Directive 2006/7/EC Real changes are happening this year as the implementation of the revised Directive begins to take effect.  Public information on pollution sources must be displayed at all bathing waters from the beginning of the bathing season on 15th May 2012.  Defra has paid local authorities for information signage at bathing waters that they own or lease.  A consultation is in progress on a proposed amendment to the Bathing Water Regulations 2008, which would transfer bathing water controllers’ responsibility at the 112 privately owned bathing waters to local authorities.  The Environment Agency will begin monitoring using the parameters of the revised Directive, in preparation for publication of the first bathing water classifications in 2015.  There will be a single Guideline standard, which will be similar to the existing UK Guideline standard. Last year 79.2% of English bathing waters met this standard.  The revised Directive introduces much tighter water quality standards and based on the 2008 – 2011 dataset, a full list of projected classifications is attached. Contact your local Environment Agency office for information on your local bathing water and how you can help improve water quality.

87

Symbols to be displayed at all bathing waters from 2016 At bathing waters meeting the Directive’s standards:

At bathing waters classified as “Poor”:

Blue Flag  The changes will also affect the number of bathing waters which will achieve Blue Flag status. Over 50% of England’s bathing waters are expected to meet the Blue Flag water quality standards. Please contact Keep Britain Tidy about any concerns.

88

Cleaner Seas Forum  Last year, 47 beaches in England and three in Wales participated in the pilot project into providing “real-time” warnings of Combined Sewer Overflows at bathing waters. Information was provided by water companies and publicised by text messages from Surfers Against Sewage and by notices placed on beaches by local authorities and the RNLI.  The scheme will be extended this year, although the list of participants has not yet been finalised. We hope to have about 150 participating beaches.  The initiative has the support of Richard Benyon, the Minister for Natural Environment and Fisheries.  Organisations participating in the Cleaner Seas Forum are: o Anglian Water o Marine Conservation o Blackpool Council Society o British Destinations o National Farmers o Canterbury City Union Council o National Trust o Centre for o OFWAT Environment, o Royal National Fisheries and Lifeboat Institute Aquaculture Science o Seafish (Sea Fish o Consumer Council Industry Authority) for Water o Sefton Council o Department for o Shellfish Association Environment, Food of Great Britain and Rural Affairs o South Hams District o Dwr Cymru Welsh Council Water o South West Water o Environment Agency o Southern Water o Food Standards o Surfers Against Agency Sewage o Health Protection o Torbay Council Agency o UK Beach Managers o Keep Britain Tidy Forum o Local Government o Water UK Association Coastal o Wyre Borough Special Interest Council Group o Yorkshire Water

89

Further information and contact details For information about the Bathing Water Directive, contact the bathing water team at Defra:  Elaine Connolly Email: [email protected] Tel: 020 7238 4451  Kate Hedges Email [email protected] Tel: 020 7238 5347 Website: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/water/water-quality/bathing/

For information about water quality or pollution contact the Environment Agency:  Email: [email protected]  03708 506 506 (Mon-Fri, 8am - 6pm) Website: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/

For enquiries about Blue Flag contact Keep Britain Tidy: 01942 612621

Website: http://www.keepbritaintidy.org

90 BeachCare is a project that aims to reconnect local This ensures that volunteer groups themselves do people with their local environment - and through this not have to absorb these costs. helps to deliver real social outcomes including enhanced health benefits and cohesion within The support of Local Authorities is vital. Not only can communities. they assist in understanding and engaging the local community, but they also provide in-kind benefits We are currently managing projects in the South West such as litter removal and permission to access (Cornwall and Torbay) and North West of England beaches (which are often under Authority ownership Beach litter surveys being (Blackpool and Fylde Peninsula). Both projects are led or management). There are clear benefits to the completed on Fistral Beach, by Keep Britain Tidy and funded and supported by the Local Authority - both in terms of community Newquay local water company, the Environment Agency and the engagement in beach management, reduced costs relevant local authority. Each project has a dedicated for litter collection and the potential for better bathing project officer. Through the work of the officer in the water quality as a result of the community itself local community - the project aims to develop self- taking action on key water quality issues. Local managing groups of community volunteers who adopt business also has a key role to play. In Cornwall, a particular beach or stretch of coastline and then local businesses have provided in-kind support for develop a plan of activity. Activity usually begins with volunteers. In Blackpool, we are working to actively surveying for litter and litter picking - but our volunteers engage the tourism business sector on the seafront - have helped to deliver local campaigns (in the South with a view to engaging them in several areas - West - on abandoned body boards and cigarette litter). supporting the project financially, corporate We are also starting to engage the local community in volunteering opportunities, through enhancement Engaging all sectors of the taking action for themselves on a number of issues their own environmental management and through local Community that can help deliver better bathing water quality - such direct marketing of the project's aims to their guests as action on wrongly connected properties, incorrect (who represent a significant transient population in disposal of fats/oils and sewage litter to drain and summer). In addition, we will be seeking to engage water efficiency. In this way BeachCare will seek to the fast food and restaurant business sector to change behaviour within local communities centred encourage more sustainable disposal of waste oils around their love of the local beach environment. and fats which can block drains and lead to sewage overflow into local watercourses and at the coast. Each project needs a specific budget in which to operate - and this necessarily limits the number of This is a new project and we are planning to expand groups that we can manage at any one time - based the BeachCare project to other coastal areas on the geographical area that the project officer can throughout 2012. This will of course depend on Educating children on the cover and the costs of insuring and equiping each funding being available to support growth. impacts of littering group - all of which comes from the project funds.

91 2011 review

Its been a very busy year for Beachcare with Relationships with Plymouth Probation over 100 Beach Cleans completed in 2011. service remain strong with conitinued work on Downderry, Seaton and Portwrinkle All the original groups are still running at: beach.

Porthtowan Bude - Crooklets Through networking with Organisations and Early on in 2011 Clydesdale Bude - Summerleaze local people opportunities for new groups Bank from Truro helping out Widemouth x 2 are available at Crackington Haven and Polzeath Gunwalloe in the Summer. Expansion to at Porthtowan. Whatever the Newquay other beaches can be achieved within weather, BeachCare is on Seaton & Portwrinkle budget constraints and there seems to be no let-up in people participating in beach the beach combating the This year has seen the addition of another cleans. relentless tide of plastics group in the Bude area combating litter at which come in from the sea. nearby coves of Millook, Wanson and also Alongside our work in Cornwall, we have lending a helping hand to Widemouth Bay made some progress in Torbay also. We A year round challenge. when needed. The most recent clean of have held 2 events across the many coves Widemouth removed an astonishing 106 and beaches in the area. Working with the bags. Royal Naval College from Brixham we cleaned Brixham Harbour and 4 other BeachCare has contnued working with the coves in the area : Watcombe beach, business sector and has carried out cleans Babbacome, Oddicombe and Hopes Nose. with Clydesdale Bank and most recently The contact has now been made and we Classic Cottages at Gunwalloe beach on the aim to work again with the College in 2012. Lizard Peninsula. This event was captured A local resident is also keen to set-up a on Video and will be used by Sustainable group at Watcombe this Springtime. Tourism South West to promote other businesses to do the same. Footage will become available in February. Bude Junior Rangers Working with Classic In additon we have also worked on Marazion Cottages in December 2011 beach this year with the Hayle Scout Group. on the stunning beach at We have also been working at Gwithian & Gunwalloe, Lizard Peninsula. Godrevy with Catch-a-wave and local residents.

92 Torbay Torbay Events

One of BeachCares targets for this year was to start working in Torbay.

Alongside the 100+ beach cleans we are Torbay does not suffer from Marine litter carrying in Cornwall one of our target to the same extent of Cornwall. A lot of the areas has been expansion into Torbay. coves and beaches are cleaned by the With the support of Torbay Council and tide and the bay itself is sheltered from Tor2 waste services we have delivered 2 predominant westerly winds which bring 60 bags of fishing related events towards the end of 2011. in waste from the Atlantic. East winds can create limited litter issues on certain rubbish taken from Brixham Working with the Britannia Royal Naval beaches. Therefore the model for Harbour and Breakwater. College we completed 2 clean-ups of BeachCare may have to adapt slightly to various coves, beaches in Torbay as well working towards bigger clean sweep as Brixham harbour. Every year a fresh events with communities rather than set of overseas recruits have to complete monthly cleans where there may be little some activities that benefit the local to do. We’ve also aimed at cleaning the community. In 2 events working with over areas around the beach such as the 30 recruits we cleaned: access points or coastpath.

Watcombe Beach, Oddicombe Beach, The events with the Britannia College Babbacombe Beach, Hopes Nose and were a great success and we hope to Brixham harbour repeat this in 2012. 96 bags of rubbish were removed with over 60 coming from Brixham Harbour . Successful partnership working between Links have been made with residents in KBT, Torbay Council, Brixham Harbour Watcombe with a possibility of a group Master and Tor2 has given us the being set up here in the Spring. opportunity to expand throughout the area. The complete team from the 1st event. Captain Bill Amery and recruits from the UK, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Kuwait.

Utilising the Cadets fitness levels by working on remote beaches such as Scabbacombe Sands with support from National Trust Rangers.

93 2011 Statistics

450

400

350

300

250 Volunteer numbers

200 Volunteer Hours Beach Cleans 150 Bags Collected 100

50

0

Graph showing figures from project start April 2010 to December 2011. Similar peeks and troughs in 2011 to 2010 but a general increase in all figures

Litter Top 10 2011 Figures due to no large school groups involved. Item % Of items The figures represent community group Plastic Pieces 32.93 Volunteer numbers (beach visits) numbers which have been gradually Fishing 19.01 1135 increasing. Litter surveys are being boxes,line,net,float Volunteer Hours on Beach completed with variable levels of Caps/Lids (Drinks) 7.57 2111 enthusiasm but as they take only 10 Rope 4.91 Number of Beach Cleans minutes rather than 1 hour (MCS) they Crisps, sweet, lolly 3.91 113 continue to work. wrappers Number of bags collected Cord 3.43 795 Polystyrene Pieces 3.10 The table below shows sewage related items at beaches where regular Cigarette stubs 2.67 Number of beach visits indicate number surveys are completed. Porthtowan Cotton Bud Sticks 1.93 of separate volunteer visits to a beach figures may be slightly inflated due to Foam/sponge 1.85 clean. Someone who beach cleans once a month will visit 12 times awareness of issues through previous 90 % of all litter collected is plastic. A large annually. Volunteer hours are actual SAS / MCS campaigns on the beach. amount of this cannot be traced to a hours on the beach and does not The fistral group also has SAS specific source as its unidentifiable small include travel or organising time. members. plastic pieces. What we have seen is an increase in the amount of fishing debris We are completing 10 beach cleans a Sewage related litter that we find on our beaches. Green trawler month or approximately 1 every 3 days. Beach % Of items net that Dave Bartlett, Brixham assistant Compared to our first year 2011 has Porthtowan 5.27 Harbour master, is showing below has seen some very harsh weather which Fistral 3.51 been the scourge of the tideline. has led to the cancellation of some Widemouth Bay 2.25 events but generally groups are keen to Seaton 1.83 work in most conditions. December Gwithian 1.67 saw a slump in activity due to Bude - Crooklets 1.28 Christmas and average onshore wind Bude - Summerleaze 0.71 speeds of 28 knots making cleaning Polzeath 0.68 tricky if not impossible. The above Portwrinkle 0.41 figures for volunteer hours have not seen the spikes and troughs of 2010

94 Round up

33 32 31 30 Waves, wind and bags of litter 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 Average Sea state (m) 17 16 15 Westerly winds(W,NW,SW) ONSHORE 14 13 12 Average litter bags per beach clean 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Graph showing correlation between onshore winds and the amount of litter on our beaches. The red line indicates the number of days in a month where the winds blow onshore. January may see us remove record numbers of bags due to every day in December blowing onshore. The amount of litter has a definite Community engagement 2011 Other News correlation to wind direction with the beaches this Winter suffering considerably Groups who we’ve worked with this year Clean Cornwall event - 17 February more with stormy westerly onshore winds A chance to meet the new head of rather than the cold easterly offshore Bude Junior Rangers Clean Cornwall. I will be taking 5 winds of last winter. The winter of 2010 Bude Crooklets Beach hut renters and BeachCare team leaders along to the saw us removing 3.82 bags per clean residents event. A great chance for people to compared to an average of 7 bags this Arlie Moor Care Home meet others and talk about the litter winter.January 2012 has already seen us Porthtowan Surf Life Saving Club issues in Conrwall. remove over 200 bags. Mount Hawke Primary School BF Adventure BeachCare Celebration Event Large (spring tides) also increase the Polzeath residents amount of litter considerably and with the The Cornwall Wildlife Trust Preliminary work being carried out for a biggest tides of the year being in March Polzeath Businesses BeachCare celebration event in the and September we will see a spike in the Classic Cottages Helston Summer. The project would have amount of litter. Coincidently this is when Clydesdale Bank - Truro completed it first full year beyond the MCS complete their survey. Widemouth resident group x2 pilot stage and volunteers will be invited Raven Surf - Widemouth to an event along with key stakeholders. Outdoor Adventure North Cornwall Scouts EA Funding Torpoint & Millbrook Scouts Brixham Harbour master and team Working with Alan Burrows to try and Hayle Scouts secure some funding from the Newquay residents - Fistral Environment Agency. This will enable Gwithian/Godrevy residents us to buy equipment and expand to The National Trust in Devon & Cornwall other beaches. Cornwall neighbourhoods for change Plymouth Probation Service Bags of Creativity Britannia Royal Naval College Andy Heald, Fistral team leader has BeachCare has continued to work with taken 2 bags of beach litter to an Artist all sectors of the community. Scouts to in Paris. Davy Surier a materialist artist Schools and residents, businesses and will be using the waste for a new piece a care home. this year. I will update when I get some 95 pictures of the new creation.

96 Coastal Issues Special Interest Group 26 April 2012

Item 19

Any other business

Links to items of interest

• Summary of responses to the MMO’s new marine licensing system consultation http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/licensing/consultation.htm.

• Maintenance dredging activities in tidal waters: two year extension to transitional period for licensing http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/marine/protect/licensing/

• New EU marine website http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/index_en.htm

• Coastal Communities Fund http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/newsroom/2085783

• Pathfinder review http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13720-coastal-pathfinder-review.pdf

• New MCCIP report on marine climate change knowledge gaps http://www.mccip.org.uk/

97

LGA Location Map

Local Government Association Bus routes - Horseferry Road Local Government House 507 Waterloo - Victoria Smith Square, London SW1P 3HZ C10 Elephant and Castle - Pimlico - Victoria Tel: 020 7664 3131 88 Camden Town – Whitehall – Westminster- Fax: 020 7664 3030 Pimlico - Clapham Common Email: [email protected] Website: www.lga.gov.uk Cycling Facilities Cycle racks are available at Local Government House. Public transport Please telephone the LGA on 020 7664 3131. Local Government House is well served by public transport. The nearest mainline stations are; Victoria Central London Congestion Charging Zone and Waterloo; the local underground stations are Local Government House is located within the St James’s Park (District and Circle Lines); congestion charging zone. For further details, please Westminster (District, Circle and Jubilee Lines); and call 0845 900 1234 or visit the website at Pimlico (Victoria Line), all about 10 minutes walk www.cclondon.com away. Buses 3 and 87 travel along Millbank, and the 507 between Victoria and Waterloo goes close by at Car Parks the end of Dean Bradley Street. Abingdon Street Car Park Great College Street Bus routes - Millbank Horseferry Road Car Park 87 Wandsworth - Aldwych N87 Horseferry Road/Arneway Street 3 Crystal Palace – Brixton - Oxford Circus

98